Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Why divorce is incompatible with christianity

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
In marriage, spouses leave their parents and unite with each other (Mark 10:7) to become one flesh (Gen.2: 24). Because, it is a covenant of love, and God is love (1 John4:8), it is God who seals the marriage covenant; and no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6). In divorce, therefore, this covenant is not broken; it is rejected. Therefore, remarriage after divorce is adultery (Luke 16:18). Furthermore, since God seals this covenant, divorce is rejection of God. God, therefore, hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and is not pleased with the offerings of those who divorce their spouse (Malachi 2: 13-14). Jesus tells us that before making offering to God, we must reconcile with those with whom we have grievances (Matt. 5: 23-24). Therefore, a divorced person must first reconcile with his/her spouse before making an offering to the Lord. Furthermore, a person divorced by his/her spouse must still stay faith to his/her spouse, just as God is faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).

Divorce is absolutely prohibited in the Gospels (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 6:18; Matthew 5: 31-32). In Matthew’s gospel there appears to be an exception. The exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication), and not moiceia (which means adultery). In the Mosaic Law (Lv 18:6-18) certain types of marriages between close relatives were unlawful, because, they were regarded as incest (porneia). Certain rabbis, however, allowed gentile converts to Judaism to remain in such marriages. The exemption in Matthew’s gospel is against such permissiveness for gentile converts to Christianity. Fornication is another meaning for porneia. Therefore, this exception also applies to couples who fornicate by living together without a lawful marriage (also known as common law marriages).
visit: surrendersacrifice.com
 
The conditional marriage covenant.
By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

In this writing we will show that the marriage covenant is conditional and that this conditional state precedes the tolerance of Moses concerning frivolous divorce, and that our Lord Jesus and also Paul conclusively show that marriage is still a conditional marriage covenant.
This study is for the sole purpose of answer one question.
Is the marriage covenant conditional or is it without condition and therefore no condition exists whereby it can be ended before death and no condition exists that is in breach of it ?

Supporting Evidence

Firstly, we will show a bit about Gods conditional covenant given thru Moses to Israel, His endurance towards them and their constantly breaking that covenant, and finally His ending of that covenant with them.
We then will list some of the precepts in the scriptures that show conclusively that a marriage covenant might be ended before the death of the spouse and also list some laws that show that there are punishable offenses where this marriage covenant is concerned.
I’ll include links to articles already written about these where applicable.

1.0

Elsewhere in many articles we state that the covenant given to Moses in the wilderness was a conditional one. Conditional means that there a re requirements placed upon the persons that the covenant is given to.
Lets look briefly at a conditional statement made by the Lord concerning His covenant with Israel.

â— Exo 19:5 - And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.

Now, there are no rocket scientists or scholars of ancient Hebrew living in my home, but even I can read and see that the Lord is showing clearly there the condition that *IF* they obey Him...*IF* they keep His covenant, then....He will do these things just as He has spoken.

For an example of an Uncondtional covenant, lets look at Gods words to Abraham...

â— Gen 12:1-3 - And Jehovah said to Abram, Go out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house into a land that I will show you. (2) And I will make you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great. And you shall be a blessing. (3) And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Notice there are no if’s or but’s there, only the promise to DO as He has spoken. God simply tells Abraham that He will do these things, He does not place condition upon them. The Jews have always been upon this earth and will until the final curtain closes. The Jews have existed literally in perils that have probably wiped out entire cultures over the millenia, by all logical rights the Hebrew people should probably not be in existance today. Not only do they, but they have reclaimed their promise land, just as His word foretold.
Even tho the Jews as a nation are hardened and disobedient, God has kept His Unconditional covenant with Abraham.

We can even see this same type of thing with Abrahams son Ishmael.
Notice here Gods words concerning Ishmael to Abe...

â— Gen 17:18-21 - And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before You! (19) And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation. (21) But I will establish My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time in the next year.

Abraham seems to be very concerned about his son Ishmael. The Lord God promises Abraham to bless Ishmael...to make him fruitful and make a mighty nation of him. Can anyone deny that this is not the case with the descendants of Ishmael today? Has God not made a mighty nation of him ?
This was an unconditional promise made to Abraham. God did not say *IF* you do this, I will do that. He promised it, and it came to pass...
Even though they (the descendants of Ishmael) are not obedient to God nor His word, God kept His UNconditional promise to Abraham.

Our God is not lax in in keeping His unconditional covenants/promises.

As presented earlier with this passage we see that God did, however, make a conditional covenant with Israel.
â— Exo 19:5 - And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.

There are conditions given in the Lords words there. *IF* you do this *THEN* this will happen. What happens if they do not ‘obey His voice’ and ‘keep His covenant’ ...what then ?

“What then†sets the tone for much of Israels history post Egyptian Slavery. These folks barely made it out of bondage before they started sinning in such a great manner that Ive always wondered why God didnt simply wipe man off the map entirely during that time. But we know that He knows the ending, so He knows that not all men are so willing to defile and disobey to the magnitude of seeing so many wonderful miracles as the Hebrews did in those days, only to turn around and create a golden calf to worship the moment Moses turned his back.

Can you, as a believer and follower of our Lord Jesus, imagine being alive when He walked the earth, being one of those He healed or seeing some other miracle done by Him...can you imagine being Peter and walking on the water even, then not simply staggering a bit in your walk, but literally sitting down and with your own hands making a false idol to worship in His place?

What a treachery that must have been in our Gods mind. I cannot fathom what pain He must have experienced in those days seeing these people that He called His own whom He had just delivered from centuries of slavery in Egypt, seeing these turn in such rebellion and not from ignorance...these had SEEN the Red Sea parted..had SEEN Pharaohs army destroyed.....and the plagues sent against Egypt.
No, these were more like Adam..having SEEN with their eyes the proof of Him who sits on the throne....proof of His existence and care for them by mighty, wondrous miracles performed at Moses hand. There was no excuse that could be given to relieve them from their apostasy.

Here is a little passage that shows us quite conclusively but very briefly that Israel did indeed break the conditional covenant He had made with their forefathers when He brought them out of bondage in Egypt.

â— Jer 31:32 - not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;

Here again it is shown that our Lord issued a bill of divorcement to Israel for this breach of His covenant;

â— Jer 3:8 - And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

And in these we see His finally ending that covenant with the peoples He had given it to:

â— Zec 11:10-12 - And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. (11) And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. (12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Oddly enough, knowing the scenario with the 30 pieces of silver, it can be deduced that it was actually our Lord Jesus who was mediator over even this old covenant, since He speaks in the first person as the One who ended that economy.


2.0

We move now to the conditional marriage covenant.
Let me apologize for trying to be so brief in areas that I know need more detail, but please understand that many readers come home after 10 hour days and have 5 children to attend to afterward. There is literally a 100 pages that could easily be added to this matter, but I fear that some of our readers simply will not have the time and/or energy to read that lengthy of a document, so I’m trying to lay out the foundational information and the relevant precepts in the shortest manner possible so that no one has to leave anything unread.

Lets do as Jesus did and go right back to the beginning...the very first couple in the garden. But lets go even further back to before Eve was even created and see what God was thinking when He had in mind to bring Eve into existance.

â— Gen 2:18-20 - And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. (19) And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. (20) And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam.

Lets firstly look at that word ‘helper’ there (rendered as ‘help meet’ in the KJV)

H5828
BDB Definition:
1) help, succour
1a) help, succour
1b) one who helps

Seems to mean precisely what it says in the translation. One who ‘helps’ the man.
This is a foundational point in understanding GODS intent for marriage. This theme remains the same throughout creation. At no point did God stop caring about His marriage covenant and His own intent for it.

Here we see the creation of this ‘helper’ for Adam and we see the creation of the very first marriage and what it was always meant to be.

â— Gen 2:21-25 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (25) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
This woman Eve is made directly from Adams own rib, his own flesh and being. While no woman after Eve is literally made from her own husbands actual flesh, we see in the sexual relationship shared between a man and his wife (as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 6:16) that this bond of closeness and unity also exists between every couple afterward....or at least it is supposed to exist. Through the consummation of their marriage, a man and woman today allegorically mimic what Eve shared with her husband Adam physically in that she was literally in being made from his own body.


So now we ask ourselves “Is this union between this man and woman conditional or unconditional ?†bearing in mind that we have understood the tone of conditional versus unconditional covenants above. Where no condition is set into place, there is no possible manner of breach.
In the case where conditions are given for that covenant, then a breach is quite possible and even as shown above, the subsequent ending of that covenant may come to pass because of that breach.

We offer these few as evidence to show that there are conditions to this covenant of marriage.

â— Lev 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

â— Deu 22:22 - If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

â— Deu 22:23-24 - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; (24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

â— Exo 21:10-11 - If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. (11) And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

â— Mat 5:31-32 - 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.

â— Mat 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.

â— 1 Co 7:12-13 - But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. (13) And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

â— 1Co 7:15 - But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Oddly enough, when this issue is followed to it logical conclusion we find that a breach of the marriage covenant is also a breach of Gods covenant. Under the law oneof the ways the Isrealites were finding themselves to be breaking His laws was by committing adulteries andfornications expressly against the covenant God had made with them.
In essence, when a man or woman is married and commits adultery/fornication, they are effectively in breach of His covenant itself that states not to commit these sins.
We see these moral laws are still in effect in the case of the corinthian man who had his fathers wife which is forbidden in Gods law.
Thus we conclude that Gods moral law is still effective which would cause us to believe that when a person commits adultery in their marriage, they not only are in breach of the conditions laid out for that marriage covevant by God Himself, but also finding themselves breaking His covenant with His Church.

It is no wonder our Lord Jesus has said ‘except for fornication’.
 
arunangelo said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In marriage, spouses leave their parents and unite with each other (Mark 10:7) to become one flesh (Gen.2: 24). Because, it is a covenant of love, and God is love (1 John4:8), it is God who seals the marriage covenant; and no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6). In divorce, therefore, this covenant is not broken; it is rejected. Therefore, remarriage after divorce is adultery (Luke 16:18). Furthermore, since God seals this covenant, divorce is rejection of God. God, therefore, hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and is not pleased with the offerings of those who divorce their spouse (Malachi 2: 13-14). Jesus tells us that before making offering to God, we must reconcile with those with whom we have grievances (Matt. 5: 23-24). Therefore, a divorced person must first reconcile with his/her spouse before making an offering to the Lord. Furthermore, even if there is unfaithfulness a person must still stay faith to his/her spouse, just as God His faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).

Divorce is absolutely prohibited in the Gospels (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 6:18; Matthew 5: 31-32). In Matthew’s gospel there appears to be an exception. The exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication), and not moiceia (which means adultery). In the Mosaic Law (Lv 18:6-18) certain types of marriages between close relatives were unlawful, because, they were regarded as incest (porneia). Certain rabbis, however, allowed gentile converts to Judaism to remain in such marriages. The exemption in Matthew’s gospel is against such permissiveness for gentile converts to Christianity. Fornication is another meaning for porneia. Therefore, this exception also applies to couples who fornicate by living together without a lawful marriage (also known as common law marriages).

surrendersacrifice
webs site: surrendersacrifice.com
Except for Fornication
The Conditional Marriage Covenant
The truth about Marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR)
By WmTipton


1.0
First and foremost, I am not trying to push divorce. God hates divorce, that is scriptural fact.
This site is mostly to refute and explain the many arguments that arise during debates about divorce and remarriage. This information is for everyone, but mostly those of you who are divorced and remarried for scriptural reasons. Or for those who divorced even for unscriptural reasons in the past who are now under a new marital covenant.

Our goal isnt to promote divorce, but to keep current second and third marriages from being destroyed by false teachings in the church. We show conclusive proof that while God does hate divorce, Jesus’ exception is just one piece of evidence that shows that God does permit divorce for justifiable causes and once divorced for those causes, remarriage is assumed.

Also, you will surely notice that my arguments seem 'legalist' in nature in the entire MDR study section. The reasoning for this is multifold.
Firstly we are arguing against those who are legalists to the core and only understand spiritless legalism themselves, and so any presentation of the concept of 'grace' to these folks has been continually rejected. These have no grasp of Jesus' words from OT scripture "I desired mercy and not sacrifice".
Secondly to remove any emotionalism from my own arguments. Over the course of the last few years Ive made the mistake of using my own lifes details just to show an example of what Im presenting and invariably those of these lying, homewrecking doctrines will pervert what is said into either my using my own situation to argue my case or that Im twisting scripture to suit my own needs.

As a result I no longer will use my own life, nor will I allow anyone else to use it in the discussion on any forum, including our own, during any MDR discussion/debate.
Like true legalists the issue will be presented from the cold, hard letter of the law as a whole, which during the last 2-3 years Ive found is quite effective entirely by itself in refuting this nonsense that remarriage is never permitted while the former spouse lives.

2.0
The divorce / remarriage issue is one of the most argued topics today among christians. Among the remarkably varied beliefs there are a great many variances even within a given doctrine. An example would be the "fornication" (greek "porneia" (strongs g4202) issue.

Here are a few of the differing ideas on what ''porneia/fornication'' is believed to be by those of the anti-remarriage camp(S)....

1) Some of the anti-remarriage doctrines teach that this ONLY applies to Jews, even today, and that divorce was never permitted among the gentiles.

2) Some state the same, that it was for the Jews alone, but now has evolved into a matter of unlawful PREmarital sex for all people, Jew or gentile.

3) Other believe it only applies to a person who is either divorced and remarried themselves or married to a divorced person, that they are in ''fornication'' by Jesus' words and putting away is permitted under these conditions.

4) Another group actually claims that ''fornication'' is ONLY incestuous marriages for which Jesus is giving permission to divorce. But that would mean that in Acts 15 that the Jerusalem council was ONLY prohibiting sex with ones blood relatives and omitting the multitude of other sexual sins possible (bestiality, prostitution, etc).

5) One of the newest additions to the list of ''fornicators'' is one I just found where ''fornication'' is said to be ''miscegenation", or the interbreeding of races (so now I guess God is sending folks to hell if one parent was Jewish and the other spanish (/sarcasm)

6) Even others admit that ''fornication'' in Matthew 5 an 19 is adultery, as we believe, but that Jesus isnt permitting remarriage under ANY circumstances.. I'm sure we can add to the list above, but you get my point.

They all agree that divorce and remarriage is ALWAYS sin, but they cant quite seem to agree on the details of the sin. Surely while they are bicker about the specifics, the rest of us have to just watch on in disbelief as they each struggle to prove exactly what is being said about what.

Among these folks, we get those who seem to just be unable to put all the details together to see the big picture, thus making sense that fornication or ''whoredom'' has always been a punishable breach of the marriage covenant, but we also get those who seem to be intentionally distorting or purposefully leaving out details hoping that no one bothers to check them on their folly.

In these and other cases we see a subtle twist on the details. Such as stating that John the Baptist was preaching this teaching against Herod and Herodias. But when we see that John was preaching against them before Jesus was even baptised and began to teach, we see that John was accusing them with Mosaic law that Herod was in direct defiance of on at least 2 blatant points (Lev 18:6 and Lev. 18:16). Jesus had not yet taught when John started to accuse Herod... John was not using any teaching of Christs to condemn him.

The bigger issue with Herod and Herodias is that they had also put away their spouses for no lawful reason (see Josephus chapter book 18 chapter 5-8)...aka frivolous divorce. These two conspired to put away thier current spouses and marry each other. Jesus and Moses both were dealing with this situation of frivolous divorce with the Jews.

Gods law in Exodus 21 gives a lawful reason that a wife might leave her marriage (being deprived of food, clothing or conjugal duty by her husband).
But Moses had also permitted divorce outside what scripture had called for by allowing men to put their wives away ‘for every cause’ (“some uncleanessâ€Â) and then later tried to get it under control by adding to Gods law a regulation to these frivolous divorces in Deut 24:1-4.

Yet others pull stunts like trying to equate our ''engagement'' to Jewish betrothal thereby making unlawful betrothal sex (punishable by death) into a unlawful PREmarital sex, then twisting it to say that Joseph was putting Mary away for PREmarital sex. The betrothal period was NOT a premarital engagement. Joseph and Mary never consummated before Jesus was born. If the case was that they werent ''married' then that means Jesus was not legitimately born within the confines of a "lawful'' marriage, doesnt it? Betrothal WAS lawful, binding marriage ... which is precisely why Joseph was going to put Mary away (divorce her) quietly before home-taking had even occured. There is no provision for putting away a woman who isnt a virgin by a husband, the punishment called for in the law was death, period. (Deut 22)

There are somewhere between 12-50 different errant doctrines all that should be in agreement on most of the details but arent (as I explained above). Im having a hard time pinning down an exact number because I dont want to exaggerate a difference between two teachings on the matter, but needless to say, the ONLY thing they will agree on is they dont believe in divorce and remarriage for any reason.

In the following Id like to present refutations to each of the absurdities given as reasons why there is never any permission for remarriage by the divorced person. Ive tried to cover most of the issues brought up repeatedly, and hopefully these will be self-explainitory.
What I am attempting to do is dispel the nonsense put forth that seems to be willing to attempt any distortion of the text possible to make the simple statement "except for fornication'' mean anything other than what it does.
As you read, try to work ALL that is presented here together. All the details need to be taken into account so that we understand completely what Jesus meant by ''except for fornication (harlotry, whoredom, sexual sin) and not get lost, as many do, in a partial verse here and there that dont include the whole teaching on this matter.
The fact is the text says what it does. Jesus made an exception to the rules when it comes to divorce and remarriage. Its as simple as that, no matter what crazy assertions you see presented by folks on the internet and abroad.

This site is dedicated to letting Jesus words mean just what they clearly state.


MDR Evidence
By WmTipton


The following pages in this section are not meant individually as 'proof' of what we believe concerning marriage/divorce/remarriage, but as smaller bits of evidence that fit like jigsaw pieces into the whole to make a visible picture. Meaning that in order to see the bigger picture, its necessary to fit them in altogether most of the time. There are a great many errant teachings within the Christian realm that many times are based on an errant understanding of a limited set of passages (sometime even one verse is used). We personally believe that true knowledge of God comes when a person has learned to harmonize the whole, instead of picking out a few passages to base doctrine on, then dismissing other passages that as a whole refute those few.

The fact is we have Jesus giving an exception twice in scripture when speaking about divorce/remarriage. It isnt a matter of proving what He has allowed, or His intent that remarriage IS also part of His statement, since that is clear to all but the blind and illiterate, but of what His intent is when He says ‘except for fornication’. Scripture as a whole backs the idea that He meant sexual immorality of the wife that is being discussed with, oddly enough, men by our Lord. Men who had a habit, such as Herod (with Herodias), of putting their wives away for no other purpose than to marry another. Jesus was dealing with this hardhearted and unjust putting away just as Moses had in his day with the Jewish men.

In that, we offer these articles as puzzle pieces for the reader to use as they will. These are refutations and responses to common arguments used by some to forbid all remarriage while the former spouse lives.

See the Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage studies we present on the forum.
 
arunangelo said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In marriage, spouses leave their parents and unite with each other (Mark 10:7) to become one flesh (Gen.2: 24).



What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together?
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article


To show that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman and not some 'bond' that cannot be broken as asserted by a few.

Supporting Evidence

To prove this we see that a husband and wife will become ''one flesh''..

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

We see that a husband and wife will be ''one flesh''.
to further understand what this ''one flesh'' is lets look to something outside the marriage union....

Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her?
For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh."
(1Co 6:16-)

Paul shows that even having sex with a harlot, one to whom we arent married, obviously, is the same as ''one flesh'' in marriage.
Paul even quotes God/Jesus when he states..."For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh".

A man is also 'one flesh' or 'one body' with a harlot he is with (1 Cor 6:16) showing that 'one flesh' is not exclusive to the marriage union. So we see that ''one flesh'' is merely the sexual union between a man and a woman, married or not.
If anyone other than Jesus would understand what 'one flesh' was, it would be Moses. The man wrote the law, we can rest assured that he understood Gods intent from the beginning. That Moses were ever permitted to allow divorce/remarriage (as proven in Deut 24:1-4) shows absolutely that this perpetual 'one flesh' bond is nothing more than unscriptural nonsense. Moses had permitted a man to put away a wife just because she found no 'favor in his eyes''. She was permitted to REmarry.
*IF* 'one flesh' from the beginning were UNbreakable, then so it would be in Moses day, Moses would have KNOWN that if it were the case, and ongoing adultery would have been the crime of this woman put away and REmarried, as she most likely would have been.

Are we naive enough to think that Moses was sentencing an innocent woman to hell by permitting her to REmarry ?
All he had to have done *IF* one flesh were perpetual was tell the INNOCENT they couldnt remarry so as to not be in 'adultery' as some suppose today.
But he didnt.

Because Moses understood that this one flesh is not continued perpetually when a divorce has happened.
If the divorce is scriptural, then the bond is broken, ended....no adultery is committed when one REmarries.
Just as in Jesus exception. He narrowed the allowance by showing that a legitimate breach of covenant must be present, but He did not change the definition of divorce, nor did HE disallow remarriage in the case where fornication has happened. Adultery is committed now when a spouse is put away for any reason short of legitimate breach of covenant, and we then remarry.

Lets look at Joseph and Mary now.
Firstly we know that Jesus was not illegitimate. He was born to two lawfully married people. The Jews accepted this and called Joseph Jesus' father (many not knowing any different).

*IF* marriage was not valid without consummation....the two being ''one flesh'' as it were, then Joseph and Mary wouldnt be ''married'' and Jesus would have been illegitimate....without a lawful earthly father.

Joseph had not yet been with Mary before Jesus was born, yet WAS said to be her ''husband'' and she his ''wife'' or espoused (betrothed) wife. He was going to put Mary away when he found her with child, showing that she was indeed his ''lawful'' wife....if she werent his wife he could have just left her obviously.

What bound Joseph to Mary was not sex, as is blindingly apparent, since they had had no sexual union at that point, but what DID bind them was they were joined in matrimony, Gods holy marital covenant.

So when we look at ''one flesh'', we can clearly see that because of 1 Cor. 6:16 that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman, married or not.
And since we know that we arent married to the harlot just because we make ourselves ''one flesh'' with her, that this ''one flesh'' is NOT any tie that is unbreakable.

There is no such thing as breaking the ''one flesh'' union, otherwise 1 Cor. 6:16 would show that every person who has had sex with someone they werent married to is permanently ''one flesh'' with them for life...and we know that isnt the case based on the context of 1 Cor. 6.

Conclusions:''one flesh'' is sex, plain and simple.... as proven by 1 Corinthians 6:16Sex is not the tie that binds, the covenant is...as proven by Joseph and Mary.What binds a man and woman for life is the marriage covenant..... which we know is a conditional covenant, for Jesus has said ''except''.

*IF* ‘’one flesh’’ is what makes a man and wife ‘’married’’ (as some see it), then Joseph and Mary were NOT married and our Lord was born illegitimate.
Proof that is not the case is in Luke 3:23, Luke 4:24, John 1:45, John 6:42. Jesus WAS Josephs ‘’son’’ as far as being born into a LAWFUL, binding marriage covenant.
 
Because, it is a covenant of love, and God is love (1 John4:8), it is God who seals the marriage covenant; and no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6).

Apparently then, you believe Paul to be a false teacher when PAUL shows that man can indeed 'put asunder/separate'...


"Put Asunder"/"Depart", Jesus versus Paul ?
By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Here we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases.

Supporting Evidence
1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.
L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separateâ€Â
What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.

See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?
The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.
G5563
ÇÉÃÂίζÉ
chÃ…ÂrizÃ…Â
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away
Jesus' words were rendered as such here in these two passages regarding marriage ...

(Mat 19:6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder(G5563).

(Mar 10:9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder(G5563).
Bearing in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.

That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11
(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.

Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").
*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?
WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?
*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.
The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...

What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.
Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?
We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.
Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.


2.0
Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.

Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.
1Co 7:15 KJV But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Remember “chorizoâ€ÂG5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?
You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunderâ€Â) is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.

So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !
This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.

Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.

Why?
Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.


3.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.

(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.


Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)
(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.
 
arunangelo said:
Jesus tells us that before making offering to God, we must reconcile with those with whom we have grievances (Matt. 5: 23-24). Therefore, a divorced person must first reconcile with his/her spouse before making an offering to the Lord.
Youre taking that passage WAY out of context.
Reconciling with our brother simply means making peace with them. It has NOTHING to do with reconciling a marriage to a brute beast of a man bent on destroying a woman.



...Of Parrots and Men
by WmTipton

When considering the differences between a parrot and a man, one thing that would come to mind is the parrots ability to learn to repeat words and phrases. A parrot can be taught to speak, but it cannot be taught to reason out why it is saying what it does.
It can repeat words and phrases, but it will never understand the intent and meaning behind those things.

Regretfully, some men come to the scriptures in this same manner.
Im sure for those of us who have been believers for very long, we can think of at least one doctrine that we've crossed in our lives that we simply cannot accept because the whole word of God proves that it doesnt preach the truth, but these doctrines always have passages that they repeat as the parrot does that may say exactly what they believe that they do, but like the parrot, they have not fully grasped the intent, but are merely spewing forth the sylables.

Gods word tells men to 'rightly divide the word of truth'.
Thats a very peculiar statement, in my opinion, because what is the reasoning? Why does one have to 'rightly divide' anything? Cannot we simply parrot what it says line by line and get the true meaning ?

Give the parrot a phrase and it will learn it well...even teach the parrot a list of phrases and they are quite capable of being able to retain the words.
But try to teach a parrot to understand...to comprehend...to rightly divide those phrases into any coherant thought and you'll quickly find that your wasting your time.

Repeating words and small phrases is not necessarily the same as understanding them...
Repeating words on pages is not necessarily the same thing as having learned the true intent of those passages.

One teaching that always comes to mind when Im on this line of thought is Hypercalvinism.
This doctrine can be quite convincing because there are many convincing scriptures that show that men have no choices in this life but seem to show that we were chosen, even against our will if possible, from the foundation of the world.
Scriptures such as these...

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
(Eph 1:4-5 KJV)
and...
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
(Rom 9:11-23 KJV)
Which SEEM to show very clearly that we are chosen before by God whether we want to be or know we are and then we have no choice of our own free will in the matter.

If you argue against the Hypercalvinist...and even some regular ones....they will say foul things to you and insist that you are questioning Gods sovereignty in the matter.

They will say things like: "I'm not saying anything- all I've done is quote scriptures"
...and they would be quite correct.
All they HAVE done for the most part is simply parrot off the very clear wording of the scriptures...of that there is NO doubt whatsoever as Ive been in direct discourse with a few of them and trust me, they do a very good job at just quoting scriptures.


But the hyerpcalvinist misses other subtle key points, such as..

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
(2Ti 2:10 KJV)
Showing that even the elect are not absolutely guaranteed a free ride....otherwise there is no point in Pauls enduring anything that they "may also obtain" this salvation...it would be a given that they WOULD obtain regardless if this doctrine were actually truth.

Yes, the Hypercalvinist..as well as the anti-remarriager and many other persons of a mulititude of doctrines has only quoted scripture.
But remember above about 'rightly dividing the word of truth' ?...isn't THAT what we are called to do instead of being parrots ?

Anyone can pick up a bible and simply quote scripture.
A man read this to me one time some years ago..
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
(Rev 3:20 KJV)
The man then started laughing "stand at the door and knock....come in and sup with him? "
This man knew the words, knew what they said, but he did not understand the meaning of our Lords words.
Yes, the words literally say that He stands at the door and knocks....but we all know that that doesnt mean at the door to our literal home...or that Jesus means that He will enter into that house and sit down in front of the TV with us to sup with us with our pork chops and apple sauce.
This man could parrot off that passage and say what he thought it meant, but he seemed to simply lack the understanding of the intent and so to him it only was talking about knocking at a front door and having a homecooked meal.

Now, that is one of the more extreme examples Ive crossed in my own life, but we can rest assured that many of the false doctrines out there are by people who are only 'quoting scripture' as it is written.
But these are not 'rightly dividing' the word of truth so to understand what it says as a whole.
 
Furthermore, even if there is unfaithfulness a person must still stay faith to his/her spouse, just as God His faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).
Youre not giving the WHOLE picture here chap.
God IS faithful.
And He was faithful when He ENDED the covenant made thru Moses to all the people....

You seem to imply that God KEPT the covenant He made to the people thru Moses intact...and in order for your teachings to even be remotely reasonable that covenant would HAVE to still be in effect....it is not.

One old covenant replaced by one new covenant.
by WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
This writing is simply to refute the argument that some portion of Hebrews is still under the old covenant. Some seemingly assert that God did not include Judah in the ending of the old covenant.


Supporting Evidence
As far as the Mosaic covenant (what we are discussing here) is concerned there is ONE physical nation of Hebrews...ONE...not two, not three...ONE.

God made a covenant to that nation thru the man Moses and later ended that covenant with that one nation by the ratification of the new covenant with Jesus dying on the cross.
Yes, I understand about the separation of the Nation, but that is not relevant to the covenant made by God thru Moses to the Hebrews...to ALL Hebrew people in the desert.
Jeremiah specifically mentions both kingdoms, showing that BOTH were playing the harlot.

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
(Jer 3:8)

And in Zechariah 11:10- we see that the covenant made to ALL of the peoples is 'broken' by God Himself finally (a prophecy about what was to occur at the cross).

And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
(Zec 11:10-11)

And Zechariah there in 11:14 also deals with Judah AND "Israel"....

Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
(Zec 11:14)

The WHOLE of the Nation is being accounted for...not just one kingdom as you might be implying...Surely no one is naive enough to sit here and proclaim that God ended the covenant with an adulterous 'Israel' and then kept Judah.

The covenant made to 'all the people' was 'broken' (ended, cut asunder) by God (altho the allusion is to Christ Himself) as foretold there in Zechariah 11 at the cross when the Mosaic economy was made obsolete ("waxeth old" Heb 8:13 ) when He has said "a new covenant"
The ENTIRE scope of that covenant was ended with the physical nation (regardless of what you want to call them) of Gods 'people' when the New covenant was ratified with Jesus' death on the cross.

There was a remnant (a part of that nation), as there always has been, who is faithful to God.
These are those who accepted their messiah and were included in this new covenant from the start....the rest(of the Nation) were blinded.
Shall I continue ... ?

The New testament makes no special distinction for Israel and Judah like you are seemingly trying to make regarding the ending of the Mosaic Covenant.

*IF* this were of any sort of issue, the surely Paul would have mentioned it in the NT....he didnt.
Oddly, I cant even remember any stink being made of it in the one NT writing where it absolutely should have been presented *IF* it was of any consequence, and that is the letter to the Hebrews themselves.

Oddly, these views that seem to say that ANY part of the old covenant (Mosaic) is still in effect are in essence saying that Jesus had to have lied when He said HE is the ONLY way to the Father.
IF ANY man can still come to the Father by the Old Covenant and its requirements, then Christ was a liar.

The old covenant is passed, made obsolete by the New as proven in Hebrews (Heb 8:13). It is entirely obsolete..NO MAN, no Jew, no Hebrew, no one of Israel, no one of Judah...will come to the Father by ANY other means since the cross other than by the ONE door, Jesus Christ.
 
Divorce is absolutely prohibited in the Gospels (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 6:18; Matthew 5: 31-32). In Matthew’s gospel there appears to be an exception. The exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication), and not moiceia (which means adultery). In the Mosaic Law (Lv 18:6-18) certain types of marriages between close relatives were unlawful, because, they were regarded as incest (porneia).

Wrong....otherwise some passages, such as in Acts 15, that ARE supposed to prohibit ALL sexual immorality are only prohibiting SOME sexual immorality.
Porneia is ANY and ALL illicit sexual activity outside the lawful marriage of a man and a woman.

===============================================================

Porneia...aka ‘’fornication’’
By WmTipton


Some claim that fornication in Matthew is PRE marital sex alone and that divorce and remarriage for any other reason is not permissible.
But we see that conflicts with the use of the word throughout the NT.
Porneia is whoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.
This included every sexual sin of every nature.
Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.
This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.
When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.

Even the current english definition of ‘’fornication’’ is against these false doctrine as it says NOTHING about Unmarried people, but only that the two engaging in ‘’forication’’ are not married to each other.

Here is the current definition...
Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Notice not a single word about either person being ‘’unmarried’.
One or both could be married to someone else, they just arent marrried to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISNT your lawful spouse, whether youre married or not.
Here is the greek word rendered as ''fornication'' in your KJV bibles.

G4202
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
Also....

In Acts 15 and 21, four items are given for gentiles to abstain from as presented in the following verses.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (G4202, same as the exception clause in Matthew).
1. Things offered to idols
2. blood
3. Things strangled
4. fornication (G4202 same as the exception clause).

I ask those who say fornication (porneia G4202) is premarital or betrothal sex only and not “adulteryâ€Â, why is it that the writer ONLY used ''porneia'' in Acts 15 and 21 and didnt seem to think it necessary to mention ''adultery'' as something to abstain from as well?
Hes already on the topic of sexual sin here, why not mention the big one *IF* adultery is a separate sin?

The reason is "porneia'' covers ANY sexual sin. Paul knew that as did whoever rendered Jesus words in Matthew into greek.
When it was used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin. Just as Jesus meant all sexual sin in Matthew 19.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered. And neither was there any need for Jesus to use the word adultery, which would have left a hole or two in His teaching (see ''why didnt Jesus say ''except for adultery)

1 Corinthians chapter 5

We see in the following passage that only the fornicator is mentioned..
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
(1Co 5:9-13 KJV)

Now, *IF* adultery isnt included in 'porneia' or 'fornication', why on earth didnt Paul mention not keeping company with the adulterer ?
Was Paul stating to not keep company with the fornicator ... but hey, its ok to hang out with adulterers ?

Hardly.
Paul used a word that covers all sexual sin.
He mentions a ''brother'' and isnt it odd that the word he chose rendered as 'fornicator' here is the masculine form of porneia ?

G4205
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Paul was clearly stating to not keep company with any man called a brother who is out having illicit sex.....married or not.
Porneia and its forms are all inclusive of sexual sin of the married and the Unmarried.

In Ephesians and Colossians both we see references to Fornication, but none about adultery.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(Eph 5:3-5 KJV)

(whoremonger being the masculine form ...pornos)

and

When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
(Col 3:4-6 KJV)


So if this porneia (fornication) does not include all sexual sin, then we would have to suppose that Paul is only directing these two churches to abstain from SOME sexual sins (incest, premarital sex, etc) , and surely not adultery (if it were the case that porneia is not all inclusive of sexual immorality)

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''porneia'' in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, He was saying the same thing ''Sexual Sin'' or whoredom. Jesus did not mean just PREmarital sex, and neither does the definition of ‘’fornication’’ present that idea either.

He used a word, the same as in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom....as ‘’fornication’’ clearly shows as well. ....porneia even covers the possiblity of bestiality if it has occured.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without committing adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin...EXCEPT that this person we marry has had sex with someone they arent married to.

That is what is clearly conveyed with ‘’porneia’’ and what is also presented with the REAL definition of ‘’forncation’’ (not the Unmarried tripe that some pass off on us )

What is funny about this one is we can get total agreement from everyone that a man can ‘’divorce’’ his wife for ‘’porneia’’, but the anti-remarriage camp then restricts the meaning of the word to fit their doctrinal stance...whichever it may be based on the many VARIED versions of their doctrine.
 
follower of Christ said:
Didnt you post this EXACT thread in other forums?

A few.


http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=140066

http://www.talkjesus.com/ethics-moralit ... lowed.html

http://www.praize.com/cgi-bin/members/c ... 270444888&

http://www.jude3.org/view_topic.php?id=1107&forum_id=3

http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=48522

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2887061

http://forum.cygnus-study.com/showthread.php?t=10127

http://catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5589

http://www.freejesus.net/home/viewtopic ... 9f0d2312d7


I'm not sure there's any ruling here of duplication of posts from other sites/forums except that it can give a better view of the poster and the motives involved. In every case above, with the exception of the last link, arunangelo never seems to respond to replies. Kind of like a "dump and scoot" operation. I'm not real keen on that type of posting (can raise a "red flag" if you will) but in this case I believe I'll allow the thread to continue.

arunangelo,
It would be a nice gesture if you'd at least acknowledge the relpies that some have taken the time to author.

Thank you follower of Christ for bringing this to our attention.
 
In every case above, with the exception of the last link, arunangelo never seems to respond to replies.
Thats exactly what I was looking at after I filed the report.
It seems to be rather trollish, pardon, no offense intended, for this poster to keep posting this same thing over and again and never sticking around for discussion.
I post articles all over the web...and then I bookmark those pages so I can return for discussion.

Id guess the OP does this because he knows full well that head on he's going to be proven wrong and so he has decided not to deal with that eventuality.
But the problem is that every time he does this there is a need to show his assertions as being wrong, otherwise some unknowing person might read his post and not see that hes been refuted time and again.
This has to be adding quite a bit to the database here, no doubt.
And why he posted this in the General Talk forum here when there are at least two other RELEVANT forums where this thread actually belongs definitely shows that there is nothing but an agenda being pushed.
 
God is very tolerant toward man. Darn good thing too.
Divorce is not the will of God. But he does give us an out so-to-speak. He's tolerant yes, but that doesn't mean that's how he wants us to behave.
Stealing is sin. If a person steals the Law provided a means of restoration to God. There is punishment and/or restitution to be made. But that certainly doesn't mean it's ok to steal because I'm willing to take the consequences or operate within certain parameters to make it right.
When we divorce within the limits of the law we are simply satisfying the Law but we are still guilty of the transgression and not as if it never occured in the first place.
 
When we divorce within the limits of the law we are simply satisfying the Law but we are still guilty of the transgression and not as if it never occured in the first place.
This seems to be a bit contradictory, if Im understanding you correctly.
We're following the law, yet transgressing it ?

My view is not the same.
Where divorce is permissible (such as for adultery) the person filing the divorce over the adultery of their spouse has not sinned nor transgressed against the law.
It is hardhearted, frivolous divorce ("for every cause" / "some uncleaness") that scripture condemns...passages such as Exodus 21:10-11 or so are evidence that there are 'just' causes for putting away on the part of the innocent.
 
The one comitting the adultery is to seek forgiveness/repentance and given forgiveness from the other. Reconciliation and continuation of the union would certainly be the goal.
But, as man/woman are this won't always be the case or thought about muchless THE goal even considered. I don't see God wanting the separation of a union made in His sight but I DO see Him being lenient toward man giving man the Law that at least gives an errant nature a means of attonement or escape.

All through Leviticus we see Law given for what is to be done AFTER the transgression is done. The sin should never have happened in the first place but God, knowing what's in a man shows His love through the Law that we may not be totally and completely sinful. Not only that but He went way beyond the call of judgment and gave His only Son BECAUSE man can't even abide the Law.

Please don't misinterpret leniency for permission. We either follow our hearts or we follow His. Yet, we find that leniency when we do our will. That is, deciding by agreement or not that the union must be disolved. And the Law provides circumstances to do so not because it's God's will but because He's merciful.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top