A question on remarriage

[lastblast7]

When I read threads that come out here on the condition of calling out remarraige as sin, I see a very clear prejudice in the way the same old passages are pointed to. We condemn those who remarry as adulterers, and at the very same time we murder these people in our hearts.

That is so not true about murdering "these" people in our hearts. I truly believe just because we come in line with God's word and identify a sin, that does not mean we do not identify with the people who are in sin. We all have been "in sin" at one time or another and still have sin in our lives that God wants us to "see" and forsake. The heart of a brother/sister should be to desire to see an erring one turn from their sin and be restored to Jesus/and His Body and to walk in His TRUE peace.

How is it that God was able to bless the lying midwifes in Egypt with families and yet we must label and demean those repentant Christians who God blesses with another spouse as living in adultery? Do we only tolerate those who live in the quiet sins such as habitual lying, daily lust, or greed for success?

God does not "bless" a person with another person so they can sin together. If God has already joined a person as ONE FLESH with another, a piece of paper issued by "man" does not negate the work GOD has done, nor does man's will negate what God has done (because they no longer want their spouse that God gave them).

Since when did it become beyond God's power to forgive a man or woman of a sinful past, and bless them with more than they could ever deserve in a future?

It is never beyond God to forgive a REPENTANT sinner---one that has turned from their sinful life. However, just because one has divorced, that does not then free them to marry another. Their first marriage (if both parties were free to marry) was not a sin to be repented of. The divorce was..........and true repentance from a divorce would mean that the parties involved would then pray for restoration of what God joined together.

Yes, perhaps remarraige is a sin, but then again, wasn't even the Great King David, a man after God's own heart, an adulterer and yet his line is the perpetual line of Christ?

It seems that you are minimizing adultery. Should we as Christians do that? Just because God used sinful men to perform His will, does that justify us entering into sinful unions and defrauding our brethren(by taking their spouses as our own)? How does one know if the woman/man they are joining with will "see" someday that they are in adultery and then forsake that relationship? How does one know whether the "other" spouse is praying for their spouse to repent and be restored to their original family? Many forsaken spouses (whose spouses have left them and remarried "Christian" spouses) are standing for the restoration of their marriage. Being the 2nd spouse would be a very uncomfortable experience...........even pondering the "what if's"...........to me, are certainly not worth it. It sure seems to me, based upon the scriptures, that God is with the covenant spouse and not with the erring one and the person they are committing adultery with (Mal. 2).

Matthew 7:5 is the key we all too easily forget in discussions like these. We only have the right to remove someone else's speck once we have taken our planks out. Christ never told us we would be able to remove or even help with someone else's planks. Perhaps that is why only his Holy Spirit truly has the right to condemn sin and lead us out of it completely.

That is misusing Mt. 7:5. The plank/speck relates to someone having obviously BIG sin (and adultery is pretty big) not trying to deal with someone's SMALL sin. First, the BIG sin needs to be dealt with/forsaken, then they will be able to help others with their smaller sins. The reality is this: when someone's immorality is seen, any correction from them will not be received because they are either blind to their own sin, or are ignoring it in lieu of addressing someone's "lesser" sins. Jesus was NOT saying that one has to be PERFECT before they can ever try and help their brother out of sin. As a matter of fact we read in James 5:19-20---"19My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. "

The most loving thing to do for a brother/sister is to address sin in the hopes that they will turn from it, saving their soul from death. Blessings............

 

[follower of Christ]

I think the reason this topic causes so much contriversy is because there are so many "christians" who have married and divorced and then remarried. How can we be a light to others if we do not even follow a cut and dry teaching like this one?

The churches are accommodating the majority, and if they tried to go along with the Bible they will lose many of the members. How can they pay their pastors and priests salaries if they lose their members? That's why paid pastors' churches do not work for God's churches. They even make up doctrine to accommodate the majority.

One thing always comes from those of your error. Your arguments fail to stand on their own merit, so you have to resort to this deflection.
Id be surprised to find even one of you who can actually carry on a discussion about MDR without resorting to this nonsense.

 

[lastblast7]

Suppose one of these homosexual "marraiges out in California ends with a divorce and one finding Christ, is this man or woman never to marry again even though they are a new Creation?

Is divorce in such a case "sin" in God's eyes? How about if they don't get divorced and one comes to Christ............is Jesus ok with these marriages continuing since it began when they were unsaved and the marriages were sinful then? In other words, are these homosexual marriages now sanctified for Christ and acceptable before Him?

 

[follower of Christ]

skylene wrote:I can't help but wonder why only Matt has the fornication clause and not the other passages, it is a bit confusing. Could it be because matt was talking to the jewish people and the other gospels were not? I am not jewish so I guess that would not apply to me... Hummm???

And tell us, WHAT would be the difference that would make MARK LIE to his audience in the matter poster ?
Can you give us a VALID reason why Mark supposedly lied and intentionally didnt inform his audience of Christs exception ?

Please dont say it has anything to do with Jewish betrothal....because the Romans who occupied Israel at the time PRACTICED betrothal.
So....WHY did Mark leave out this critical information if he knew that MANY gentile nations USED betrothal ?
READERS SEE->Click->>> Refuting "only during betrothal"

 

[follower of Christ]

Suppose one of these homosexual "marraiges out in California ends with a divorce and one finding Christ, is this man or woman never to marry again even though they are a new Creation?

Is divorce in such a case "sin" in God's eyes? How about if they don't get divorced and one comes to Christ............is Jesus ok with these marriages continuing since it began when they were unsaved and the marriages were sinful then? In other words, are these homosexual marriages now sanctified for Christ and acceptable before Him?

Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
By WmTipton

L: "Some say a homosexual marriage is not really a marriage, therefore it falls into a different category. I personally do not see a difference" (8/14/06)

Seeming this poster is showing that two men might be ‘married’ before the Lord, we haven’t yet determined if she actually believes that heresy or not.

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

To dispute the slanderous, anti-Christ and ungodly comparison of Gods marital covenant to homosexual unions

Supporting Evidence

In some of the more devious/deceptive circles these days we see this nonsense of comparing the abominable union of two men to a covenant made before God between a man and woman where one or both have been remarried.
This will be a pretty short document as all we need to prove here is that remarriage WAS permitted after a divorce somewhere in scripture and that men lying with men is nothing in Gods eyes at any point in time short of abomination and fornication.

Firstly let us see Gods unchanging view of homosexuality...

You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God.
(Lev 18:22 MKJV)

If a man also lies with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.
(Lev 20:13 MKJV)

Notice there are no ‘exceptions’, no concessions, no leniency...simply death if this act is committed.
No male/male ‘marriage’ has ever existed in scripture, no homosexual union ever exonerated, no tolerance given in the matter at any point anywhere in scripture.

There can be no “marriage†before God between two men and without a marriage covenant in place a sexual relatioship is ALWAYS ‘fornication’ (porneia).
If for no other reason this union between two men would be sin by default simply because God created marriage to be between a man and a woman and there isnt a single precedent in scripture anywhere to show otherwise...and there is clear scripture to show that man being with men as one is with a woman is ALWAYS abomination.


Now, on the topic of a marriage covenant made between a man and a woman where one or both have been married previously, let us see what the scripture shows in these matters.

Let us go to Mosiac law and see if there is even a single piece of evidence that once lawfully divorced that either party could remarry without it being considered ‘abomination’ as we see with two men above...

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

We absolutely see that after this divorce and subsequent remarriage there is no ‘abomination’ even remotely mentioned. Moses seems to either be encouraging this remarriage, or at the very least showing that the permission is assumed once she has been put away.
We see no ‘abomination’ here whatsoever where a remarriage has taken place.


Now, let us move up to our Lords words in Matt 19 where the Deut passage above is being discussed with Him by the pharisees who distorted the sufferance of divorce into a ‘commandment’.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

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.
(Mat 19:3-9 KJV)

Firstly take notice that the text shows that they were ‘tempting’ or testing him (the Greek means ‘to test’). We can immediately see their hearts that were simply trying to trap or trick Jesus, rather than to know the truth.
These men bring up ‘for every cause’ from what Moses had been permitting as far as divorce goes. They knew Moses had ‘suffered’ them to put away their wives for every frivolous reason they could think up (“some uncleaness†found in her) and had twisted this sufferance for these frivolous divorces into a commandment, as it plainly shown.

Notice that Jesus corrects their false interpretation of this being a commandment and shows them clearly that it had not been a command, but a sufferance to allow them to divorce ‘for every cause’ (some uncleaness).
Our Lord then shows them in the last verse that He will no longer tolerate these frivolous divorces when He says ‘except’ in such a case as I define, you commit adultery when you ‘marry another’.

In His exception we see quite clearly that to ‘marry another’ is lawful in the case for which He describes (porneia/fornication/sexual immorality) and thus NOT ‘abomination’ as homosexual unions are regardless of the situation.

Those who use this nonsense that gay unions are comparable to remarriages clearly have not studied scripture on the matter in the least and are grasping at straws to push their faltering error on our brethren.
These slanderous comparisons of homosexual unions to remarriages are given simply for shock value. As we’ve clearly shown they have no foundation in scripture whatsoever.

Wm tipton

 

[follower of Christ]

God does not "bless" a person with another person so they can sin together.

You have yet to PROVE that sin is actually the case.

If God has already joined a person as ONE FLESH with another, a piece of paper issued by "man" does not negate the work GOD has done, nor does man's will negate what God has done (because they no longer want their spouse that God gave them).

"One flesh' is sex...not some unbreakable bond between them. It is consummation. Otherwise Moses would be a heretic and a rogue for EVER allowing remarriage after divorce.
Youre simply taking statements of Christ FAR beyond what scripture as a WHOLE shows them to mean.
We see this same sort of fallacious study method with other false teachings such as Prosperity error that OVERemphasize on the bits of scripture they wish to push as absolute while failing to harmonize it with the whole.

It is never beyond God to forgive a REPENTANT sinner---one that has turned from their sinful life.

Again, you have to PROVE your claims that remarriage is any 'state' of sin.

However, just because one has divorced, that does not then free them to marry another.

Sure it does. Divorce DISSOLVES the marriage bond...just as Gods word proves.
The person IS free to remarry, the issue is only in whether they sinned and need to find forgivness for those sins.

Their first marriage (if both parties were free to marry) was not a sin to be repented of. The divorce was..........and true repentance from a divorce would mean that the parties involved would then pray for restoration of what God joined together.

Fallacious.
Show us where this 'standing' issue is presented in Gods word where an UNequally yoked marriage has ended.

It seems that you are minimizing adultery.

It seems you havent yet PROVEN that remarriage is a 'state' of adultery

How does one know if the woman/man they are joining with will "see" someday that they are in adultery and then forsake that relationship? How does one know whether the "other" spouse is praying for their spouse to repent and be restored to their original family?

Once remarried the scritpures actually say that we are not permitted to EVER be rejoined to that former spouse.
Paul told even those equally yoked marriages that ended to remain UNmarried or reconcile. He did not tell them to DIVORCE if they ended up disobeying and marrying anyway.

Many forsaken spouses (whose spouses have left them and remarried "Christian" spouses) are standing for the restoration of their marriage.

If they do it after the remarriage of a spouse they are simply asking for God to cause their ex to commit what HE calls abomination (taking a former spouse after REmarriage)

 

[shad]

I think the reason this topic causes so much contriversy is because there are so many "christians" who have married and divorced and then remarried. How can we be a light to others if we do not even follow a cut and dry teaching like this one?

The churches are accommodating the majority, and if they tried to go along with the Bible they will lose many of the members. How can they pay their pastors and priests salaries if they lose their members? That's why paid pastors' churches do not work for God's churches. They even make up doctrine to accommodate the majority.

One thing always comes from those of your error. Your arguments fail to stand on their own merit, so you have to resort to this deflection.
Id be surprised to find even one of you who can actually carry on a discussion about MDR without resorting to this nonsense.

There are always reasons behind disobedience. We are discussing those reasons. You have been finding loop holes for wannabe remarriages. You have your own site dedicated to justify remarriages ubiblically.

 

[follower of Christ]

You are right Skylene, Jesus makes it clear that to remarry is adultery----for the offended husband as well as for the offended wife. Those that teach a husband can remarry, but a wife cannot are missing what Jesus said: "and the TWO shall be ONE FLESH, NO LONGER two.

One flesh is the sexual union between a man and a woman, married or not, as Paul proves in 1 cor 6:16.
Within marriage it is as God created it and it is blessed.
Outside that union it is 'fornication/harlotry/illicit sex' as shown in that verse.

It isnt any tie that binds because that would mean that Moses defied that bond when allowing men to divorce their wives and permitting the divorced woman to REmarry.
Or are you making the claim that during the law no married couple was 'one flesh', LB ?

The earliest church writings we find (the Ante-Nicene Fathers) understood this teaching of ONE FLESH.

Their writings are irrelevant as they couldnt agree on many points of doctrine themselves.
Also, the ECF Tertullian is PROOF that they werent unanimous and that this debate has been raging since the early church
READERS SEE->Click->>> Tertullian on Adultery

That is why it was permitted to put away (put out of house and withhold monetary care) the one who was in UNREPENTANT adultery.
That is also why they taught that the "innocent" one was NOT free to remarry, but if they did, they too would be guilty of adultery in the sight of God. They understood that the ONE FLESH joined by God would no longer two.............

SOME falsely interpreted it that way...just as SOME do today.

until death(Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). T

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)

he disciples understood perfectly what Jesus meant. They knew the teaching/practice of divorcing for adultery. What Jesus taught was NOT in agreement with this practice, hence their shock at His restrictiveness---for the innocent one.

His disciples were JEWS who had lived under the SAME thought that frivolous 'for EVERY cause' divorce was just a fact of life. Anyone, including His followers, would be astounded to find that they had been taught so wrong...that Moses WASNT instructing them TO divorce so frivolously as they believed.

As for the Joseph example, when he thought to put Mary away, this was BEFORE she left her father's home. They had not yet "leaved and cleaved".........they were still in the betrothal period----vowing to each other, but not yet coming together as husband and wife.

She was Josephs covenant wife that began AT betrothal.
The Jewish CUSTOM that gave her a year before hometaking did not nullify that she WAS his wife by covenant.
So what are you saying here, Cindy...that SEX makes a marriage instead of the COVENANT ???

This they did not do until the angel visited Joseph and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as wife. This is not the same scenerio as modern day marriage in which the vows are not taken until the marriage itself and then consummated. In betrothal, a divorce HAD to be done to get out of the marriage----and fornicating while one was still in her father's house is reason for "putting away"--- as Joseph thought to do.

The writ was to be given at ANY point the man wanted to divorce after they were betrothed.
Mary and Josephs marriage are no evidence in this issue as the scritpures do not say 'THIS is what Deut 24:1-4 is talking about.

To the contrary, Jesus' own word prove that He isnt just referring to a betrothed wife
READERS SEE->Click->>> Jesus said ''wife'' not "espoused" in His exceptions

For a picture of what God expects for husbands, Eph. 5 is a great chapter to ponder. If a husband is to be like Christ towards his wife, what should his reaction to her sin be??

What is His reaction to the apostate in Hebrews 6 and 10 ?
Not even Christs covenant is UNconditional.

 

[follower of Christ]

There are always reasons behind disobedience. We are discussing those reasons. You have been finding loop holes for wannabe remarriages. You have your own site dedicated to justify remarriages ubiblically.

Its not my problem if you cant defend your views convincingly.

 

[shad]

There are always reasons behind disobedience. We are discussing those reasons. You have been finding loop holes for wannabe remarriages. You have your own site dedicated to justify remarriages ubiblically.

Its not my problem if you cant defend your views convincingly.

We already did while you were not here, take a look at them from the beginning. Remarriage is clear cut in the Bible, dude. You are just talking to yourself.

 

[butxifxnot]

You are right Skylene, Jesus makes it clear that to remarry is adultery----for the offended husband as well as for the offended wife. Those that teach a husband can remarry, but a wife cannot are missing what Jesus said: "and the TWO shall be ONE FLESH, NO LONGER two.

One flesh is the sexual union between a man and a woman, married or not, as Paul proves in 1 cor 6:16.

Actually, the bible does not discriminate between becoming one flesh with a person and marriage!

'That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.'
The Bible uses the term "know" for sexual intercourse, but "two becoming one flesh" is always used in the context of marriage (except where Paul talks about it, where it is used ALSO in the context of sexual intercourse, implying that they should not be considered separate issues). This makes sense, because Paul was emphasizing that when you "know" someone who you aren't married to, you are engaging in marriage with them, except it is outside of God's ordinance of marriage.

 

[follower of Christ]

We already did while you were not here,

I am ALWAYS here....always. Just because you dont see me snooping around doesnt mean that Im not here ;)
That said, you didnt actually do any such thing. You presented your opinions based on what you believe. You didnt 'prove' anything at all.

take a look at them from the beginning.

yep...just the way God made them.....right before men decided that sin was what they wanted and so God had to allow divorce for the sake fo the innocent.

Remarriage is clear cut in the Bible, dude.

Yes...it is.
And yet this debate has raged since at least the time of Tertullian.

Instead of telling me its clear cut, how about PROVING your views.

You are just talking to yourself.

If only that were true.
You certainly dont believe that there wont be literally hundreds of people who read this thread as they do all others like it
When they do, they'll see the WHOLE story....not only what you would like them to see

 

[follower of Christ]

Actually, the bible does not discriminate between becoming one flesh with a person and marriage!

'That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.'
The Bible uses the term "know" for sexual intercourse, but "two becoming one flesh" is always used in the context of marriage (except where Paul talks about it, where it is used ALSO in the context of sexual intercourse, implying that they should not be considered separate issues). This makes sense, because Paul was emphasizing that when you "know" someone who you aren't married to, you are engaging in marriage with them, except it is outside of God's ordinance of marriage.

eh....Im not of the 'sex=marriage' view myself.
Sex outside a covenant of marriage is 'harlotry/fornication/unlawful' as far as I can see

 

[butxifxnot]

Actually, the bible does not discriminate between becoming one flesh with a person and marriage!

'That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.'
The Bible uses the term "know" for sexual intercourse, but "two becoming one flesh" is always used in the context of marriage (except where Paul talks about it, where it is used ALSO in the context of sexual intercourse, implying that they should not be considered separate issues). This makes sense, because Paul was emphasizing that when you "know" someone who you aren't married to, you are engaging in marriage with them, except it is outside of God's ordinance of marriage.

eh....Im not of the 'sex=marriage' view myself.
Sex outside a covenant of marriage is 'harlotry/fornication/unlawful' as far as I can see

Why not? It seems to line up with the Bible where it does use the term "one flesh."

I do agree: sex outside of marriage is fornication (sans rape, which God elaborates on in the Torah). But the Bible makes a strong link between "one flesh", marriage, and sex; it seems to imply that they are all supposed to be of the same deal. Do you disagree?

 

[follower of Christ]

i am struggling to understand if the bible allows remarriage... can anyone explain this passage in Mark to me... Mark 10:11-12.
so He said to them, "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husbnad and married another, she commits adultery."
Does this mean that we are not to remary?

Well first of all Matt 19 and Mark 10 record the same event, so we know whatever Jesus said in either account He said it in both.
Secondly, this isnt the ONLY time Mark failed to record a VERY critical 'exception'. See The REST of the story...
So we cannot base any doctrinal position simply on the fact that the exception appears in one book and not another.

Romans 7:2-3 "For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. BUt if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husvnad lices, she married another man, she will be called an adulteress: but if her husvand dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, shough she has married another man."

Firstly that has nothing to do with marriage rules....it is actually about the transition from the old covenant to the new
Secondly, this 'law' isnt an UNcondtional one at all
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)

there are other scriptures i have found that say this same thing... Can anyone help me understand?

Ive read your responses in this thread and Im having some problem believing that you are looking for answers. Am I missing something ?

 

[follower of Christ]

Why not? It seems to line up with the Bible where it does use the term "one flesh."

it does right up until 1 Cor 6:16.
The context there is abstaining from fornication. How can Paul give the example he does about fornication *IF* the man who was with the harlot was 'married' by having sex with her ?
Pauls statement is illogical if 'sex=marriage' without a covenant.

I do agree: sex outside of marriage is fornication (sans rape, which God elaborates on in the Torah). But the Bible makes a strong link between "one flesh", marriage, and sex; it seems to imply that they are all supposed to be of the same deal. Do you disagree?

This is really a fine line here because I see where youre going and I 'agree' to some extent.

I might be able to agree with this to a point....in order for sex to be 'marriage' there has to be a sincere 'INTENT' to BE 'husband' and 'wife'.
Id like to say that Isaac took Rebekkah to his mothers tent and made her his wife....no big deal right ?
But she had ALREADY agreed to be his wife earlier with the servant sent, so in all actuality there was 'intent' well before consummation.

Ill go this far.
I dont believe that 'sex=marriage'.
I MIGHT be inclined to believe that God would see 'INTENT to be husband and wife combined with sex=marriage"

 

[shad]

Instead of telling me its clear cut, how about PROVING your views.

WE ALREADY DID, GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS THREAD FROM THE BEGINNING.

You want to mislead people with your twisted reasoning, go right ahead, you are only deceiving yourself.

 

[follower of Christ]

WE ALREADY DID, GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS THREAD FROM THE BEGINNING.

Hmm.
Firstly, there isnt any reason to yell
Secondly, did you read my posts ?
Ive responded to pretty much every fallacy presented here, so its your turn

You want to mislead people with your twisted reasoning, go right ahead, you are only deceiving yourself.

:nag

 

[follower of Christ]

Although that passage says you are free to divorce if the person is unfaithful... No where does it say remarriage is ok. it does say to remain single for remarriage is adultery. So in that case would you not need to pray for reconcilliation on an on going bases?

For the REST of the story...
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"



.

 

[Caroline H]

Ok, everybody just calm down a minute. There's no need to get angry with any one here. If we can't discuss things civily there's no point in discussing at all. Let's not forget we are ALL supposed to represent Christ.

Now, lets all put our oppinions back in our pockets and look at scripture again. Padion layed out some comments on what Paul had written, but no one seems to have answered him at all. Is there nothing to be said concerning his post?