Divorce and Luke 16:18

[RND]

NIV: Luke 16:18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


King James: Luke 16:17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,


I'm just curious, how is it that Christians have divorce and remarry, given Luke 16:18?

Note that I believe divorce is an important tool and don't believe that Christians should follow verse 18.

I'm just curious as to what the theological justification is.

Respectfully,

Poster

The interesting thing about this passage it is in the middle of many parables and Jesus was comparing the the non-Torah beliefs of the Pharisees with committing adultery. Many times in scripture disregarding the word of God is seen as adultery.

 

[Poster]

Jesus certainly mirrored the philosophy of Hillel, and his complaints against the House of Shamai, in control of the San Hedrin at the time (for just 70 years total), were a complaint against them.

Of course, Hillel won out. Orthodox Jews are of Hillel to this day.

Jesus was a Pharasee, of the Hillel variety (liberal), very critical of the conservative ideology, yet, an upholder of the traditions of the Parushim (Pharasees).


Matthew 23

1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not....

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

My argument is that he was railing against the Pharisees in power.

It's a subtle argument, and not one that is 'compelling'. (Meaning the length of the chain of reasoning easily permits sincere, cogent disagreement).

 

[brakelite2]

The exception clause that Jesus gave (fornication) is not exclusively adultery. See the below pdf study on the use of the word in both old and new testaments and one can see that it includes a number of sexual sins outside and inside marriage.http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/fornication.pdf

 

[follower of Christ]

So much unscriptural fallacy in this thread its remarkable.


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 existence 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 committed.

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 ‘’fornication’’ 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 aren't married to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISN'T your lawful spouse, whether you're married or not.

Porneia is a word in the Greek language that much of the NT was written in originally.
It is not specifically a religious word, nor was it created to write about any specific sexual in in scripture and it does not center around religious intent/meaning, but simply is showing general sexual immorality regardless of its nature.
The word is as ambigious/subjective as the words 'sexual immorality' are. It is not limited to any specific sexually immoral act, but is used to blanketly speak about this type of 'immorality'.

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.

2.0

Fornication defined by Mosaic Law

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that the word 'fornication' is in part defined by the sexual prohibitions in the Mosaic law. (clearly that could never be an exhaustive list)

Supporting Evidence
Acts 15 shows and attempt to have GENTILES in the church follow the Mosaic law.
The council of Jerusalem shows that the gentiles werent to be troubled with it other than 4 things which include abstaining from blood and from fornication (sexual immorality).
It is therefore concluded that 'fornication' is DEFINED by the sexual sins listed IN the Mosaic law....this is evidenced by 1 Cor 5 and the man who was committing FORNICATION who had his fathers wife...a sin that was forbidden in the Mosaic law, but nothing that Ive seen specifically mentioned as being sin in the NT except that one passage.
Did Paul just pull this sin out of his ear ?
No.
Fornication....aka sexual sin...is DEFINED by the law and the acts forbidden therein. The law forbids a man to have his fathers wife and that is exactly what this man was condemned for and cast out of the church over.

(Act 15:5 ) But some of those from the sect of the Pharisees rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses...........Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:19-20 )

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

(1Co 5:1 EMTV) It is actually heard that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife!

The EVIDENCE supports that "fornication" in the New testament is DEFINED by sexual prohibitons from the Mosaic law.



3.0

We've established that porneia is used to cover a broad range of sexual immorality.
Now that that IS established, we see that it also quite conclusively covers PREmarital sex as well in 1 cor 7:1-2.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:1-2 EMTV)

Coming at this with our previous conclusion that 'porneia' is ALL sexual immorality this passage shows conclusively that PREmarital sex is also wrong and needs to be dealt with by having ones own spouse.

Even without the previous conclusion that the word is ALL sexual immorality, this passage entirely on its own condemns PREmarital sex by showing that a man or woman is to have their OWN spouse.

Lets play this nonsense game that porneia is only prostitution for just a moment and examine the verse.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:1-2 EMTV)

Does it say to avoid this sexual sin let each have their own boyfriend/girlfriend ? Their own lover ?

No, it quite clearly shows that we are to have our own husbands or wives to avoid this sexual sin REGARDLESS of what it might actually be.

It is complete folly to try to assert that Paul MIGHT have also mean 'you can also have sex with someone else you arent married to as long as they arent a temple prostitute"...more like purposefully rejecting the facts.
Whether the immoral and argumentative can accept the facts or not, Paul ONLY gives ONE remedy for avoiding this sexual sin and that is to have OUR OWN SPOUSE.
*IF* you are going to partake of sexual intercourse GET MARRIED !

 

[follower of Christ]

Jesus said ''wife'' not "espoused" in His exceptions
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Here we wish to show simply that in both of His exceptions, that our Lords actual words are referring to a ‘wife’ and not restricted to an ‘espoused’ wife as Mary was refered to.

Supporting Evidence

In His exception clauses, Jesus is clearly referring to a lawful wife. If Jesus had been only referring to the betrothal period in the exception clause, He would have used the very term used for Mary at times...."espoused wife'' or ''espoused'' (see G3423) in His exception clause.

Luk 2:5
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

G3423
mnace-tyoo'-o
From a derivative of G3415; to give a souvenir (engagement present), that is, betroth: - espouse.

IF Jesus had actually intended to only indicate an espoused wife in His exceptions, then surely the Lord of all creation could have mustered up the wisdom to make it clear that that was His intent.

We see that in neither case does He use the term for ‘espoused wife’ as used in the passage above to describe Mary pre-hometaking.

Mat 5:32 KJV
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.

Mat 19:9 KJV
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.

*IF* it would have actually been our Lord intent to specify ONLY the espoused wife, as some of our peers claim, then surely the writer would have been able to come up with a way to clarify that point instead of leaving it in such a manner as to indicate ANY ‘wife’ either before or after hometaking..

Jesus did not restrict His exception to betrothal or even premarital sex.

 

[follower of Christ]

Refuting the argument:
"The jews understood that Jesus meant only during the betrothal period"
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

That Matthew (to Jews) containing the exception clauses, while Mark (to gentiles) not having them has nothing to do with betrothal. There were gentile nations who used betrothal, including the Roman Empire, and so stating that Matthew contains the exceptions because Jews used betrothal is a moot/irrelevant point and argument entirely.


Supporting Evidence

Some say that Jesus' exception only appears in Matthew because it was intended for Jews who used betrothal and who would understand it. But this is a moot point because even Gentile nations used betrothal well before the time of Jesus' ministry who would have understood what betrothal was just as easily as any Hebrew would have.

In our studies we found that even the Romans used and understood betrothal of some sort. I'll add some items here for your inspection, and when you are finished reading, check out my facts and see if any, most or all can be shown as fact. Even a single Roman or gentile betrothal will show conclusively that there was no need whatsoever for allowance to be given to the Hebrews/Jews for betrothal while not giving the same to gentiles who also use arranged marriages and betrothal.

Here we see a Roman betrothal more than a century before Christ was born of Mary (making it impossible to claim that they only used betrothal AFTER Christs ministry).

-In about 186 BC Tiberius was betrothed to a woman who died before the marriage could take place.

Also do a google search for “Matrimonium - Roman Marriageâ€Â.
The pages you will find will show conclusively that betrothal of whatever form WAS practiced and understood by the Romans, and also by many other gentile cultures, and so there was no need for Matthew to restrict divorce solely to Jews seeking to end a marriage during betrothal.

This was found in my research of Roman betrothal...

The Betrothal, Dowry, and Engagement Rings - Engagements and engagement parties were optional, but if an engagement were made and then backed out of, breach of contract would have had financial consequences. The bride's family would give the engagement party and formal betrothal (sponsalia) between the groom and the bride-to-be (who was now sponsa). Dowry, to be paid after the marriage, was decided on. The groom might give his fiancee an iron ring (anulus pronubis) or some money (arra).

One thing easily concluded is that the largest group of gentiles in or around Israel at the time of Christ would FULLY have comprehended what His intent would have been *IF* He were actually referring to betrothal in His exceptions. Thus it is quite illogical to conclude that He gave His exception to the Jews alone because they used betrothal.

*IF* fornication were actually about premarital sex, or illicit betrothal (ie “covenanted in marriageâ€Â) sex, then there was no need whatsoever for Mark or Luke to have left it out of their writings because Gentiles would have understood the concept entirely.

The facts are that the word Jesus used is not restricted to premarital sex. Neither does the context of His exceptions show that He is restricting the definition of ‘fornication’ to such.

In Matt 5 Jesus is laying out HIS teachings for His followers.

Heres a clip....

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not kill" --and, "Whoever shall kill shall be liable to the judgment." But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to the judgment. (Mat 5:21)

And again...

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28)

In both of those Jesus shows what has been taught in Gods law, and He corrects their misinterpretation of the Law. They twisted Moses 'sufferance' into 'commandment' to divorce.

When we get to His words on marriage, divorce and remarriage, it is quite the same...

“It was also said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. (Mat 5:31-32)

He does not say that this was only about Jewish betrothal. He states quite clearly that even though Moses had allowed divorce (for some “uncleaness†as presented in the texts), that He was not going to allow this sufferance any longer that they perverted into 'commandment'...that only if she broke the covenant would this act not be considered adultery.

Romans occupying Israel at that time would have completely understood Jesus' words about betrothal, *IF* it were the case that His exception were only applying to betrothal and as such there was NO cause to leave out the exceptions for the writings to the gentiles.
If anything this shows that they SHOULD have been shown that they also were being disallowed any permission to put away a wife during betrothal as well *IF* that were the case seeing that they practiced betrothal as well.

What these false doctrines are asking you to believe here is that the writers of the gospels would have told the Jews to stop putting away their wives during the betrothal year, while leaving the gentiles who DID practice betrothal completely oblivious to this new instruction.
Does that sound like our Lords way to you?

Another logical issue exists here as well with some of these false teachings that claim that Jewish betrothal is basically only an "engagement".
*IF* what some claim WERE true then the writer INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED the gentile nations, such as the Romans, who USED BETROTHAL. Surely we dont expect any intelligent person to believe that nonsense

IF Jewish betrothal was ONLY the equivalent of "engagements" then it literally BURIES the case of these false doctrines entirely because the ONLY foundation they COULD possibly present is in showing that Jewish betrothal WAS a binding marriage while Roman betrothal was only an engagement and that is supposedly why it is only Matthew (to the Jews) who talks about the exception while Mark (to the gentiles, Romans, etc) does not.

*IF* Roman betrothals were EQUALLY binding as Jewish ones then there is NO reason for the exceptions NOT to be presented in the other gospels and thus this nonsense argument about why the exceptions are only in Matthew is made utterly void and complete nonsense. *IF* they WERE equally binding, then these folks are actually saying that the gentiles were DENIED critical information that might actually lead to their committing adultery.

*IF* Jewish betrothal IS a binding marriage, then Joseph put away his lawful WIFE, didnt he...and this 'engagment divorce' nonsense is just that...void of all meaning...since they would have been BOUND under a marriage COVENANT for a full year before hometaking and consummation.

The last option is for all betrothal PROMISES to be binding in which case these views are again buried seeing that the doctrine only SEEMS to work IF Roman (gentile) betrothal is LESS binding than Jewish betrothal and that would supposedly be the reason why the exceptions were present in Matthew and not in Mark and Luke.

 

[follower of Christ]

That makes absolutely no sense. "What God joins, let no man tear apart" apparently is meaningless? Adultery is a sinful act, not something that allows a marriage to be annuled.

And lets be sure to give the REST of the story concerning ' let not man put asunder " ;)

"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever 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. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.


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?

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mat 19:6 EMTV)

(Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)

Bear 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.
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.

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

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.

 

[follower of Christ]

Adultery annuls the marriage.....

No it does not. This is another example of not taking into account the cultural context of the men who wrote the scriptures, a common failing among many protestants.

Words have meanings, friend. NOthing Jesus said restricts the meaning of 'orneia to betrothal and if it did it creates an even bigger problem of Mark denying necessary truth to the gentiles of whom MANY practiced betrothal, including the Romans who occupied Israel at the time

Because the "exceptive clauses" occur only in Matthew’s Gospel  the one written for a Jewish audience  it means that they reflect some issue of particular concern to Jews.

Fallacious nonsense...see my previous posts.

The term used for "unchastity" porneia  is being used in a special sense.

No YOU need it to be in a some special sense for your error to work. There is NO reason FROM THE TEXT itself to believe any such nonsense.

It refers to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated.

Dont just say it, PROVE it.

At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated.

Sorry, not according to the texts themselves.
Christ used the word for WIFE in His exceptions, friend, not espoused wife. Im sorry but that blows your theory right out of the water. *IF* He had MEANT espoused wife He'd have SAID espoused wife.


The rest of your post is just error you made up yourself...

 

[follower of Christ]

Hosea is a good example of what a man of God SHOULD do in the event of adultery...

Hosea has NOTHING to do with any other marriage. I suppose you'll be demanding that we part a sea or beat down some army with the jawbone of an ass next, right ?

Hosea was INSTRUCTED to take a wife of whoredom...WE are not instructed to do so...and it was FOR a purpose...
Hosea and Gomer

Jesus told us why MOSES allowed divorce - the stubborn Jews. But that is not God's plan. Man and wife are to remain together, joined by God. In the event of adultery, the marriage is not nullified.

Marriage is not 'nullified' except by divorce. ADultery is simply a breach of that covenant that gives the innocent party right to give divorce whereby they do not sin when they do so.

 

[follower of Christ]

I agree SEPARATION is a good idea, but you can't remarry!

Fallacious.
The ONLY group commanded to remain UNmarried or reconcile are those who were EQUALLY yoked. (1 Cor 7:10-11). But to the REST no such commandment was given and these have concession that they are not in bondage should that marriage end.
YOU would KEEP them in bondage and push the doctrine of devils on them that forbids marriage where SCRIPTURE does not.


"Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"
by Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
We will show briefly that the commandment of the Lord to ‘remain unmarried or reconcile’ is NOT a blanket commandment in all marital situations where a breaking of the marriage is taking place, but is instead directed to two believers who have left their marriage without just cause, and that Paul also had no commandment for those marriages that weren’t equally yoked, didnt given the same instruction to these who were married to an unbeliever, not having any commandment from the Lord in the matter, and then also offered a concession not given to those who were equally yoked to another believer who had left their marriage for whatever frivolous reason.

Supporting Evidence

Firstly lets look at the actual passages

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

vs

"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. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (1Co 7:12- * KJV)

1.0
"Remain Unmarried or reconcileâ€Â

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon or even a biblical scholar to look at that passage as a whole to see that Paul is speaking to two groups there. The first being those where obviously both the husband and the wife are both listening since Paul addresses both of them therein.
This idea is made absolute by Pauls making a clear distinction in his next words in saying “BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD†where he shows clearly that he is now speaking to ‘the rest’ of married couples who do not fall into whatever category as the first group fell. These are defined as being those who are married to someone who ‘believeth not’ which we understand as as ‘unequally yoked’ marriage.

Notice that Paul makes it very clear that to these who ARENT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ that he isnt speaking, but the Lord is giving commandment to these.
Easy enough concept to see, to understand and to accept for those reading and being honest enough to let the words say what they simply state.

To these who arent married to someone who ‘believed not’, these are married to someone who instead is a believer. They cannot be anything else or otherwise Pauls words “BUT TO THE REST†when he speaks to the rest who are married make no logical sense whatsoever.
These in verses 7:10-11 MUST be those who are NOT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ but MUST be to those marriages where the person being spoken to is married to a believer. Being honest with ourselves, we accept the targets of these words to be those marriages where both persons are a believer...ie ‘equally yoked’.

To these, Paul shows that the Lord has given commandment if they depart to remain unmarried (ARAMOC/agamos/single/unwed) or reconcile with the man she leftâ€Â
This makes logical sense and harmonizes quite well with Gods whole word and is even completely logical even if we set scripture aside for a moment.
These are two people who have compatible beliefs who, for whatever reason, have left their marriage who, as christians, should be quite interested in working together as ALL believers in Christ should be doing in order to be in harmony with one another.
BOTH of these persons, as followers of Jesus Christ, having entered a marital covenant and having set it aside for whatever frivolous reasonings, should be willing to work together to reunite what they created together previously and set aside without just cause.
The Lord has commanded these two believers to remain unmarried or reconcile this marriage cast away without just cause (as historical evidence of Corinth is quite capable of showing. That area was not exactly morally sound).


2.0
"not in bondage"

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,

Now we move on ‘to the rest’....to those marriages where Paul is addressing the believer who is married to one who ‘believeth not’.

This is the greek for the ‘rest’...

G3062
Thayer Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain

These ‘rest’ are those that remain of the groups under consideration, which are clearly those whoare ‘married’. This ‘rest’ are those who are married to unbelievers, clearly indicating that the groups being spoken to in verses 7:10-11 are those who are believers married to believers...in other words, equally yoked.
Since the ‘rest’ are those who are Unequally yoked, logically there is no way that that Paul is speaking to ‘the rest’ in verses 7:10-11 then turning right around and addressing ‘the rest’ again starting in verse 7:12.

To ‘the rest’ who are clearly believers unequally yoked to unbelievers Paul has no commandment of the Lord but is clearly speaking his own mind in the matter. Believing that Paul may not be speaking by direct commandment, we still accept that he is speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus his words are ‘law’ for these married to an unbelieving spouse.

Firstly we notice that Pauls words offer a more conditional tone.
“IF a brother has a wife who is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her awayâ€Â.
If this brother is married to an unbelieving wife who wants to live in peace with him, then he should not put her away.
This church had asked questions of Paul and based on Pauls response its easy to determine that they must have believed that if they became born again, that somehow they were defiled by being with an unbelieving husband.
Paul lets them know in this passage that that isnt the case. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer (in a physical or spiritual ‘cleaness’ type of manner, not meaning a free ride to heaven without repentance or anything like that).
These clearly were under the impression that it might be ok to just walk out of a marriage if they became saved, yet their spouse did not.
Paul straightens out this erroneous viewpoint and lets them know that if the the unbeliever is mutually ‘pleased’ along with the believer and wants to remain in the marriage, then they arent to put them away, and may even be key to their spouses salvation.

Paul then goes on to give concession not given to the two believers above.
First there was no commandment at all from the Lord to these as with the equally yoked marriage, but Paul now tells these that if the unbeliever wishes to depart the marriage that the believer isnt in bondage to this marriage.

Instead of repeating other studies here, please see these articles:
"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?

Now, these folks will casually leave out that Paul gives instruction to TWO different married groups there and try to apply 1 Cor 7:10-11 to ALL marriages, but this makes Pauls statement of ‘BUT TO THE REST†and everything that follows completely illogical and unable to be harmonized with the whole properly.
And the reason they need to pull this deceptive tactic is because they like what the Lord has commanded in verses 7:10-11, but they arent too happy with Pauls concession in 7:12 and after. It completely destroys these false teachings of theirs that Paul offers this idea that the believer might not be forced to remain bound in marriage to an unbeliever in whatever circumstance, and so they force the text to give instruction to a group of people, those unequally yoked, that Paul CLEARLY says he has no word from the Lord to.

Thankfully, you readers are quite capable of seeing the wording used for yourself and seeing what is actually presented by Gods whole word....

Additional Evidence

1Co 7:12 But1161 to the3588 rest3062 speak3004 I,1473 not3756 the3588 Lord:2962 If any1536 brother80 hath2192 a wife1135 that believeth not,571 and2532 she846 be pleased4909 to dwell3611 with3326 him,846 let him not3361 put her away.863, 846

rest3062
G3062
λοιÀοί
loipoi
Thayer Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain

1Co 7:12 - to the rest--
the other classes (besides "the married," 1Co_7:10, where both husband and wife are believers) about whom the Corinthians had inquired, namely, those involved in mixed marriages with unbelievers.
-Jameson, Faucet& Brown

He has been speaking to the unmarried (1Co_7:8) and to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10). By the rest he means married couples, one of which remained a heathen.
-Vincents Word Studies

 

[follower of Christ]

1 Corinthians 7:25 Now I write about people who are not married. I have no command from the Lord about this; I give my opinion. But I can be trusted, because the Lord has shown me mercy.26 The present time is a time of trouble, so I think it is good for you to stay the way you are.27 If you have a wife, do not try to become free from her. If you are not married, do not try to find a wife.28 But if you decide to marry, you have not sinned. And if a girl who has never married decides to marry, she has not sinned. But those who marry will have trouble in this life, and I want you to be free from trouble.


Surely the above only applies to people who have never married (notice the bold letters above which I enlarged).

Except, friend, that for whatever reason you didnt highlight what I did in red there. This CLEARLY isnt just to those who have never married...otherwise the red part there is either a lie or a terrible oversight on Pauls part....

 

[follower of Christ]

I'm just trying to understand if some "Christians" think that divorce and marriage to another person is permitted (I mean to exclude from our conversation "Christians" who don't have a problem with adultery, I'm starting with the assumption that our "Christians" agree that adultery is forbidden, and therefore, my question to second marriage Christians is, "How do you see a second, different spouse as anything but Adultery as described in Luke 16:18?)

Sounds more like you have an agenda and are just testing the waters here, quite frankly.

That said Christs exception shows that NO adultery is committing in such a case as He speaks of.
If you want to play this game that the exceptions dont apply because they dont appear in Mark or Luke, then you have created a scenario where Mark misleads his readers even more by leaving out critical 'exceptions' that Matthew records...

I wanted to show a point here about context and harmony and taking one passage TOO literally while rejecting others that should be worked TOGETHER with the rest.

Scripture says what it says and means what it means, correct?
We take each passage as absolutely as it is stated by what some seem to present. Some seem to believe that scriptures cannot be modified by other, similar scriptures and we ALL seem to have the problem of pushing our pet passages as absolute while rejecting anything that doesnt agree with our views.

Here is something that is stated VERY clearly in Mark and why we can NEVER just look at ONE passage and believe that it presents any absolutes without consulting the spirit of the WHOLE of Gods word.
This is expressed as an absolute here in Mark;
[quote:2mbrgri6]Mar 8:11-13 KJV And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. (12) And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. (13) And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.

See there ?
An ABSOLUTE statement given and by Jesus Christ Himself.
If I wanted to pull a legalist stunt here with this verse I could keep going on about how CLEAR it is, how direct and how unyeilding it is presented.
It is stated AS an absolute fact, no questions asked. ...NO sign shall be given to this generation.
Now, do you believe it because Jesus SAID it or not, dear reader ?
Decide now before we go on whether you take HIm at HIS word or not.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
and now let us continue with related scriptures elsewhere in the NT.

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
(Mat 16:1-4 KJV)

See that ?...the REST of the story.
The statement in Mark was given as an ABSOLUTE....no exceptions, no excuses, absolutely absolute.
..but then we come to OTHER details in the NT...other writers....who give us MORE detail in the matter and make us realize that what is said in Mark IS true...but it ISNT the entire picture.


When you hear someone giving you a verse or two....someone pushing ONE side of a story on you and showing you the scriptures THEY want to have you believe, ALWAYs be a noble minded Berean and check the REST of Gods word in the matter.

Lets say you didnt know the scriptures and someone was pushing the Mark passage on you....you would literally believe that NO sign was to be given based on that narrow set of details, wouldnt you ?

This MDR thing is precisely the same.
Some here want you to accept THEIR pet passages as absolute without harmonizing ALL of the facts from the whole of Gods word in the matter.
They want you to see 'except for fornication' and 'God hates divorce' and base what you believe on THAT limited information instead of looking at the spirit of the WHOLE word of God.

Whatever Marks reasons for leaving out this sign of Jonah were, we know factually that Christ DID make the statement.
This is why we need all four gospels. It doesnt matter 'why' Mark didnt record the words, we KNOW that when Christ spoke about no sign being given that He DID say that the sign of Jonah would be given, even if Marks account seems to directly conflict with Matthews by not presenting it.[/quote:2mbrgri6]

 

[follower of Christ]

my question to second marriage Christians is, "How do you see a second, different spouse as anything but Adultery as described in Luke 16:18?)

Furthermore the Greek shows that it is highly unlikely that Jesus was defining the second marriage as any ongoing state of adultery as you seem to erroneously believe....

“Committeth adulteryâ€Â
The Present Indicative deception
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

This article is simply meant to show that this supposed ‘continuous’ phrases rendered as ‘committeth adultery†in the NT does not necessarily infer a perpetual state of adultery.
For now I have included infomation about the tense of the words Jesus used to described ‘committed adultery’, but will be reworking this page over time.
The basis of this discussion, as you will see, still falls back to ‘context’ of the whole, not this ‘continuous’ verb that some erroneously assert must be perpetual in its intent.
Our intent is solely to show that it is still the context of scriptures as a whole that make this determination.

Supporting Evidence

In the Present form the Indicative is the ONLY manner in which to show that NO 'ongoing' issue exists.
As you read this small article and the quotes, ask yourself this:
Why on earth would a greek writer use the ONLY Present form of the greek that DOESNT show any 'ongoing' consequence *IF* his intent WERE TO SHOW on ongoing consequence especially when there ARE ways in the greek to literally show an act with ongoing consequences ?

...this is the Greek that is in question.

[quote:3t5xdweh]3429 moicatai - v_ Present midD/pasD Indicative 3 Sg - IS-committING-ADULTERY
Used in Matt 5:32b, Matt 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12

3431 moiceuei v_ Present Act Indicative 3 Sg - IS-ADULTERING
Used in Luke 16:18

The argument used by some is that since verbs used in the present tense are usually ‘continuous’, that this means that the words above are also ‘ongoing into perpetuity’.

Instead of arguing something that we know little about, the intricacies of the Greek language, we will present arguments concerning this ‘continuous’ verb and let the reader discern the matter for themselves.


These quotes were taken from various written sources.

“Present Tense
The present tense usually denotes continuous kind of action. It shows 'action in progress' or 'a state of persistence.' When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time.

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

“For action happening at the present time, only the 'present tense' is available. Whether the writer is wishing in any particular instance to emphasis the progressive aspect of the verb or just indicate a simple occurrence at the present time, there is only one choice of tense to use. Therefore, one must consider the context and the basic meaning of the verb to determine whether the emphasis is on the continuous aspect of the action or merely on the present time element. It may be that no real emphasis on progressive action is intended but, for a statement requiring the element of present time, there is no choice but to use the 'present tense'. (Of course outside the indicative mood the emphasis almost certainly will be on the progressive element of the verb, since the aorist tense could readily be employed).

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm

“Linear aspect doesn't necessarily mean action perceived as continuing into perpetuity. It simply represents the subject as speaking from a perspective in the midst of the action. "Friend, I do thee no wrong." These words are spoken as the householder is in the midst of compensating his workers. The addressee has yet to take up that which is his. From the speaker's perspective, he is doing something (and he denies that what he is doing is wrong.) The linear idea is not absent.

http://www.ntgreek.net/present.htm

“The present tense in Greek does double duty as both simple present and continuous present tense. That is, if you say “(insert greek here)†, you may translate it as either “He writes a letter†or “He is writing a letter,†depending on your meaning. There's no distinction between these forms in present tense.

http://www.langintro.com/greek/verbs/shortcut.htm

“The Present Tense With reference to aspect, the present tense is internal (that is, it portrays the action from inside of the event, without special regard for beginning or end), but it makes no comment as to fulfillment (or completion). The present tense's portrayal of an event "focuses on its development or progress and sees the occurance in regard to its internal make-up, without beginning or end in view".{Fanning,102). It is sometimes called progressive. It "basically represents an activity as n process (or in progress)" (Mckay, 225). With reference to time, the present indicative is usually present time, but it may be other than or broader than the present time (e.g. historical present, gnomic present).

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html

Please feel free to copy a sentence or so from the quotes above, paste it into your google search bar and find the source and compare what we’ve presented here.
Im very confident that you will find that nothing can be determined simply from the greek present verb being ‘continuous’ in the manner in which some assert.
With the Present Indicative verb context is the deciding factor because there arent a lot of options. But we can easily discern that in the Present indicative that the word is almost assuredly speaking in the present tense alone and not making claims about perpetuity.

In the Present form the Indicative is the ONLY manner in which to show that NO 'ongoing' issue exists.
Why on earth would a greek writer use the ONLY Present form of the greek that DOESNT show any 'ongoing' consequence *IF* his intent WERE TO SHOW on ongoing consequence especially when there ARE ways in the greek to literally show an act with ongoing consequences ?
All the writer had to do to show an ongoing issue WAS the case was use ANY mood other than the indicative and it would have been pretty much set in stone that it was 'continuous' beyond just the act itself.
Yet the writers in EVERY case of 'committeth adultery' in this scenario have repeatedly used the ONLY form of the Present in the greek that DOESNT show an 'ongoing state'.
Ask yourself why.

Why not use the any other tense instead of the Present Indicative *IF* the intent were to actually show an ongoing issue ?[/quote:3t5xdweh]

 

[francisdesales]

I agree SEPARATION is a good idea, but you can't remarry!

Fallacious.
The ONLY group commanded to remain UNmarried or reconcile are those who were EQUALLY yoked. (1 Cor 7:10-11). But to the REST no such commandment was given and these have concession that they are not in bondage should that marriage end.
YOU would KEEP them in bondage and push the doctrine of devils on them that forbids marriage where SCRIPTURE does not.

Utter nonsense and lack of ability to read the Scriptures. A person remains "yoked" since they are STILL one flesh, and what God has joined, let no "follower of Christ" separate. Rather than your lengthy cut and pasting, maybe you would be better served to read the Bible...

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. Matt 19:8-9

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

Put away your spouse and marry another is called adultery...

It is clear that Jesus does NOT allow a second marriage when the first is "nullified" as a result of fornication. Marrying another person, a second one, is adultery. Pure and simple.

Thus, I say it is acceptable to separate, but NEVER to remarry.

You, my friend, are pushing the doctrines of the devil by covering up the simple words of Jesus Christ in your efforts to condone modern society's disregard for the teachings of Christ to supply for the lust of a person who cannot reconcile with the first spouse...

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

Maybe, poster, you might actually REFUTE some of MY material I posted rather than acting like it doesnt exist ?
Tho I very seriously doubt you could if you wanted to.

edit to add that I just saw that there is a one on one debate forum here....would you care to take this issue to formal debate, brother ?

Utter nonsense and lack of ability to read the Scriptures.

Oh please...pull this nonsense with someone who doesnt live in their bible.

A person remains "yoked" since they are STILL one flesh, and what God has joined, let no "follower of Christ" separate.

No, friend, the yoke DOESNT remain. That is some tripe a few in the church make up to put a yoke of oppression on the innocent that GOD has not placed there.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

Being "One flesh" with someone of the opposite gender is sex...consummation of the marriage....not some invisible yoke of bondage YOU create to keep a person in bondage who PAUL has shown is NOT in bondage.
READERS SEE->Click->>> What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together

Rather than your lengthy cut and pasting, maybe you would be better served to read the Bible...

uh...dude...that is MY work I posted...the fruits of more than 5000 hours of study on this topic alone...so I HAVE read the material...for quite some time now.
Maybe YOUD be better served actually READING the material and seeing where you went wrong.

Clearly you DIDNT read the fact that PAUL instructs the very thing YOU seem to think Christ said cannot be done...

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. Matt 19:8-9


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

...and we DEALT with your fallacious understanding of these...so what did you miss here ?
Contrary to your narrow minded viewpoint there is MORE to this topic than two small passages in Matthew and Mark... ;)

Put away your spouse and marry another is called adultery...

No, to put away ones spouse as the Jews were doing and Christ was DEALING with is called adultery.
Christ Himself says VERY clearly 'EXCEPT for fornication'....of which your explaination is quite laughable.

It is clear that Jesus does NOT allow a second marriage when the first is "nullified" as a result of fornication.

Fallacious. Christ merely pointed out that they werent guiltless as they erroneously believed.

Marrying another person, a second one, is adultery. Pure and simple.

Apparently you believe Christ is a liar then because HE gave exception in the matter.

Thus, I say it is acceptable to separate, but NEVER to remarry.

Thus YOU say...not Christ or His chosen apostles. And so you preach damnable heresy, the doctrine of devils that forbids marriage where Christ does not.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"

You, my friend, are pushing the doctrines of the devil by covering up the simple words of Jesus Christ in your efforts to condone modern society's disregard for the teachings of Christ to supply for the lust of a person who cannot reconcile with the first spouse...

Regards

Sorry chap but it is YOU who is forbidding marriage where scripture does not.

I do this debate every day of my life poster...and I have plenty of time to expose your heretical nonsense to the readers here...

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread....

 

[follower of Christ]

Matthew 19; Whats the question/whats the response?
By WmTipton

Here is the account of Jesus speaking with the pharisees in Matthew.
This account is pretty much indentical to Mark 10, except that the words “for every cause†and ''except for fornication'' are in this account and do not appear in Marks account of this story.

Firstly lets read it thru, then we'll break it down and see what is being discussed.

"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.
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
(Mat 19:3-12 KJV)

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him,"

As they had been with John, the Pharisees were trying anything they could to incite the masses against Jesus. They would ask Him questions hoping His answer would cause the mobs to turn against Him and preferably kill Him.

"and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

There are two main schools of thought on the passage in Deut 24:1-4.
Those of Shammai thought that it meant ONLY for an actual ''unclean'' act, and surely nothing less than an actual covenant breaking act committed by the wife gave a man the right to put her away.
Then there was the school of Hillel.
These believed that the man only needed to find some small imperfection in her..such as smelly breath or burning his breakfast.....''for any cause'' she could be put away.
What is VERY obvious here is that Jesus is being confronted by those of Hillel.... the pharisees of Shammai did not believe in divorce ''for EVERY cause'' only for legitimately breaking the marriage covenant, only those of Hillel would have asked our Lord this question in this manner.
Matthews account sheds much light on the entire conversation that Marks account neglects.

"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"

Jesus response shows absolutely here that we ARE discussing the covenant of marriage...not premarriage and not ''engagement'' as we have it today.
He is clearly discussing a union that GOD Himself has joined together... that is shown conclusively.
He states that this man and woman instead of being two, become ''one flesh'' (see 1 Corinth. 6:16 as well on this issue for more context). That God has joined them together in HIS union and let no man (or woman obviously) put asunder.... or ''separate''.
Jesus is discussing the UNION of marriage, that is a fact from the text given.

"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

The Pharisees invoke the words of Moses Himself, most likely hoping to help incite the mob at this point.
They ask Him, can we divorce for any reason, a luxury the Jews had grown quite used to. Jesus response seems to be just what they’re looking for, something they can anger the mob with....so they say to Him ''hey, MOSES says we can do it''.... trying to show that He is defying the law of Moses.
My thoughts are that they already had heard something on His views on marriage and knew to try this against Him. But they must not have heard all the details on the matter or they’d have known He wasn’t totally going against Moses in this matter, only greatly narrowing the intent.
At least, that is what I conclude based on the complete scriptural, cultural and historical study I’ve done on this the last year.

"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"

Here is a key point that MANY abuse.
They try to make it like ALL divorce is because of hardheartedness, but Jesus never states that at all.
And a study of the history of the Jews and even this brief passage makes it clear.
Remember what the Pharisees had just asked Jesus? ''can we put away a wife FOR EVERY CAUSE'' ?
THAT is the hardheartedness Jesus is talking about. He is speaking to men who were putting away their wives for any reason they could come up with....leaving her to be destitute, without means to support herself...just casting an innocent wife out for no reason...THAT is their 'treachery'...
What Moses had dealt with was worse, but the same hardheartedness fueled it before as well.
The reason Moses had permitted them to put away their wives without her breaking the covenant was because these horrible Jewish men would beat her or even kill her to be rid of her.
So even before Deut 24 was penned, men were unjustly, savagely ridding themselves of an unwanted wife.
For those who disbelieve me, please turn on your news or open a paper.... even today these brute beasts are tormenting thier innocent wives.

Jesus is right when He says it was because of hardness of heart that Moses had permitted them to just put her away.
Moses was trying to protect her from being hurt, abused or even killed at the hands of these monsterous men like we see even today and thus permitted them to put her away without just cause....then later REGULATED this allowance of easily putting her away by giving Deut 24:1-4 in a further attempt to protect her from him.

Jesus never states, nor implies, that ALL divorce by a man is over his hard heart.
He was asked a DIRECT question by men trying to set Him up....tempting Him....and He gave them a clear response....except for fornication...unless she ACTUALLY breaches the covenant you commit adultery when you cast her out and remarry another.

The man who has been cheated on for years and finally deserted, who treated his wife like a queen and is completely devastated by her leaving can merely end up filing divorce over broken heartedness instead when he realizes she isnt coming back or going to change her ways.
This is exactly how our God felt about Israel and having to put a covenant away with her over her continued whoredoms.

"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.

Jesus has explained that from the beginning what the pharisees were permitted to do was not the way God intended. From the beginning it was not so. From the beginning God intended the man to love and cherish his sweet Eve-like wife as a symbol of our union to Him and to Christ. From the beginning a man could not just feel like he wanted to be rid of his wife for whatever cause and just cast her out. From the beginning marriage was for life.

Jesus says clearly ONLY for actually breaking the marriage covenant can she be put away now. There will be no more of this ''for any cause'' divorce. If she doesnt actually break the covenant, then to put her away and remarry is to commit adultery against her (see Mark 10 "against her'') .

As we have seen already, Jesus IS discussing a MARRIAGE with the pharisees.
Not some fantasy engagement that as that would make the entire discussion void of all meaning altogether. ONLY if they are discussing a lawfully binding, permanent marriage does the passage even make any sense at all....especially considering the phariseees bringing up Moses words in Deut 24:1-4...the passage that speaks of a bill of DIVORCE.

This accusation does not, as some supposed, create any 'state' of ongoing adultery. Jesus is simply declaring that a crime is indeed occurring and showing the man that his sin is so great that even when his innocent wife remarries, as at that point in time she pretty much would have had to to survive, that she also commits adultery against that marriage cast away for no just cause as does the man who marries her.

Note firstly that Christ does not ever condemn the innocent, also notice that He does not say that this woman is merely committing adultery with some other man, but shows plainly that she is marrying another.
We know our Lord does not condemn the innocent, that simply is not in His nature. For Him to damn this wife who has done no wrong would be out of character for Him to do, so we conclude that His condemnation is directed at this man who has put this marriage away for no just cause.

"His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Jesus disciples are Jews. The SAME Jews who knew that ''for any cause'' divorce was permitted.
They had grown just as used to the idea, being Jews, that they could end a marriage easily *IF* they found out that they didnt like a wife for whatever reason, as the rest of the Jews had done.

Jesus has just shown these men who had centuries of easy divorce that NO....you cannot do this now. ONLY for actually breaking the covenant can she be put away.
Imagine today a man really is disgusted with his wife. She doesnt cook like he wants her to and wont give him sex in the depraved manner he wants and shes put on a few pounds. Under the Mosiac economy which permitted 'for any cause" divorce as interpreted by many, the man could just send her packing with her bill of divorce. But Jesus says NO.... ONLY if she actually breaks the covenant can you put her away.

His disciples were used to the idea of ''for any cause'', that way if she did start to become annoying to him he could be rid of her. But with Jesus words it wasnt that easy. In truth, it IS better not to marry, as they said, rather than to end up stuck with a wife your miserable with (most likely over your hardheartedness to begin with)

"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Jesus' response shows that there arent many men who CAN go without marrying.
We see more men and woman who cannot stay celebate than those who can.
Even God Himself says to us, ''it is not good for man to be alone''

Jesus shows indeed, that *IF* one CAN accept it, it is MUCH better to be as a eunuch and never marry.
Some are this way by birth and some have decided to remain unmarried for the kingdoms work... but Jesus has shown that ''all men cannot'' recieve this saying that ''it is not good to marry''....only to whom it is given... those who have the ability. Most likely given by God Himself.

 

[francisdesales]

Maybe, poster, you might actually REFUTE some of MY material I posted rather than acting like it doesnt exist ?

I have. Maybe you should read what I wrote again, refering to the Scriptures in red.

No, friend, the yoke DOESNT remain. That is some tripe a few in the church make up to put a yoke of oppression on the innocent that GOD has not placed there.

Blah blah...

Apparently, what God has joined into one flesh, "follower of Christ" separates. What an amazing power you have given yourself...

Read the words of Christ, not the words of someone trying to justify their desire to move onto another relationship and sever the past one...

Being "One flesh" with someone of the opposite gender is sex...consummation of the marriage....not some invisible yoke of bondage YOU create to keep a person in bondage who PAUL has shown is NOT in bondage.

Where does the Bible say that being of "one flesh" is intercourse???

I suppose a person enamoured with sex might think that. However, marriage is more than sex. For those who follow the ways of our society today, sex sells big time. It is the biggest reason why people marry - according to the pundits. And if you are no longer satisfied, you move on so you can have intercouse with someone else. With this attitude, people begin to think "WHY get married in the first place"??? And so being of "one flesh" naturally refers to sex - to these people and those who follow this false gospel. I'm sure that there are a lot of people at your community that love hearing this twisted version of Scriptures so that they can feel justified in separating what GOD has joined...

However, sexual relationships is not the meaning of "one flesh". While sex can express the ultimate giving of oneself to the other, we are "one flesh" in many more ways than when we come together in intercourse. For those who "live in the Bible", they will readily identify with the concept of REFRAINING from sex for the purpose of prayer, for example. Are such people no longer "one flesh"???

Please... God did not join us together as one flesh so that we could have sex. Monkeys can do that. Are monkeys one flesh, as well??? We are joined together as one flesh, one unit, in the same way that God HIMSELF is joined as a Trinity of persons, with one nature and one will. Marriage is a dim view of the Blessed Trinity, not "Girls Gone Wild" It is your thinking that is destroying the institution of marriage and the intent of God when He created man male and female for the purpose of unitive relationship. Genesis gives us the story of the creation of the female to serve as a companion for man, not a sex tool...

God created us in His image. Persons who share so much of each other that they dimly point to God Himself.

And finally, a note that you seem to have forgotten: a marriage is something GOD JOINS. Again, I refer you to Scriptures, where Jesus says "WHAT GOD HAS JOINED - let NO man separate". We aren't speaking of "live-in" unions, but a sacred covenant made between man and woman, joined by God.

[uh...dude...that is MY work I posted...the fruits of more than 5000 hours of study on this topic alone...so I HAVE read the material...for quite some time now.

Wonderful, I was on the moon last week - you want to see the rocks?

But seriously, I didn't say the "cutting and pasting" was or wasn't your work, did I? The point is - who wants to read pages and pages of these opinions?

Again, you choose to ignore what I write for the sake of arguing...

I have presented simple Scriptural references that refute you. If you feel the way to counteract that is with long winded cutting and pasting - whether your material or not - I am not in the least impressed. It is merely trying to explain away simple Scriptures based on current society's ideas of marriage, rather than on God's view of marriage. If you really DO "live in the bible", you would dismiss society's views of marriage as a means to have licit sex.

No, to put away ones spouse as the Jews were doing and Christ was DEALING with is called adultery.
Christ Himself says VERY clearly 'EXCEPT for fornication'....of which your explaination is quite laughable.

How convenient, ignore Mark so that you can twist Matthew to suit your opinions...

Either Jesus MEANS something else in Matthew than what you claim, or Mark is full of it.... I'll take the former, despite your self-proclaimed power to divide what God has joined...

That is why I posted Mark's version. It does not have the exclusion. Either Jesus allows remarriage or He doesn't. Mark says absolutely not.

A more careful reading of Matthew indicates that one can put away their spouse for fornication - HOWEVER, one who marries such a person put away (as the last part of this section says) is indeed committing adultery... Read Matthew with what Mark has said and it will become more clearer.

So putting the two together, we remain at the same place - one can put aside or separate from their spouse due to fornication, but cannot remarry, since it is GOD who joins the couple, not you or anyone else.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

I have. Maybe you should read what I wrote again, refering to the Scriptures in red.

Ive read it so many times at this point theres not really much point in reading it again for your amusement.
As I said, your two short passages ARENT the whole truth in this matter and they DONT say what you seem to believe. NO statement is made about the subsequent marriage, chap...ONLY that sin is committed when they cast out their innocent wives as they were to marry someone else.

Blah blah...

Probably one of the more interesting and original things youve managed to say in this thread so far.

Apparently, what God has joined into one flesh, "follower of Christ" separates. What an amazing power you have given yourself...

Read the words of Christ, not the words of someone trying to justify their desire to move onto another relationship and sever the past one...

I have no power that I am not given by Him.
I READ the words of Christ, poster...and there is MUCH more than your two pet passages to this issue. And they DONT say what YOU claim they say...that is confirmed by the greek itself as Ive already proven.

Where does the Bible say that being of "one flesh" is intercourse???

1 Cor 6:16....even a man being with a HARLOT is deemed as being 'one body' with her and shown as being exactly the same thing as in marriage.
But then *I* already posted this information and apparently you simply dont have the energy to read it.

However, sexual relationships is not the meaning of "one flesh".

Sorry but it is or Paul is a liar.

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)

Even with a HARLOT a man is 'one flesh' with her as in marriage. The ONLY conclusion that fits is that being 'one flesh' with her is sex..since we KNOW a man isnt married to the harlot just because they have sex.

Maybe youll READ what is written this time....

And finally, a note that you seem to have forgotten: a marriage is something GOD JOINS.

AGain you prove you didnt READ anything I posted.
*I* SAID that God JOINS us in a marriage COVENANT.
Part of that covenant is being 'one flesh'....ie CONSUMMATION...

Again, I refer you to Scriptures, where Jesus says "WHAT GOD HAS JOINED - let NO man separate". We aren't speaking of "live-in" unions, but a sacred covenant made between man and woman, joined by God.

And AGAIN I refer YOU to the part where PAUL INSTRUCTS believers to LET MAN SEPARATE thus proving that you have NO clue about what it is you preach...
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

*IF* what you believe WERE true about Christs statement then PAUL is a lying heretic deceiver who instructed believers to allow what Christ told them NOT to allow.

 

[follower of Christ]

How convenient, ignore Mark so that you can twist Matthew to suit your opinions...

how convenient....ignore Matthew so you can twist Mark to suit YOUR opinions.
As I said and you clearly IGNORED...this ISNT the ONLY time Mark OMITTED an exception in exactly the same manner that Matthew DID record...
READERS SEE >>> The REST of the story...

Either Jesus MEANS something else in Matthew than what you claim, or Mark is full of it.... I'll take the former, despite your self-proclaimed power to divide what God has joined...

*IF* that were the case then Mark is full of it more than once as Mark also DOESNT record the same type of exceptive clause when speaking about the sign from heaven they asked Jesus for.
Matthew shows 'NO SIGN will be givn EXCEPT for the sign of Jonah' while Mark shows simply that NO SIGN would be given...so which man are you calling a liar ?

That is why I posted Mark's version. It does not have the exclusion. Either Jesus allows remarriage or He doesn't. Mark says absolutely not.

No, you posted Mark because it suits your needs. Im not an idiot. I deal with your type every day.

A more careful reading of Matthew indicates that one can put away their spouse for fornication -
HOWEVER, one who marries such a person put away (as the last part of this section says) is indeed committing adultery...

Fallacious nonsense. The clause applies to the ENTIRE statement. YOU are the one making the separatoin there to suit your error.

Read Matthew with what Mark has said and it will become more clearer.

I HAVE read it chap...many, MANY hundreds of times. Stop telling me to read it.

So putting the two together, we remain at the same place - one can put aside or separate from their spouse due to fornication, but cannot remarry, since it is GOD who joins the couple, not you or anyone else.

Regards

Sorry but you are simply in error. The exception applies to the entire statement. YOU dont get to change that fact just because you feel to .

 

[follower of Christ]

Again, you choose to ignore what I write for the sake of arguing...

Believe me friend I READ EVERY word that those of your error present. Im am ignoring nothing.
You twist Mark so you can reject Matthew....and as I said this ISNT the only time Mark omits an exception that Matthew presents. If I believe as you do then Id have to conclude that Mark was a flaming liar.
The REST of the story...

I have presented simple Scriptural references that refute you.

No, you have done as those of your error always do and push PART of the evidence down our throats so you and force your unscriptural nonsense on us.

If you feel the way to counteract that is with long winded cutting and pasting - whether your material or not - I am not in the least impressed.

I 'feel' to make sure that the READERS here have the WHOLE scope of data to base their conclusions on....not two pet passages perverted and mangled by those who seek to push a doctrine of devils that forbids marriage to those who ARENT forbidden to marry.

ANY of us here, poster, can rip two passages out of context and present half truths and lies with it. I see it every day on forums like this one.

It is merely trying to explain away simple Scriptures based on current society's ideas of marriage, rather than on God's view of marriage. If you really DO "live in the bible", you would dismiss society's views of marriage as a means to have licit sex.

Im entirely against the worlds sickening view of marriage.
Im also as against some claiming the name of Christ putting a yoke on my brethren that GOD has not put on them and then twisting His word to make their error seem palatable