Divorce and Luke 16:18

[follower of Christ]

READERS.

Here is an article that shows you what folks like one poster here try to pull.

READERS SEE >>> Comparing Hyper-marital doctrines to Hyper-Calvinism

This chap does the same exactl thing as hypercalvinists do....twisting the data around to suit his own purposes instead of harmonizing ALL of the relevant data...INCLUDING the FACT that Mark omits more than one 'exception' thus we cant assume that there is any real meaning to the fact that Mark omitted Christs exception for fornication.

 

[follower of Christ]

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

Correct, the exceptions cover (at the very least) the ENTIRE scope of sexual immoralities possible, including bestiality and incest.

 

[Rick W]

READERS.

Here is an article that shows you what folks like one poster here try to pull.

READERS SEE >>> Comparing Hyper-marital doctrines to Hyper-Calvinism

This chap does the same exactl thing as hypercalvinists do....twisting the data around to suit his own purposes instead of harmonizing ALL of the relevant data...INCLUDING the FACT that Mark omits more than one 'exception' thus we cant assume that there is any real meaning to the fact that Mark omitted Christs exception for fornication.

Since you're posting that link I feel it's also good for readers to know that you are the site admin at that forum that posted that OP.

 

[follower of Christ]

READERS.

Here is an article that shows you what folks like one poster here try to pull.

READERS SEE >>> Comparing Hyper-marital doctrines to Hyper-Calvinism

This chap does the same exactl thing as hypercalvinists do....twisting the data around to suit his own purposes instead of harmonizing ALL of the relevant data...INCLUDING the FACT that Mark omits more than one 'exception' thus we cant assume that there is any real meaning to the fact that Mark omitted Christs exception for fornication.

Since you're posting that link I feel it's also necessary for readers to know that you are the site admin at that forum that posted that OP.

Absolutely, Rick
I wasnt in any way trying NOT to let everyone know that is my material. I am Wm Tipton who has put together most of the material on our site there (tho with some help from my mentors on rare occasion).
Anything on the site that isnt mine I make sure to show that its a quote from someone else, such as the quotes pertaining to the meaning of the greek rendered as 'commits adultery' in the Gospels. Im not a scholar of Greek so I quoted men who are to show my points but gave credit with a link in each quote provided.

The STudies 'forum' there isnt really a forum per se, but is locked instead....ie 'read only' mode. It was just easier that way as my website software doesnt really do a good job with a site with as many pages as Id need for the stuff on the site.

I can stick to links if that wuold be more in line with the rules here. I didnt know how to interpret what is 'short' or 'long' as far as a single post..

 

[Rick W]

Links are fine.
You've broken no rules here.
As an ethical note not covered by rules written in stone I feel it best to make known that references to material is one's own. Good, bad or ugly that's up to the reader to decide.

3 - You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This includes Universal Reconciliation and Universal Salvation. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.

9 - Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info. We want to respect copyrighted material. Plus, you stand a better chance of getting your post read if it contains a link with an excerpt from source that's relative to your point.

11. Respect copyrighted material, if you post articles or commentaries from another source please include the author’s name and a link to the original source if available.

 

[Rick W]

Oh, one other thing...
A reminder:

Terms of Service

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

 

[follower of Christ]

Oh, one other thing...
A reminder:

Terms of Service

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

Thanks for the reminder, Rick. Ill read and reread my own posts to try to make sure that nothing is breaking the rules. Ive already gone back and removed a couple smaller items that, while there was no ill intent on my part, seemed like it could have been taken as tho I was being short.

 

[Rick W]

 

[shad]

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

If you are running the race for prize of crown, you should not divorce; if you do, you should not remarry if your ex-spouse is still living. It is simple command. It is sin to do otherwise.

 

[Rick W]

God gave us details about divorce not because he approves but because he forebears with the sinful nature of man.

 

[shad]

Yuu can divorce if your spouse committed adultery or is violent, but you cannot remarry if your ex-spouse is still alive.

 

[follower of Christ]

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

If you are running the race for prize of crown, you should not divorce; if you do, you should not remarry if your ex-spouse is still living. It is simple command. It is sin to do otherwise.

No, friend, its not that simple. If it were that simple we'd not be here debating the topic

Read the thread, please. Theres a TON of data to show you that its NOT a simple as you are trying to make it.

Christ was exposing the sin of the Jewish men who were casting out their wives without just cause to marry someone else. He was not condemning an innocent person to celibacy, that HE HIMSELF shows that not many can handle, because of the sins of the one they married who cant control themselves.
You have misunderstood our Lords intent...most likely because of parroting off two small passages instead of understanding the WHOLE counsel of Gods word in the matter.

 

[follower of Christ]

God gave us details about divorce not because he approves but because he forebears with the sinful nature of man.

ABSOLUTELY, Rick !

God tolerates divorce because of our sinful nature. He knows full well that regardless of how much some try to make marriage what it should be there will ALWAYS be those who marry who will cheat, abuse, maim, kill, whatever...and to PROTECT the innocent party divorce simply has to be permitted.

 

[follower of Christ]

Yuu can divorce if your spouse committed adultery or is violent, but you cannot remarry if your ex-spouse is still alive.

Fallacious nonsense, Im afraid.
Where BOTH are true believers who divorce there is instruction from the Lord to reconcile or remain UNmarried. Where the marriage was UNequally yoked there is no such commandment.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"


Again...
Christ was exposing the sin of the Jewish men who were casting out their wives without just cause to marry someone else. He was not condemning an innocent person to celibacy, that HE HIMSELF shows that not many can handle, because of the sins of the one they married who cant control themselves.
You have misunderstood our Lords intent...most likely because of parroting off two small passages instead of understanding the WHOLE counsel of Gods word in the matter.

 

[shad]

Fallacious nonsense, Im afraid.
Where BOTH are true believers who divorce there is instruction from the Lord to reconcile or remain UNmarried. Where the marriage was UNequally yoked there is no such commandment.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"

When you make a mistake you pay the consequenses. If your unbeliving spouse seeks a divorce let him or her go. But you still should not get remarried until your ex-spouse dies.

 

[follower of Christ]

Fallacious nonsense, Im afraid.
Where BOTH are true believers who divorce there is instruction from the Lord to reconcile or remain UNmarried. Where the marriage was UNequally yoked there is no such commandment.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"

When you make a mistake you pay the consequenses. If your unbeliving spouse seeks a divorce let him or her go. But you still should not get remarried until your ex-spouse dies.

Fallacious.
As I said you simply have not understood what Christ or Paul were dealing with specifically and so use a couple verses to push an error that doesnt line up with the whole scope of relevant data in the matter.
WHEN we divorce without cause to marry someone else we DO commit adultery against the spouse we put away...and we draw everyone involved into our sin with us. Christ simply presented to these callous men that they were sinning even tho THEY believed they werent and felt that they had Moses in their corner supporting them in their vile actions. Christ corrected that error and exposed their sinfulness. He didnt damn an innocent person to celibacy that HE HIMSELF shows cannot be endured by most.

There is NO instruction for those who were UNequally yoked to remain UNmarried or reconcile. That instruction is directed solely at those who were BOTH true believers...to those who OUGHT to be working things out instead of acting like godless heathen.
'but to the REST' there is no such instruction to remain unmarried..
TWO groups, friend, not one
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"

 

[francisdesales]

As I said, your two short passages ARENT the whole truth in this matter and they DONT say what you seem to believe.

They say enough. They say that marriage to one put away is commiting adultery. The end of Matthew's verse says that quite clearly.

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.

Go and read it again. Your exaggerations aside, it doesn't appear to have sunken in yet.

...whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.

How much clearer does it need to be said. This refers to a person put away, separated. Marrying such a person refers to a "subsequent marriage", does it not? And this is Matthew's gospel, the one with the exclusion clause...

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.

I didn't say that was all that the Bible says about marriage... Nor are they my "pet" passages. They say exactly what I am saying, since the first Christians ALSO did not allow subsequent marriages after a separation. Would you like me to post the pertinent data from the ancient Church Fathers?

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.

I see. Ad hominem. I have noticed your posts are full of them. That's the best you can do? An avalanche of derision and cut and pastes with nary a thought about the meaning of Sciptures. We shall soon see this play out. Be patient with me, although I have not worked these passages for "5000 hours"...

Now.

Perhaps you are unaware that God calls Israel a harlot? Does this mean God has sexual relations with Israel?
Please... Are you SURE you've read the Scriptures? Give us a break. Harlot does not always mean a person who has sex... We are speaking of Sacred Scriptures here, not MTV.

The readers of Scriptures knows that "harlot" means one unfaithful to God.

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.

Being joined as one flesh has little to do with sex. Why your perversion with sex?

What about cases where sexual intercourse is not possible? Is such a marriage not "one flesh"? Try to get your mind out of the gutter and into the Bible. Marriage isn't about getting to have sex legally. It is much more. Being made "one flesh" is being so close that two people very nearly become as one nature, just as God HIMSELF is indeed three persons but one nature.

Read more closely Genesis 2:23-25.

And the man said, This [is] now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

God created Eve to be a PARTNER, someone to share their life with Adam, not as a sexual toy. A man leaves his family and clings to his wife - meaning they share a relationship more meaningful then shared with his family. They share one body (as Paul states...) with each other. My body does not belong to me, but my wife. But not only that, we also are no longer independent. We share each others concerns, welfare, goals in life, hopes and dreams, etc. WE BECOME ONE BODY. AS ONE PERSON. Try to wrap your mind around this - marriage is MUCH more than sex, since many people get married and RARELY have sex - and many more have very strong relationships and have moved beyond sex (like older couples).

Your meaning of marriage is to have sex. You are Wrong, and it is such thinking that is destroying the institution of marriage. ESPECIALLY when YOU condone getting another marriage when the first is not sexually fulfilling, which is what you strongly imply when you say "one flesh" refers to sex.

*I* SAID that God JOINS us in a marriage COVENANT.
Part of that covenant is being 'one flesh'....ie CONSUMMATION...

And you also are saying that man can separate what God has joined, despite CHRIST'S OWN COMMAND.

Oh, yea, that doesn't apply to you.

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...

[/quote][/quote]

I am not talking about Paul. I am talking about Christ.

And YOU do not have a clue about what you are preaching, since you are justifying people leaving their marriage and doing JUST what Christ said NOT to...

Furthermore, Paul doesn't say that man separates what God has joined, does he?

No.

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free 1 Cor 7:38

Oh. Looks like Paul and Jesus DO agree...

And now, to end this silliness...

If Paul thought that divorce and remarriage was OK, at the whim of either spouse in case of "fornication", then WHY does Paul use the metaphor of a marriage between CHRIST and the CHURCH???

Try to think about it.

If what you are saying is true, then Christ can put aside His Church for "fornication" - which those who read Scriptures know - means to be unfaithful to God.

Ya really ready to make that claim, chap? Is God going to divorce His Church and join with another???

 

[follower of Christ]

And now for another 18 rounds of useless repetition that will only end in your frustration...

They say enough.

They DONT say what YOU claim they say....

They say that marriage to one put away is commiting adultery.

No, friend, they say 'COMMITS'....not 'COMMITTING' as in any ongoing issue as some false ones assert.
The word is in the Present Indicative form and even tho the present is always linear in nature the Indicative form is the only one in the Present in which NO 'ongoing' issue would occur.
They picked the ONLY form of the Present form of the Greek that WOULDNT show anything about any 'state' of sin in this subsequent marriage. Pretty odd if one asks me seeing that there is easy enough method in greek to show an act with ongoing consequences that COULD have been used *IF* it were Jesus' intent to say anything about the remarriage itself.

He is defining sin in their actions themselves....not saying a thing about the 'state' of a second marriage.

 

[follower of Christ]

Go and read it again. Your exaggerations aside, it doesn't appear to have sunken in yet.

...whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.

How much clearer does it need to be said. This refers to a person put away, separated. Marrying such a person refers to a "subsequent marriage", does it not? And this is Matthew's gospel, the one with the exclusion clause...

Apparently it needs to be spelled out in giant red letters for you that 'commits adultery' DOESNT show any 'ongoing' issue at all according to the Present Indicative form of the Greek used to render Christs words.
As Ive said, you run to a verse or two and reject the facts from the whole.
We see this same poor study method used by those claiming that GOD is responsible for mans sin..

 

[follower of Christ]

I didn't say that was all that the Bible says about marriage... Nor are they my "pet" passages.

Sure they are. I havent seen you go to anything beyond just a few verses and anything outside those that IVe shown you you have simply handwaved away and ignored VERY clear evidence that your viewpoint ISNT taking ALL of the relevant data into account.

They say exactly what I am saying, since the first Christians ALSO did not allow subsequent marriages after a separation.

Were YOU there ?
Please....dont insult our intelligence by pretending that YOU know what the 'first' christians did or didnt do. There is very clear evidence that remarriage WAS tolerated in the church and that NONE were instructed to put these marriages away in Gods word except where they were prohibited by law (incestuous, etc).
The ECFs WERENT the 'first' christian, by the way....they came a generation later well after the wolves had entered into the flock...

Would you like me to post the pertinent data from the ancient Church Fathers?

First the ECFs ARENT Christ nor His chosen apostles but FALLIBLE men living in a time where Satan was quite active in trying to rip the church apart.
Secondly the ECFs couldnt even get their thoughts straight and few of them were in any sort of harmony where doctrine was concerned....so sure...go ahead and make the mistake of presenting the views of ECFs so I can rip them apart by showing the readers here how the ECFs DIDNT agree on a lot of things just as we dont today ;)