Divorce and Luke 16:18

[shad]

No, friend, its not that simple.

Yes it is simple, you just don't like what Jesus says.

Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

 

[follower of Christ]

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"...

My cut and paste is MY own work, poster....Im not interested in REtyping for your amusement what Ive already said a thousand times before.
Either you can refute MY material or you cannot....so which is it ?

Perhaps you are unaware that God calls Israel a harlot? Does this mean God has sexual relations with Israel?

Sorry but the context of 1 Cor 6:16 is a REAL man with a REAL harlot and speaking about our not joining with someone in fornication.
So Im sorry but you are simply erroneous in your view that 'one flesh' isnt sexual relations. 1 Cor 6:16 PROVES that it is ...

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.

Sorry but the CONTEXT of the passage (1 Cor 6:16 or so) makes it VERY CLEAR that the topic is fornication/sexual sin. THAT is the topic and THAT is where Paul shows us what 'one flesh' is.

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

The readers of the scriptures know what 'fornication' is in relation to a REAL man having sex with a REAL woman whom isnt his wife and is a harlot ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

No, friend, its not that simple.

Yes it is simple, you just don't like what Jesus says.

Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

And yet another poster here who is stuck in ONE verse instead of harmonizing the WHOLE truth.....

I love what Jesus says.
He simply doesnt say what YOU claim He does....

 

[shad]

[quote="follower of Christquote]
And yet another poster here who is stuck in ONE verse instead of harmonizing the WHOLE truth.....[/quote]

Ok I will bring up more. You cannot refute even one verse. All you are doing is making excuses.

I love what Jesus says.
He simply doesnt say what YOU claim He does....

Show us what Jesus says about divorce?

 

[follower of Christ]

Being joined as one flesh has little to do with sex.

Which shows us that you have no understanding of Gods word in the matter.
*I* have PROVEN my case with 1 Cor 6:16 that absolutely evidences that a man and woman being joined sexually IS 'one flesh'....or Paul is a liar.
It really doesnt require your agreement, Im afraid.

Why your perversion with sex?

huh....you are a loose cannon here but accuse me of ad hominems..
Your argument is with Paul, Im afraid.

What about cases where sexual intercourse is not possible?

Sex is PART of the marriage covenant. It isnt a REQUIRED part if either spouse isnt able and the other is willing to be married anyway.
Jospeh was married to Mary long before they became 'one flesh'.

Is such a marriage not "one flesh"?

You seem to think sex = marriage....it doesnt.
the COVENANT is the marriage...of which becoming 'one flesh' is a normal and expected part of that covenant UNLESS there is some reason not to ...like a virgin birth or deformity, for example.

Try to get your mind out of the gutter and into the Bible.

Again with the ad hominems.
Sorry but PAUL proves conclusively that 'one flesh' exists EVEN WITH a harlot...thus it is sex..plain and simple.

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-)

Denial of fact is a symptom of desperation..

Marriage isn't about getting to have sex legally

..and yet...

1Co 7:9 but if they are not exercising self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Are you sure that YOU read the scriptures, friend. Seemingly YOU missed something...

. 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.

Being 'one flesh' is sex....period.
Within a lawful marriage it is blessed by God and is as He created it to be.
Outside lawful marriage it is fornication....nothing more....just as 1 Cor 6:16 proves...

Read more closely Genesis 2:23-25.

good grief.
I HAVE read it poster....MANY..MANY times....

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.

Show me ONE woman AFTER Eve who was literally MADE of her husbands own flesh, poster...just one.
You cant, can you ?
Eve being literally made of her husbands own flesh is a foreshadow of the closeness and unity that is SUPPOSED to exist in marriage where a man and his wife are partaking of sexual relations.
Outside that union it is a perversion of Gods intent for sex....it is fornication.

NO woman since Eve is LITERALLY made of her husbands own flesh, Im afraid.

God created Eve to be a PARTNER, someone to share their life with Adam, not as a sexual toy.

Not even sure what part of my posts you are perverting to come up with this nonsense but *I* never said any such thing.
SEX is PART of the marriage covenant...that doesnt make her a 'sex toy'.
Sex IS 'one flesh' otherwise Paul is a liar where HE says that a man with harlot is 'one body' with her because two will be 'one flesh'...

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-)

Your meaning of marriage is to have sex. You are Wrong, and it is such thinking that is destroying the institution of marriage.

Hardly.
You simply seem need to twist MY intent to create your strawman to battle because you have no actual argument here.

And *IF* anyone is guilty of making marriage ABOUT sex, chap, it is PAUL....;)
To AVOID sexual sin...GET MARRIED !

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)

If one is burning...GET MARRIED !

But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they should remain as I also remain; but if they are not exercising self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
(1Co 7:8-9)

Nuff said....

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.

boy you really have a way of perverting anything you read into something completely unrecognizable...

*I* never said nor implied any such thing.
*I* said 'one flesh' is consummation...the sexual union of a man and woman, married or not.....*I* NEVER said one thing about condoning going out and finding someone else if a spouse isnt performing

DO THIS AGAIN AND IM GOING TO MODERATION.
I hope this is very clear.

which is what you strongly imply when you say "one flesh" refers to sex.

utter rubbish.
What *I* 'strongly imply' when *I* say that 'one flesh' is the sexual union of a man and a woman is precisely what PAUL shows us in a VERY clear manner in 1 cor 6:16.
That you cannot accept that fact because it doesnt agree with your error is of no real consequence here. WE can read and see for ourselves what PAUL presents.
Being 'one flesh' with a person of the opposite gender is to have sexual relations with them.
Within the marriage covenant the act is blessed and ordained of God and symbolizes the closeness and unity of the literal 'one flesh' that Eve was with her husband Adam.
Outside that covenant it is 'fornication'....aka sexual immorality....porneia....sin...

 

[follower of Christ]

Ok I will bring up more. You cannot refute even one verse. All you are doing is making excuses.

Hardly chap.
Im harmonizing ALL of the data.
All you are doing is precisely what "Name it and claim it' and "prosperity' false teachers do by pushing PART of the data as absolute while ignoring the rest.

Show us what Jesus says about divorce?

Based on the context of the WHOLE NT Jesus shows that when we put away a spouse without just cause to marry another is to commit adultery.(not ongoing as some false ones claim)

 

[shad]

Im harmonizing ALL of the data.

You are not harmonizing with Jesus at all. You say you are followers of Christ, yet, you resist what He commands. Here is some more for you. You seem to skip all of these for your convenience.

Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

1 Corinthians 7:11
But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

1 Corinthians 7:12
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

1 Corinthians 7:13
And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

Based on the context of the WHOLE NT Jesus shows that when we put away a spouse without just cause to marry another is to commit adultery.(not ongoing as some false ones claim)

What are you saying? I'm sorry, your point here isn't very clear.

 

[follower of Christ]

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

Guy, you REALLY ARENT reading anything other than your own posts here.
PAUL is the one who INSTRUCTS man do what YOU claim Christ says we cant....
Ill post the link again for the READERS since it CLEAR YOU arent reading anything you dont like or agree with..
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"


PAUL instructs BELIEVERS to allow and do EXACTLY what CHRIST said let no man do....youre argument is with PAUL and his inability to force compliance from nonbelievers ;)

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

When we talk about Pauls instruction we ARE talking about Christ.
OR do you do what some others of your viewpoint do and reject Pauls clear instruction to keep from admitting the truth ?
Ive seen some even speak against Paul because they dont want to admit what he says on the matter of allowing what Christ said for man to to do....are you one of those who do that as well ?

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...

Dude, if you continue to bear false witness against me I WILL call in an admin or moderator here.
*I NEVER SAID* for ANYONE to LEAVE their marriages here...DID I ?????
*I* am showing that your viewpoint is fallacious.....I am NOT instructing or condoning anything in particular as *I* dont know anyones unique situation here and couldnt make any discernment in a matter without knowing the facts.

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

Yes..Paul DOES show that man 'separates' what man joins...it is PRECISELY the SAME word (CHORIZO) that Christ uses.
please dont even try to play semantics games here because the facts are failing you.

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

And WHEN did this law begin, poster?
CHRist shows that it HAD to be in the beginning. So you must be accusing Moses of being some rogue prophet who not only allowed divorce AGAINST Gods will but then also allowed REMARRIAGE thus ALLOWED this adultery YOU claim is the case.

And now, to end this silliness...

riiight
AFter so much time spent on this issue I serious doubt that you are going to present anything I havent seen 500 times already at least.

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???

Firstly marriage ISNT an exact reproduction of Christs covenant with the church, poster.
*I* didnt die to ratify the covenant of marriage thus setting aside an old covenant and thereby bringing a faithful remnant (of Jews) from the old into the new and also bringing in a whole new bride (the gentiles) and thus making the two 'one new man'.

*I* also dont have 2 billion wives as part of my 'bride' whereby some are faithful and some are not.

That said Paul did not say that Christs covenant was UNconditional. We CAN, as individuals, apostatize ourselves and find ourselves paying the price for our own sin... the sacrifice having been removed in such a case.

Adultery is to the marriage covenant what apostasy is to Christs covenant. Both can effectively cause the covenant maker to have just cause to remove us from 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.

See above.
Are you also OSAS because you surely need to be in order to make this comparison work...

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

He already did. He put away the covenant with the harlot and made a new covenant with His bride....

The church will not apostate herself as He already knows...


anything else?

 

[follower of Christ]

You are not harmonizing with Jesus at all. You say you are followers of Christ, yet, you resist what He commands. Here is some more for you. You seem to skip all of these for your convenience.

Hilarious.
Ive READ and harmonized ALL of these....you just didnt bother to ask me for the information before you accuse me falsely of skipping them.. ;)

1 Corinthians 7:11
But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Again..this is about TWO believers who are EQUALLY YOKED who divorce as PROVEN by the very next verse that is directed to believers are who are UNEQUALLY YOKED to UNbelievers.
TWO groups...TWO different instructions...
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"

1 Corinthians 7:12
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

And THERE you go....BUT TO THE REST...the REMAINDER to whom Paul has NO command from the Lord...to whom is given concession NOT given to the former group...

The CONTEXT is that the Corinthians felt they were 'defiled' by the unbelieving spouse and so asked Paul if they should divorce or not.
READERS see the red text below....

Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
By WmTipton

Actually, it does seem to give grounds for 'putting away' for things like abuse, ect.
This is the passage in question;
[quote:hbgpa0y2]But to the rest I say, not the Lord, if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, let him not leave her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the husband; else, then, your children are unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace. For what do you know, wife, whether you will save the husband? Or what do you know, husband, whether you will save the wife?
(1Co 7:12-16)

The passage and the context of it was an answer to the Corinthians (See 7:1 "But concerning what you wrote to me") about being able to leave if they were saved and the spouse was not.
They felt that they were 'defiled' in being with this person in the marriage based on other teachings about 'touching no unclean thing' and related passages.
This is why Paul tells them that their children are clean and that their spouse is 'sanctified' (not in a SAVED sense, but just to ease their minds so they didnt divorce) by the saved spouse (1Co 7:14).
These believers were assuming they could just up and leave their existing marriages if they became saved and their spouse had not.
Paul is only showing there that they are not to leave if the unsaved spouse is happy to remain with them in the marriage...dont just divorce them because they are unsaved...we may be instrumental in bringing them to salvation.
But Pauls statement IS conditional. If the unbelieving spouse is abusive we DO have right to leave that marriage...ie 'divorce'...which is what LEAVING the marriage is...we would be in the very same 'agamos' state that the woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 would be...UNmarried.

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 7:12-13)

The wording there clearly shows that if she is 'pleased' then let him not put her away.
This statement is conditional.

"if"
G1487
ei i
a primary particle of conditionality;
if, whether, that, etc.:--forasmuch as, if, that, (al-)though, whether. Often
used in connection or composition with other particles, especially as in
G1489, G1490, G1499, G1508, G1509, G1512, G1513, G1536, G1537. See
also G1437.

It doesnt not simply state 'let him not put her away' but adds the condition of being 'pleased' to his not putting her away.
If this were an absolute statement, that he not put her away then it should be stated as such, but its not. A condition is very apparent in the actual text.


So what does this word 'pleased' mean?

G4909
1) to be pleased together with, to approve together (with others)
2) to be pleased at the same time with, consent, agree to
2a) to applaud

the word clearly shows a mutually pleasant experience.
She is pleased along with him...at the same time....'together'.
If one spouse is being beaten, they would hardly be "pleased together with" the person who is beating them....so why does Paul show the condition of mutual pleasing if there is no condition at all ?

In taking the actual greek into account, we clearly see a condition added to Pauls stating that this man not 'put away' his wife. The condition being that the marriage is pleasing mutually... the greek does not show a one sided thing at all.
Paul then shows the same thing in reverse for the believing wife in this situation....

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 7:13)

"leave him" there is the same as 'put away' in the previous verse.

G863
aphie?mi
Thayer Definition:
1) to send away
1a) to bid going away or depart
1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
1c) to let go, let alone, let be
1c1) to disregard
1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
1c2a) of teachers, writers and speakers
1c3) to omit, neglect
1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
1e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
3a) in order to go to another place
3b) to depart from any one
3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
3d) to desert wrongfully
3e) to go away leaving something behind
3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
3i) abandon, leave destitute

The context of 'divorce' as a whole in scripture is either the casting out of a spouse or the leaving of a marriage with the intent of 'putting away' that marriage (altho there are some who try to pretend the two are not the same intent)

For a bit of proof that this is consistently the case, we jump back up to verse 7:11 and see that this woman who has departed her marriage is deemed 'unmarried' by Paul....Agamos/single/unwed/ARAMOC

G22
agamos
Thayer Definition:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single

I think the greek makes it very clear that in a situation where a believer is married to an unbeliever who is abusing them that the condition above that Paul presents does give 'grounds' for divorcing the spouse (leaving the marriage)

Pauls condition of if it is "pleased" (meaning mutually) is the 'grounds' for putting away this spouse if they are abusing and its not pleasing.
The "leaving" of the believer would cause them to be "agamos" or unwed/single/unmarried according to Paul thus showing that they are quite divorced when they left with that intent.

In a case of two believers tho, there is a call to reconcile or remain unmarried.
Of course, some folks move on because they no longer wish to be abused and it is very easily argued that if a man can continually and repeatedly batter his wife then he is not showing evidence of actually being a believer/follower of Christ based on the fact that CHRIST shows that we will know men by their fruits.

Those in Corinth were putting away a spouse when they became born again, even if the marriage was otherwise fine.
Paul tells them in this passage to not end their marriages simply because they found Christ and their spouse had not.
If the marriage is ok otherwise, if it is ‘pleased’...then do not put away this spouse but stay with them because the believers influence might be used to bring salvation to this person.

The conditional statement made by Paul clearly shows that there might be a situation whereby the believer may put away this spouse.
If the marriage is abusive it is hardly mutually ‘pleased’ and as such the condition is not being met as presented by Paul.

Regardless of what some teach, there ARE conditions whereby divorce is permissible and as such is not ‘sin’ for the one carrying the divorce out. Just as we know the Lord God did not ‘sin’ against an adulterous Israel when He gave her a bill of divorce.

[/quote:hbgpa0y2]

 

[follower of Christ]

[quote:3clmjuae]Based on the context of the WHOLE NT Jesus shows that when we put away a spouse without just cause to marry another is to commit adultery.(not ongoing as some false ones claim)

What are you saying? I'm sorry, your point here isn't very clear.[/quote:3clmjuae]
Im quite confused because anyone actually studied on this issue shouldnt be in any way unclear as to what is said or meant in my post.
The CONTEXT of Christs words TO THE JEWS and what the JEWS were doing and HAD been doing since the time of Moses is very important to understanding WHAT He is dealing with and WHY He says what He says.

Jesus was dealing with a very specific thing with the Jews...just as we see happening a lot today....of people casting out their spouses to get with someone else.
In THAT context He tells the Jews what He tells them..He ISNT blanketly covering EVERY possible situation, such as one where a man is beating the crap out of his wife and so she divorces him and later finds someone to remarry.
Christ is showing the Jews that what they were doing is SIN where Moses hadnt actually defined it as such. He isnt declaring that remarriage is always sinful or that remarriage is any 'state' of adultery as some false ones claim....

 

[follower of Christ]

Pertaining to this verse and also Romans 7:1-4 or so...

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

This 'law' of the husband that has existed since the beginning is not an unconditional law as some suppose. *IF* it were then Moses would have been in defiance of God Himself by allowing both divorce and remarriage.

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

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

In this article we will show that the two passages in question speak of the ‘law of the husband’ and that even though these verses say that this law is until death, that is is not an unconditional law that cannot be ended before the death of the spouse. The law of the husband is intended to be until the death of one of the spouses, as God created it from the very first marriage, Adam and Eve, but it has never been without condition.

Supporting Evidence
In Romans Paul was speaking to "those who know the law" (Romans 7:1)

The law reigned over a man all his days. Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.
What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )
This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The wife is bound to the husband until his death.
We must ask ourselves one question here. ‘What law’ bound this woman to her husband for life?
Was it the Mosaic law? How then could any wife have been bound at all to her husband from Eve until the Law ?
It is cemented that it is not the Mosiac law when we find no actual law making this commandment.

So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.
We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth.

Now, we ask ourselves, why, if this law is for life, did Moses ever permit it to end while the former spouse lived?
We ask ourselves about the wife in Exodus 21:7-11 who was permitted to walk out on her marriage if her husband denied her the basics of marriage, food, clothing and conjugal duty.
Why, if this law that existed from the beginning, was Moses so determined to undermine its supposed finality by ever allowing men or women to end it this side of death? Was Moses a rogue prophet who defied Gods will in the matter and even added divorce proceedings to His law? Not at all.

Moses understood Gods intent, that marriage is for life, but Moses also knew Gods heart and that God wanted mercy over sacrifice and he knew the hearts of evil, hardhearted men who would treat their wives horribly as they wished.
And so Moses understood that this ‘law’ was not unconditional.
If it were unconditional, then it was that way in the beginning and Moses would make himself a heretic by ever going against it.

So we see that when Paul gives his words in 1 Corinthians 7:39, that this is not the whole picture. This ‘law’ that Jesus presents as being ‘from the beginning’ was never meant to be unconditional. Jesus’ very words ‘except for’ in Matthew 19 show conclusively that even He does not see it as being without condition.

Paul was asked some questions by the Corinthians as is made apparent in the beginning of chapter 7;

[quote:2serbvps]1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wroteâ€Â

These believers had asked him some weighty questions about marriage, fornication, virgins, etc, to which he responded with what is written in this chapter.
They clearly had pondered the right of the believer to put away an unbeliever, to which Paul said “no, if the unbeliever is pleased along with the believer, the do not put them away, you might be the catalyst in their salvationâ€Â.
Paul is showing these believers who think they can just walk away from marriage that no, they cannot because it is for life.
But Pauls words also show condition. What if this unbeliever isn’t ‘pleased’ along with the believer, but is abusive, hateful, adulterating...then what does Pauls condition show?

Please see this page for more on that issue
Aslo see THIS PAGE that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.

When you’ve finished there, I believe you will see that there is condition in Pauls words. A condition that is perfectly harmonized with the heart of other scriptures such as Exodus 21 where the wife can leave over nonsupport, Jeremiah 3:8 where even God the Father issued a bill of divorce for harlotry, and Matthew 19 where Jesus shows that the same harlotry is just cause for ending this marriage.

Another point with Romans 7:1-4 or so is that at no time does this passage show that there was ever any divorce as permitted by Mosaic law. If we take it 'as written' it shows that this woman has only left her husband and gone to join with another. Without a divorce as presented by the law Paul speaks of, without the breaking of that marriage covenant, then of course she would be called an adulteress by joining herself to some man not her husband.

Pauls words in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are true. They are just harmonized with the whole of Gods word. If we fail to harmonize correctly, then we end up with absurd teachings such as ones that say that we “cannot sin†because the literal reading of 1 John 3:9 would seem to show as much when taken alone and not properly harmonized with the whole.
Without ALL of the facts we can end up drawing very wrong conclusions from very CLEAR scripures, such as presented here:
The REST of the story...

We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.[/quote:2serbvps]

 

[shad]

Follower of christ,

You go to so much trouble to avoid Jesus' warnings. Watch out. You are the one who will have to face the consequeses for making excuses and twisting verses. You are being stumbling block to weak believers.

I am done with this thread.

Good day.

 

[francisdesales]

No, friend, they say 'COMMITS'....not 'COMMITTING' as in any ongoing issue as some false ones assert.

Oh, please explain the distinction...

This is, frankly, more smoke screens. The fact is that a person who takes up another who has been previously "put aside" commits/is committing adultery...

Simple. No need for 1000's of words cut and pasted from some computer somewhere to overwhelm and bore someone while dancing around the simple words. :verysad


Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

Follower of christ,

You go to so much trouble to avoid Jesus' warnings.

If I studied like you want me to, friend, Id have to assume that Mark lied to his audience...

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.

...so do you claim that there was a sign to be given to that Generation or not ?
MARK clearly says NONE would be given....what say YOU, friend ?

Watch out.

duly noted and rejected.

You are the one who will have to face the consequeses for making excuses and twisting verses. You are being stumbling block to weak believers.

This is what you have to offer ?
Please...either refute what Ive presented or dont. I dont like wasting time with meaningless warnings.

I am done with this thread.

Good day.

We'll see
Have a nice evening...

 

[follower of Christ]

Oh, please explain the distinction...

Whew.
I HAVE shown the material here already and apparently you simply dont want to read it.
The word is in the Present Indicative form..the ONLY form in the Present that DOESNT mean any 'ongoing' state. *IF* Christ HAD meant that this adultery that was 'committed' then all that had to happen was to NOT use the Indicative form of the word.
READERS SEE->Click->>> “Committeth adultery†The Present Indicative deception

This is, frankly, more smoke screens.

In my circle of friends and students we like to call it 'study'.

The fact is that a person who takes up another who has been previously "put aside" commits/is committing adultery...

Fallacious.
Otherwise we should see a MASS exodus of these REmarriages in the New Testament and INSTRUCTION to do so for all generations to come.
The ONLY unions ordered to separate in the NT, however, are the ones in 1 Cor 5 which was incestuous and forbidden by law....and the one between Herod and his brothers wife...also incestuous and forbidden by law since Herodias HAD a daughter by Philip, Salome, and was not ever permitted to marry her husbands brother.

Christ exposed the sins of the Jews who frivolously cast their wives aside to take another....He did not state that the subsequent marriage was any 'state' of sin. That simply wasnt the point at all, Im afraid, and thus why you have to reject facts such as Pauls showing that 'one flesh' is the sexual union between man and woman, married or not..

Simple. No need for 1000's of words cut and pasted from some computer somewhere to overwhelm and bore someone while dancing around the simple words. :verysad

yeah....gee....and all those 1000s of words from your precious Early church 'fathers'...I guess we should toss out those many 1000s of words too...kwim ....

I have 1000s of words, friend, because I dedicate MY life to HIS word. Id suggest you do the same and quite relying on fallible men such as the ECFs for doctrine....men who cant even agree among themselves as to what the truth is..

 

[francisdesales]

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.

I don't need to pretend I have studied this issue for "5000 hours" and claim I wrote books worth of stuff to provide some sort of evidence that I know what I am talking about. If I can tear apart your flimsy argument with a few simple arguments, without studying every verse in the bible that speaks of marriage, I have effectively destroyed your argument.

Why? Because people read succinct arguments, not your petty derisions and exaggerations and EXCESSIVELY LENGTHY posts that do not even address what I have said...

People want "to the point" arguments, not your long winded stuff that avoids the simple Scriptures. Your false word distinctions notwithstanding.

Were YOU there ?
Please....dont insult our intelligence by pretending that YOU know what the 'first' christians did or didnt do.

Pretend? I can easily post what they wrote. Perhaps you should tone it down a little with your rhetoric. I don't need to pretend anything. I can present simple historical evidence that the first Christians did not believe in remarriage.

Was I there??? You crack me up. That's the best you can 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).

Where?

The ECFs WERENT the 'first' christian, by the way....they came a generation later well after the wolves had entered into the flock...

The wolves were entering the flock WELL BEFORE the Bible was even finished, my friend. Why would Peter, James, Jude and John need to warn their flocks to beware of such "non-existent" people??? Your view of history is quite odd.

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.

Fallible men wrote the bible, too...

The ECF are DIRECT descendants of the communities that Paul wrote to. This is directly noted in the writings themselves, if you bothered to read them. Ignatius writes to the Phillipians and Ephesians and reminds them of THEIR links to Paul. That is only one example, although I could give others, such as Clement writing to the Corinthians about the same time John was writing his Apocalypse.

Secondly the ECFs couldnt even get their thoughts straight and few of them were in any sort of harmony where doctrine was concerned.

We are not only getting off subject, but you are making it known to everyone here that you know little about the ECF... They agreed on MANY more things than they disagreed on. And remarriage was not one of those things they disagreed upon. I will await your "many" verses from the ECF that points out that the earliest Christians believed in remarriage after putting one's wife aside...

....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 ;)

Yes, I see. You pride yourself in tearing things down, like marriage first, and now the first Christians... You should be proud of yourself...

Furthermore, I don't recall saying that the ECF agreed on every single point of theology. They DID agree on remarriage. THAT was my point. When they are practically unanimous, it is relatively certain that the Church, very early, did not take your point of view, nor do they now.

The diversion was very interesting, but perhaps you can actually put your money where your mouth is, chap, and point out all the places where the ECF thought remarriage was fine and dandy according to how they interpreted Christ's Words...

Here is an example of how Christians viewed the question, in particular, the verses I am speaking of and you cannot read without comprehension. Note how they agree with my view, even though I wasn't there...

"Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, 'Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;' and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. 'He that taketh a woman that has been put away,' it is said, 'committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,' that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2:24 (A.D. 202).

Clearly, Clement understands what Matthew was saying. He sees that anyone who takes up a person formerly married is committing adultery. End of story.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

Round and round we go....

 

[francisdesales]

Whew.
I HAVE shown the material here already and apparently you simply dont want to read it.
The word is in the Present Indicative form..the ONLY form in the Present that DOESNT mean any 'ongoing' state. *IF* Christ HAD meant that this adultery that was 'committed' then all that had to happen was to NOT use the Indicative form of the word.

I don't have the time to read all of that stuff, first of all. Maybe when I have a case of insomnia, I'll get right on it.

Secondly, your entire argument is "fallacious", simply shown by one verse.

And finally, your explanation doesn't explain the difference between "commits" and "committing" in the theological sense. Splicing hairs on "indicative form" is just more smoke and mirrors. The syntax is unimportant here. Whether a person IS COMMITTING adultery or COMMITS adultery, I do not see the distinction. Again, in both cases, adultery is the end result. By making such a distinction, it is obvious that you are just trying to justify something you already believe, rather than accepting what GOD says on the matter.

In my circle of friends and students we like to call it 'study'.

Study for the purpose of blinding people with a lot of fluff.

Christ exposed the sins of the Jews who frivolously cast their wives aside to take another....He did not state that the subsequent marriage was any 'state' of sin.

Apparently you cannot read with comprehension very well...

whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.

Cut to the chase. Drop the "5000 hours of study" and simply read this sentence.

whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.

How on earth you can pretend that this is not "stating that the subsequent marriage was any state of sin" is beyond me!!! WOW! Matthew 5 has Jesus saying EVEN LOOKING AT SOMEONE ELSE WITH LUST is adultery. ;)

Ya really think that Jesus is saying it is OK to ditch the wife to take up another after making THAT statement???

I suppose if you keep posting numerous mind-numbing links and pasting from your computer, you may impress someone out there, as some people think the more volume, the better the argument. Howver, anyone who can read the red words above cannot help but see you preach a false gospel with a lot of fluff. Would you like me to post what Jesus says about leading the "little ones" astray?

:naughty

End of story.

 

[follower of Christ]

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.

I don't need to pretend I have studied this issue for "5000 hours"

So youre insinuating Im a liar then ?
I KNOW how much time Ive invested in this chap...and 5000 hours was more than a year ago.
Im not interested in your personal assessment of my ability or time in the matter. Stick to the topic.

and claim I wrote books worth of stuff to provide some sort of evidence that I know what I am talking about. If I can tear apart your flimsy argument with a few simple arguments, without studying every verse in the bible that speaks of marriage, I have effectively destroyed your argument.

You havent torn anything apart. Yovue been proven wrong here and that you are willing to distort anything you need to from scripture to keep your fallacy intact.....in your own mind, at least.

Why? Because people read succinct arguments, not your petty derisions and exaggerations and EXCESSIVELY LENGTHY posts that do not even address what I have said...

Funny that I dont see you running on about the 'lengthy' arguments of your dear ECFs...my guess is that if I were in here pushing some fallacy they believed in that youd be cheering me on. But of course, Ive been argueing this issue for some time now with those of your error, so Ive learned what to expect.

People want "to the point" arguments, not your long winded stuff that avoids the simple Scriptures. Your false word distinctions notwithstanding.

translation: "I want to hear no more that what *I* think says what *I* want to believe"

Pretend? I can easily post what they wrote.

They being whom ?
The ECFs were all over the board, chap...lets not pretend they agreed on a whole list of doctrinal issues.

Perhaps you should tone it down a little with your rhetoric.

I think you might want to look in the mirror. Your own posts havent been much more than inflamatory.

I don't need to pretend anything. I can present simple historical evidence that the first Christians did not believe in remarriage.

No, you can show that GENERATION LATER that some of these 'fathers' believed somethign that you think agrees with your own view. But when we examine the ECFs viewpoints we see that their conclusions were rarely drawn in any consistent manner as far as being in agreement with others. The most they did was agree on the final points....many times how they arrived at those points werent in agreement with other 'fathers'.
Not to mention that those such as Tertullian couldnt make up his mind what he wanted to believe in the matter.

Was I there??? You crack me up. That's the best you can do???

Apparently Im doing more than you are seeing that you cant actually present an arugemnt here but are stuck in personal jabs and innuendo.

Where?

Man you DONT read anything posted here ,do you ?

The ECFs WERENT the 'first' christian, by the way....they came a generation later well after the wolves had entered into the flock...

The wolves were entering the flock WELL BEFORE the Bible was even finished, my friend.

Paul shows quite conclusively that after his 'departure' that he knew wolves would enter in. Apparently Paul believed that it would get worse immediately after his death....and it did.
Of course Im probably prohibited from taking too many pokes at Catholic and Orthodox fallacy here.

Why would Peter, James, Jude and John need to warn their flocks to beware of such "non-existent" people??? Your view of history is quite odd.

Hardly.
You simply read INTO my statements something not said or intended.

Fallible men wrote the bible, too...

So youre calling Gods word fallible then ? Remarkable.

The ECF are DIRECT descendants of the communities that Paul wrote to.

Irrelevant.
That the ECFs were in disagreement in ANY area of doctrine shows that they CANNOT be trusted FOR doctrine.
Or are you claiming that the writers of scripture such as Paul are also subject to error as the ECFs and therefore so is Gods word ?

This is directly noted in the writings themselves, if you bothered to read them.

Ive read enough to know that I wouldnt trust even one of these 'fathers' for doctrine.

Ignatius writes to the Phillipians and Ephesians and reminds them of THEIR links to Paul. That is only one example, although I could give others, such as Clement writing to the Corinthians about the same time John was writing his Apocalypse.

You could give whatever you want...and it will be rejected as I accept ONLY the scriptures themselves as being infalllible and trustworthy for doctrine.

We are not only getting off subject, but you are making it known to everyone here that you know little about the ECF...

Hardly friend. What Im showing everyone here is that I trust GODS word...not men who couldnt agree on enough to show that they werent 'inspired' in any way, shape or form.

They agreed on MANY more things than they disagreed on.

Ridiculous.
So your view is that its 'ok' if they taught fallacy in SOME points as long as they agreed on MOST points ?
That sort of thought is the root of all heresy and error.

And remarriage was not one of those things they disagreed upon.

Tertuallian, chap....he didnt agree with the rest.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... ?f=22&t=73

I will await your "many" verses from the ECF that points out that the earliest Christians believed in remarriage after putting one's wife aside...

READERS SEE->Click->>> Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
READERS SEE->Click->>> Evidences of Remarriage II - Polygamy

*I* am awaiting even ONE verse from GODS word that tells REmarried couples to divorce.
Ill expect it in your next post...

Yes, I see. You pride yourself in tearing things down, like marriage first, and now the first Christians... You should be proud of yourself...

They WERENT the 'first' christians, poster. they came an entire generation later and at a point where satan was corrupting MUCH of the teachings of the church..

Furthermore, I don't recall saying that the ECF agreed on every single point of theology.

Yet you seem to think that *WE* ought to accept their views on remarriage.
If they disagreed on doctrine then they CANNOT be trusted for ANY doctrine.

They DID agree on remarriage. THAT was my point. When they are practically unanimous, it is relatively certain that the Church, very early, did not take your point of view, nor do they now.

conveniently you cover your tracks by saying 'practicially'.
Sorry but Tertuallian for some time DIDNT agree with others in the matter.

The diversion was very interesting, but perhaps you can actually put your money where your mouth is, chap, and point out all the places where the ECF thought remarriage was fine and dandy according to how they interpreted Christ's Words...

sho nuff...
(tho I find it somewhat amusing that you actually believed Id make a claim I couldnt back up. Maybe next time youll study the matter out before trying to force me into a corner ;) )

Tertullian on Adultery
By WmTipton

Tertullian 150ad - ~230ad

This page isnt to prove that I agree with these ECFs on any matter. It is soley to show that there were teachings like ours today that do not forbid all remarriage just because the person is divorced.

It is notable that Tertullian did at some later point get involved with a heretical group called the Montanists who did believe that remarriage is forbidden. Tertullian also seems to have adopted the view that even the widow(er) isn't in Gods will if they remarry. This seems to have been a ploy to prevent his wife from remarrying after his death.



[quote:ag5umqeh]The Writings of Tertullian
Part Fourth
IV. To His Wife.
Book II.
Chap. I. - Reasons Which Led to the Writing of this Second Book

"Very lately, best beloved fellow-servant in the Lord, I, as my ability permitted, entered for your benefit at some length into the question what course is to be followed by a holy woman when her marriage has (in whatever way) been brought to an end. Let us now turn our attention to the next best advice, in regard of human infirmity; admonished hereto by the examples of certain, who, when an opportunity for the practice of Continence has been offered them, by divorce, or by the decease of the husband, have not only thrown away the opportunity of attaining so great a good, but not even in their remarriage have chosen to be mindful of the rule that “above all they marry in the Lord.â€Â

Hardly sounds like a prohibition agaisnt remarriage after divorce....only to marry 'in the Lord' after death or divorce..

Tertullian
The Five Books Against Marcion
Book 4

"But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery.†(Luk_16:18)

In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: “When a man hath taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house.†(Deu_24:1)

You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel- between Moses and Christ To be sure there is! But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ.

There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: “Moses,†says He, “because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so†(Mat_19:8) - for this reason, indeed, because He who had “made them male and female†had likewise said, “They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.†(Mat_19:4, Mat_19:6)

Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine.

When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated than abolished the enactment of Moses?
But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them.

I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another.

His words are: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery,†(Luk_16:8) - “put away,†that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained.

For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is undivorced.

Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery.

Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition.

In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms.
If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself?

Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know, does not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.†(1Co_6:15)
Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender.

So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.†(Mat_5:32) He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband.

The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife.

(Deu_22:28-29) Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: “Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth.†(Mal_2:15)
Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in for-bidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape.

He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable;
He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness.

You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have915 now to show whence the Lord derived this decision of His, and to what end He directed it. It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John.

[/quote:ag5umqeh]

 

[follower of Christ]

Here is an example of how Christians viewed the question, in particular, the verses I am speaking of and you cannot read without comprehension. Note how they agree with my view, even though I wasn't there...

"Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, 'Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;' and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. 'He that taketh a woman that has been put away,' it is said, 'committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,' that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2:24 (A.D. 202).

Clearly, Clement understands what Matthew was saying. He sees that anyone who takes up a person formerly married is committing adultery. End of story.

No, CHAP, the END of the story is that the ECFs DIDNT agree and ARENT trustworthy for doctrine as ALL of their writings are fallible and not part of INFALLIBLE scripture.

Tertullian on Adultery
By WmTipton

Tertullian 150ad - ~230ad

This page isnt to prove that I agree with these ECFs on any matter. It is soley to show that there were teachings like ours today that do not forbid all remarriage just because the person is divorced.

It is notable that Tertullian did at some later point get involved with a heretical group called the Montanists who did believe that remarriage is forbidden. Tertullian also seems to have adopted the view that even the widow(er) isn't in Gods will if they remarry. This seems to have been a ploy to prevent his wife from remarrying after his death.



[quote:3k1fa0b5]The Writings of Tertullian
Part Fourth
IV. To His Wife.
Book II.
Chap. I. - Reasons Which Led to the Writing of this Second Book

"Very lately, best beloved fellow-servant in the Lord, I, as my ability permitted, entered for your benefit at some length into the question what course is to be followed by a holy woman when her marriage has (in whatever way) been brought to an end. Let us now turn our attention to the next best advice, in regard of human infirmity; admonished hereto by the examples of certain, who, when an opportunity for the practice of Continence has been offered them, by divorce, or by the decease of the husband, have not only thrown away the opportunity of attaining so great a good, but not even in their remarriage have chosen to be mindful of the rule that “above all they marry in the Lord.â€Â

Hardly sounds like a prohibition agaisnt remarriage after divorce....only to marry 'in the Lord' after death or divorce..

Tertullian
The Five Books Against Marcion
Book 4

"But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery.†(Luk_16:18)

In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: “When a man hath taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house.†(Deu_24:1)

You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel- between Moses and Christ To be sure there is! But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ.

There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: “Moses,†says He, “because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so†(Mat_19:8) - for this reason, indeed, because He who had “made them male and female†had likewise said, “They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.†(Mat_19:4, Mat_19:6)

Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine.

When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated than abolished the enactment of Moses?
But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them.

I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another.

His words are: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery,†(Luk_16:8) - “put away,†that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained.

For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is undivorced.

Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry,905 therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery.

Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition.

In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms.
If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself?

Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know, does not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.†(1Co_6:15)
Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender.

So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.†(Mat_5:32) He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband.

The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife.

(Deu_22:28-29) Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: “Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth.†(Mal_2:15)
Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in for-bidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape.

He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable;
He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness.

You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have915 now to show whence the Lord derived this decision of His, and to what end He directed it. It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John.

[/quote:3k1fa0b5]