Divorce and Luke 16:18

[follower of Christ]

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.

of course not.
Thats the difference between the two of us...between me and all of your error....*I* will make the time to READ every word you all post because what you say doesnt worry me that I might be wrong.

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

So you claim....and have yet to prove...but of course we see again that you erroneously believe that truth in the matter is found in ONE verse....just as I said some time back.
As I told the other poster...*IF* I were to study as YOU demand Id have to assume that Mark was a flaming liar...

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.

versus

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)

ONE verse RARELY is the WHOLE truth Gods word and in ALL cases context and harmony with the WHOLE is where we find the truth....

And finally, your explanation doesn't explain the difference between "commits" and "committing" in the theological sense.

Sure it does....to one who wants to harmonize the whole instead of hiding behind two or three partial verses robbed of all context and meaning...

Splicing hairs on "indicative form" is just more smoke and mirrors.
The syntax is unimportant here.

:D
yeah...Ive seen this nonsense before. ...."pay no attention to what is SAID...believe what I TELL you to believe" :rolling
The syntax is in PERFECT harmony with the WHOLE word of God that NEVER shows a single remarried couple being told to divorce except where those unions were forbidden by law to begin with (incestuous)

Whether a person IS COMMITTING adultery or COMMITS adultery, I do not see the distinction.

Of course you dont.
I present words of those who DO know the greek and YOU dont see the distinction ;)
IF you did see it it would shatter your error...so why would we expect you to say you see it ?

Again, in both cases, adultery is the end result.

Adultery is the result of frivolously casting out a wife to take another....on that point I agree entirely. It says NOTHING concerning the 'state' of the subsequent remarriage. Christ exposed the sinful ACTs of the Jews. He didnt tell them to rip apart second marriages to reunite former ones...nor was that His point in the least.

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.

sorry chap but *I* am not the one who made the distinction....the biblical writers did when they chose to use words in the forms that they did.

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

Just as I see with your 'fathers' of the early church who clearly didnt agree on every detail.


--irrelevance snipped--

whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.

"EXCEPT for fornication"

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

whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.

"EXCEPT for fornication"
"EXCEPT for fornication"
"EXCEPT for fornication"
"EXCEPT for fornication"

How on earth you can pretend that this is not "stating that the subsequent marriage was any state of sin" is beyond me!!!

I think I already covered this point and you had to handwave it away. There is NO ongoing 'state' in the Present Indicative form of the word.
READERS SEE->Click->>> “Committeth adultery†The Present Indicative deception

WOW! Matthew 5 has Jesus saying EVEN LOOKING AT SOMEONE ELSE WITH LUST is adultery. ;)

WOW...and that PROVES the point that Jesus is EXPOSING the SINs of the Jews who believed they WERENT sinning when they did things like exacting revenge on their enemies because they MISunderstood the law....just as you do with your twisting and rejecting to suit your own needs.

Jesus is RIGHT...a man who throws out his wife WITHOUT cause to marry another DOES commit adultery....Jesus' words make NO statement about any 'ongoing' state in the subsequent remarriage as that wasnt His point. He exposed their sin...He didnt create new ones.

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

I think Jesus told the Jews that throwing away an innocent wife to take another one is to commit sin against her.

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.

I suppose if you keep posting irrelevance from these 'fathers' you might impress someone too.....not myself and those who understand that those men cant be trusted for doctrine as they couldnt even agree among themselves. ;)

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?

Conveniently, and most likely purposefully, you left out the passages with 'EXCEPT for FORNICATION'...showing quite conclusively that you are trying to keep us from understanding the WHOLE truth in the matter

:naughty

End of story.

Please....

 

[francisdesales]

I have glanced at your post and have given some thought to it before I respond. In one thing, you are correct. We are going "round and round". The reader has no doubt gotten bored, so I'll make this my last post and let the readers decide for themselves. After reflecting on the direction these posts are going, I am thinking I do not desire to be pulled down to the level of name-calling and such tactics.

Now, to your responses...

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.

I will give you a face-saving option here.

"I didn't mean I literally sat down for 8 hours a day for over 600 days on the topic of marriage in the Scriptures. Sorry for the confusion, I exaggerated a bit."

Funny that I dont see you running on about the 'lengthy' arguments of your dear ECFs...

I do not desire to make long posts even longer with quotations that merely "pile on" with devastating effectiveness. I certainly could, if anyone is interested, they can PM me and I'll provide the numerous citations that remarriage was not permitted. I earlier said as much when I mentioned people like shorter and more succinct posts to the point. So I just gave one example. When the earliest Christians are practically unanimous (I don't use "unanimous" because there MAY be one who sides with you that I have not found) on the issue, the historical evidence is just one more piece of the puzzle that makes your argument fallacious.

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

Fallacious and irrelevant arguments, chap. We are speaking of "remarriage" for Christians. When the first Christians are practically unanimous on the issue, it is useful to bring them up, since they are an historical reference that tells us what THEY heard on the subject. If practically unanimous we can be relatively certain that you disagree with Christians who went to the lions for Christ, who heard with their own ears from the Apostles. They had NUMEROUS more explanations from these apostles than the few verses WE have in the bible... As to the ECF, if we were speaking of the millenium, I wouldn't mention them to make an argument. I use them because they show a nearly (again, I don't use absolutes very often) unanimous consensus.

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.

You are off topic, and will not address this further. This is not about the ECF's and the totality of their usefulness in all topics Christian, but rather, ONE SUBJECT. I wait with abated breath for your "5000 hours" of research to cull a quote that says that a Christian can divorce and remarry someone put aside previously from someone who was not a heretic...

One would expect, if one really DID do 5000 hours of research, to have AT LEAST consulted with historical witnesses to find what THEY believed???

That the ECFs were in disagreement in ANY area of doctrine shows that they CANNOT be trusted FOR doctrine.

Which means, that since you can be wrong, you cannot be trusted for doctrine...

OK. Very well. I can subscribe to that.

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

Perhaps you were unaware that Tertulian was a heretic in the later part of his life? Are you aware of his excessively rigorist views and his belief in Montanism and that the words of Montanus were the direct words of the Paraclete? He broke from the Catholic Church officially around 210. Thus, citing his works from his Montanist, non-Catholic views, are not indicative of the Church's practice. You merely give me quotes from the time he left the Church, preaching his brand of error. Citing a heretic is not indicative of what the Church actually taught.

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

Irrelevent to our conversation. A couple in such a situation is committing adultery and is not bound by God. God did not join an adulterous couple.

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..

That is your false opinions. Apparently, the idea that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth has no meaning, nor does Christ's protection against the gates of hell.

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.

Yes, the Gospel is MORE strict, not less. Even LOOKING at a woman with lust was adultery. I already said this, but you ignored it.

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.

Which is why you ignore Christ's very clear words that I have highlighted in red?

... and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

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.

God allowed divorce due to the hardness of their hearts. It was lawful for the Jews. However, Christ was returning the People of God to the teachings that God intended. Now, the People of God were ready, after long preparation, for the teachings of the Messiah, which were more strict in many ways than the teachings of Moses, although Christ said that they were an easy burden to bear. Thus, calling your brother names potentially subjected one to judgment. Looking at another woman could be adultery. WAY BEYOND what Moses taught. But Christ is teaching about love from the heart, not following the written letter while hating one's brother in the heart.

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.

Of course. And if one did, they committed adultery.

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

And Christ says what about separating what HE put together??? YOU do not have the right to "dissolve" anything God put together into one flesh...

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.

Smoke and mirrors, since man doesn't have the power to unbind what God has bound.

If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ

I didn't say that. I will repeat one more time. A person can separate due to fornication, but cannot remarry. The Pauline privelege is the only exception from Scriptures. And since Christ was speaking to Jews, and by Apostolic contact, Christians, His absolute is only intended for those of the People of God. Those who remain Gentile are not bound to Christian law.

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?

We are now off topic. Suffice to say that the Eucharist is a sign of our unity. Thus, it would be false ecumenicism that would allow one to partake in the Body when they do not have the one faith. The Eucharist is ANOTHER example of "nearly unanimous" ECF teaching. (I have not found one citation to the contrary)

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.

We are not speaking of divorce, but remarriage... I made that clear in my very first post and continue to repeat that again. Please try to keep that in mind.

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.

See above. Or do you just enjoy arguing about things I already have agreed with from the very first post???

I will close this long reply with several points.

1. We are speaking of divorce and remarriage of two Christians. Much of what you say does not even pertain to the subject, since I am not arguing against divorce or separation. My very first post states that, as have subsequent posts.

2. You have not provided a legitimate response to Matthew 19:9b. Hiding behind Greek syntax does not make the problem go away. No matter the tense, at the end of the day, adultery is the result of taking a spouse who has been put aside, or vice versus. That by itself is enough to destroy your entire argument.

3. The Church Fathers are practically unanimous on interpreting the Scriptures the same way. Citing a heretic will not do. It is clear that the early Christians did not allow remarriage except in the Pauline privelege exception.

4. You have a misguided view of "one flesh", as well as a misunderstanding of what a "harlot" refers to in Scriptures. This has twisted your eigesis of Scriptures.

5. Finally, you ignore the implications of Paul's analogy in Ephesians, when he compares Christ and the Church to a marriage, a great mystery. Your view has God divorcing the unfaithful Church and taking another bride, which we have absolutely no Scriptural warrant to indicate this.

I will now close and let the reader muse upon these summary statements and let them judge how you have answered them. I do not intend on discussing this issue anymore, since there is no point in arguing with obstinancy and wading through smoke and mirrors.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.
"EXCEPT for fornication"

To clarify:

The "except for fornication" applies to divorcing someone, not to taking another wife. Read what is actually there...

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.

Note, the exception is in the first sentence. Not the second. Marrying someone who has been put aside commits adultery. That is how Christians understood this passage, as did Paul:

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 1 Cor 7:39

The exception is the Pauline privelege, if one is not a Christian, since the Law does not bind the Gentile, only God's People.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

From this point forward, Francis, I am only responding to relevance in your posts. I dont have time or the desire to respond to your personal remarks any more...

Perhaps you were unaware that Tertulian was a heretic in the later part of his life?

READERS....please look at the short article of mine that I posted here about Tertullian and SEE what *I* said right from the start...

"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"

I posted it not once, but TWICE, and even named the group he joined by name... and apparently Francis isnt actually READING a single thing here.

 

[follower of Christ]

Which is why you ignore Christ's very clear words that I have highlighted in red?

... and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

Like a broken record....

EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION !
the exception, regardless of YOUR twist, applies to the ENTIRE statement.

 

[follower of Christ]

whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.
"EXCEPT for fornication"

To clarify:

The "except for fornication" applies to divorcing someone, not to taking another wife. Read what is actually there...

No, friend, it doesnt.
it applies to the ENTIRE statement, and we can see precisely why YOU need to twist it into something that it isnt. Youre trying to play on the way interpretors have worded ONE part of a verse to make your views work and Im sorry that just isnt going to fly.
The exception applies to the ENTIRE statement...which is ONLY logical.

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

'

Note, the exception is in the first sentence. Not the second.

Nice try. I suppose you know nothing about Greek, then ?
Where is the puncuation in the greek sentence, poster ?
Youre playing a game with the wording that you arent authorized to play.
The context of the WHOLE, and they way Matthew 19 is worded by comparison, shows us that Christs exception applies to the ENTIRE statement.

I hope you have better than this to offer me, poster as you are presently wasting my time...

 

[follower of Christ]

I wait with abated breath for your "5000 hours" of research to cull a quote that says that a Christian can divorce and remarry someone put aside previously from someone who was not a heretic...

:rolling
You asked for evidence, I provided it.
Then when you realized i COULD provide it, you then change the rules of engagement. Your hilarious. I gave the evidence as I said I could. Your rejection of Tertullian, one CALLED a 'father' in every resource *I* own, is quite irrelevant. But it does show us that you ARENT actually interested in anything that exposes your error.

 

[follower of Christ]

God allowed divorce due to the hardness of their hearts. It was lawful for the Jews. However, Christ was returning the People of God to the teachings that God intended.

Oh my goodness.
Its almost as if you are claiming that God was 'ok' with the Jews divorcing, chap.
NOTHING CHANGED!
God didnt like the Jews doing what they did and He DOESNT like it any more than what WE do. He HATES putting away....period.
And tho He hates putting away, He allows it to protect the innocent.

Divorce ENDS the marriage covenant, poster...otherwise Moses was a liar and a heretic.
Christ changed NOTHING about divorce...not one word He gave REdefined what Divorce does.
He declared that to divorce AS they were, without just cause, to remarry another, was to commit adutlery....THAT is His words....THAT is HIs intent !

 

[follower of Christ]

One would expect, if one really DID do 5000 hours of research, to have AT LEAST consulted with historical witnesses to find what THEY believed???

Frankly my time studying the ECFs ABOUT MDR is THE reason I determined that they werent trustworthy for doctrine in ANY way at all.

Prior to my MDR studies I had believed that the 'fathers' were basically just early christian scholars and would be great to look to for doctrine and instruction...that is precisely why I went to them also to see what their views were.
Looking as you do, at the surface and their conclusions, I figured they had a reason to believe what they did.
Digging in deeper, however, it wasnt too long before I realized that even when they draw the same conclusion many times they are coming from entirely different directions to arrive at that conclusion...almost as tho, like you, they had a preconceived viewpoint and then sat down to try to prove it instead of letting the words speak for themselves from the scriptures to create a harmonious whole as I have spent so much time doing..checking and rechecking my own facts to be sure every detail is in perfect alignment with the spirit of the whole word....rather than picking at half a verse as you do and acting like it presents the whole truth.

As I say...if I studied as some do Id have to accuse Mark of being a liar because of his casually leaving out that there WAS to be a sign given to that generation...

 

[follower of Christ]

I will close this long reply with several points.

a long reply which was more about irrelevance and not really worth responding to very much.
Id prefer that you actually make some points from scripture so that we can have a real discussion here instead of running to writers whose views are irrelevant as they arent inspired in the least.

1. We are speaking of divorce and remarriage of two Christians. Much of what you say does not even pertain to the subject, since I am not arguing against divorce or separation. My very first post states that, as have subsequent posts.

ALL of what I said relates to the topic. YOU are the one who had to bring in irrelevance into this discussion with your threat of these 'fathers' of whom Ive no interest. I already know the tripe they pushed....I dont need to see it again.

Divorce ENDS the marriage covenant. Christ did NOT change the definition of divorce or what it does. He EXPOSED the sins of the Jews who were frivolously divorcing simply to marry another...just as we see example of with Herod and Herodias.
Herod and Herodias

Divorce STILL ends the marriage covenant. The Jews believed that because they were 'freed' from their marriages that they did not sin...all Jesus did was to show them that even tho they WERE divorced because of the way they were divorcing without cause they sinned against her and caused everyone involved to 'commit' sin....(not ongoing in any way).

You have MISSED His point entirely.

2. You have not provided a legitimate response to Matthew 19:9b.

And so you prove that you hide behind HALF a verse...truth is rarely found in HALF a verse, friend.
Shall *I* start presenting error for YOU to refute using PARTIAL passages and mangled verses ?

Hiding behind Greek syntax does not make the problem go away.

it does FAR more than your hiding behing HALF a verse that doesnt actually say what you need it to.

No matter the tense, at the end of the day, adultery is the result of taking a spouse who has been put aside, or vice versus.

You hear this readers?
it doesnt actually MATTER what Christ words were rendered as, what form they used because Francis here has declared that remarriage is adultery...period.
Forget the FACT that the TENSE of a word VERY much has bearing on what is being said. :crazy

That by itself is enough to destroy your entire argument.

In your own fantasy world, it may be.
In the real world where WORDS are used to convey THOUGHTS using a word that DOESNT mean 'ongoing into perpetuity' DOES show us Christs intent.

3. The Church Fathers are practically unanimous on interpreting the Scriptures the same way. Citing a heretic will not do. It is clear that the early Christians did not allow remarriage except in the Pauline privelege exception.

Tertullian was a 'father', Im afraid. Anyone that disagrees with your error or your churches error is going to be dubbed a 'heretic'....just as we expect.
The ECFs are no longer part of this discussion.
I proved my point with them, and if you bring them up again I will simply ignore that part of your post.
GODS WORD is the ONLY INfallible data we have here..please stick to the INSPIRED word or be ignored.

4. You have a misguided view of "one flesh", as well as a misunderstanding of what a "harlot" refers to in Scriptures. This has twisted your eigesis of Scriptures.

My view of 'one flesh' is in perfect harmony with GODS word, Im afraid. YOU are the one who has made it into some invisible 'chain' binding where it does not actually bind.
Paul is on my side in the matter, Im afraid....

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-)

Oddly enough *I* can provide WHOLE verses, WHOLE chapters if necessary, to support MY views.
The WHOLE verse there shows EXACTLY what I have claimed...that even being with a harlot it is 'one flesh'...
You rip a verse in half to push your error and then cant accept the CLEAR evidence from somethign that I dont have to dismantle in the least but can present it INTACT.
Pretty funny study method you have there. Its no wonder your views dont agree with Gods WHOLE word...

5. Finally, you ignore the implications of Paul's analogy in Ephesians, when he compares Christ and the Church to a marriage, a great mystery. Your view has God divorcing the unfaithful Church and taking another bride, which we have absolutely no Scriptural warrant to indicate this.

Ignore ?
Give me a break, chap...the point hasnt exactly been a huge one in this discussion at this point. You just needed to ask...

READERS SEE >>>>>>Ephesians 5 and the 'mystery' of the church and marriage

I will now close and let the reader muse upon these summary statements and let them judge how you have answered them. I do not intend on discussing this issue anymore, since there is no point in arguing with obstinancy and wading through smoke and mirrors.

Regards

Smoke and mirrors....such as providing HALF a verse for us to ponder upon while *I* can present entire verses and whole chapters if need be ?

We'll see if you can keep from discussing it again....

God bless

Perhaps you were unaware that Tertulian was a heretic in the later part of his life?

READERS....please look at the short article of mine that I posted here about Tertullian and SEE what *I* said right from the start...

"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"

I posted it not once, but TWICE, and apparently this Francis person isnt actually READING a single thing here.

 

[Rick W]

:fight

 

[follower of Christ]

And Christ says what about separating what HE put together??? YOU do not have the right to "dissolve" anything God put together into one flesh...

You seem to be confusing MY words with those of Tertullians. Please pay attention.

PAUL is the one, friend, who shows that man DOES have the ability to put asunder/dissolve a marriage. Im afraid you will just have to get over that fact.

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
READERS SEE->Click->>> Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"


.

 

[follower of Christ]

:fight

 

[francisdesales]

Like a broken record....

EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION !
the exception, regardless of YOUR twist, applies to the ENTIRE statement.

Only according to your already preconceived notions you bring to the table. Why would Jesus talk about "what God has joined together, let no man separate" and then tell us that people can put aside their wives and remarry another for "fornication". It is twisting Scriptures out of context. Surely, your "thousands of hours of research" should have gleaned for you the simple context does not support what you are no doubt trying to justify?

Other Scriptures merely clarify the words of Christ.

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Romans 7:2-3

Obviously, Paul is not talking about the Mosaic Law, since Moses DID give the Jews the option of putting their wives aside.

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 1 Cor 7:39

In addition, Paul states in Ephesians 5 a metaphor that suggests that Christ's relationship to His Church is akin to a marriage. Yet again, Paul does not agree with you.

Not only Scriptures themselves, but the earliest Christians note the same thing. No remarriage.

But as you said, it is just a broken record that does not register with you.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

Here is the article about Ephesians 5...the link I posted seemed to have some problem...

Ephesians 5 and the 'mystery' of the church and marriage
WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
[quote:clw5n7gy]This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
(Eph 5:32)

Some try to assert that Ephesians 5 is making a statement about the default state of marriage, as though these things apply to a marriage BY default.
We will show here that that is not the case but that instead it is a state that is DESIRED for marriage and is a RESPONSIBILITY of the married couple themselves to CREATE this marital state between them that is supposed to mimic the relationship between Christ and His church.

Supporting Evidence
The evidence is from the very passage itself and is very clearly shown not as existing by default but plainly being presented as OUR responsibility to bring these things into being ourselves in our marriages.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself as the glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So men ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord loves the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. But also let everyone of you in particular so love his wife even as himself, and the wife that she defers to her husband.
(Eph 5:22-33)

All thru this passage we see Paul showing how WE are to MAKE our marriages to be by our ACTIONS.
This state does not necessarily pre exist in any marriage, otherwise there would be no need for Paul to instruct it.
The relationship Christ as with His church is Christs responsibility to maintain with His bride...and He does. But that does not impart any 'state' into marriage between a man and his wife by default.
Instead we are instructed to take appropriate actions to MAKE the marriage mimic the relationship that Christ has with His church, since the marriage union is supposed to simulate the union between God and man when they are in fellowship.

This passage in Ephesians cannot be used to make claims that one flesh and marriage are something by default, but instead is to show us OUR responsibility to make it this way.
This passage in no one implies that 'one flesh' exists after a divorce, nor is it meant to even remotely claim as much.
The only goal therein is to teach husbands and wives what they must do in order to achieve this relationship that Christ has with His church.
This passages isnt about preexisting states simply because one is married. it is about what OUR jobs are to MAKE our marriages this way.[/quote:clw5n7gy]

 

[francisdesales]

Here is the article about Ephesians 5...the link I posted seemed to have some problem...

The article dwells on a fallacious assumption: That Paul is speaking of the "default state of marriage". The subject of the analogy is Christ's relationship to the Church to express what marriage should be like. Paul refers to marriage as a description of Christ's relationship. The analogy would fail, IF the Christian marriage was based on such loose rules that Mr. Tipton suggests.

As I said before, IF the Christian understood that it was OK to divorce and remarry, then the analogy of Christ and His Church is lost. Paul doesn't make worthless analogies. It is clear that HE understood marriage to be of one flesh, inseparable by anything of man, just as Jesus says to the Jews. He was making no allowances for remarriage. Paul writes to the Corinthians and the Romans, at the least, that those who are married in a Christian marriage are bound NOT to marry again, until the DEATH of a spouse. Quite in accordance to what Christ said in Matthew and Mark.

Regards

 

[shad]

But as you said, it is just a broken record that does not register with you.

Regards

I agree, it is just ridiculous continuing on and on. Many christians take marriage bow so lightly, and when things don't work out the way expected, they look for the loophole to justify their breaking the bow without paying the consequenses. Pastors and priests should be ashamed of themseves for not educating their people about seriousness of marriage bow. It is shameful.

 

[follower of Christ]

So much for not sticking around to argue the issue further...eh ;)

Only according to your already preconceived notions you bring to the table.

Sorry chap, but when I became interested in the topic I laid down what I believed and went at the study in prayer and completely willing to do whatever I found I might have to do...even if it meant divorcing my wife.
I love my wife but *IF* Gods word DID actually show that my marriage was a state of sin Id divorce her in a heartbeat, tho I would continue to provide for her.
So your accusation is nothing but simply repeating my own against your views....which I notice you seem to do a lot of here.

Why would Jesus talk about "what God has joined together, let no man separate" and then tell us that people can put aside their wives and remarry another for "fornication".

Because the POINT of Christs words ISNT to NEVER allow divorce...sometimes divorce HAS to be permitted for the sake of the innocent.

And friend you severely contradict your own words.
You just presented to LET NO MAN SEPARATE...then in this very thread you say that SEPARATION IS OK...
In one breath you say its NOT about the separation but about the REmarriage...then in the next you say LET NO MAN SEPARATE....MAKE up your MIND !

It is twisting Scriptures out of context. Surely, your "thousands of hours of research" should have gleaned for you the simple context does not support what you are no doubt trying to justify?

YOu mean like forcing HALF a verse down a persons throat while *I* can provide whole verses and passages intact ? That sort of twisting ?

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Romans 7:2-3

Firstly Romans there ISNT about marriage..its about the transition from the old covenant to the new....talk about ripping things OUT of CONTEXT.

Secondly Paul was speaking to those who 'know the law'...the Mosaic law.
Those who KNOW the LAW would KNOW that there IS provision IN the law for divorcing WITHOUT the death of the spouse ...Deut 24:1-4....so something about this passage you seem to believe is quite fallacious.

Thirdly, NO divorce is mentioned there.
While a MAN could take more than one wife, if a woman was still married and joined herself to another man she WOULD be committing adultery....women were not allowed multiple husbands.

So apparenlty you again have not accounted for all and harmonized ALL of the relevant data but simply seek to INSERT your views into anything you can.

Obviously, Paul is not talking about the Mosaic Law, since Moses DID give the Jews the option of putting their wives aside.

Paul is talking about those who 'knowthe law'..the mosaic law....and comparing it to this 'law of the husband' which has existed since Adam and Eve

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 1 Cor 7:39

The 'law of the husband' is quite conditional.
>>>>>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)
Now I ask you this....since it says she is 'bound by law till he dies'...please for our education SHOW us WHERE in the law it actually SAYS that a wife is bound until the husbands death.

In addition, Paul states in Ephesians 5 a metaphor that suggests that Christ's relationship to His Church is akin to a marriage. Yet again, Paul does not agree with you.

No, you simply INSERT intent into Ephesians that ISNT actually there.
>>>>>> Ephesians 5 and the 'mystery' of the church and marriage

Not only Scriptures themselves, but the earliest Christians note the same thing. No remarriage.

Fallacious.
Tertullian proves your statement wrong..

 

[francisdesales]

You seem to be confusing MY words with those of Tertullians. Please pay attention.

PAUL is the one, friend, who shows that man DOES have the ability to put asunder/dissolve a marriage. Im afraid you will just have to get over that fact.

No, Paul does NOT separate what God joins...!!!

Christ said let no man put asunder, yet YOU would have an exception IMMEDIATELY AFTER Christ says this. You have entirely diminished the Words of Christ.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God does not join the heathen "marriages". Only those of His People, either the Jews or the Christians. Either the people of the Old or New Covenant. The community does not bind those who are not of the community.

I remind you of the terms of the Pauline privelege...

It applies to the non-Christian, one not bound by the Law, either established by Moses OR Christ. Thus, Paul provides a pastoral exception, since Christ was addressing the People of God, not all people throughout the world. God does not join a "marriage" outside of the Church.

Try to remember, in Christ's "time", there WERE no Gentile marriages allowed by the Law then in force. It was against the Law to marry a non-believer. Thus, Jesus would not address the "Pauline privelege". Only later, when Christians married Gentile non-believers did Paul find it necessary to address the issue.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

The article dwells on a fallacious assumption: That Paul is speaking of the "default state of marriage". The subject of the analogy is Christ's relationship to the Church to express what marriage should be like. Paul refers to marriage as a description of Christ's relationship. The analogy would fail, IF the Christian marriage was based on such loose rules that Mr. Tipton suggests.

Paul shows what the relationship in marriage is SUPPOSED to be. Not that it IS in that state BY default
Beyond that is YOUR insertion into the text.

As I said before, IF the Christian understood that it was OK to divorce and remarry, then the analogy of Christ and His Church is lost. Paul doesn't make worthless analogies.

Fallacious nonsense.
Under the law the women COULD NOT take MORE than ONE husband...she would be an adulteress if she did.
THAT is the point of Romans 7 there. It has NOTHING to do with divorce and remarriage as putting away or divorce ISNT mentioned at all.

It is clear that HE understood marriage to be of one flesh, inseparable by anything of man, just as Jesus says to the Jews.

Sorry but Jesus NEVER said what you seem to claim.
*IF* it WERE inseparable....(CHORIZO is the word used in Christs words for 'put asunder/separate)..then PAUL was a LIAR who shows that man CAN separate (same word CHORIZO) and evne instructs the believer to LET IT BE SO !....
Christ said LET NOT man do so....He NEVER said 'CAN NOT" and *IF* He had then Paul WOULD be a lying heretic using the EXACT word in his own concession used to render Christs words.

He was making no allowances for remarriage.

In your fallacious opinion.
The WHOLE of Gods word and the evidence therein shows that remarriage is simply assumed post divorce or death of a spouse and ONLY where it is prohibitied is one to refrain.
'The instruction to remain UNmarried applies ONLY to those marriages that were EQUALLY yoked...and of course TWO christians should get their acts together and work it out ...if for no other reason than to not bring an infamous name on His church.

Paul writes to the Corinthians and the Romans, at the least, that those who are married in a Christian marriage are bound NOT to marry again, until the DEATH of a spouse. Quite in accordance to what Christ said in Matthew and Mark.

Sorry but again there is a CONtEXT there...same as with Christs...the Corinthians felt they might need to divorce jsut because their spouse was not saved.
Paul tells them NOT to put them away and reaffirms that marriage is for life....