Divorce and Remarriage - does God allow it?

[follower of Christ]

I'm sorry Follower,

Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me. The straining you do to make a point is really not necessary. And I will debate this no more with you.

Thats fine.
Hardly ''straining'' more like taking the time to "rightly divide"

Jesus said it plainly:

Matthew 19:9: And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife,
except for fornication (which means ANYTHING sexual before marriage), and shall marry another commiteth adultry: and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultry.

Thats right, HE said ''except for porneia'' (WHICH MEANS ANY UNLAWFUL SEXUAL ACT by anyone, anywhere, single, betrothed or post consumation) or otherwise Paul was ONLY stating to abstain from PREmarital sex in Acts 15....which we know is false.

Mark 10:11-12: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrieth another commiteth adultry against her. v12- And if a woman shall put away her husband, and marrieth another, she comitteth adultry.

Luke 16:18 Whoso putteth away his wife and marrieth another, commiteth adultry: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commiteth adultry.

Yup, these are true when taken in context with the matthew passage.
I agree 100%

Plain and simple. Jesus came to fulfill the law. He abrogated Moses allowance and establishsed the standard that HE held from the beginning: ONE MAN WITH ONE WOMAN- FOR LIFE. Anything else JESUS calls adultry.

Is having sex with brothers or animals ok now?
Jesus didnt say it is, and since He ''abrogated' the law of Moses, I guess those things are ''ok'' now?

Jesus did not do away with divorce.
Youre comment is completely contradictory.
You say He ''abrogated'' Moses permission, but you also have shown that PREmarital sex makes divorce ok.

HAS IT BEEN ABROGATED OR NOT ?

This isn't about the opinion of ANY man- JESUS is clear. (And the beloved apostle Paul makes the SAME assertions in both Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Cor. 7:39).

Jesus IS clear..... He didnt end divorce, He ended frivolous divorce for things other than SEXUAL sin.

In reality, the whole divorce / remarriage issue is not really to be debated- IT IS TO BE OBEYED.

agreed.
Divorce is only used in the context Christ and Paul allowed.
Porneia, ALL sexual sin, committed by the WIFE (or the husband for that matter) breaches the covenant which can be ended by the innocent party at that point....remarriage in this case is permissible.

 

[RJD Servant]

Hi
Please Check out this sight it give all scripture and satistics about marriage and divorce. I read it and it is VERY GOOD!!
http://www.saveus.org/marriage/
Go through it all and learn the scriptures that God speaks of and see where you and pray will bring you on this subject in right standing with the Word of God.
God Bless!!
RJD Servant

 

[follower of Christ]

Hi
Please Check out this sight it give all scripture and satistics about marriage and divorce. I read it and it is VERY GOOD!!
http://www.saveus.org/marriage/
Go through it all and learn the scriptures that God speaks of and see where you and pray will bring you on this subject in right standing with the Word of God.
God Bless!!
RJD Servant

The link didnt work for me.
Did you have something to offer to the discussion?

 

[1956Ford]

Hi
Please Check out this sight it give all scripture and satistics about marriage and divorce. I read it and it is VERY GOOD!!
http://www.saveus.org/marriage/
Go through it all and learn the scriptures that God speaks of and see where you and pray will bring you on this subject in right standing with the Word of God.
God Bless!!
RJD Servant

I already posted Charles Crismier's site in another thread. He has some good broadcasts on many different subjects. He is running a radio broadcast series on Marriage and Divorce. He said on the air that he planned to do another broadcast on MDR but I haven't heard it yet.
His show deals with so many different topics. Viewpoint is one of my favorite christian radio shows.

Here is one of the broadcasts on MDR.
REMARRIAGE, ADULTERY AND HOPE

You can listen here
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker. ... d=10-18-05

Cheryl
http://www.poovy.8m.com

 

[follower of Christ]

Hi
Please Check out this sight it give all scripture and satistics about marriage and divorce. I read it and it is VERY GOOD!!
http://www.saveus.org/marriage/
Go through it all and learn the scriptures that God speaks of and see where you and pray will bring you on this subject in right standing with the Word of God.
God Bless!!
RJD Servant

yeah, ok, its its the same old, same old that rejects that whoredom has always broken Gods marriage covenant and refuses to accept the truth that Jesus did not do away with divorce for sexual sin.

Just wanted to see where you were coming from

 

[follower of Christ]

http://www.saveus.org/marriage/[/url]
Go through it all and learn the scriptures that God speaks of and see where you and pray will bring you on this subject in right standing with the Word of God.
God Bless!!
RJD Servant

yeah, ok, its its the same old, same old that rejects that whoredom has always broken Gods marriage covenant and refuses to accept the truth that Jesus did not do away with divorce for sexual sin.

Just wanted to see where you were coming from [/quote:23547]

I was especially intrigued with this comment in one article....

A true follower of Christ is not free to divorce for any
cause, including adultery. Neither, from God’s viewpoint,
are unbelievers, for they also were made “one fleshâ€Â
by God.

Whats up with the writer, did he not read Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 and see the word ''except" ?

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
(Mat 19:9)

Regardless of what ''porneia'' actuallly is, this the writer complete discredits himself by making the comment that "A true follower of Christ is not free to divorce for any cause" when anyone with eyes can see that Jesus DID make some sort of concession for divorce.

Jesus HAS made an EXCEPTION for divorce over some sort of sexual sin yet this guy seems to take it upon himself to correct our Lords words.

This is exactly why many of us wont give these ministries the time of day.

 

[Delicate]

http://www.saveus.org/marriage/[/url]
Go through it all and learn the scriptures that God speaks of and see where you and pray will bring you on this subject in right standing with the Word of God.
God Bless!!
RJD Servant

yeah, ok, its its the same old, same old that rejects that whoredom has always broken Gods marriage covenant and refuses to accept the truth that Jesus did not do away with divorce for sexual sin.

Just wanted to see where you were coming from [/quote:485b1]

I was especially intrigued with this comment in one article....

A true follower of Christ is not free to divorce for any
cause, including adultery. Neither, from God’s viewpoint,
are unbelievers, for they also were made “one fleshâ€Â
by God.

Whats up with the writer, did he not read Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 and see the word ''except" ?

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
(Mat 19:9)

Regardless of what ''porneia'' actuallly is, this the writer complete discredits himself by making the comment that "A true follower of Christ is not free to divorce for any cause" when anyone with eyes can see that Jesus DID make some sort of concession for divorce.

Jesus HAS made an EXCEPTION for divorce over some sort of sexual sin yet this guy seems to take it upon himself to correct our Lords words.

This is exactly why many of us wont give these ministries the time of day.[/quote:485b1]



FOC, you consistantly refuse the truth that scholars agree on, that the exception clause you hang so heavily on, is written primarily to the Jewish culture. When you finally consider this, it will all click. The betrothal laws will make sense. Until then, you may develop quite a headache, banging your head up against untruth. :wink:

No one denies that divorce is ALLOWED for fornication- it's the remarrying that Jesus makes a STRONG stand on- to be done ONLY in the betrothal period.

You object to this too- we know....

 

[follower of Christ]

FOC, you consistantly refuse the truth that scholars agree on, that the exception clause you hang so heavily on, is written primarily to the Jewish culture.

uh, sis, MOST of the bible is written TO JEWS !!!!
That one is really becoming quite tiring...and its not helping anyone seem studied on this matter at all
Please, stop stating that the Matthew is written to the Jews.
MOST of the bible is written to Jews !!!!

Jesus' rules are for His FOLLOWERS, not just jews....sorry to disappoint you.

And shall I start posting the MANY real SCHOLARS that will say EXACTLY what I do, that the exception clause is for ANY sexual sin within a marrital covenant.

I know, lets post a couple, shall we?

but I--I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.
(Mat 5:32)


Scholar J. Gill
saving for the cause of fornication; which must not be taken strictly for what is called fornication, but as including adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation; and is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Hillell: who admitted of divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous pretences whatever; when Shammai and his followers insisted on it, that a man ought only to put away his wife for uncleanness; in which they agreed with Christ.


Scholar M. Henry
3. That men's divorcing of their wives upon dislike, or for any other cause except adultery, however tolerated and practised among the Jews, was a violation of the seventh commandment, as it opened a door to adultery, Mat_5:31, Mat_5:32. Here observe,
(1.) How the matter now stood with reference to divorce. It hath been said (he does not say as before, It hath been said by them of old time, because this was not a precept, as those were, though the Pharisees were willing so to understand it, Mat_19:7, but only a permission), “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce; let him not think to do it by word of mouth, when he is in a passion; but let him do it deliberately, by a legal instrument in writing, attested by witnesses; if he will dissolve the matrimonial bond, let him do it solemnly.†Thus the law had prevented rash and hasty divorces; and perhaps at first, when writing was not so common among the Jews, that made divorces rare things; but in process of time it became very common, and this direction of how to do it, when there was just cause for it, was construed into a permission of it for any cause, Mat_19:3.
(2.) How this matter was rectified and amended by our Saviour. He reduced the ordinance of marriage to its primitive institution: They two shall be one flesh, not to be easily separated, and therefore divorce is not to be allowed, except in case of adultery, which breaks the marriage covenant; but he that puts away his wife upon any other pretence,

Ill dig up more....

and now Ill ask you to PROVE that Jesus was ONLY permitting the Jews this right...

Those mens beliefs fit perfectly with the MEANING of the word porneia....ALL SEXUAL immorality....NOT just betrothal OR PREmarital sex, but ALL sexual immorality by anyone, married or not !!!!

When you finally consider this, it will all click. The betrothal laws will make sense. Until then, you may develop quite a headache, banging your head up against untruth. :wink:

you are becoming quite hilarious.
Ive studied this topic for years, which is why I have no trouble refuting every single assertion you make.
Hopefully this all will ''click'' for you soon and it will all make sense.

No one denies that divorce is ALLOWED for fornication- it's the remarrying that Jesus makes a STRONG stand on- to be done ONLY in the betrothal period.

Do I detect faulty understanding here?
What part of ''whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery" did we miss here?

If you divorce and remarry and its NOT for whoredom, you commit adultery.......if it IS for whoredom, then its NOT adultery.
Because, the marital covenant was breached by the whoredom and ended fully by the permission to put away (divorce) by Christ.

Its really that simple

You keep going on about the BETROTHAL period.
At this point I will keep repeating this one item in EVERY post from here on out until you answer it !

PROVE to us that the exception clause is ONLY applicable to the betrothal period.


Now I promise you from this post forward I will remind you each and every post I make to give us some PROOF of this assertion.
Im sorry, but this usaully has to be done for someone to stop making assertions that I know going in that CANNOT be proven by the text, nor even implied.

Jesus never stated betrothal or betrothed wife.
You all make that up entirely....its not in the text anywhere.

 

[follower of Christ]

And to add.

The death penalty was given to the whoring wife. (Deut 22:22)
The death penalty was given to the whoring betrothed wife. (Deut 22:23-24)
The death penalty was given to the ''virgin'' who was not found to be a virgin when her husband took her to his bed. (Deut 22:20-21)

The punishment by MOSIAC law was the SAME for all three.
The betrothed wife was not ''put away'' for whoredom while the ''wife'' was stoned....BOTH cases called for death !!!

SO.......this false story about how a man could ''put away his wife on consumation night " but afterward it was the death penalty and since we dont stone whores anymore, we're stuck with them... is as false a doctrine as they come.


btw....
PROVE to us that the exception clause is ONLY applicable to the betrothal period.

 

[lastblast]

And to add.

The death penalty was given to the whoring wife. (Deut 22:22)
The death penalty was given to the whoring betrothed wife. (Deut 22:23-24)
The death penalty was given to the ''virgin'' who was not found to be a virgin when her husband took her to his bed. (Deut 22:20-21)

The punishment by MOSIAC law was the SAME for all three.
The betrothed wife was not ''put away'' for whoredom while the ''wife'' was stoned....BOTH cases called for death !!!

SO.......this false story about how a man could ''put away his wife on consumation night " but afterward it was the death penalty and since we dont stone whores anymore, we're stuck with them... is as false a doctrine as they come..

and Jesus said to those who would stone the woman caught in adultery: "whosoever has no sin, throw the first stone........" and to the woman when all the accusers had left WITHOUT STONING HER "and neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more".........speaks volumes to me about the "exception clause" used to justify. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

 

[lastblast]

And to add.

The death penalty was given to the whoring wife. (Deut 22:22)
The death penalty was given to the whoring betrothed wife. (Deut 22:23-24)
The death penalty was given to the ''virgin'' who was not found to be a virgin when her husband took her to his bed. (Deut 22:20-21)

The punishment by MOSIAC law was the SAME for all three.
The betrothed wife was not ''put away'' for whoredom while the ''wife'' was stoned....BOTH cases called for death !!!

SO.......this false story about how a man could ''put away his wife on consumation night " but afterward it was the death penalty and since we dont stone whores anymore, we're stuck with them... is as false a doctrine as they come..

and Jesus said to those who would stone the woman caught in adultery: "whosoever has no sin, throw the first stone........" and to the woman when all the accusers had left WITHOUT STONING HER "and neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more".........speaks volumes to me about the "exception clause" used to justify. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

 

[follower of Christ]

and Jesus said to those who would stone the woman caught in adultery: "whosoever has no sin, throw the first stone........" and to the woman when all the accusers had left WITHOUT STONING HER "and neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more".........speaks volumes to me about the "exception clause" used to justify. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

TADAAA !!!

So now, instead of stoning her, we just divorce her as Jesus has permitted in Matthew.

Whats funny tho is Ive seen this 100s of times over the years...this arguement that the woman was ''put away'' for cheating before the marriage, but stoned after, as some nonsensical defense to the anti-remarriage doctrine.

Im sure it speak volumes to you sis, like me, youre looking at everything to your doctrinal lenses.

What it says to me is that Jesus wouldnt have ANY of the three cases stoned to death anymore.
Hed permit the man who found his virgin wasnt one to divorce.
He'd permit the man whose ''betrothed'' wife whored around on him to divorce.
And He'd permit the man whos consumated wife whored around on him to divorce.
Just as the exception clause clearly points out, and in complete agreement with the entire concept of marriage through the bible.

Heres what I find absolutely hilarious about this.
According to this anti-remarriage doctrine, we MUST be forgiving of the whoring CONSUMATED spouse no matter what they do, but we dont have to show ANY mercy on the UNconsumated spouse.

Does anyone else see the blatant conflict here?

Did Jesus say ''damn the woman who made a mistake PREmarriage...but if she does it 1000 times a day AFTER shes married, well that is completely acceptable"

Im sorry, not only does that NOT fit who Jesus is, but it doesnt fit the whole premise of marriage to begin with.

the punishments were the SAME in the law for all three cases I presented. death (if the husband brought it to light)
The punishments will be the same in this covenant as well. Divorce (if the innocent chooses to carry it out)

 

[Klee shay]

I guess what people are saying here FOC is that Jesus may permit divorce instead of death, but did he affirm them the right to another marriage after being divorced?

I go the next step and believe in the promise of Christ that if we come to him with a sin, we repent *and ask for his forgiveness*.

When we are sincere and he gives us the forgiveness through his compassion, mercy and love...we are then free of our sin and can marry another as God would have the two become one.

 

[follower of Christ]

I guess what people are saying here FOC is that Jesus may permit divorce instead of death, but did he affirm them the right to another marriage after being divorced?

Read those passages in quiestion, theyre clear as crystal on the matter.
Context fills in the rest.

I go the next step and believe in the promise of Christ that if we come to him with a sin, we repent *and ask for his forgiveness*.

Heres the problem with that, youre conceding to sin that which isnt sin...
Even the anti-remarriage types will mostly agree that the exception clause IS permitting divorce an remarriage, they just alter porneia from ''sexual immorality'' to "premarital sex'' (which is a completely absurd jump considering betrothal isnt a PREmarital state)

When we are sincere and he gives us the forgiveness through his compassion, mercy and love...we are then free of our sin and can marry another as God would have the two become one.

You have to understand here friend, if we refuse to see what Jesus shows, that divorce and remarriage for porneia isnt adultery at all, then that means we must concede that divorce and remarriage IS in fact sin.

Youll have to forgive me if I choose to understand all the details and make sure a crime has actually been committed.
We dont accept the govenors pardon for a crime we didnt commit, we fight to prove our innocence.

IN the case of porneia, the divorced and remarried are innocent, they have committed no crime.

All that is left is to decide what ''porneia'' is.

 

[lastblast]

So now, instead of stoning her, we just divorce her as Jesus has permitted in Matthew.

It sure doesn't appear that the disciples thought remarriage is what Jesus meant.............especially since this was what the conservative Jews were doing anyways: instead of stoning adulteresses, they were divorcing them and giving them a certificate of divorcement.........and moving on. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

 

[follower of Christ]

So now, instead of stoning her, we just divorce her as Jesus has permitted in Matthew.

It sure doesn't appear that the disciples thought remarriage is what Jesus meant......

come now sis, you know I require a quote.
Show us your passage (altho I have a feeling we've discussed this before)

.......especially since this was what the conservative Jews were doing anyways: instead of stoning adulteresses, they were divorcing them and giving them a certificate of divorcement.........and moving on.

And there you go.
The Jews were already pretty much just divorcing a woman who whored on them in all three cases.
Jesus kept right in stride with that, didnt He?

As I said, you all DO agree that divorce and remarriage for ''porneia'' is not adultery, so lets not pretend we dont.

Whats left is ''what is porneia''
The facts are the word ISNT restricted to premarital or betrothal sex.
Paul proves it is ALL sexual immorality in Acts 15 and 21.

The fact also is that Jesus did not distinguish a ''betrothed''' wife or PREmarital.
That is something you all add to His words to make Matthew not conflict with your doctrine.

 

[lastblast]

I'd be interested to hear why others believe the disciple's responded to Jesus in such a manner as they did in Mt. 19? Also, in Mk. 10:12, why did Jesus give NO exceptions for remarriage while speaking to the disciples PRIVATELY? Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

 

[follower of Christ]

I'd be interested to hear why others believe the disciple's responded to Jesus in such a manner as they did in Mt. 19? Also, in Mk. 10:12, why did Jesus give NO exceptions for remarriage while speaking to the disciples PRIVATELY? Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

Why dont you show us the WHOLE conversation sis, instead of asking us vague questions?

Did Jesus give an exceptoin or not, lastblast?

First its just to the Jews, now you seem to be implying that possibly what...Jesus was catering to the pharisees for some reason ? to keep from being killed ?

What is this motivation of His you seem to be secretly alluding to?

Jesus gave an exception..... is it truth or not sis ?
Lets stop beatin around the bush, say what it is you are thinking here, please


On second thought, watch what you present here, Im quite sure it will be next on my list of refutations to add to my website.

 

[follower of Christ]

I'd be interested to hear why others believe the disciple's responded to Jesus in such a manner as they did in Mt. 19?

Im pretty sure you and I have covered this somewhere lastblast.

The Jews ( the disciples WERE jews, btw), were used to centuries of easy divorce. They ALL knew that they could divorce a wife as easily as we can today.
You tell any man today, with our ''irreconcilable differences''(for any cause) clause, that NO, you CANNOT divorce this woman no matter how foul she may be, ONLY for sexual immorality, and see the reactions you get from ANY man whos been married to an insane woman.
He'd be just as shocked as the disciples were, and probably even admit its better to NOT marry than risk being stuck with a crazy woman who wont cheat on you and let you end it.

context sis.

Now you give your view, WHY did the disciples state it was better not to marry?
Now, say its because they could never divorce or whatever it is, but WHY would they even want to divorce? Why is it an issue at all?

The problem is EXACTLY the same whether its no divorce at all or only for whoredom....youre STUCK with a woman who may make you miserable.

Its not like we go into marriage expecting it to end, neither would have the disciples.
So WHY were they even worried about this in the first place, why would they care if Jesus were stating NO divorce and remarriage at all?


The SAME applies to NO DIVORCE and remarriage without her commiting sexual sin.
No man wants to risk being with a miserable, vile woman...its better NOT to marry.

So your point is irrelevant.

Also, in Mk. 10:12, why did Jesus give NO exceptions for remarriage while speaking to the disciples PRIVATELY? Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

are you stating that Jesus ''fabricated'' the exception clause sis?
That He outright lied to the Jews for some reason?

Please asnswer this directly and plainly so we all can see what has to be done in order for your doctrine to work.


Ill help you out here.
The reason is ONE gospel doesnt present all the details, which is why God preserved four accounts.
WE've been thru this before, and its on my website.

The four gospels give 4 different accounts of the empty tomb, who was there and the description of such.
Which is "right", lastblast?
Matthew? Mark?
possibly, as some do with the exception clause, we state that each intended audience was taught something different?

No, we add up ALL the details into one big lump, then start sorting them out, taking ALL scripture into account to see what fits.

What fits is this, as it always has been, that marriage is for life, except for whoredom.

We used to kill the whore, but since Jesus said ''let him who is without sin cast the first stone''...we only divorce the her now.

Its that simple

 

[follower of Christ]

I'd be interested to hear why others believe the disciple's responded to Jesus in such a manner as they did in Mt. 19?

Im pretty sure you and I have covered this somewhere lastblast.

The Jews ( the disciples WERE jews, btw), were used to centuries of easy divorce. They ALL knew that they could divorce a wife as easily as we can today.
You tell any man today, with our ''irreconcilable differences''(for any cause) clause, that NO, you CANNOT divorce this woman no matter how foul she may be, ONLY for sexual immorality, and see the reactions you get from ANY man whos been married to an insane woman.
He'd be just as shocked as the disciples were, and probably even admit its better to NOT marry than risk being stuck with a crazy woman who wont cheat on you and let you end it.

context sis.

Now you give your view, WHY did the disciples state it was better not to marry?
Now, say its because they could never divorce or whatever it is, but WHY would they even want to divorce? Why is it an issue at all?

The problem is EXACTLY the same whether its no divorce at all or only for whoredom....youre STUCK with a woman who may make you miserable.

Its not like we go into marriage expecting it to end, neither would have the disciples.
So WHY were they even worried about this in the first place, why would they care if Jesus were stating NO divorce and remarriage at all?


The SAME applies to NO DIVORCE and remarriage without her commiting sexual sin.
No man wants to risk being with a miserable, vile woman...its better NOT to marry.

So your point is irrelevant.

Also, in Mk. 10:12, why did Jesus give NO exceptions for remarriage while speaking to the disciples PRIVATELY? Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

are you stating that Jesus ''fabricated'' the exception clause sis?
That He outright lied to the Jews for some reason?

Please asnswer this directly and plainly so we all can see what has to be done in order for your doctrine to work.


Ill help you out here.
The reason is ONE gospel doesnt present all the details, which is why God preserved four accounts.
WE've been thru this before, and its on my website.

The four gospels give 4 different accounts of the empty tomb, who was there and the description of such.
Which is "right", lastblast?
Matthew? Mark?
possibly, as some do with the exception clause, we state that each intended audience was taught something different?

No, we add up ALL the details into one big lump, then start sorting them out, taking ALL scripture into account to see what fits.

What fits is this, as it always has been, that marriage is for life, except for whoredom.

We used to kill the whore, but since Jesus said ''let him who is without sin cast the first stone''...we only divorce the her now.

Its that simple