Bible Study Divorce/ Old and New Testaments

[Deborah13]

Jethro Bodine,

I'd like to ask you a question.
What do you think God would call it if a believer were to reject Christ?

 

[TOG]

I don't know how he's not making a new law.

It's quite simple how I come to that conclusion.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15 ESV)
​

Jesus, our high priest, never sinned. But what is sin?

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)​

So, if Jesus never sinned, and sin is transgressing the law, then that means that Jesus never transgressed the law in any way. But what does the law say?

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deu. 4:2 ESV)​

If Jesus ever added anything to the law (made a new law) or took anything away from the law (nullified it), then he was violating the law and therefore sinning. Since we know that Jesus never sinned, then we know that he neither added to the law nor took anything away from it.

It's clear in the NT that Moses made allowance for 'just because' divorce.

That's debatable. Like I said earlier, there are two ways of interpreting the verses in Deuteronomy 24, only one of which justifies "just because" divorce. Jesus gave us the correct interpretation - the one God intended from the time He gave that commandment, and it doesn't justify "just because" divorce.

The TOG​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine,

I'd like to ask you a question.
What do you think God would call it if a believer were to reject Christ?

As in reject him as Savior? A blasphemer of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe I'll have a better answer once I see what you're getting at.

 

[TOG]

me too

I'll be praying for you too.

The TOG​

 

[reba]

About 5 years into marriage i searched and searched for a 'righteous' way out . A way i could some how have 2 wrongs making a right..Do not get your self yoked to an unbeliever ... the heart break is years long

 

[Deborah13]

As in reject him as Savior? A blasphemer of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe I'll have a better answer once I see what you're getting at.

Yes, they just reject the Savior, totally and completely.
What would God call what they had done? Would He divorce them?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, they just reject the Savior, totally and completely.
What would God call what they had done? Would He divorce them?

The wedding is off. They have no promise of being joined to Christ at the resurrection:

"...I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2-3 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's quite simple how I come to that conclusion.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15 ESV)
​

Jesus, our high priest, never sinned. But what is sin?

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)​

So, if Jesus never sinned, and sin is transgressing the law, then that means that Jesus never transgressed the law in any way. But what does the law say?

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deu. 4:2 ESV)​

If Jesus ever added anything to the law (made a new law) or took anything away from the law (nullified it), then he was violating the law and therefore sinning. Since we know that Jesus never sinned, then we know that he neither added to the law nor took anything away from it.

I did not go into detail about this, but the 'new' law he made was not actually a 'new' law. As he says, it's simply what the Father ordained from the beginning.

Christ did two things through the cross. He made various laws inapplicable to transformed people, not nullified them, and set some aside by fulfilling them himself, not nullifying them. The law of eye for eye being a good example. A new law did not get written that nullifies that lawful requirement. In Christ that law does not apply to transformed creations who have received mercy and are commanded to practice mercy above and beyond that lawful requirement (James 2:13 NASB), and who have Jesus to fulfill that law for them in regard to their own just payment of 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' that they owe. This should be everybody's Resurrection Day joy this year.

That's debatable. Like I said earlier, there are two ways of interpreting the verses in Deuteronomy 24, only one of which justifies "just because" divorce. Jesus gave us the correct interpretation - the one God intended from the time He gave that commandment, and it doesn't justify "just because" divorce.

But Jesus plainly says Moses commanded the divorce that actually God had not ordained from the beginning:

"7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?”8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." (Matthew 19:7-8 NASB)

So I don't think it's debatable at all. Moses let them do what God really did not want them to do.

 

[Deborah13]

The wedding is off. They have no promise of being joined to Christ at the resurrection:

"...I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2-3 NASB)

You didn't state the just cause of the divorce. Adultery, right. Just like the nation of Israel.

 

[Deborah13]

Mat 5:27 `Ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not commit adultery;
Mat 5:28 but I--I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

These verse should clarify what I was pointing out in the early Matt. 5 verses.

So a husband is guilty of the above adultery. He tells his wife about his desire for this other woman.
Does his wife have a legal right to divorce him?
I say no. Because he is guilty of adultery but not fornication.
Fornication being the legal just cause for divorce, per Jesus.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You didn't state the just cause of the divorce. Adultery, right. Just like the nation of Israel.

Spiritual adultery. They forsook God and engaged in adultery with foreign gods.

What is your point in all this?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm perplexed as to why this matter of divorce should warrant so much discussion. I see how Moses made it a legalistic mess, but Jesus has made it so clear and simple, the way it was from the start. Our flesh makes it so hard.

 

[jasonc]

I'm perplexed as to why this matter of divorce should warrant so much discussion. I see how Moses made it a legalistic mess, but Jesus has made it so clear and simple, the way it was from the start. Our flesh makes it so hard.

so a man should stay in a marriage if the wife is an abuser, drug addict and refuses to change?ONLY adultery and fornication?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

so a man should stay in a marriage if the wife is an abuser, drug addict and refuses to change?ONLY adultery and fornication?

On paper, yes.

Abuse, unbelief, etc. are simply not authorized reasons to divorce. That doesn't mean you don't separate yourself from the abuser to protect yourself. Abandonment by the other person is likely to be the outcome when you protect yourself from an abuser.

 

[Deborah13]

Spiritual adultery. They forsook God and engaged in adultery with foreign gods.

What is your point in all this?

Post #50. There is a difference between adultery and fornication. Jesus argument against "for any reason" divorce makes that clear. Only for fornication. Not for "she burnt the toast or I just don't love her anymore".
I believe that He was saying that breaking the marriage covenant (adultery) takes more than thoughts or any actions, other than fornication.

Jesus said, that she had to have actually turned to another man in fornication in order for it to be considered a "breaking of the faith" or breaking the marriage covenant. As Israel had literally done in worshiping "other gods" and thus "breaking the faith" of their covenant with God. Adultery.

So if a man divorces his wife for any reason besides fornication, Then he "breaks the faith" and causes her to "break the faith" and cause the her new husband to "break the faith".

When we look at divorce it is about what is legal. People may say one is being legalistic, well it's about legalities. The very same people use screwed up legalities when they tell others they can or cannot divorce and even more so when they the talk about whether that person can legally remarry.

I'm perplexed as to why this matter of divorce should warrant so much discussion. I see how Moses made it a legalistic mess, but Jesus has made it so clear and simple, the way it was from the start. Our flesh makes it so hard.

Jethro, if you had read my previous posts you would know why. It's because of the screwed up teachings that some people are receiving today about what they must do. These teachings are tearing apart happy, Godly, Christian marriages of several years and children have been born in these marriages.
Christians are being told that because they were divorced in the past that they are not "worthy" enough for another Christian to marry them. In effect saying that the blood of Jesus hasn't cleansed them of that sin. Well, if it hasn't then how can they be saved. People have literally died, others driven into sever depression and illness. Some of these teachings are based on Deut. 24. That's why I started this thread. There are many, many Christians that do not know for themselves what the Bible actually says.
They think adultery is fornication. No it's not. Fornication is the action that causes adultery.

I am not declaring that I am right in my understanding of it. And I welcome other views, especially if they are based on scripture.

TOG and cyberjosh understand that this verse in Deut. 24 was the bases for the argument between Jesus and the two schools of Pharisees.
Have you read cyberjosh's post? There is a lot of good info, in that post.

 

[for_his_glory]

1Co 7:12 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.
1Co 7:13 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 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Being a Christian I had a big problem with these verses when I was considering leaving and divorcing my last husband. There was a brief time when I was not walking very strongly in the Lord and gave myself over to a few worldly pleasures. It was at this time I met and married my second husband. I knew he drank before we got married and I did not have a problem with that at the time. He seemed to be a good loving man and sat me on a pedestal. I liked that because I never had someone love me this way. To make a long story short I married a demon from the pits of hell so to say. I didn't know he was an alcoholic and a drug user before I married him as he hid that from me. I knew he drank some, but never saw the signs of him being an alcoholic until after we got married. Later in the marriage I found out that he was cheating on me and also doing drugs, which led him to be very abusive to me physically and mentally.

I had gotten myself back into a good Church again and he even went with me a couple of times, but noting ever changed in the two years we were together. The abuse was getting more intense to where he tried to kill me when he was under the influence of the drugs and alcohol. I became a prisoner in my own home as I was not allowed to have friends and he took me back and forth to work so he could control my every move. I thought by him going to church with me once in awhile would help change him, but no chance of that. Without the influences he was a good and loving man and I played on that part of him that I thought I could bring him back to the Lord. These verses above were grounded in me. I didn't want another failed marriage, but I knew if I stayed he would have killed me and I wasn't ready to die yet, especially in this way. I had no money and no car. I was trapped and I cried out to the Lord to help me because I did not want to give up on my husband and I tried to talk to him about getting help and he refused. I knew I had to get out, but felt like I was sinning against God if I divorced him especially after reading these scriptures. God knew I needed out and even provided me a way where there seemed to be no way.

Does God permit divorce; no he does not for what God has joined together as one flesh let no man separate it, Matthew 19:3-6. Here's the thing. We were not one flesh as both of us being one in the Lord and I think this is why God provided me a way to escape. God has given me a Godly man now and we have been married sixteen years. What I learned through all of this was to wait on God to put that right man in my life. You will know when it's right as two become one in the Lord before they enter the vows of marriage. I wish I had known that 40 years ago.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Later in the marriage I found out that he was cheating on me

You had Biblical grounds for divorce.

If a person does not have those grounds they can do everything they would do in a divorce except sign a divorce paper. Making it clear to the abuser that they are doing what they are doing for their personal safety and well-being.

Chances are, since the abuser has no moral convictions about how he/she is living, much less about marriage, they will themselves abandon the relationship by moving on to another.

So, you can either stay in a marriage and get beat up and make it so the abuser doesn't have to make any decisions about the relationship, or you can stay in a marriage and not get beat up and force the other person to make a decision about the relationship.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Post #50. There is a difference between adultery and fornication. Jesus argument against "for any reason" divorce makes that clear. Only for fornication. Not for "she burnt the toast or I just don't love her anymore".
I believe that He was saying that breaking the marriage covenant (adultery) takes more than thoughts or any actions, other than fornication.

Jesus said, that she had to have actually turned to another man in fornication in order for it to be considered a "breaking of the faith" or breaking the marriage covenant. As Israel had literally done in worshiping "other gods" and thus "breaking the faith" of their covenant with God. Adultery.

So if a man divorces his wife for any reason besides fornication, Then he "breaks the faith" and causes her to "break the faith" and cause the her new husband to "break the faith".

When we look at divorce it is about what is legal. People may say one is being legalistic, well it's about legalities. The very same people use screwed up legalities when they tell others they can or cannot divorce and even more so when they the talk about whether that person can legally remarry.

I cite Paul's advice to the Corinthians to go back to the spouse they divorced as the basis for this decision. He gives advice that if you think Deuteronomy 24 is simply about divorce alone would mean he's counseling the Corinthians against what Deuteronomy speaks. But that would only be true if he was telling remarried people to go back to their first spouse. Think about it.



Jethro, if you had read my previous posts you would know why. It's because of the screwed up teachings that some people are receiving today about what they must do. These teachings are tearing apart happy, Godly, Christian marriages of several years and children have been born in these marriages.
Christians are being told that because they were divorced in the past that they are not "worthy" enough for another Christian to marry them. In effect saying that the blood of Jesus hasn't cleansed them of that sin. Well, if it hasn't then how can they be saved. People have literally died, others driven into sever depression and illness. Some of these teachings are based on Deut. 24. That's why I started this thread. There are many, many Christians that do not know for themselves what the Bible actually says.
They think adultery is fornication. No it's not. Fornication is the action that causes adultery.

I am not declaring that I am right in my understanding of it. And I welcome other views, especially if they are based on scripture.

TOG and cyberjosh understand that this verse in Deut. 24 was the bases for the argument between Jesus and the two schools of Pharisees.
Have you read cyberjosh's post? There is a lot of good info, in that post.

The only problem I see with how people are reading Deuteronomy 24 is the failure to understand that getting a divorce and then getting remarried, but then divorcing that spouse and remarrying the first spouse is what is wrong and is what defiles a person. But like any defilement, it's a defilement that, if a person would renounce it as sin and ask forgiveness for it, would be taken care of at the cross.

I cite Paul's counsel to the Corinthians as the basis for this. He tells the divorced person to go back to the spouse they separated from. This would be in direct violation of Deuteronomy 24 if we (incorrectly) understand Deuteronomy 24 to mean that simply being remarried after a divorce is forbidden for the woman. Paul is in a sense helping us understand that what is forbidden in Deuteronomy 24 is going back to a spouse you divorced after you have remarried.

And just as a note, if anyone thinks they can divorce without cause now and just ask for forgiveness later after they remarry is playing with fire, IMO.

 

[Deborah13]

The only problem I see with how people are reading Deuteronomy 24 is the failure to understand that getting a divorce and then getting remarried, but then divorcing that spouse and remarrying the first spouse is what is wrong and is what defiles a person. But like any defilement, it's a defilement that, if a person would renounce it as sin and ask forgiveness for it, would be taken care of at the cross.

I cite Paul's counsel to the Corinthians as the basis for this. He tells the divorced person to go back to the spouse they separated from. This would be in direct violation of Deuteronomy 24 if we (incorrectly) understand Deuteronomy 24 to mean that simply being remarried after a divorce is forbidden for the woman. Paul is in a sense helping us understand that what is forbidden in Deuteronomy 24 is going back to a spouse you divorced after you have remarried.

And just as a note, if anyone thinks they can divorce without cause now and just ask for forgiveness later after they remarry is playing with fire, IMO.

I understand what you are saying and agree. But that is why some things should be studied in a systemic way. Not by haphazard jumping around in scriptures without as full an understanding as possible of each one and how and why they effect each other.
I think if there was a better understanding of how old and new are joined there may be less confusion and actually less divorces. God has not changed His view.
Obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way as there are scholarly men and women who are trying to do this, as well.
Too many times people are just given half understandings and laws, they throw up their hands and give up. One pastor says, leave this spouse and go back, the next says no you're OK stay. Both have used scriptures to prove their teaching. Their are very sincere people who truly are seeking Godly answers no matter what the desires of their heart may be. They are intelligent people. They love God.

 

[TOG]

Deborah13 I don't quite understand your apparent distinction between fornication and adultery. As I understand it, fornication is sex between two people, neither of whom are married, while in adultery, at least one of the people involved has to be married, but not to the other person. Am I misunderstanding you or are you using some other definition of these words?

The TOG​