How does Jesus Feel About Remarrige

[Blazin Bones]

Okay, here's the story on the shrinking thread. I see some God thoughts being thrown out in a rash manor. I also saw some side conversations which were not relevant to this discussion. I encourage this discussion to continue, but with less tension. I saw some grear points raised amongst the tension, but I will not allow for the continuation of mud slinging mixed with God's truth.

I have delelted the posts which I found to be off topic or too inflamitory. I encourage posters to post in a manner which encourages reading and thought, not self defense.

 

[follower of Christ]

Okay, here's the story on the shrinking thread. I see some God thoughts being thrown out in a rash manor. I also saw some side conversations which were not relevant to this discussion. I encourage this discussion to continue, but with less tension. I saw some grear points raised amongst the tension, but I will not allow for the continuation of mud slinging mixed with God's truth.

I have delelted the posts which I found to be off topic or too inflamitory. I encourage posters to post in a manner which encourages reading and thought, not self defense.

My bad...I thought I accidentally deleted my last post :D

 

[Elijah_101]

The man is unfaithful and he divorces his wife. If she re-marries is she in sin?

She can divorce him but should not remarry unless he dies.

The man is abusive and his wife divorces him, is she in sin?[/color]

I believe you should just separate and not divorce. Jesus would not tell her to stay in abusive marriage. It does not good for anyone including their kids if they have them.

We should use common sense too.

If a Womens husband Puts away his wife and Remarry..he commed Adultery against his Wife....Mark 10:12 , and If She Puts him away, and she marrys another she Commits Adultery...Matt 19:9

If she Marrys Another He caused her to commit Adultery..Matthew 5:32

Jesus said

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.Mark 10:12

and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt 5:32

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: Romans 7:3

If he Marrys Again, He Commits Adultery

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery Luke 16:18

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?Jer 3:1

All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:

and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matt 19:11-12

Posted by shad

believe you should just separate and not divorce. Jesus would not tell her to stay in abusive marriage. It does not good for anyone including their kids if they have them.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1 Cor 7:10-11

If she marrys another wile her Husband is Alive...She Commits Adultery...She is Bound to Law of Her Husband as long as he is ALIVE

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. 3 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

 

[LostSoul]

If a Womens husband Puts away his wife and Remarry..he commed Adultery against his Wife....Mark 10:12 , and If She Puts him away, and she marrys another she Commits Adultery...Matt 19:9

If she Marrys Another He caused her to commit Adultery..Matthew 5:32

Jesus said

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.Mark 10:12

and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt 5:32

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: Romans 7:3

If he Marrys Again, He Commits Adultery

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery Luke 16:18

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?Jer 3:1

All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:

and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matt 19:11-12

Posted by shad

believe you should just separate and not divorce. Jesus would not tell her to stay in abusive marriage. It does not good for anyone including their kids if they have them.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1 Cor 7:10-11

If she marrys another wile her Husband is Alive...She Commits Adultery...She is Bound to Law of Her Husband as long as he is ALIVE

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. 3 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

I know I am likely just repeating much of my earlier posts in this thread. So I apologize. Just after further reflection of this topic I found some passages that I too would like to share after enjoying some of those in which Elijah has already done with us.

Elijah posted some good verses here in terms of how we are to address and look at the idea of divorce from a Christian view point.

Blazin, you have put up a very serious and interesting question on the subject. A sensitive one too that we should really look to God on. What should a spouse do, be it male or female, that is being abused in a marriage?

Perhaps the first thing we should do before answering this question is look at how marriage, a Christian marriage, should be in terms of scripture. For God does instruct both man and wife on what their roles are within matrimony.

Ephesians 5:23-32 (King James Version) 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Scripture states that man is to love his wife as Christ did the church. When we look at how much Christ loved the church, we see a deep and profound love for the Lord in which inspired sin to be thus removed from it if found. So too likely should be one spouse with another. Rebuking when needed, in love, not with a harsh hand of abuse. Let alone cruel words of the same.

If we read on, we also see that though a wife is to submit unto her husband in everything, that a man IS to love his wife as their own body. How can a man truly love his wife if he lays hand on her? Or vice versa? So in the event one is placed in such a union, the best option would likely be to get away from such an unhealthy relationship and pray then to God for council in terms of what to do in regards of maintaining the marriage itself. For marriage is to be a life long commitment. Just the same, faithlessness in the marriage is the only written thing to have been reason enough for a man to leave his wife. With the instruction above this then puts forth the question....can a man who strikes his wife be seen as a faithful husband in accordance to God's word? Let alone a woman who does so unto her husband? Again....prayer is highly encouraged.

My apologies for any offense caused here. None was meant.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[follower 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. 3 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

The REST of the story that apparently Elijah would feel to deprive the readers of....


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

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wroteâ€Â

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

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

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

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

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

We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.

 

[follower of Christ]

If a Womens husband Puts away his wife and Remarry..he commed Adultery against his Wife....Mark 10:12 , and If She Puts him away, and she marrys another she Commits Adultery...Matt 19:9

If she Marrys Another He caused her to commit Adultery..Matthew 5:32

Jesus said

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.Mark 10:12

and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt 5:32

And what part of EXCEPT did you miss, E ?
Oh...you seemed to have edited THAT part out for some reason..

That exception applies to the ENTIRE passage....if she broke the covenant then all bets are off.
I suggest you get past these 4 pet verses and into the WHOLE truth of God in the matter...

If he Marrys Again, He Commits Adultery

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?Jer 3:1

All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:

and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matt 19:11-12

You seem to be all over the table here...can you tie these together in a coherent fashion for us ?

Jesus Himself says that NOT ALL can receive this issue of being a eunuch but ONLY those to whom that has been given.....so who are you to put a yoke of bondage on one who CHRIST says CANNOT accept it ?


All I see with your error is the same type of fallacy presented by false Prosperity teachings who ALSO can give us a handful of out of context and partially quoted passages....

 

[follower of Christ]

Jesus said

Jesus ALSO said this....

(Mat 5:42 KJV) Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
(Luk 6:30 KJV) Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

I am ASKING you for $1000 Elijah.
Lets see if you actually OBEY the Lords instruction where it is applied to YOUR life as you seemingly insist that OTHERS obey what you claim Jesus said and meant.



.

 

[Elijah_101]

follower of Christ Wrote I am ASKING you for $1000 Elijah.

many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Peter 2:2-3

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.2 Tim 2:16

follower of Christ wrote Romans there ISNT about marriage..its about the transition from the old covenant to the new.

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

Now lets go to what Jesus said

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.Luke 16:18

The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage...Luke 20:34

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.Matt 19:4-6

No how can you dispute that? What God joined togather...This is the LAW of God....God spoke the Word in the Very Beginning....

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:1-2

follower of Christ wrote: 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.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent...Acts 17:30

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Matt 19:8

Another thing is

if you marry Another wile your Wife is Alive...Your under condemnation your Under the Law, as the Law says... Thy Shalt not Commit Adultery..Sin Brings you out from grace ro 6:1 and brings you Under the Law Ro 3:20 1 John 3:4

If you Break one of the Least Commandments just one...your under the law like marrying another wile Your Wife is Alive Luke 16:18...James 2:10

The Law is made for SINNERS for all those who Disobey God, 1 Timothy 1:9,

OLD Covenant the Law is on stone

The New Covenant the law is taken off Stone and written in our Hearts and in our minds.

Those who Love God will Obey God and Abide in the doctrine of Christ 2 John 1:9

The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write themHeb 10:15-16

We Under Jesus Christ

WE are not under Moses...

Again

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matt 5:17-18

Jesus said if you marry another you do commit Adultery.... Matt 19:9 Mk 10:12..Luke 16:18..

follower of Christ wrote:
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.

Only Death can break a Marriage....If her husband is Alive and she marrys another, she commits Adultery...

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Mark 10:12

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 7:3

 

[Elijah_101]

follower of Christ Wrote

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

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

Lets go back to Jesus what he said

Please Note what Jesus said, You want to know What Law

Jesus Said...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.
Matt 19:9

Jesus said if ye love me Keep my commandments John 14:15

as it is Written

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:1-2

As God said

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:

it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isaiah 55:11

But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

follower of Christ Wrote

So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress
Romans 7:3

let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written
Romans 3:4

follower of Christ Wrote
We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth.

Unwritten?

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Mark 10:19

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Matt 19:8

the Worlds Conclusion is, they allow Divorce and Remarriage, and Preach its all right

But Jesus said its not so..Jesus said if you marry another you commit adultery Matt 19:9

if you marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt 5:32

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Mark 10:12

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18

follower of Christ Wrote

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

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

Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law,

as it is Written

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.Matt 5:17-19

In this the law is Fulfilled

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.Matt 22:37-40

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. James 2:8-11

So if you cant keep the Great two Commandments, you cannot keep the Least

Like thou shalt not commit Adultery, the 7th commandment

Rember Jesus said If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15

Now the law which is the commandments, are written in our hearts as it is written

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;..Heb 10:15-16

follower of Christ Wrote

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

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

follower of Christ Wrote ... never meant to be unconditional

Thats not what God said

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.1 Peter 1:24-25

follower of Christ Wrote

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

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1 Cor 7:10-11

For the Sake of Peace

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.1 Cor 7:15

Back to Verse 11

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried

follower of Christ Wrote

that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written
Romans 3:4

Are you God now?

Who should we Believe you over God?

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder...Mark 10:9

God said thy shalt not Commit Adultery

The Righteous, dont do this

But the wicked does

So are you Righteous or are you Wicked? are you the Son of God, the World does this...But Righteous dont...

This is why God said

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 1 John 3:7

 

[Elijah_101]

[quote="Elijah_101":1kqu1iqc]
If a Womens husband Puts away his wife and Remarry..he commed Adultery against his Wife....Mark 10:12 , and If She Puts him away, and she marrys another she Commits Adultery...Matt 19:9

If she Marrys Another He caused her to commit Adultery..Matthew 5:32

Jesus said

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.Mark 10:12

and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt 5:32

And what part of EXCEPT did you miss, E ?
Oh...you seemed to have edited THAT part out for some reason..

That exception applies to the ENTIRE passage....if she broke the covenant then all bets are off.
I suggest you get past these 4 pet verses and into the WHOLE truth of God in the matter...

If he Marrys Again, He Commits Adultery

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?Jer 3:1

All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:

and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matt 19:11-12

You seem to be all over the table here...can you tie these together in a coherent fashion for us ?

Jesus Himself says that NOT ALL can receive this issue of being a eunuch but ONLY those to whom that has been given.....so who are you to put a yoke of bondage on one who CHRIST says CANNOT accept it ?


All I see with your error is the same type of fallacy presented by false Prosperity teachings who ALSO can give us a handful of out of context and partially quoted passages....[/quote:1kqu1iqc]

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.
Matt 19:9

This is Why Jesus says (Except) If there is No Fornication...You cannot get a Divorce.

If you put away your wife and Remarry..you commit Adultery against your Wife....Mark 10:12

And you cause her to commit Adultery..Matthew 5:32

And if any one marrys That Women thats been Put away Commits adultery Matt 19:9

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt 5:32

Causes Jesus Little ones to Fall....Luke 17:1-2

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery:

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Mark 10:12

and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18

You cannot Remarry at all as long as they are ALIVE

if you do you commit adultery...

Again

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-

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. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:

and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matt 19:9-12 )

This is Repentance....Just like any other sin, you stop doing it

 

[Lewis]

Lostlamb quoted:

Luke 16:18
18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

How confusing that so many of the mainline translators have translated ἀÀολÅÉ as "divorce"! The word literally means "loose from" and normally means "send away". For example consider the following sentence:

And (aorist participle of ἀÀολÅÉ) the crowds, he got into the boat and went to the region of Magadan. Matthew 15:39

What did Jesus do? Did He divorce the crowds? Or did He send them away?

The NT Greek word for "divorce" is ἀÀοÃĀαÃιον. Indeed, the Pharisees challenged Jesus with: "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to send her away?" Matthew 19:7. In this sentence "divorce" and "send away" both occur in the same sentence. They have different meanings. The Pharisees believed in legitimizing a forced separation by giving the woman a certificate of divorce and making it official.

A man who sends away his wife (forces a separation) and copulates with another woman commits adultery, and the man who copulates with a woman who has been sent way commits adultery. For the woman is still married. Make no mistake. The word "marry" sometimes means simply "copulate". Eusebius quoted Clement of Alexandria concerning the Nicolaitans:

AT this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in the Apocalypse of John. They boasted that the author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. Clement of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following things concerning him. “They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of the Savior, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry her. For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh..."

Did Nicolaus (according to the story) permit several other men to enter into a legal marriage contract with his wife? Preposterous! He (supposedly) allowed them to copulate with her.

There is no doubt that, as it is written, "God hates divorce." But that doesn't mean that divorce and remarriage is adultery. That doesn't appear to be what Jesus was teaching.

Paul said in I Corinthians 7:27

Have you been bound to a woman? Do not seek to be free.
What does that mean? Is not being bound to a woman tantamount to being married to a woman? And does not "seeking to be free" mean "seeking a divorce"? Paul recommends that a married person ought not to seek a divorce.

Have you been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. (The Greek word means either "woman" or "wife") What does it mean to have been loosed from a wife other than divorce? It doesn't seem to mean to have been loosed by the death of your wife, for he was speaking of divorce in the previous verse. Paul recommends that a divorced person ought not to seek marriage. But notice his next words in verse 28!

But if you marry, you do not sin ...

Now according to the interpretation of Jesus' words by many, if the divorced person marries, he would be sinning. We either have to say that Paul was teaching contrary to our Lord, or else we have not correctly understood the words of our Lord.

Now Paul was well acquainted with the teachings of our Lord concerning marriage and separtion. He distinguished what the Lord Jesus taught about these matters, and what he himself taught:

To the married, I command, not I, but the Lord, that a wife should not separate from her husband. I Cor 7:10

Here the Greek word clearly means "separate". Thus Jesus teaching was about separation and not divorce.

But if she separates, let her remain unmarried (that is, single), or else be reconciled to her husband, and let the husband not send her away. Vs 11

This also, is included as that which the Lord, taught ... what Jesus taught.

Then Paul states what he teaches, not what Jesus taught:

To the rest I say, and not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is without faith, and she consents to dwell with him, he should not leave her. Vs 12

In summary, both Jesus and Paul teach that husbands and wives should not separate. If they do separate, the one who takes up with someone else commits adultery against his spouse. If you are married, you should not seek a divorce. If you do divorce, you should not seek marriage. But if you choose to do so anyway, you have not sinned.

Paidion that was very, very good. :amen The Lord knows that not every marriage is going to work out. The lord knows that He did not create perfect people on purpose. And the Lord knows that it would be cruel, to let people be lonely because a marriage did not work out. He designed you to long for or to desire the opposite sex. And it would be cruel to deny you that. It would be pure torture, except for the people who have no desire for the opposite sex, and they are not gay, I am not talking about gay's here.

 

[follower of Christ]

Elijah_101, you are like a broken record.
You have been entirely refuted here time and again but for some reason you seem to think if you keep coming back and REPEATING yourself that somehow your nonsense fallacy is going to suddenly become true somehow.

 

[follower of Christ]

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.
Matt 19:9

This is Why Jesus says (Except) If there is No Fornication...You cannot get a Divorce.

And THAT is why we know your heresy is nothing but lies...since PAUL INSTRUCTS the believer to LET THE UNBELIEVER 'put asunder' (CHORIZO) as they wish to do without a fight.

*IF* what you believed were true, chap, then PAUL is telling the believer to ALLOW what YOU claim man CANNOT do....

Paul says one CAN get a divorce if the unbeliever wishes to do so NO mention of fornication is present.

"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Jesus versus Paul ?
By WmTipton



Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Here we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.


Supporting Evidence
1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.
[quote:phd10a2n]L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separateâ€Â

What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.
See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mat 19:6 EMTV)

(Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)

Bear in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.

The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.

G5563
ÇÉÃÂίζÉ
chÃ…ÂrizÃ…Â
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away

That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11

(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.

Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").
*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?
WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?
*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.
The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...

What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.
Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?
We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.
Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.


2.0
Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.

Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.

1Co 7:15 KJV 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.

Remember “chorizoâ€ÂG5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?
You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunderâ€Â) is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.

So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !
This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.

Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.

Why?
Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.


3.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.

(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)

(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.[/quote:phd10a2n]

 

[follower 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-

Yeah, yeah, yeah...we've heard this partial truth a thousand times already. Sorry but this 'law' of the husband is quite conditonal or Moses would have been a heretic for going against God in the matter by allowing REmarriage post divorce.

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

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[quote:vyvsi0na]1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wroteâ€Â

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

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

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

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

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

We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.[/quote:vyvsi0na]

 

[follower of Christ]

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. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:

and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matt 19:9-12 )

This is Repentance....Just like any other sin, you stop doing it

No, that is our Lord Jesus saying VERY CLEARLY that NOT ALL men can even handle celibacy but ONLY those to whom that gift is given.

Matthew 19; Whats the question/whats the response?
By WmTipton

Here is the account of Jesus speaking with the pharisees in Matthew.
This account is pretty much indentical to Mark 10, except that the words “for every cause†and ''except for fornication'' are in this account and do not appear in Marks account of this story.

Firstly lets read it thru, then we'll break it down and see what is being discussed.


[quote:18rlf6lm]"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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.
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
(Mat 19:3-12 KJV)

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him,"

As they had been with John, the Pharisees were trying anything they could to incite the masses against Jesus. They would ask Him questions hoping His answer would cause the mobs to turn against Him and preferably kill Him.

"and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

There are two main schools of thought on the passage in Deut 24:1-4.
Those of Shammai thought that it meant ONLY for an actual ''unclean'' act, and surely nothing less than an actual covenant breaking act committed by the wife gave a man the right to put her away.
Then there was the school of Hillel.
These believed that the man only needed to find some small imperfection in her..such as smelly breath or burning his breakfast.....''for any cause'' she could be put away.
What is VERY obvious here is that Jesus is being confronted by those of Hillel.... the pharisees of Shammai did not believe in divorce ''for EVERY cause'' only for legitimately breaking the marriage covenant, only those of Hillel would have asked our Lord this question in this manner.
Matthews account sheds much light on the entire conversation that Marks account neglects.

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"

Jesus response shows absolutely here that we ARE discussing the covenant of marriage...not premarriage and not ''engagement'' as we have it today.
He is clearly discussing a union that GOD Himself has joined together... that is shown conclusively.
He states that this man and woman instead of being two, become ''one flesh'' (see 1 Corinth. 6:16 as well on this issue for more context). That God has joined them together in HIS union and let no man (or woman obviously) put asunder.... or ''separate''.
Jesus is discussing the UNION of marriage, that is a fact from the text given.

"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

The Pharisees invoke the words of Moses Himself, most likely hoping to help incite the mob at this point.
They ask Him, can we divorce for any reason, a luxury the Jews had grown quite used to. Jesus response seems to be just what they’re looking for, something they can anger the mob with....so they say to Him ''hey, MOSES says we can do it''.... trying to show that He is defying the law of Moses.
My thoughts are that they already had heard something on His views on marriage and knew to try this against Him. But they must not have heard all the details on the matter or they’d have known He wasn’t totally going against Moses in this matter, only greatly narrowing the intent.
At least, that is what I conclude based on the complete scriptural, cultural and historical study I’ve done on this the last year.

"He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so"

Here is a key point that MANY abuse.
They try to make it like ALL divorce is because of hardheartedness, but Jesus never states that at all.
And a study of the history of the Jews and even this brief passage makes it clear.
Remember what the Pharisees had just asked Jesus? ''can we put away a wife FOR EVERY CAUSE'' ?
THAT is the hardheartedness Jesus is talking about. He is speaking to men who were putting away their wives for any reason they could come up with....leaving her to be destitute, without means to support herself...just casting an innocent wife out for no reason...THAT is their 'treachery'...
What Moses had dealt with was worse, but the same hardheartedness fueled it before as well.
The reason Moses had permitted them to put away their wives without her breaking the covenant was because these horrible Jewish men would beat her or even kill her to be rid of her.
So even before Deut 24 was penned, men were unjustly, savagely ridding themselves of an unwanted wife.
For those who disbelieve me, please turn on your news or open a paper.... even today these brute beasts are tormenting thier innocent wives.

Jesus is right when He says it was because of hardness of heart that Moses had permitted them to just put her away.
Moses was trying to protect her from being hurt, abused or even killed at the hands of these monsterous men like we see even today and thus permitted them to put her away without just cause....then later REGULATED this allowance of easily putting her away by giving Deut 24:1-4 in a further attempt to protect her from him.

Jesus never states, nor implies, that ALL divorce by a man is over his hard heart.
He was asked a DIRECT question by men trying to set Him up....tempting Him....and He gave them a clear response....except for fornication...unless she ACTUALLY breaches the covenant you commit adultery when you cast her out and remarry another.

The man who has been cheated on for years and finally deserted, who treated his wife like a queen and is completely devastated by her leaving can merely end up filing divorce over broken heartedness instead when he realizes she isnt coming back or going to change her ways.
This is exactly how our God felt about Israel and having to put a covenant away with her over her continued whoredoms.

"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.

Jesus has explained that from the beginning what the pharisees were permitted to do was not the way God intended. From the beginning it was not so. From the beginning God intended the man to love and cherish his sweet Eve-like wife as a symbol of our union to Him and to Christ. From the beginning a man could not just feel like he wanted to be rid of his wife for whatever cause and just cast her out. From the beginning marriage was for life.

Jesus says clearly ONLY for actually breaking the marriage covenant can she be put away now. There will be no more of this ''for any cause'' divorce. If she doesnt actually break the covenant, then to put her away and remarry is to commit adultery against her (see Mark 10 "against her'') .

As we have seen already, Jesus IS discussing a MARRIAGE with the pharisees.
Not some fantasy engagement that as that would make the entire discussion void of all meaning altogether. ONLY if they are discussing a lawfully binding, permanent marriage does the passage even make any sense at all....especially considering the phariseees bringing up Moses words in Deut 24:1-4...the passage that speaks of a bill of DIVORCE.

This accusation does not, as some supposed, create any 'state' of ongoing adultery. Jesus is simply declaring that a crime is indeed occurring and showing the man that his sin is so great that even when his innocent wife remarries, as at that point in time she pretty much would have had to to survive, that she also commits adultery against that marriage cast away for no just cause as does the man who marries her.

Note firstly that Christ does not ever condemn the innocent, also notice that He does not say that this woman is merely committing adultery with some other man, but shows plainly that she is marrying another.
We know our Lord does not condemn the innocent, that simply is not in His nature. For Him to damn this wife who has done no wrong would be out of character for Him to do, so we conclude that His condemnation is directed at this man who has put this marriage away for no just cause.

"His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Jesus disciples are Jews. The SAME Jews who knew that ''for any cause'' divorce was permitted.
They had grown just as used to the idea, being Jews, that they could end a marriage easily *IF* they found out that they didnt like a wife for whatever reason, as the rest of the Jews had done.

Jesus has just shown these men who had centuries of easy divorce that NO....you cannot do this now. ONLY for actually breaking the covenant can she be put away.
Imagine today a man really is disgusted with his wife. She doesnt cook like he wants her to and wont give him sex in the depraved manner he wants and shes put on a few pounds. Under the Mosiac economy which permitted 'for any cause" divorce as interpreted by many, the man could just send her packing with her bill of divorce. But Jesus says NO.... ONLY if she actually breaks the covenant can you put her away.

His disciples were used to the idea of ''for any cause'', that way if she did start to become annoying to him he could be rid of her. But with Jesus words it wasnt that easy. In truth, it IS better not to marry, as they said, rather than to end up stuck with a wife your miserable with (most likely over your hardheartedness to begin with)

"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Jesus' response shows that there arent many men who CAN go without marrying.
We see more men and woman who cannot stay celebate than those who can.
Even God Himself says to us, ''it is not good for man to be alone''

Jesus shows indeed, that *IF* one CAN accept it, it is MUCH better to be as a eunuch and never marry.
Some are this way by birth and some have decided to remain unmarried for the kingdoms work... but Jesus has shown that ''all men cannot'' recieve this saying that ''it is not good to marry''....only to whom it is given... those who have the ability. Most likely given by God Himself.[/quote:18rlf6lm]

 

[follower of Christ]

And you cause her to commit Adultery..Matthew 5:32

Typical illogical conclusion based on a complete lack of understanding of the texts and their intents.

Matthew 5:32 - "Causes her to commit adultery"
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

In this writing we will show that in Matthew 5:32 that the husband who has put his wife away, does not cause her to ‘commit adultery’ as many bibles are interpreted as, including the KJV. The Greek in each other instance literally means to ‘commit adultery’ in the present tense, but in Matthew 5:32 where he ‘causes’ her to commit adultery, the the base word is the same, but the suffix shows that it is in the aorist sense (past tense) and the word means ‘to be adultered’ instead of to ‘commit adultery’.

Supporting Evidence

Lets look at 'commits adultery' in a few passages, shall we?

[quote:1cdv71nt]But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
(Mat 5:32)

(in part A where he “causeth her†the Greek is MOIXEYOHNAI -â€Âto be adultered†aorist, past tense ...... and MOIXATAI “commits adultery†present tense in part B )

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)

(MOIXATAI “commits adultery†present tense in both instances)

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mar 10:11-12)

(MOIXATAI “commits adultery†present tense in both instances)

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
(Luk 16:18)

(MOIXEYEI “is committing adulteryâ€Â, present tense, in both cases)

Here is the information on the relevant Greek words...

(Matthew 5:32a where he causes her to..)
3431 MOIXEYOHNAI v_ Aor Pas Inf TO-BE-ADULTERED

VS

(Matthew 5:32b, Matthew 19 and Luke 16)
3429 MOIXATAI v_ Pres midD/pasD Ind 3 Sg IS-committING-ADULTERY
3431 MOIXEYEI v_ Pres Act Ind 3 Sg IS-ADULTERING

Now, lets harmonize these details from the English.

1. when someone divorces their spouse and marries another they commit adultery against that spouse - Luke 16, Mark 10, Matt 5, Matt 19.

2. Exception is offered in the case of fornication when we ' marry another'.

An additional sin above seems to be that the wife is 'caused' to commit adultery simply be being put away.

I was having a hard time understanding how Paul could tell the believer to let the Unbeliever leave (divorce even) and then that would mean that, according to Jesus, that this woman, thru no fault of her own, is now forced to commit adultery simply because Matt 5:32 (the blue part) shows conclusively that even without marrying another, she commits adultery' just because this spouse deserted her.

Quite an ignorant thing on Paul's part, don’t we think, to tell the believer to let the Unbeliever leave, then to see that this allowing them to leave has now caused this believer to commit adultery because the Unbeliever divorced them.

So I got to looking a bit further into the greek and found that the wording there in 5:32 does not have the same meaning as in the others. Why does Matt say "who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery" in the english rendering ...making her an adulteress when she HASN'T committed any sin and only because he has divorced her in this one verse.

In most of those areas where it says ' commits adultery' the Greek the word MOIXATAI is used for all but Luke 16 and ALL mean 'commits adultery' as they state.
In Luke 16:18 the word MOIXEYEI is used. It also is a slight variant of the base word Moicheia, but absolutely still shows present tense 'commits adultery'. (the suffix might add ‘she commits’ or something similar to the base word)

But in Matt 5:32 where it shows that he causes her to 'commit adultery' the word is not the same and means literally 'to be adultered'.

The Greek is MOIXEYOHNAI and the tense is not the same as all the others, firstly, and it does not mean ‘commits adultery†but instead its exact meaning is ‘to-be-adultered†and its in the aorist form, past tense instead of present tense as the others all are.

In every case of 'commits adultery' in the passages above it literally means just that.....adultery is committed when we marry another. But not in the case where she was simply put away where he ‘causes’ it. The word MOIXEYOHNAI there means 'to be adultered' instead.

In every case the tense is present except for in Matt 5:32A where he 'causes' her to commit adultery. That is the only occurrence of the aorist (PAST tense) sense.
Now, I’m no Greek scholar, but my guess is that 'commits adultery' there isnt quite the same as where we have remarried, otherwise the greek word would MEAN 'commits adultery’ as in each other case and seemingly should be the same tense at least, as the others were (present).

You'll need something a bit more in depth than a Strongs to study this out.
Check out the Interlinear bible software link on the homepage.
Thayers shows this of the word in Matthew 5:32a

G3431
μοιÇεÃÂÉ
moicheuÃ…Â
Thayer Definition:
1) to commit adultery
1a) to be an adulterer
1b) to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife
1c) of the wife: to suffer adultery, be debauched
1d) A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman’s solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols

After seeing this, Im personally convinced that this man doesn't cause her to 'commit adultery' as in the other uses of the phrase, but I believe Jesus is simply assigning guilt to this man who has frivolously cast his wife aside by telling him that he has caused her to be 'adultered' (not committing adultery present tense, but past tense 'adultered' just as the greek actually presents )

Adding to this thought, I personally believe, based on the evidence above (going to the GREEK as God 'intended'), that this man does not 'cause her to commit adultery' present tense by putting her away as some believe, but that he simply causes her a state of having been 'adultered' by his actions, past tense (aorist).[/quote:1cdv71nt]

 

[follower of Christ]

Are you God now?

Who should we Believe you over God?

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder...Mark 10:9

And *IF* you WERE actually studied in the matter, chap, instead of just having 6 verses to harp on, youd have KNOWN that PAUL DOES show that man CAN 'put asunder' marriage, sinful or not.
Ill just include the link this time
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1 Cor 7:10-11

For the Sake of Peace

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.1 Cor 7:15

Sorry but there are TWO groups there in that passage, not one.
ONE group has instruction from the LORD while the SECOND clearly does not as PAUL says HE speaks, not the Lord, to this UNequally yoked group.

"Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"
by Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
We will show briefly that the commandment of the Lord to ‘remain unmarried or reconcile’ is NOT a blanket commandment in all marital situations where a breaking of the marriage is taking place, but is instead directed to two believers who have left their marriage without just cause, and that Paul also had no commandment for those marriages that weren’t equally yoked, didnt given the same instruction to these who were married to an unbeliever, not having any commandment from the Lord in the matter, and then also offered a concession not given to those who were equally yoked to another believer who had left their marriage for whatever frivolous reason.

Supporting Evidence

Firstly lets look at the actual passages
[quote:y3omqoty] "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1Co 7:10-11 KJV)

vs

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (1Co 7:12- * KJV)

1.0
"Remain Unmarried or reconcileâ€Â

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon or even a biblical scholar to look at that passage as a whole to see that Paul is speaking to two groups there. The first being those where obviously both the husband and the wife are both listening since Paul addresses both of them therein.
This idea is made absolute by Pauls making a clear distinction in his next words in saying “BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD†where he shows clearly that he is now speaking to ‘the rest’ of married couples who do not fall into whatever category as the first group fell. These are defined as being those who are married to someone who ‘believeth not’ which we understand as as ‘unequally yoked’ marriage.

Notice that Paul makes it very clear that to these who ARENT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ that he isnt speaking, but the Lord is giving commandment to these.
Easy enough concept to see, to understand and to accept for those reading and being honest enough to let the words say what they simply state.

To these who arent married to someone who ‘believed not’, these are married to someone who instead is a believer. They cannot be anything else or otherwise Pauls words “BUT TO THE REST†when he speaks to the rest who are married make no logical sense whatsoever.
These in verses 7:10-11 MUST be those who are NOT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ but MUST be to those marriages where the person being spoken to is married to a believer. Being honest with ourselves, we accept the targets of these words to be those marriages where both persons are a believer...ie ‘equally yoked’.

To these, Paul shows that the Lord has given commandment if they depart to remain unmarried (ARAMOC/agamos/single/unwed) or reconcile with the man she leftâ€Â
This makes logical sense and harmonizes quite well with Gods whole word and is even completely logical even if we set scripture aside for a moment.
These are two people who have compatible beliefs who, for whatever reason, have left their marriage who, as christians, should be quite interested in working together as ALL believers in Christ should be doing in order to be in harmony with one another.
BOTH of these persons, as followers of Jesus Christ, having entered a marital covenant and having set it aside for whatever frivolous reasonings, should be willing to work together to reunite what they created together previously and set aside without just cause.
The Lord has commanded these two believers to remain unmarried or reconcile this marriage cast away without just cause (as historical evidence of Corinth is quite capable of showing. That area was not exactly morally sound).


2.0
"not in bondage"

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,

Now we move on ‘to the rest’....to those marriages where Paul is addressing the believer who is married to one who ‘believeth not’.

This is the greek for the ‘rest’...

G3062
Thayer Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain

These ‘rest’ are those that remain of the groups under consideration, which are clearly those whoare ‘married’. This ‘rest’ are those who are married to unbelievers, clearly indicating that the groups being spoken to in verses 7:10-11 are those who are believers married to believers...in other words, equally yoked.
Since the ‘rest’ are those who are Unequally yoked, logically there is no way that that Paul is speaking to ‘the rest’ in verses 7:10-11 then turning right around and addressing ‘the rest’ again starting in verse 7:12.

To ‘the rest’ who are clearly believers unequally yoked to unbelievers Paul has no commandment of the Lord but is clearly speaking his own mind in the matter. Believing that Paul may not be speaking by direct commandment, we still accept that he is speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus his words are ‘law’ for these married to an unbelieving spouse.

Firstly we notice that Pauls words offer a more conditional tone.
“IF a brother has a wife who is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her awayâ€Â.
If this brother is married to an unbelieving wife who wants to live in peace with him, then he should not put her away.
This church had asked questions of Paul and based on Pauls response its easy to determine that they must have believed that if they became born again, that somehow they were defiled by being with an unbelieving husband.
Paul lets them know in this passage that that isnt the case. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer (in a physical or spiritual ‘cleaness’ type of manner, not meaning a free ride to heaven without repentance or anything like that).
These clearly were under the impression that it might be ok to just walk out of a marriage if they became saved, yet their spouse did not.
Paul straightens out this erroneous viewpoint and lets them know that if the the unbeliever is mutually ‘pleased’ along with the believer and wants to remain in the marriage, then they arent to put them away, and may even be key to their spouses salvation.

Paul then goes on to give concession not given to the two believers above.
First there was no commandment at all from the Lord to these as with the equally yoked marriage, but Paul now tells these that if the unbeliever wishes to depart the marriage that the believer isnt in bondage to this marriage.

Instead of repeating other studies here, please see these articles:
"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?

Now, these folks will casually leave out that Paul gives instruction to TWO different married groups there and try to apply 1 Cor 7:10-11 to ALL marriages, but this makes Pauls statement of ‘BUT TO THE REST†and everything that follows completely illogical and unable to be harmonized with the whole properly.
And the reason they need to pull this deceptive tactic is because they like what the Lord has commanded in verses 7:10-11, but they arent too happy with Pauls concession in 7:12 and after. It completely destroys these false teachings of theirs that Paul offers this idea that the believer might not be forced to remain bound in marriage to an unbeliever in whatever circumstance, and so they force the text to give instruction to a group of people, those unequally yoked, that Paul CLEARLY says he has no word from the Lord to.

Thankfully, you readers are quite capable of seeing the wording used for yourself and seeing what is actually presented by Gods whole word....

Additional Evidence

1Co 7:12 But1161 to the3588 rest3062 speak3004 I,1473 not3756 the3588 Lord:2962 If any1536 brother80 hath2192 a wife1135 that believeth not,571 and2532 she846 be pleased4909 to dwell3611 with3326 him,846 let him not3361 put her away.863, 846

rest3062
G3062
λοιÀοί
loipoi
Thayer Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain

1Co 7:12 - to the rest--
the other classes (besides "the married," 1Co_7:10, where both husband and wife are believers) about whom the Corinthians had inquired, namely, those involved in mixed marriages with unbelievers.
-Jameson, Faucet& Brown

He has been speaking to the unmarried (1Co_7:8) and to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10). By the rest he means married couples, one of which remained a heathen.
-Vincents Word Studies

[/quote:y3omqoty]

 

[follower of Christ]

Thats not what God said

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.1 Peter 1:24-25

Its precisely what His WORD shows...marriage is a CONDITIONAL coveannt..otherwise Moses would be a heretic for allowing divorce and ADDING to Gods own law method TO divorce.
Pity that some are so blinded that they cannot see or accept the facts.

And please...post something RELEVANT to the point if you are going to respond.

Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law,

uh.....yeah... :nag
Nice deflection. If you only had a point.

Unwritten?

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Mark 10:19

Uh....dude...CHRISTS example was going back to the first couple Adam and Eve.
Not sure if you havent figured it out but MARK hadnt been born when ADAM was married to EVE in the garden so this 'law' of the husband that BEGAN in the garden has NOTHING to do with New Testament scripture.

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Matt 19:8

A little background on divorce.
By WmTipton

Putting away a wife had been going on with the Hebrews for quite some time in the desert there during the times of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This putting away was being done by very hardhearted Hebrews, remember, this is the same group of people who had made the golden calf to worship it. Many Hebrews had little concern for God or His statutes.
One symptom of this hardheartedness, among others, was a complete lack of regard for Gods union of marriage. These were casting aside their wives for no reason , which Moses had to permit or else risk having this monstrous men literally torment or kill their wives.

If you break open your bibles to Leviticus 21, you will see that neither the priests, nor the high priest, could marry a woman who was put away ('divorced') from her husband. The high priest couldn’t even take widow . They were to marry ONLY a virgin of Israel.
(as a side note, if we use this for our basis, then some would have to claim that we can’t even marry a widow, something completely lawful in Gods word)

These women who were not permitted to be taken by the priests there are these that had been put away from their husbands for just about any reason that the man could think up.

Also going back to Exodus 21:7-11, we clearly see conditions where this “wife†was permitted to walk out of her marriage a free woman. This is unrelated to the divorce by the man for ‘some uncleanness' (for every cause) found in her by him, but it does help to prove that the ending of a marriage was not new to Deuteronomy as some assert.

When we get to Deut 24:1-4, Moses laying out regulation for a frivolous putting away that had already been going on by a husband who had no lawful claim against the wife (such as Exodus is against the husband). He isn't laying out an ordinance for some new thing called 'divorce', he was placing limitations on what was already occurring in Israel.

Thus he isn't 'defining' what is permissible for divorce in Deut 24:1, they had already defined this putting away 'for EVERY cause' with the manner in which they had been tossing their wives out, Moses is simply stating that if this man has put her away for the causes he had been, which is pretty much anything he deemed as 'unclean' about her, then he MUST give her a bill of divorce and once RE married she could never be his wife again.

Moses didn't define exactly what the cause of divorce was for in Deut 24:1-4, the Hebrew people did with their frivolous reasoning's for this putting away, thus the reason for the ambiguous phrase "ervah dabar"...he is, in this regulation, saying that when this man has taken a wife and has found disfavor with her (as the Jews were doing), some ambiguous uncleanness' (ceremonial uncleanness is not completely out of line here), then he is to write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand and send her out (if he wishes to do so, this wasn’t a commandment obviously since God would never "command" a man to divorce frivolously).

To make it clearer, Moses isn't defining what they CAN put their wives over in Deut 24:1-4, he is defining what they HAD been putting away their wives for...which any study will show that it was for just about any reason they could think up.

This is the reason why, and you will find this absolutely to be the case, that no one, not even the Jews today, can put an EXACT meaning and intent to the phrase 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1-4 there. It simply wasnt MEANT to define anything because there were MANY reasons these men were finding to put their wives away for, not anything specific.

The problem in Jesus day was that instead of helping the situation, Deut 24:1-4 made it worse because now the men turned this 'allowance' into a 'commandment' (see Matt 19) so that not only were these hardhearted ones putting away their wives for no just cause, but now they had a scapegoat to put the blame on....Moses...since supposedly he had commanded them to divorce.

(Bear in mind that this is all happening under the the old covenant. Jesus was a Jew born under law. The new covenant would not take effect until His death on the cross. When Jesus shows them that what they are doing is a sin...it is under the law that this is declared....it isnt something that just took effect with the new covenant being ratified.
Jesus declared what Moses hadnt...that this 'for EVERY cause' divorce to remarry IS sin.

When He said that adultery is committed when they do this the OLD covenant was still in effect (the new was not ratified until His death on the cross, which also took the old out of the way) so He was not saying that they WOULD be committing adultery under His NEW covenant, but they WERE even then...and if they WERE under the old covenant at any point, then they WERE the entire time.
Jesus did what Jesus did best with the Jews....exposed sin where they believed themselves guiltless.
Just as when He told them that they DID commit adultery when they lust after a woman. Did He mean ONLY after His new covenant took effect that this would be the case?
Absolutely not. They WERE, and HAD BEEN, committing adultery in their hearts any time they lusted in the manner He speaks of.
They WERE and HAD BEEN committing adultery when they were putting out their wives for some ambiguous 'uncleanness' to take another.
Jesus exposed their sin, it was nothing new or being defined as such only in this new covenant.)

Jesus shows that this is where they got it wrong. Moses hadnt 'commanded' them to do anything in this regard. He had tolerated their vile casting away of their wives and laid out regulation to try to control or end it.

The regulation in Deut 24:1-4 was given to this younger generation of Hebrews, most of those who had left Egypt were either very old or dead...remember they had been out there for decades...a whole new generation was alive now.
At the end of this wilderness journey is when Moses gives these speeches to repeat the law and give some additions such as the regulation in Deut 24:1-4.

When you read all the relevant passages regarding this issue, keep these things in mind and see if they don’t start all making sense to you.


I’m fully convinced, personally, that in His exceptions that Jesus’ main intent is not to offer any instruction on ‘why’ we can divorce, but I believe that His point is that He is assigning guilt where no guilt was previously designated. Obviously any exception shows condition, and that condition would clearly exist or it would be falsehood. But I believe that Jesus’ real point is mainly to show that even tho Moses hadnt said they were guilty of any crime in divorcing frivolously, that if they do so as they had been, the were guilty of sinning against their spouse who was put away for no just cause.

Moses had tolerated frivolous divorce from at least the time of Leviticus 21, but didn’t actually assign any real ‘sin’ as being committed when this man cast out his wife for no just cause.
The tone seems to be one where we might try to convince a man of the idea ‘NO...you CANNOT just go around killing people. ONLY if they are trying to kill you would you ever be justified in doing soâ€Â
You can see that there is no real ‘permission’ to kill people in what was said there, but only showing that while there may be some extreme circumstances that relieves one of guilt, killing is not generally tolerated.

The speaker there wouldn't be saying “Hey, wait till they try to kill you and THEN you can kill them (wink wink)â€Â. That wouldn't be the point at all.
Nor is it Jesus’ point to say “well, you just wait for her to commit adultery and THEN you can toss her out (wink wink) “

I think this is the tone Jesus took in the gospels with divorce. No, Moses hadn’t assigned guilt in the matter, but from the beginning it was not so. From the beginning man and woman were created to be companions for life and unless some extreme circumstance warrants putting her away. If you cast her out otherwise, and then think you are going to remarry, sorry, you commit adultery, as does she, and anyone who marries either of you.
I believe the reason Jesus made sure to include the persons marrying either of these two is to show the extent of the sin going on here. That this mans actions were so terrible that it didn’t just affect him or his wife, that it was like leaven working its way out from one simple act that Moses had tolerated and swallowing up everyone in its path.

I believe in the gospels that Jesus is simply presenting that men were guilty where the law did not define guilt in their actions.
We see this very same concept just before Jesus exception in Matt 5 where Jesus tells them that if they even think about a woman sexually they have already committed adultery with her.

Mat 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus is there also assigning guilt where none existed before. Internalizing it, making it personal. Defining ‘sin’ where none was thought to exist before. God wasnt just watching the outside of the man, but the heart and mind as well.
Oddly enough, in Matt 5 there while Jesus is right on that very train of thought He lays out the MDR statement.

 

[follower of Christ]

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress
Romans 7:3

Again, this 'law' is a CONDITIONAL one or Moses was a heretic for allowing DIVORCE and REmarriage.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)


Moses
the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time !!
By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this article

To prove that this ‘law of the husband’ is a conditional law, lest Moses himself was profaning the will of his God.

Supporting Evidence

Moses was the biggest sinner and lawbreaker ever to grace this planet.

Think about it....read these passages...

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 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.
(Rom 7:1-3 KJV)

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.
(1Co 7:39 KJV)

Firstly, bear in mind that this 'law of the husband ' is not Mosiac law as that would mean Eve was not bound to Adam...nor would ANY wife be before the Mosiac economy, but in Romans there is being compared to the Mosiac covenant, this new covenant and our relationship to both.
Nor is this “law anything that Jesus has JUST created in this covenant, as again, Eve would not have been bound to Adam.

This law was a law GOD HIMSELF laid out in the beginning for marriage starting with the first man and wife
So what does Moses do?
He ALLOWS men to put away their wives. AND to do it frivolously.

He didnt create laws forbidding it, he actually permitted divorce, and THEN ends up creating a law (Det 24:1-4) that even laid out the specifics for putting away a wife for no reason and also shows them to give it to her in writing !
AND...he tells them if she EVER remarries...she can NEVER come back to her first husband !

Moses, this supposed 'godly' prophet, KNOWING that God had created marriage for LIFE....that the wife is 'bound by the law of the husband' until his death, turns right around and not only PERMITS men to put their wives away as far back as Leviticus 21, but then ADDS HIS OWN instruction into GODS LAW telling a man precisely how to go about breaking this law created by God in the beginning.


Any objections?
There should be plenty....


Now, let me continue...

Moses did not add 'allowance' for divorce to Gods word with Deut 24:1-4 as some try to teach . There is no 'immorality' clause given there.
Deut 24:1-4 isnt any allowance at all if you read it as it is written instead of inserting our own thoughts into it, understanding that putting away was already going on at this point, not being anything new (see Lev 21, the priests are forbidden to marry a woman 'put away' from her husband).

Deut 24 is Gods (thru Moses) attempt to put enough restriction on the husband so to discourage divorce. Frivolous divorce wasnt commanded in Gods law, nor was it given license therein. It was merely tolerated and regulated by Moses.
So the above is therefore modified (as it was meant to be from the start) in that we do believe that Moses, with Gods permission, allowed divorce for the safety of the wife whos hardhearted husband might even kill her to be rid of her. Frivolous divorce was tolerated because of sin and to prevent further and possibly more diabolical treachery from occuring.

So Jesus was right, Moses 'suffered' the act of putting away an innocent wife (ie. "for every cause") because of their hardheartedness...both towards her and towards God.
This 'law of the husband' presented in the passages above CANNOT be UNconditional or Moses himself is guilty of allowing men and women to break this law against Gods will. Do you believe that Moses would have sent these women to hell by allowing them to REmarrying after being put away by a hardhearted husband? Moses was no such monster.

Those passages above show the intent of God that marriage is for life. The marriage covenant itself is not, nor ever has been an UNconditional one.

 

[follower of Christ]

Only Death can break a Marriage....If her husband is Alive and she marrys another, she commits Adultery...

Sorry but that is fallacious.
This 'law' of marriage BEGAN in the garden with Adams marriage to Eve, his wife.
This 'law' NEVER changed all thru the Old Testament...it was ALWAYS intended for LIFE.
Moses allowed FRIVOLOUS divorce to REmarry because of their hardheartedness towards God thus PROVING that marriage IS a conditional covenant and that divorce is permitted for the sake of the innocent.
Paul very clearly agrees when he says to LET the UNbeliever DEPART (which is the SAME word CHORIZO that we see in the gospels as Jesus' words 'put asunder').
So whether you like it or not, or can handle it or not marriage IS conditional covenant and CAN be 'put asunder' PRIOR to the death of the spouse.

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

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 7:3

Mindnumbing fallacious repetition will get you nowhere, Im afraid.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Matt 19:8

And BECAUSE of SIN HAS been permitted, just as Paul PROVES is still the case...
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.Matt 19:4-6

No how can you dispute that? What God joined togather...This is the LAW of God....God spoke the Word in the Very Beginning....

maybe you'll actually read it this time...
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
PAUL proves that you are dead wrong, poster. Like it or not.

YOUR error frankly makes both Paul and Moses into godless heretics who seemingly DEFIED God/Jesus law and instruction.

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

Bound by a CONDITIONAL law....or Moses and Paul are liars and heretics.

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
READERS SEE->Click->>> Moses...the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time



.