How exactly is Divorce without cause and remarriage NOT ADULTERY?

[Free]

Mt. 5 and Gal.5 etc. are plain, simple and easy to be understood.

I'm not sure what Gal. 5 has to do with divorce or remarriage but looking at Matt. 5, you agree then that women are not allowed to divorce men for any reason, correct?

 

[billybalke]

I'm not sure what Gal. 5 has to do with divorce or remarriage but looking at Matt. 5, you agree then that women are not allowed to divorce men for any reason, correct?

Gal.5:19-21 lists the works of the flesh fornication being one of them, Paul (by inspiration) then states that those guilty of such "shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven".

The answer to your question is no.

 

[Free]

Gal.5:19-21 lists the works of the flesh fornication being one of them, Paul (by inspiration) then states that those guilty of such "shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven".

Okay, but there are things in that list that every single Christian is guilty of.

The answer to your question is no.

Why not? Jesus was addressing men and spoke only of divorcing one's wife and remarrying another woman.

 

[stovebolts]

Some of the above I agree with. Some is emotion as with your previous post prior to this one. Mt. 5 and Gal.5 etc. are plain, simple and easy to be understood.

From the surface, perhaps. But not together as a doctrine that puts additional burdens on established families who are trying to live Godly lives.

In Matthew 5, Jesus is speaking to a Jewish crowd who understood marriage at a much deeper level than the gentiles. They understood the sanctity of marriage and it's covenant as reflected in the harmonious union of Adam and Eve during creation. Gentiles understood marriage in a very different way, much like a legal transaction as seen in our current secular society.

As such, if you have a man and a woman who are married, but do not understand the sanctity of their marriage, let alone how God wants them to live, then the home can become very chaotic to the point where divorce could occur. What is worse, divorce, or living in a home where abuse can occur to both the spouse and the children which has a high probability of producing dysfunctional children that are at a higher risk of abusing their spouse and children?

Each society has a way of thinking culturally. When Jesus speaks on divorce in Matthew 5, he is speaking against two cultural ideas being taught. One my Hillel which stated you could divorce your spouse for any reason, and the second which said only for Adultery, which was from Shamia. Jesus sides with Shamia in this case. My point is this, the culture was already familiar with God, and how a marriage should work.

It's a different story when it comes to the Gentiles. They don't have the same cultural understanding of marriage as the Jews. As such, divorce was a legal transaction and did not focus on the sanctity of the marriage or the family. From this perspective, I believe Paul is writing to the Galatians where adultery was widely accepted. In other words, a man could sleep around on his wife with little to no legal consequence. As such, Paul is addressing a much different issue.

We see this clearly in Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That you abstain from anything offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Farewell.

Now then, we know that fornication is sleeping with somebody your not married to. This covers those married, and those not married. For those married, this we call adultery.

In summary, Paul, in Galatians is speaking to having sex to those outside your marriage, which in some social circles was acceptable within societal norms. Paul is addressing this issue.

I didn't write it, God did. I didn't choose it, God did. I'm not the judge, God is. I can only attempt to "speak where the Bible speaks". I do not claim to be right, God forbid. God is always right. God is God, you and I are not.

For the record, I reject this form of conservative church of Christ hermenutic's.

Again, I ask you to produce the scripture which teaches forgiveness without repentance. Again, I ask if the thief is to be saved, what must he do? If the drunkard is to be saved, what must he do? If the liar is to be saved, what must he do? If the adulterer is to be saved what must he so?

I cannot produce a passage that teaches forgiveness without repentance. What I have shown is that willful sin and sin done in ignorance are handled two different ways. I have also shown that Paul was forgiven for the Chrisitans that he murdered, because he stopped killing them, and then started preaching for them.
In the same way, I believe that a woman who divorces her husband for irreconcilable differences can show repentance toward her new husband by living a Godly life with im and raising holy children devoted to God. It's about the journey. John puts it this way.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
For those baptized in Christ, they need do no more than confess that sin.

I would only add that those who continue to live in adultery, that is having sex outside their current marriage will not see the kingdom of God, for there is no repentance shown.

No emotion please, its "what saith the scripture" Rom.4:3.
Respectfully

Respectfully, you'll have to tolerate any emotion that I put forth. I've heard that preached at the pulpit so many times it's plain nonsense. God created us sentient beings, we are not Spock. Divorce and Adultery are emotional events in ones life. To pretend otherwise, or to forbid speaking of the emotional side of this subject is to deny the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[JohnDB]

Now that this thread is way overblown...and most likely many won't bother to read...

The Matthew 19 passage is some of the most controversial scriptures. Because of the wars where people were killed and several just murdered... there's been a concerted effort to not translate the passages as clearly into English as possible. Also a good bit of understanding of why Jesus said what He said in the manner He said it in is tied up in the Anthropology of the day.

There is Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin words for what I'm going to discuss...but I'll save it for those who actually can do something other than just look up the words in a dictionary.

In the Old Testament God gave the Law to Moses who allowed people to divorce.(God doesn't change)
God also allowed for polygamy for men but not women.
Those found guilty of adultery were usually stoned to death(David and Bathsheba)
Women/wives had no access to the courts. They were one half step above property.
Men found guilty of beating their wives abusively were then beaten one time, the second time they were stoned to death.
Israel was a highly Legalistic society. The Torah was microstrategized for loopholes to circumvent the penalties of the Law.

Back in the day basically women were treated like Muslim zealots do today in the middle East... except that it was the Jews doing so. (Muslims didn't exist yet)
If you look at the Old Testament scriptures where Moses talked about divorce you will find a two part directive. One is actually Divorce...the other is "put away" as it says in KJV. To this society they were two separate actions. We would tend to think of it as the same in our Westernised mindset but in theirs it wasn't.
So men, who could do as they pleased, when they discovered that their wives we're not acting in the best interest of the household (3-4 generation households) could either divorce their wives and return the dowry to the woman (quite expensive if her father got together a large dowry) and "put her away" (kick her out of the house) or he could just put her away if he felt like she was guilty of adultery but had no real proof of it for the Temple Judges. (Two eyewitnesses).
Putting away a wife was a horrible thing. It basically made her no better than a homeless person. The amount of sustenance a put away wife was entitled to under the law was so small that it wasn't worth it to collect from a husband. The woman would either have to find a new husband and be fearful of being found out of adultery (death penalty) or become a prostitute (death penalty). Either way the guy who divorced his wife was free and clear of any financial obligations to her. She on the other hand was in direct straights. She couldn't go to a judge to seek anything. No judge would listen to her because she was a woman.

So when a man found that he could marry another woman and actually afford her because his first wife wasn't there any longer...he was most inclined to do so.

Except that God didn't like this. In Malachi where God is famously quoted as saying, "I hate divorce." It literally is taken out of context of the larger passage where God is explaining that God hates abuse and bloodshed as a result of abuse more than divorce. And that this practice of putting away the wives is being abused.

So when we come to the New Testament and the Pharisees are questioning Jesus on his stance on the whole subject there had been a big debate (not unlike this thread). There were two Schmeekah Rabbi who were polar opposites on the subject. One who would allow divorce for a pot of burned beans and another who would only allow divorce for adultery (unproven). (Provable adultery was still a capital offense)
The other thing going on at the time was a bit of a scandal. The grammitons (experts in the law) and other religious Leadership were involved in Marriage Parlors (where a guy could get married for a fee for a few hours) and pretty much wife swapping. (I'll divorce my wife if you will marry her after divorcing your wife so I can marry her)
The whole thing was as sleazy as it comes....but technically inside of the Law.

Then you had guys who would find a woman that they strongly suspected was a put away wife. But deliberately didn't know for sure. These guys basically had a live in slave they called a wife.

Jesus called it straight as an arrow and cut through the crap.

In the Old Testament prophecy passages those who were not behaving like proper children of Abraham were referred to as Israel prostituting themselves. Hosea is a whole book about this. Isaiah talked about it extensively as well.

So when Jesus talked about this He ended any ambiguity over the subject. Women forced into adultery were going to be considered innocent but their ex-husband was going to be charged by God with the adultery. But people wanting the Bible to match their lifestyle instead of trying to match their lifestyle to the Bible.... well trouble has ensued.

Divorce is an ugly business. Only the hardest hearted or most desperate want one. Today women have access to the courts and are the most likely to file for divorce than men. Abuse continues to this day. People claim to be Christians to get "the girl" or to get "the guy" but have no real relationship with God.
It's a mess no better or worse than it used to be except now women are as guilty of abuse as men.

Those who are divorced are unmarried. Divorce may be a sin but God forgives sin completely...as far as the East is from the West our sins are removed from us.
Getting remarried isn't a sin...but it isn't a good idea either. Over 60% of second marriages fail and it's around 70% of third. No one should expose themselves to that much heartache.
And according to Luke...the browbeaters who are finger pointing at those who have remarried are committing a worse sin that those they are pointing at.

 

[billybalke]

[IQUOTE="Free, post: 1404433, member: 19"]Okay, but there are things in that list that every single Christian is guilty of.


Why not? Jesus was addressing men and spoke only of divorcing one's wife and remarrying another woman.[/QUOTE]

 

[stovebolts]

Great post JohnDB

Can you provide more on this?

So when Jesus talked about this He ended any ambiguity over the subject. Women forced into adultery were going to be considered innocent but their ex-husband was going to be charged by God with the adultery. But people wanting the Bible to match their lifestyle instead of trying to match their lifestyle to the Bible.... well trouble has ensued

 

[billybalke]

[IQUOTE="Free, post: 1404433, member: 19"]Okay, but there are things in that list that every single Christian is guilty of.


Why not? Jesus was addressing men and spoke only of divorcing one's wife and remarrying another woman.

[/QUOTE]

Of Gal.5 I would have to agree, many of us if not all have been or are now guilty of some fruits of the flesh. That, however doesn't change the issue under discussion.

Mark 10:11,12 answers your position about Mt.5:32 applies only to men.

 

[billybalke]

From the surface, perhaps. But not together as a doctrine that puts additional burdens on established families who are trying to live Godly lives.

In Matthew 5, Jesus is speaking to a Jewish crowd who understood marriage at a much deeper level than the gentiles. They understood the sanctity of marriage and it's covenant as reflected in the harmonious union of Adam and Eve during creation. Gentiles understood marriage in a very different way, much like a legal transaction as seen in our current secular society.

As such, if you have a man and a woman who are married, but do not understand the sanctity of their marriage, let alone how God wants them to live, then the home can become very chaotic to the point where divorce could occur. What is worse, divorce, or living in a home where abuse can occur to both the spouse and the children which has a high probability of producing dysfunctional children that are at a higher risk of abusing their spouse and children?

Each society has a way of thinking culturally. When Jesus speaks on divorce in Matthew 5, he is speaking against two cultural ideas being taught. One my Hillel which stated you could divorce your spouse for any reason, and the second which said only for Adultery, which was from Shamia. Jesus sides with Shamia in this case. My point is this, the culture was already familiar with God, and how a marriage should work.

It's a different story when it comes to the Gentiles. They don't have the same cultural understanding of marriage as the Jews. As such, divorce was a legal transaction and did not focus on the sanctity of the marriage or the family. From this perspective, I believe Paul is writing to the Galatians where adultery was widely accepted. In other words, a man could sleep around on his wife with little to no legal consequence. As such, Paul is addressing a much different issue.

We see this clearly in Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That you abstain from anything offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Farewell.

Now then, we know that fornication is sleeping with somebody your not married to. This covers those married, and those not married. For those married, this we call adultery.

In summary, Paul, in Galatians is speaking to having sex to those outside your marriage, which in some social circles was acceptable within societal norms. Paul is addressing this issue.


For the record, I reject this form of conservative church of Christ hermenutic's.



I cannot produce a passage that teaches forgiveness without repentance. What I have shown is that willful sin and sin done in ignorance are handled two different ways. I have also shown that Paul was forgiven for the Chrisitans that he murdered, because he stopped killing them, and then started preaching for them.
In the same way, I believe that a woman who divorces her husband for irreconcilable differences can show repentance toward her new husband by living a Godly life with im and raising holy children devoted to God. It's about the journey. John puts it this way.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
For those baptized in Christ, they need do no more than confess that sin.

I would only add that those who continue to live in adultery, that is having sex outside their current marriage will not see the kingdom of God, for there is no repentance shown.


Respectfully, you'll have to tolerate any emotion that I put forth. I've heard that preached at the pulpit so many times it's plain nonsense. God created us sentient beings, we are not Spock. Divorce and Adultery are emotional events in ones life. To pretend otherwise, or to forbid speaking of the emotional side of this subject is to deny the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I rest my case. You admit you cannot produce a verse
You try I Jn.1:19. So according to your reasoning all the thief has to do is to " confess" his sin of thievery and he is then forgiven and can go on stealing. I don't think so, Eph.4:28 reads "Let him that stole steal no longer--". Get the point? Repentance means you quit the sin. Again, I didn't write the scripture, God did. These matter are not easily misunderstood, its our emotions that interfere.

BTW, are you still loose on instrumental music in worship?

 

[JohnDB]

Great post JohnDB

Can you provide more on this?

So when Jesus talked about this He ended any ambiguity over the subject. Women forced into adultery were going to be considered innocent but their ex-husband was going to be charged by God with the adultery. But people wanting the Bible to match their lifestyle instead of trying to match their lifestyle to the Bible.... well trouble has ensued

Jesus was ending the ambiguity as to what was grounds for a divorce. The only reason for divorce was your spouse not behaving in a fashion consistent with being a Child of God...which includes such behaviors like adultery, physical abuse, idol worshipping, financial abuse and etc.

Paul, when commenting about this later to a largely Greek Audience didn't want to burden the church with the appearance or the life expenses of a whole bunch of women who just wanted to abandon their husbands and families in favor of some other guy they found in Christian circles. Which is why he said for them to stay with their husbands.

Two completely different crowds.

Paul was kinda sarcastic...ok he was a real sarcasm expert.
The average guy in Ephasus had a wife he married for business or political reasons. (It wasn't love) and this wife had status inside of her husband's house as well as the children she would have for her husband. The guy would also have a consort. A legal girlfriend that he would actually love. She had no rights as a wife but she generally had her boyfriend's heart and attention. (Unlike his wife) and she would have some status and Authority as a consort/girlfriend. Any children she had because of their relationship wouldn't be treated the same as a child of his wife's. But adoption did occasionally happen.
Paul referred to the consorts as wives. Which totally upset the Greeks because they thought that the Jews were barbaric for practicing polygamy. (I know...kinda silly)

 

[Papa Zoom]

Now that this thread is way overblown...and most likely many won't bother to read...

The Matthew 19 passage is some of the most controversial scriptures. Because of the wars where people were killed and several just murdered... there's been a concerted effort to not translate the passages as clearly into English as possible. Also a good bit of understanding of why Jesus said what He said in the manner He said it in is tied up in the Anthropology of the day.

There is Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin words for what I'm going to discuss...but I'll save it for those who actually can do something other than just look up the words in a dictionary.

In the Old Testament God gave the Law to Moses who allowed people to divorce.(God doesn't change)
God also allowed for polygamy for men but not women.
Those found guilty of adultery were usually stoned to death(David and Bathsheba)
Women/wives had no access to the courts. They were one half step above property.
Men found guilty of beating their wives abusively were then beaten one time, the second time they were stoned to death.
Israel was a highly Legalistic society. The Torah was microstrategized for loopholes to circumvent the penalties of the Law.

Back in the day basically women were treated like Muslim zealots do today in the middle East... except that it was the Jews doing so. (Muslims didn't exist yet)
If you look at the Old Testament scriptures where Moses talked about divorce you will find a two part directive. One is actually Divorce...the other is "put away" as it says in KJV. To this society they were two separate actions. We would tend to think of it as the same in our Westernised mindset but in theirs it wasn't.
So men, who could do as they pleased, when they discovered that their wives we're not acting in the best interest of the household (3-4 generation households) could either divorce their wives and return the dowry to the woman (quite expensive if her father got together a large dowry) and "put her away" (kick her out of the house) or he could just put her away if he felt like she was guilty of adultery but had no real proof of it for the Temple Judges. (Two eyewitnesses).
Putting away a wife was a horrible thing. It basically made her no better than a homeless person. The amount of sustenance a put away wife was entitled to under the law was so small that it wasn't worth it to collect from a husband. The woman would either have to find a new husband and be fearful of being found out of adultery (death penalty) or become a prostitute (death penalty). Either way the guy who divorced his wife was free and clear of any financial obligations to her. She on the other hand was in direct straights. She couldn't go to a judge to seek anything. No judge would listen to her because she was a woman.

So when a man found that he could marry another woman and actually afford her because his first wife wasn't there any longer...he was most inclined to do so.

Except that God didn't like this. In Malachi where God is famously quoted as saying, "I hate divorce." It literally is taken out of context of the larger passage where God is explaining that God hates abuse and bloodshed as a result of abuse more than divorce. And that this practice of putting away the wives is being abused.

So when we come to the New Testament and the Pharisees are questioning Jesus on his stance on the whole subject there had been a big debate (not unlike this thread). There were two Schmeekah Rabbi who were polar opposites on the subject. One who would allow divorce for a pot of burned beans and another who would only allow divorce for adultery (unproven). (Provable adultery was still a capital offense)
The other thing going on at the time was a bit of a scandal. The grammitons (experts in the law) and other religious Leadership were involved in Marriage Parlors (where a guy could get married for a fee for a few hours) and pretty much wife swapping. (I'll divorce my wife if you will marry her after divorcing your wife so I can marry her)
The whole thing was as sleazy as it comes....but technically inside of the Law.

Then you had guys who would find a woman that they strongly suspected was a put away wife. But deliberately didn't know for sure. These guys basically had a live in slave they called a wife.

Jesus called it straight as an arrow and cut through the crap.

In the Old Testament prophecy passages those who were not behaving like proper children of Abraham were referred to as Israel prostituting themselves. Hosea is a whole book about this. Isaiah talked about it extensively as well.

So when Jesus talked about this He ended any ambiguity over the subject. Women forced into adultery were going to be considered innocent but their ex-husband was going to be charged by God with the adultery. But people wanting the Bible to match their lifestyle instead of trying to match their lifestyle to the Bible.... well trouble has ensued.

Divorce is an ugly business. Only the hardest hearted or most desperate want one. Today women have access to the courts and are the most likely to file for divorce than men. Abuse continues to this day. People claim to be Christians to get "the girl" or to get "the guy" but have no real relationship with God.
It's a mess no better or worse than it used to be except now women are as guilty of abuse as men.

Those who are divorced are unmarried. Divorce may be a sin but God forgives sin completely...as far as the East is from the West our sins are removed from us.
Getting remarried isn't a sin...but it isn't a good idea either. Over 60% of second marriages fail and it's around 70% of third. No one should expose themselves to that much heartache.
And according to Luke...the browbeaters who are finger pointing at those who have remarried are committing a worse sin that those they are pointing at.

Since there is no "like" button here:

I learned some things. Okay, nearly everything you posted is new to me. Because we didn't cover this stuff. I was never taught to look at the time and conditions and culture surrounding Biblical events and writings. I was taught to take the Bible at "face value" which in reality is worthless (because it relies on me for interpretation).

This is the a well thought out post and I hope people took the time to read it. Then ponder it. I'm reading a book by John Walton on Genesis and Adam and Eve and it's all surrounded by the details of the culture of the time. I think this relates here. Consider this:

Biblical authority is tied inseparably to the author’s intention. God vested his authority in a human author, so we must consider what the human author intended to communicate if we want to understand God’s message. Two voices speak, but the human author is our doorway into the room of God’s meaning and message. That means that when we read Genesis, we are reading an ancient document and should begin by using only the assumptions that would be appropriate for the ancient world. We must understand how the ancients thought and what ideas underlay their communication.

Walton, John H.. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (p. 15). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

This relates to the discussion on divorce: "...should begin by using only the assumptions that would be appropriate for the ancient world. We must understand how the ancients thought and what ideas underlay their communication."

 

[JohnDB]

Since there is no "like" button here:

I learned some things. Okay, nearly everything you posted is new to me. Because we didn't cover this stuff. I was never taught to look at the time and conditions and culture surrounding Biblical events and writings. I was taught to take the Bible at "face value" which in reality is worthless (because it relies on me for interpretation).

This is the a well thought out post and I hope people took the time to read it. Then ponder it. I'm reading a book by John Walton on Genesis and Adam and Eve and it's all surrounded by the details of the culture of the time. I think this relates here. Consider this:


This relates to the discussion on divorce: "...should begin by using only the assumptions that would be appropriate for the ancient world. We must understand how the ancients thought and what ideas underlay their communication."

The thing about it is that with what I describe and explain that Jesus said sounds more like Jesus and His character that this "eternal adultery" line of thinking.

For Jesus fulfilled the Law...He didn't write a bunch of new legalisms to follow. And for whatever reason people want to have a new set of legalisms surrounding marriage.

 

[Papa Zoom]

BTW, are you still loose on instrumental music in worship?

This is off topic and if it means what I think it means, not good.

 

[reba]

The Scripture are also written for today

 

[JohnDB]

The Scripture are also written for today

Well yes... nothing I've said should even go anywhere near that notion.

 

[reba]

Sheesh where is the dumb like button

 

[Papa Zoom]

The thing about it is that with what I describe and explain that Jesus said sounds more like Jesus and His character that this "eternal adultery" line of thinking.

For Jesus fulfilled the Law...He didn't write a bunch of new legalisms to follow. And for whatever reason people want to have a new set of legalisms surrounding marriage.

Yes. And those legalisms have brought more harm than good. I've seen our church chase away smokers, women who wore "inappropriate" clothing, and those who held to different views than the local church (which I hold but I keep my mouth shut). My local church let my daughter down and at least one family was nasty toward her when she left her husband. Instead of coming alongside in love, they condemned and judged. My daughter never set foot in that church again and never will. :/ Now she's raising the grandkids minus any church at all. I'd be happy if they'd go regularly to the Catholic church (she married a Catholic guy) but they just don't go. ~sigh~ I really believe legalism drove her away (plus the nastiness of some in the Church towards her).

 

[reba]

Sheesh where is the dumb like button

 

[Papa Zoom]

The Scripture are also written for today

Yes but need to be understood in the same way as when they were written, What's true of them then, is true now. What's not true of the Scriptures then, is not true now. And too often we culturalize the meaning of Scripture.

 

[stovebolts]

I rest my case. You admit you cannot produce a verse
You try I Jn.1:19. So according to your reasoning all the thief has to do is to " confess" his sin of thievery and he is then forgiven and can go on stealing. I don't think so, Eph.4:28 reads "Let him that stole steal no longer--". Get the point? Repentance means you quit the sin. Again, I didn't write the scripture, God did. These matter are not easily misunderstood, its our emotions that interfere.

BTW, are you still loose on instrumental music in worship?

It is this type of reasoning and rigidity that is void of any type of understanding (Deuteronomy 4:6) that I have never bought into. You may rest your case, and even feel justified. But I am in no way yoked by your line of reasoning anymore than you are to mine.
As far as instrumental music, I have never agreed with the church of Christ doctrine on the matter as it is based on man made reasoning, much in alignment with your above reasoning which only views scripture in narrow terms while avoiding the totality of scripture.
That being said, I do not think it's wrong to not have instruments and I have never advocated them within the church of Christ. It is your tradition...

Now, I have answered your questions, give me the same respect. What should be done where under your understanding, a man marries a woman and by your doctrine, is an adulterer? What does repentance look like?