Marriage and divorce

[arunangelo]

In marriage, spouses leave their parents and unite with each other (Mark 10:7) to become one flesh (Gen.2: 24). Because, it is a covenant of love, and God is love (1 John4:8), it is God who seals the marriage covenant; and no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6). In divorce, therefore, this covenant is not broken; it is rejected. Therefore, remarriage after divorce is adultery (Luke 16:18). Furthermore, since God seals this covenant, divorce is rejection of God. God, therefore, hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and is not pleased with the offerings of those who divorce their spouse (Malachi 2: 13-14). Jesus tells us that before making offering to God, we must reconcile with those with whom we have grievances (Matt. 5: 23-24). Therefore, a divorced person must first reconcile with his/her spouse before making an offering to the Lord. Furthermore, a person divorced by his/her spouse must still stay faith to his/her spouse, just as God His faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).

Divorce is absolutely prohibited in the Gospels (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 6:18; Matthew 5: 31-32). In Matthew’s gospel there appears to be an exception. The exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication), and not moiceia (which means adultery). In the Mosaic Law (Lv 18:6-18) certain types of marriages between close relatives were unlawful, because, they were regarded as incest (porneia). Certain rabbis, however, allowed gentile converts to Judaism to remain in such marriages. The exemption in Matthew’s gospel is against such permissiveness for gentile converts to Christianity. Fornication is another meaning for porneia. Therefore, this exception also applies to couples who fornicate by living together without a lawful marriage (also known as common law marriages).
website: surrendersacrifice.com

 

[Drew]

I am going to politely disagree with the OP and offer the following perspective from Richard Foster and Dallas Willard:

The basis for divorce among disciples is precisely the same as the basis for marriage. Where it is the case that the persons involved in a marriage would be substantially better off if the marriage were dissolved, the law of love dictates that a divorce should occur. If indeed the divorce is realized as a consequent of the law of love, the evil which is present in most divorces will not be presentâ€â€and, indeed, very few divorces will occur. But the disciple will make sure of his or her obedience to the law of love in any divorce by making God his lawyer and judge through prayer.

The above view of the basis for divorce seems to run contrary to the directives given by Jesus and by Paul in their respective cultural-historical settings. But this is not so. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever discussed what we today call divorce. Jesus taught that men should not put away women. Neither He nor Paul dealt with divorce or separation by mutual consent or in cases where provision is made by a division of property or alimony or otherwise. He did not deal with this because it did not exist. Now this is not a theory or interpretation but a fact about his teaching on man/woman relationships. In I Cor. 7 Paul also deals only with one person putting away or leaving another, where one mate is a disciple and the other is not. To repeat, there is no prohibition of divorce as we now know it, except insofar as a divorce still turns outâ€â€as it often doesâ€â€to be the cruel "putting away" which Jesus condemned. Jesus did not deal with this for the simple reason that in his day there was no such thing as our divorce procedures allowing a bad situation to be improved by the dissolution of a family unit. We should stress, however, that most divorces which occur are avoidable and lamentable.

I think we need to remember that Jesus was not "talking past his immediate audience to us over the millennia". While what Jesus has to say is of course relevant to us, it is, I suggest, more importantly a response to the people in His immediate hearing - the Pharisees who asked him a question about divorce. Jesus was talking to them in a very specific context. I will not say more in this post about this, I just want to remind readers to place Jesus in the appropriate historical context.

Besides, I suggest that the content of the OP is basically at odds with Old Testament law about divorce. I further suggest that whatever ethic we develop in respect to divorce and remarriage, it needs to honor both testaments.

 

[follower of Christ]

In marriage, spouses leave their parents and unite with each other (Mark 10:7) to become one flesh (Gen.2: 24). Because, it is a covenant of love, and God is love (1 John4:8), it is God who seals the marriage covenant; and no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6).

WRONG !
Paul is a liar and heretic if what you claim is true !

READERS of this thread....now you can see for yourselves the proof that this doctrine is in error.
The poster above has said that NO ONE CAN SEPARATE (chorizo in the greek) what God has joined...

Read the article below and compare it yourselves if you wish (all you need is a biblical greek resource here is a good one..... http://www.scripture4all.org/ )

Paul shows conclusively that man CAN INDEED put asunder in direct opposition to this posters words above.

"Put Asunder"/"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.

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:5a025]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?
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

Jesus' words were rendered as such here in these two passages regarding marriage ...

(Mat 19:6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder(G5563).

(Mar 10:9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder(G5563).

Bearing 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.

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.

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

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:5a025]

 

[follower of Christ]

In divorce, therefore, this covenant is not broken; it is rejected.

Then it is Moses was was the heretic ???
Moses, a PROPHET of God Almighty, shows conclusively that divorce DOES end the covenant.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
(Deu 24:1-4)

 

[follower of Christ]

God, therefore, hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)

huh...and yet...

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Did God create/endorse divorce ?
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:
Here we will briefly show that, contrary to the error of some, fornication was not the only ‘allowance’ for leaving a marriage as some erroneously teach.
We do not believe that Deut 24:1-4 is a permission for divorce as at that time divorce had already been tolerated, but is only a regulation for these ‘for EVERY cause’ divorces already being suffered by Moses as it makes no sense that Moses just one day decided to write up a law allowing divorce without cause. It only stands to reason that Deut 24:1-4 is in RESPONSE to something already occuring...something he was trying to get under control.
We do believe, however, that there were other reasons laid out by God and Moses whereby a marriage might be lawfully left and that this law was put into place for the protection of the wife if her husband refused to provide for her, and also presented no ‘hardheartedness’ on her part, as some have said is always the case in divorce, but was because she was being deprived of things that were due her as a married woman.

Supporting Evidence:
In this article we will look back into the Old Testament to see if there is any evidence that marriage was ever ended according to Gods own word that was for an actual breach of covenant instead of a frivolous allowance such as Deut 24:1-4 refers to, and if so, what the conditions laid out in the scriptures actually was. What we want to see here is if there was ever actually any legitimate reason that Gods word permitted walking away from a marriage.

We go to the book of Exodus.

[quote:6c6c9]And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
(Exo 21:7-11)

Firstly, notice the words “duty of MARRIAGEâ€Â.

H5772
From an unused root apparently meaning to dwell together; (sexual) cohabitation: - duty of marriage.

H5772
BDB Definition:
1) cohabitation, conjugal rights

In this we see that this is pertaining to his absolute responsibility to this woman because of MARRIAGE...this isn’t just because she is a slave as some might erroneously assert. If this were a simple matter of his being out of line as far as her having been a slave, the text would need to show this fact.
But instead we see that firstly she is to become as one of the fathers own daughters in all regards, then having been given to his son as a wife, she is regarded AS a wife and a daughter and all the rights bestowed upon such.
These rules apply to a wife. ANY wife, not just a slave girl.

We also look at the context there so that none may accuse us of failing to do so.
In this scenario, the father has bought a young woman as a slave/servant, most likely because her parents were poor. He apparently was going to take her for his own wife, then seems to have found something in her that is displeasing, but what we find odd here is that he then gives her to his son as a wife.
What man would knowingly give his own son a wife who he himself found to be failing in this regard? The text shows that the man has dealt ‘deceitfully’ with her, and so we see that there is some incrimination against the man already in this, even though she is supposedly the one who is not pleasing to him.

This man then takes this young woman, who some scholars believe may have already ‘corrupted’ her, and then gives her to his own son. Again, who gives a displeasing woman to his own son?
If this is done, then the father must treat this woman as his own daughter and all the rights given to such, meaning she must receive a dowry from him and when she was taken as the wife of the son, he also had to fulfill his required duties to this woman.

Even if the man were to take another wife, nothing was permitted to be lessened as far as this woman was concerned. She was to be provided for with the same food, the same clothing and the same sexual requirements as she had had before this man took another wife. If any single of these failed, the she was permitted to go out free from this marriage.

We see here that God does make provision for a wife. He has set the tone for divorce here Himself by showing ‘condition’ in which a marriage may be left without this ‘hardheartedness’ as is shown as being present when men divorce ‘for every cause’ by finding ‘some uncleaness’ in this wife.
We are left with little choice but to accept the fact that all ending of a marriage in the Old Testament was not for ‘hardheartedness’ by default, but when the husband did not fulfill his duties owed to a wife (food, clothing, conjugal duty), she was permitted to leave the marriage, being freed from it.

Now, *IF* ALL ‘divorce’ (leaving/abandoning/ending of a marital covenant) is against Gods will then why is there provision here based on the husbands failing to provide for his wife? This woman, regardless of how she came to be this mans wife IS still his wife and is entitled to certain levels of accommodation as far as the husband is concerned and is required to supply.

The one that really sticks out in my mind is ‘duty of marriage’. For the most part the scholars I’ve read believe this to be sexual duties of the marriage. What he is to provide for her in this area is not permitted to diminish.
If a man were to take a second wife, could he fulfill this obligation to both? How about a third wife? A fourth?
At what point would a mans ‘duty of marriage’ start to diminish with this first wife? How many wives could a man keep up with in this regard knowing that as soon as his relationship with his new wife makes him unable to perform this conjugal duty then the former has just cause to leave the marriage.

What I believe in my own mind was that this type of law was set into place to protect a wife firstly and to help control polygamy secondly. It seems to be a fairly effective manner in dealing with both issues.

What we see in this small passage is that it is quite probable that not all ending of marriages would be deemed as ‘sin’ in Gods eyes. If a husband was not fulfilling his duties to his wife, then she, as the innocent party, could walk away from her marriage without committing any transgression against Him or His law.

There are some who might say that this young woman was still a virgin, but the clear meaning and intent of the Hebrew presented above in green that it rendered as ‘duty of marriage’ in english simply dispels this false viewpoint entirely.
Hebrew betrothal custom would have presented that upon hometaking that this young bride would most assuredly have consummated her marriage (except where the text expresses otherwise such as with Joseph and Mary). To assert that this wife was still a virgin POST hometaking is an illogical addition to the texts.[/quote:6c6c9]

 

[follower of Christ]

Jesus tells us that before making offering to God, we must reconcile with those with whom we have grievances (Matt. 5: 23-24). Therefore, a divorced person must first reconcile with his/her spouse before making an offering to the Lord.

No, that is you stretching the intent of any passage you can to make your erroneous view work.
I can reconcile as a believer with my exwife without reconciling that marriage that was ended over her harlotries.
And the implication there is that we reconcile with our brothers and sisters in Christ. If our ex is a worldly unbeliever who cheated and abandoned us who wants no reconciliation, your instruction is simply out of line.

 

[follower of Christ]

Furthermore, a person divorced by his/her spouse must still stay faith to his/her spouse, just as God His faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).

Wrong.
ONLY in a case where one believer has abandoned another believer (ie, an EQUALLY yoked marriage) is there ANY commandment to remain unmarried or reconcile.
This is PROVEN in the very next verse when Paul then addresses those UNequally yoked and has no such commandment from the Lord and shows that these are NOT in bondage to that union if it ends.

 

[follower of Christ]

In Matthew’s gospel there appears to be an exception. The exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication),

Porneia is 'harlotry or 'whoredom' and is ALL inclusive of ANy and ALL sexual sin by the married or the unmarried.
Its overall usage in the NT proves that assertion conclusively. Ive yet to see a single biblical scholar try to restrict the meaning of the word as you folks have to to make your error palatable.

Porneia...aka ‘’fornication’’
By WmTipton

Some claim that fornication in Matthew is PRE marital sex alone and that divorce and remarriage for any other reason is not permissible.
But we see that conflicts with the use of the word throughout the NT.
Porneia is whoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.
This included every sexual sin of every nature.
Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.
This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.
When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.

Even the current english definition of ‘’fornication’’ is against these false doctrine as it says NOTHING about Unmarried people, but only that the two engaging in ‘’forication’’ are not married to each other.

Here is the current definition...
[quote:7ef06]
Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Notice not a single word about either person being ‘’unmarried’.
One or both could be married to someone else, they just arent marrried to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISNT your lawful spouse, whether youre married or not.
Here is the greek word rendered as ''fornication'' in your KJV bibles.

G4202
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

Also....

In Acts 15 and 21, four items are given for gentiles to abstain from as presented in the following verses.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (G4202, same as the exception clause in Matthew).

1. Things offered to idols
2. blood
3. Things strangled
4. fornication (G4202 same as the exception clause).

I ask those who say fornication (porneia G4202) is premarital or betrothal sex only and not “adulteryâ€Â, why is it that the writer ONLY used ''porneia'' in Acts 15 and 21 and didnt seem to think it necessary to mention ''adultery'' as something to abstain from as well?
Hes already on the topic of sexual sin here, why not mention the big one *IF* adultery is a separate sin?

The reason is "porneia'' covers ANY sexual sin. Paul knew that as did whoever rendered Jesus words in Matthew into greek.
When it was used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin. Just as Jesus meant all sexual sin in Matthew 19.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered. And neither was there any need for Jesus to use the word adultery, which would have left a hole or two in His teaching (see ''why didnt Jesus say ''except for adultery)

1 Corinthians chapter 5

We see in the following passage that only the fornicator is mentioned..

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
(1Co 5:9-13 KJV)

Now, *IF* adultery isnt included in 'porneia' or 'fornication', why on earth didnt Paul mention not keeping company with the adulterer ?
Was Paul stating to not keep company with the fornicator ... but hey, its ok to hang out with adulterers ?

Hardly.
Paul used a word that covers all sexual sin.
He mentions a ''brother'' and isnt it odd that the word he chose rendered as 'fornicator' here is the masculine form of porneia ?

G4205
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Paul was clearly stating to not keep company with any man called a brother who is out having illicit sex.....married or not.
Porneia and its forms are all inclusive of sexual sin of the married and the Unmarried.

In Ephesians and Colossians both we see references to Fornication, but none about adultery.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(Eph 5:3-5 KJV)

(whoremonger being the masculine form ...pornos)

and

When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
(Col 3:4-6 KJV)

So if this porneia (fornication) does not include all sexual sin, then we would have to suppose that Paul is only directing these two churches to abstain from SOME sexual sins (incest, premarital sex, etc) , and surely not adultery (if it were the case that porneia is not all inclusive of sexual immorality)

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''porneia'' in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, He was saying the same thing ''Sexual Sin'' or whoredom. Jesus did not mean just PREmarital sex, and neither does the definition of ‘’fornication’’ present that idea either.

He used a word, the same as in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom....as ‘’fornication’’ clearly shows as well. ....porneia even covers the possiblity of bestiality if it has occured.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without committing adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin...EXCEPT that this person we marry has had sex with someone they arent married to.

That is what is clearly conveyed with ‘’porneia’’ and what is also presented with the REAL definition of ‘’forncation’’ (not the Unmarried tripe that some pass off on us )

What is funny about this one is we can get total agreement from everyone that a man can ‘’divorce’’ his wife for ‘’porneia’’, but the anti-remarriage camp then restricts the meaning of the word to fit their doctrinal stance...whichever it may be based on the many VARIED versions of their doctrine.[/quote:7ef06]

 

[follower of Christ]

for the readers...marriage is a CONDITIONAL covenant as proven by the requirements inherent to it and the fact that divorce was EVER permitted at ANY time in scripture...

The conditional marriage covenant.
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

In this writing we will show that the marriage covenant is conditional and that this conditional state precedes the tolerance of Moses concerning frivolous divorce, and that our Lord Jesus and also Paul conclusively show that marriage is still a conditional marriage covenant.
This study is for the sole purpose of answer one question.
Is the marriage covenant conditional or is it without condition and therefore no condition exists whereby it can be ended before death and no condition exists that is in breach of it ?

Supporting Evidence

Firstly, we will show a bit about Gods conditional covenant given thru Moses to Israel, His endurance towards them and their constantly breaking that covenant, and finally His ending of that covenant with them.
We then will list some of the precepts in the scriptures that show conclusively that a marriage covenant might be ended before the death of the spouse and also list some laws that show that there are punishable offenses where this marriage covenant is concerned.
I’ll include links to articles already written about these where applicable.

1.0

Elsewhere in many articles we state that the covenant given to Moses in the wilderness was a conditional one. Conditional means that there a re requirements placed upon the persons that the covenant is given to.
Lets look briefly at a conditional statement made by the Lord concerning His covenant with Israel.

[quote:7528d]â— Exo 19:5 - And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.

Now, there are no rocket scientists or scholars of ancient Hebrew living in my home, but even I can read and see that the Lord is showing clearly there the condition that *IF* they obey Him...*IF* they keep His covenant, then....He will do these things just as He has spoken.

For an example of an Uncondtional covenant, lets look at Gods words to Abraham...

â— Gen 12:1-3 - And Jehovah said to Abram, Go out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house into a land that I will show you. (2) And I will make you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great. And you shall be a blessing. (3) And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Notice there are no if’s or but’s there, only the promise to DO as He has spoken. God simply tells Abraham that He will do these things, He does not place condition upon them. The Jews have always been upon this earth and will until the final curtain closes. The Jews have existed literally in perils that have probably wiped out entire cultures over the millenia, by all logical rights the Hebrew people should probably not be in existance today. Not only do they, but they have reclaimed their promise land, just as His word foretold.
Even tho the Jews as a nation are hardened and disobedient, God has kept His Unconditional covenant with Abraham.

We can even see this same type of thing with Abrahams son Ishmael.
Notice here Gods words concerning Ishmael to Abe...

â— Gen 17:18-21 - And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before You! (19) And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation. (21) But I will establish My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time in the next year.

Abraham seems to be very concerned about his son Ishmael. The Lord God promises Abraham to bless Ishmael...to make him fruitful and make a mighty nation of him. Can anyone deny that this is not the case with the descendants of Ishmael today? Has God not made a mighty nation of him ?
This was an unconditional promise made to Abraham. God did not say *IF* you do this, I will do that. He promised it, and it came to pass...
Even though they (the descendants of Ishmael) are not obedient to God nor His word, God kept His UNconditional promise to Abraham.

Our God is not lax in in keeping His unconditional covenants/promises.

As presented earlier with this passage we see that God did, however, make a conditional covenant with Israel.

â— Exo 19:5 - And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.

There are conditions given in the Lords words there. *IF* you do this *THEN* this will happen. What happens if they do not ‘obey His voice’ and ‘keep His covenant’ ...what then ?

“What then†sets the tone for much of Israels history post Egyptian Slavery. These folks barely made it out of bondage before they started sinning in such a great manner that Ive always wondered why God didnt simply wipe man off the map entirely during that time. But we know that He knows the ending, so He knows that not all men are so willing to defile and disobey to the magnitude of seeing so many wonderful miracles as the Hebrews did in those days, only to turn around and create a golden calf to worship the moment Moses turned his back.

Can you, as a believer and follower of our Lord Jesus, imagine being alive when He walked the earth, being one of those He healed or seeing some other miracle done by Him...can you imagine being Peter and walking on the water even, then not simply staggering a bit in your walk, but literally sitting down and with your own hands making a false idol to worship in His place?

What a treachery that must have been in our Gods mind. I cannot fathom what pain He must have experienced in those days seeing these people that He called His own whom He had just delivered from centuries of slavery in Egypt, seeing these turn in such rebellion and not from ignorance...these had SEEN the Red Sea parted..had SEEN Pharaohs army destroyed.....and the plagues sent against Egypt.
No, these were more like Adam..having SEEN with their eyes the proof of Him who sits on the throne....proof of His existence and care for them by mighty, wondrous miracles performed at Moses hand. There was no excuse that could be given to relieve them from their apostasy.

Here is a little passage that shows us quite conclusively but very briefly that Israel did indeed break the conditional covenant He had made with their forefathers when He brought them out of bondage in Egypt.

â— Jer 31:32 - not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;

Here again it is shown that our Lord issued a bill of divorcement to Israel for this breach of His covenant;

â— Jer 3:8 - And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

And in these we see His finally ending that covenant with the peoples He had given it to:

â— Zec 11:10-12 - And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. (11) And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. (12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Oddly enough, knowing the scenario with the 30 pieces of silver, it can be deduced that it was actually our Lord Jesus who was mediator over even this old covenant, since He speaks in the first person as the One who ended that economy.


2.0

We move now to the conditional marriage covenant.
Let me apologize for trying to be so brief in areas that I know need more detail, but please understand that many readers come home after 10 hour days and have 5 children to attend to afterward. There is literally a 100 pages that could easily be added to this matter, but I fear that some of our readers simply will not have the time and/or energy to read that lengthy of a document, so I’m trying to lay out the foundational information and the relevant precepts in the shortest manner possible so that no one has to leave anything unread.

Lets do as Jesus did and go right back to the beginning...the very first couple in the garden. But lets go even further back to before Eve was even created and see what God was thinking when He had in mind to bring Eve into existance.

â— Gen 2:18-20 - And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. (19) And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. (20) And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam.

Lets firstly look at that word ‘helper’ there (rendered as ‘help meet’ in the KJV)

H5828
BDB Definition:
1) help, succour
1a) help, succour
1b) one who helps

Seems to mean precisely what it says in the translation. One who ‘helps’ the man.
This is a foundational point in understanding GODS intent for marriage. This theme remains the same throughout creation. At no point did God stop caring about His marriage covenant and His own intent for it.

Here we see the creation of this ‘helper’ for Adam and we see the creation of the very first marriage and what it was always meant to be.

â— Gen 2:21-25 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (25) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

This woman Eve is made directly from Adams own rib, his own flesh and being. While no woman after Eve is literally made from her own husbands actual flesh, we see in the sexual relationship shared between a man and his wife (as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 6:16) that this bond of closeness and unity also exists between every couple afterward....or at least it is supposed to exist. Through the consummation of their marriage, a man and woman today allegorically mimic what Eve shared with her husband Adam physically in that she was literally in being made from his own body.


So now we ask ourselves “Is this union between this man and woman conditional or unconditional ?†bearing in mind that we have understood the tone of conditional versus unconditional covenants above. Where no condition is set into place, there is no possible manner of breach.
In the case where conditions are given for that covenant, then a breach is quite possible and even as shown above, the subsequent ending of that covenant may come to pass because of that breach.

We offer these few as evidence to show that there are conditions to this covenant of marriage.

â— Lev 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

â— Deu 22:22 - If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

â— Deu 22:23-24 - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; (24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

â— Exo 21:10-11 - If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. (11) And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

â— Mat 5:31-32 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (32) 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.

â— Mat 19:9 - 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.

â— 1 Co 7:12-13 - 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. (13) And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

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

Oddly enough, when this issue is followed to it logical conclusion we find that a breach of the marriage covenant is also a breach of Gods covenant. Under the law oneof the ways the Isrealites were finding themselves to be breaking His laws was by committing adulteries andfornications expressly against the covenant God had made with them.
In essence, when a man or woman is married and commits adultery/fornication, they are effectively in breach of His covenant itself that states not to commit these sins.
We see these moral laws are still in effect in the case of the corinthian man who had his fathers wife which is forbidden in Gods law.
Thus we conclude that Gods moral law is still effective which would cause us to believe that when a person commits adultery in their marriage, they not only are in breach of the conditions laid out for that marriage covevant by God Himself, but also finding themselves breaking His covenant with His Church.

It is no wonder our Lord Jesus has said ‘except for fornication’.[/quote:7528d]

 

[follower of Christ]

arunangelo, I fail to see why you feel the need in every case to start a new thread on this issue.
There are already a few threads in this very subforum.
All you do is cause more database space to be required for our hosts when you create yet another thread that has to have all this information REPEATED for the 20th time here....and that is not very polite.

 

[follower of Christ]

Divorce is absolutely prohibited in the Gospels (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 6:18; Matthew 5: 31-32).

No...YOUR erroneous presuppositions and interpretation leads YOU to that conclusion.
The facts from Gods whole word show that those conclusions are erroneous.

So....how long until yet ANOTHER thread needs to be started on this topic?