PROVE to me that 'except for fornication' was only for Jews

[follower of Christ]

follower of Christ wrote:


Yes, the covenants ARE different. Very different, especially on the subject of MDR. MDR existed for a while in the OT, but not of God's will.

It was NEVER Gods 'will' that divorce would happen.
This is pretty much a strawman youre trying to build.

What Gods 'will' is and what He 'tolerates' is NOT the same thing.

Deut 24:1-4 is a regulation to FRIVOLOUS divorce that Moses had permitted and was trying to get control of.
But we go back to Exodus (Exo 21:7-11) and see that Gods law before this time, gave JUST reasons why a wife might leave her husband.

Deut 24 and its 'some uncleaness' is an AMBIGUOUS uncleaness as determined by the husband putting this innocent wife away.

THAT is the topic of the disucssion in Matt 19.....FRIVOLOUS ("for every cause" ) divorce and subsequent remarriage, just as Jews like Herod and Herodias were guilty of.

When Jesus said 'except for whoredom' thats precisely what He meant for these Jews who were throwing away their spouses for no just cause.

=====================================================

Does God endorse divorce?

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. 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. 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, 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, 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 reason that Gods word permitted walking away from a marriage.


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. 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.

 

[Remember]

follower of Christ

[quote:d0b6b]:
But you do find them warning that marring someone else is only ok after death.

I also see Jesus own words of 'and MARRY another' in matt 19 showing quite conclusively that He IS refering to a case of REmarriage while the former spouse lives.
The marriage specific crime of adultery, the one you folks are so concerned about, is not committed when we 'marry another' after putting away a spouse for whoredom. There is no twist on the text you folks can use to change this fact. [/quote:d0b6b]

First this:

The marriage specific crime of adultery

Jesus' words do not say adultery. They say fornication. That is a very different word used for very good reasons. One main reason is because if the wife had adulterized, the husband would simply have her killed. THAT was the law in which they lived. That is why Jesus said "fornication". It was not a case of adultery in the conversation between Jesus and the Phrasees on this occasion in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Logic and facts eliminate adultery from the whole situation. With that said,

Now this is the meat of the subject. You do not see Jesus' words saying that "he" is remarry because "he" is not the subject of remarrying in 19:9 That is not what Jesus said.

Lets honestly look at these very pertinent verses in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.

Matt 5:32 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.

Matt 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.

They are almost identical. Isn't that amazing? There is a very good reason Jesus' words are so similar. They are of the same account and of the same information.

Jesus speaks of a husband divorcing the wife. In 5:32 Jesus warns that if the husband divorces the wife and she was not a fornicator (Jesus has NOT stipulated the wife an adulterer because He was referring to actions prior to their union, and adultery (which is actions of a married person) had a different punishment in that time), then the sin of the divorce belongs to him. He is the sinner of the divorce AND he places the wife in adultery. How can that be? She was the innocent in the divorce.

Now we go on to 19:9 which helps explain HOW the divorce-sinned husband "causes" the wife to commit adultery. Do you see where it says "shall marry another"? Well, if you research back to the original language, that phrase is feminine. It is the divorced wife that ends up marrying another and now is committing adultery, which is also the husband's sin for having divorced the innocent wife. "He causeth her to commit adultery." This is NOT speaking of the man remarrying.

But, we must not forget the end of both of those verses. Anyone who marries the divorced is also an adulterer. Innocent divorcee or not, no one is to marry the divorced.

In the case spoken of by Jesus in both verses, the husband places the wife in a defiling position, and as per Deut 24 (the laws in which this whole conversation with Jesus took place) now makes it impossible for her to reconcile with her husband because that would be an abomination in the site of God. And we know God does not change so no one divorced should ever marry another and be defiled so as not to be an abomination in the site of God and wish to reconcile. That is why 1 Corinthians 7:11 says what it says. " let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife"

So, we now know that these verses do not give permission to divorce and remarry. They do show who's sin the divorce is and who receives the subsequent sins and it all reverts to back to a time and Testament that no longer exists. It was nailed to the cross. But much of the results of a divorce situation is carried over as noticed in 1 Corinthians and Mark 10:10-12

Mark 10:10-12 says everything a questioning person deciding to divorce their spouse needs to know regarding this subject, just like the disciples:

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

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

If the divorcer remarries, they commit adultery which is sin (Mark 10:10-12)
The divorced are instructed to remain unmarried or reconcile (or they become defiled and cannot reconcile (which is an abomination)) and is most assuredly sin (1 Corinthians 7:11)
We are told not to divorce a spouse so to do so is sin (1 Corinthians 7:11


There is no remarriage after divorce for either party or it is sin. Thus saith the Lord.

But something else to remember, as Christians:

Col 3:12-13

12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering ;

13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

What are we supposed to do, especially with someone we supposedly loved so much that we bothered to marry them? Are we not to do it at least 70 times 7 in a day? Matthew 18:22 We are called to forgive, as Jesus did. John 8:3-11. This is our example of what we are to do. Forgive!

 

[Remember]

follower of Christ wrote:

now...do you have any actual evidence to show that the exception clause does not apply to the gentiles?

The conversation was of the OT law the Jews were living under at the time. The Pharisees asked a question of the Law of that day and Jesus responded, perfecting that law (Way to go, Jesus :D ) for their better knowledge. Jesus had a habit of doing things like that :-D

If there were any faithful gentiles of the day, they were probably still passing down patriachal laws, learning what the faithful Jews were doing to be more spiritually sound and doing what they could to please God.

If they were faithful gentiles they were probably not divorcing because of God's words from the beginning, repeated by Jesus. Jesus brought us all back to that Godly beginning. Let not man put it asunder :D

Today there are Christians and non-Christians. Jesus and the inspired disciples have shown us the way in God's word. Even just using 1 Corinthians, Paul says "remain unmarried or reconcile" and "don't divorce". Is that, from God's word, not enough?

 

[Remember]

Ongoing question to those who believe dont permit remarriage while the first spouse lives...
"Is ALL divorce, regardless of who is initiating it and for whatever cause, defined as 'sin' and 'hardhearted' by default" ?

You can add all the adjectives you would like to paint an interesting picture, but

by His word, we can conclude that what God hates is sin. God hates divorce. Mal 2:16 God does not change. Mal 3:6
So we can conclude by these facts in God's word that divorce is sin if by no other reason then God hates it.

Jesus expresses in Matthew (and in Mark and in Luke) to whom the sin of divorce and connecting sins belong. In 1 Corinthians 7:11 , Paul backs up the will of God by telling us not to divorce or remarry so we can reconcile and not be in this sin. Sorry, but I don't see how God's word can be more clear.

Is it that there is a search for an excuse to be rid of a spouse that one married as a bad choice? Is that God's fault? Is it ever ok to break a law of God to do some supposed good?

This is how your question looks. It is not God's fault someone chose a lousy spouse. But it is up to mankind to live up to God's laws regarding His covenant, like it or not. If one chooses to partake of God's covanent then one must live up to His rules regarding it.

One man, One woman for life. That is how it was in the beginning and how it is now.

Perhaps this kind of question comes up because those choosing the "life" partner were not taught good enough and made a bad choice and now are paying for that bad choice. Welcome to the world of living "of the world" instead of seeking heavenly things.

We all have our crosses to bear and results of mistakes with which to deal.

That is not license to go against the will of God.

 

[Remember]

This caught my eye real quick from one of your responses:

Deut 24 and its 'some uncleaness' is an AMBIGUOUS uncleaness as determined by the husband putting this innocent wife away.

The statement you have posted here is a common thought spread around among the popular beliefs of today regarding this.

I'm sorry, but indebth research of the original language shows this "some uncleaness" as far from being ambiguous as the fact that God is God. It actually gets quite specific regarding the exposure of an unwed female's private parts. That is far from ambiguous in a society where the faithful were clothed from toes to nose.

The problem was that the Jews made this 'some uncleaness' as ambiguous as they could so they could get rid of a wife they didn't want anymore. God warned them about dealing treacherously with the wife of their youth, etc., in the OT. Mal 2:14-15

It was not intended to be a determination of the husbands but specific, most likely lost virginity, actions on the part of the unwed female. (Hence, her exposure.)

Jesus brought them back to the reality of those verses in Deut 24 when He koined "fornication" (the woman having been sexually exposed and active with a man prior to marriage, of which she would now be a wife or betrothed) in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 as the only reason the husband could request a Deuteronomy 24 divorce. And as everyone can notice in those verses of the Bible, no one disagreed with Him. :wink:

I will get back to your other responses asap.

 

[Remember]

The "cannot put asunder" fallacy

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.

(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).

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.

What is it when God tell us not do to something and we do anyway? It is sin. You have just shown that anyone that tries to dissolve God's covenant of marriage sins. Thank you.

And you have used Jesus' own words proving that people sin if they do this as well as inspired Paul's words to show that no matter what, this sin should not be done by either spouse. Thank you again. :D

its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...

This is very much of the point. People can separate and make shambles of it but only God has the power to break it. That is one reason why it is adultery for either to marry again. They have not destroyed the bond that God made with a divorce, they've just earthly-minded parted it. Thank you for clarifying this for everyone :D

And as Jesus said: Mark 10:11-12
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

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

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?

Does God do anything by our measly thought of coincidence? I doubt it. Every God-breathed word is purposeful. :smt023

 

[Remember]

REmarriage has always been assumed in scripture UNLESS expressly forbidden.

It has? Since when should anyone "assume" what the scriptures say? The scriptures aren't clear enough to know for sure? God said one man, one woman for life in the beginning of couples. I don't see any "remarriage" in there implied or assumed at all. Can you please show me where God's word says that?

ONLY where BOTH are believers is there a commandment to remain UNmarried.

post refuted....

Oh? You mean all the non-believers are not to be told God's truth about the marriage covenant they are in that they wouldn't be in if not for God?

(That's a mouthful lol) You mean all the non-believers should sin anyway?

This is what Jesus taught the disciples:

Mark 10:11-12

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

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

Weren't they supposed to teach this to all the non-believers too?

This cannot be. Post refuted for non-Biblical standings for these assumptions and opinions. :-D (I wonder how often that will work)

In any case, it's God's will that matters to all, Christian and non-Christian alike.

 

[Remember]

Remember wrote: [quote:a8bd2]

1 Cor 7:15 in no way speaks of an "exception/concession" for divorce or remarriage. In fact, it states the opposite.

Absolutely incorrect.
The ONLY situation where there is a commandment to REMAIN UNMARRIED is when BOTH are believers.

To 'the rest'...those unequallly yoked, PAUL HIMSELF says he has NO commandmentfrom the Lord and makes it clear that the believer is not bound to a deserting unbeliever.

I hope we're going to offer more than this [/quote:a8bd2]

My original post on this was filled with the word of God stating His will. I'm sorry it was not good enough for you.

You show no scriptures for your opinions.

Jesus tells every Christian, that includes the disciples right up through today, to teach everyone all that He commanded. Matthew 28:20 That includes what he taught about marriage in Mark 10:10-12 to believers and non-believers alike.

To say that non-believers don't have to honor their situations as in this statement by you "

The ONLY situation where there is a commandment to REMAIN UNMARRIED is when BOTH are believers.

I am beyond words at how damaging that is, for belivers to possibly pass on such unsubstantiated falicies and un-Biblical opinions. To purposely leave a sinner in the dark of their sin or to say it doesn't matter cause they're not believers is to cast darkness in Christianity itself.

It does matter, to God, if not to you.

God loves everyone and wishes none to perish. Not to inform/correct/help someone out of sinful behavior is, in itself, sin, whether they be believers or not.

Read the original post. All mankind needs to know God's will.

 

[Remember]

Sorry for all the posts in response to that one quote but it was necessary.

If you felt so compelled.

I do find your presumption that Im not studied in this matter quite humorous, tho...since Ive spent the last 3 1/2 solid years on this one single topic.

Heres my website to browse over just in case you doubt that fact.

http://theassemblyministries.com/

I don't presume that you have not studied for that time. I know some that have studied decades longer than you on this or on any particular Bible doctrine. Some come to find themselves correct, some come to find themselves incorrect as they continue to study. I know I've studied far longer than you on this particular subject and possibly on others.

My thoughts have not remained the same through the years of study. And with almost every study, something new comes to light (Thank you, Lord) or an old forgotten truth shows itself in a new light. God's word has a wonderful way of, bit by bit, revealing His truth.

May the Lord's will be known and done. Is that not what is of importance here?

Another point that I tend to use regarding searching for the truth is that I ask myself the question: "If this is taught to anyone, could it cause them to sin?" If the answer is in any remote way near yes, I question the truth of it.

Food for thought.

 

[Remember]

It was NEVER Gods 'will' that divorce would happen.

It is directly against God's will. He knew it would happen, and He made sure man knew it was sin. We still know it's sin, but still want to participate when it suits us.

That is a big part of living for earthly things in stead of heavenly things. Many believers have and will fall by the wayside for earthly strivings, including the adultery involved in MDR.

What Gods 'will' is and what He 'tolerates' is NOT the same thing.

He does not tolerate any longer. That time is past. His time of 'toleration' was for our learning, as the OT references much for us.

God's will is readily available for us to know right now. That's what Biblical study is all about, knowing.

 

[follower of Christ]

follower of Christ



Jesus' words do not say adultery. They say fornication. That is a very different word used for very good reasons.

and I gave these reasons before.

One main reason is because if the wife had adulterized, the husband would simply have her killed.

And so would the adulteress that the pharisees broght to Him would have been stoned...yet Jesus did not have this carried out.
Jesus was a Jew born under Mosiac law.

Under that law this womans punishment was DEATH....Yet He did not enforce having that carried out...did He...
Thats because His way was a better way...mercy for the sinner.
This same mercy is what His exception is all about...life for those who deserve death.
And in His exception He still shows that whoredom is a punishable breach of the marriage coveant.

THAT was the law in which they lived. That is why Jesus said "fornication". It was not a case of adultery in the conversation between Jesus and the Phrasees on this occasion in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Logic and facts eliminate adultery from the whole situation. With that said,

Yes, it was case of 'adultery', just as Deut 22 where the wife who was simply betrothed and not yet consummated was committing the same adultery and would get the death penalty just as the wife post-homtaking would have.

Now this is the meat of the subject. You do not see Jesus' words saying that "he" is remarry because "he" is not the subject of remarrying in 19:9 That is not what Jesus said.

Sure He did.
He said 'its adultery to leave your wife and marry another EXCEPT if she commits whoredom (sexual sin).

Lets honestly look at these very pertinent verses in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.

Yes, lets BOTH look 'honestly' at these things instead of with an agenda.

They are almost identical. Isn't that amazing?

Uhm no ?!?!?!
They were given by the same Lord....why on earth wouldnt they be similar sounding?

There is a very good reason Jesus' words are so similar. They are of the same account and of the same information.

No, Im afraid you are WRONG on this matter.
It is the same Lord speaking, but these accounts are two separate events.

It is the Mark 10 account that is the same event as the Matthew 19

READERS SEE this article
http://theassemblyministries.com/page17.html

I give a play by play account that proves the fact.

Jesus speaks of a husband divorcing the wife. In 5:32 Jesus warns that if the husband divorces the wife and she was not a fornicator (Jesus has NOT stipulated the wife an adulterer because He was referring to actions prior to their union, and adultery (which is actions of a married person) had a different punishment in that time), then the sin of the divorce belongs to him. He is the sinner of the divorce AND he places the wife in adultery. How can that be? She was the innocent in the divorce.

The context of the whole, including what Mark 10 shows shows us that the reason he commits her to 'commit' adultery is because a woman would HAVE to remarry, being unable in most cases to provide for herself.

If she had been put away frivolously and then had to remarry, she would indeed commit adultry UPON the remarriage.

Man...no insult intended, but Id realy hoped for something new in all of this...

Now we go on to 19:9 which helps explain HOW the divorce-sinned husband "causes" the wife to commit adultery. Do you see where it says "shall marry another"? Well, if you research back to the original language, that phrase is feminine. It is the divorced wife that ends up marrying another and now is committing adultery, which is also the husband's sin for having divorced the innocent wife. "He causeth her to commit adultery." This is NOT speaking of the man remarrying.

Irrelevant.
And please, unless you are a scholar of the greek, lets not pretend that the word being feminine changes the context of the whole...it does not

He causes her to commit adultery for one reason alone. At that time a woman most likely would HAVE to remarry in order to survive.
Having been put away frivolously means she was not actually excused from that first covenant and would commit adultery UPON remarriage.

But, we must not forget the end of both of those verses. Anyone who marries the divorced is also an adulterer. Innocent divorcee or not, no one is to marry the divorced.

Which is obvious.
The man marrying a woman who was frivolously put away, thus she wasnt actually divorced in Gods eyes, WOULD be marrying another mans wife and would commit adultery UPON marriage.

In the case spoken of by Jesus in both verses, the husband places the wife in a defiling position, and as per Deut 24 (the laws in which this whole conversation with Jesus took place) now makes it impossible for her to reconcile with her husband because that would be an abomination in the site of God. And we know God does not change so no one divorced should ever marry another and be defiled so as not to be an abomination in the site of God and wish to reconcile. That is why 1 Corinthians 7:11 says what it says. " let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife"

Paul tells her to "REMAIN UNMARRED' or reconcile.
Paul never tells them to 'DIVORCE and reconcile' because Paul knows the fact...if they have remarried then it it an abomination for them to go back to their first spouse.

So, we now know that these verses do not give permission to divorce and remarry.

No, we dont
quite frankly you havent said the first thing that I havent already refuted 10,000 times.


I had hoped for more....

 

[follower of Christ]

Mark 10:10-12 says everything a questioning person deciding to divorce their spouse needs to know regarding this subject, just like the disciples:

And it is THIS kind of error that is causing so much trouble and misery in His church.

Those of us who want truth accept the WHOLE HARMONIZED scripture.
No, Mark alone does NOT give the whole story as Mark didnt even feel to include the words 'for every cause' in his account with Jesus and the pharisees as Matt did (19).

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

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

Again, sorry, but Mark does not include all of the relevant details
Mark was notorious for not recording all of the relevant details... as is shown in his account of that day where he leaves out a couple crucial items (except and 'for every cause' for one)

No, we HARMONIZE Marks acccount with Matthews to get the truth. We dont run to Mark alone.

If the divorcer remarries, they commit adultery which is sin (Mark 10:10-12)
The divorced are instructed to remain unmarried or reconcile (or they become defiled and cannot reconcile (which is an abomination)) and is most assuredly sin (1 Corinthians 7:11)

We are told not to divorce a spouse so to do so is sin (1 Corinthians 7:11

This is a fabrication
ONLY those who are both believers are commanded to remain unmarried and reconcile as proven by the very next passage starting in verse 12.

I hope we arent giong to be ignoring each other here or I will simply turn to copy and paste responses.

There is no remarriage after divorce for either party or it is sin. Thus saith the Lord.

fabrication
ONLY those marriages where BOTH are believers are commanded to 'remain unmarried or reconile' from the Lord.
Starting in 1 cor 7:12 (READERS SEE FOR YOURSELVES) Paul says 'BUT TO THE REST"...to those unqually yolked, he says he has NO commandment for these and then shows clearly that they are NOT in bondage.

 

[follower of Christ]

For the readers...

Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?


Actually, it does seem to give grounds for 'putting away' for things like abuse, ect.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,
and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
(1Co 7:12)


The wording there clearly shows that if she is 'pleased' then let him not put her away.
This statement is conditional.
It doesnt not simply state 'let him not put her away' but adds the condition of being 'pleased' to his not putting her away.
If this were an absolute statement, that he not put her away then it should be stated as such, but its not. A condition is very apparent in the actual text.

So what does this word 'pleased' mean?

G4909
1) to be pleased together with, to approve together (with others)
2) to be pleased at the same time with, consent, agree to
2a) to applaud


the word clearly shows a mutually pleasant experience.
She is pleased along with him...at the same time....'together'.

If one spouse is being beaten, they would hardly be "pleased together with" the person who is beating them....so why does Paul show the condition of mutual pleasing if there is no condition at all ?

In taking the actual greek into account, we clearly see a condition added to Pauls stating that this man not 'put away' his wife. The condition being that the marriage is pleasing mutually... the greek does not show a one sided thing at all.

Paul then shows the same thing in reverse for the believing wife in this situation....

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 7:13)


"leave him" there is the same as 'put away' in the previous verse.

G863
aphie?mi
Thayer Definition:
1) to send away
1a) to bid going away or depart
1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
1c) to let go, let alone, let be
1c1) to disregard
1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
1c2a) of teachers, writers and speakers
1c3) to omit, neglect
1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
1e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
3a) in order to go to another place
3b) to depart from any one
3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
3d) to desert wrongfully
3e) to go away leaving something behind
3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
3i) abandon, leave destitute[/quote]
The context of 'divorce' as a whole in scripture is either the casting out of a spouse or the leaving of a marriage with the intent of 'putting away' that marriage (altho there are some who try to pretend the two are not the same intent)


If we jump back up to verse 7:11 we see that this woman who has departed her marriage is deemed 'unmarried' by Paul....Agamos/single/unwed/ARAMOC


G22
agamos
Thayer Definition:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single


I think the greek makes it very clear that in a situation where a believer is married to an unbeliever who is abusing them that the condition above that Paul presents does give 'grounds' for divorcing the spouse (leaving the marriage)

Pauls condition of if it is "pleased" (meaning mutually) is the 'grounds' for putting away this spouse if they are abusing and its not pleasing.
The "leaving" of the believer would cause them to be "agamos" or unwed/single/unmarried according to Paul thus showing that they are quite divorced when they left with that intent.

In a case of two believers tho, there is a call to reconcile or remain unmarried.
Of course, some folks move on because they no longer wish to be abused.

 

[follower of Christ]

It is directly against God's will. He knew it would happen, and He made sure man knew it was sin. We still know it's sin, but still want to participate when it suits us.

It always has been...yet HIS law made provision for a wife in Exodus to simply walk away from a husband who would not take care of her when he married a second wife.

He does not tolerate any longer.

You clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.
http://theassemblyministries.com/page43.html

IF you were correct, then there would be NO condition offered there by Paul whatsoever...nor condition offered by Jesus in His exception.
Not even the sin of premarital sex should be offered as a way out *IF* you were right..since a covenant IS in place at that time...isnt that correct?

God's will is readily available for us to know right now. That's what Biblical study is all about, knowing.

Yes..and you should take your own hint here ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

I don't presume that you have not studied for that time. I know some that have studied decades longer than you on this or on any particular Bible doctrine. Some come to find themselves correct, some come to find themselves incorrect as they continue to study. I know I've studied far longer than you on this particular subject and possibly on others.

So you claim to have studied longer. My guess is that you may have more overall years involved....but I wonder how many actual hours you have spent on this.
And as you said, some find themselves incorrect even after all that study. ;)

My thoughts have not remained the same through the years of study. And with almost every study, something new comes to light (Thank you, Lord) or an old forgotten truth shows itself in a new light. God's word has a wonderful way of, bit by bit, revealing His truth.

Actually, mine havent either.
I started out many years ago believing the exception was for whoredom, and it is, but my 10-12 hour study days over such a long period have caused me to see that what I believed is so much more grounded in Gods whole word, far more than I could have imagined.
See, I didnt stop at just divorce and remarriage, Ive studied every aspect of marriage and covenants that I could find. Ive studied much of the historical detail surrounding the issue as well.

I know that what Jesus was trying to do was stop men and women like Herod and Herodias who frivolously put their spouses away to marry each other....He was not callously condemning a beaten and raped woman to a life sentence with a man who is possessed by satan himself as your view must do.

May the Lord's will be known and done. Is that not what is of importance here?

That is why I am here. To tear down the enemy strongholds with His glorious word.

Another point that I tend to use regarding searching for the truth is that I ask myself the question: "If this is taught to anyone, could it cause them to sin?" If the answer is in any remote way near yes, I question the truth of it.

Food for thought.

What I teach should cause no one to sin.
I do not promote divorce in ANY manner, including but not limited to, the divorce of second and third marriages to reconcile a first (which is abomination by Gods own word)

 

[follower of Christ]

My original post on this was filled with the word of God stating His will. I'm sorry it was not good enough for you.

Half truths are never good enough.

You show no scriptures for your opinions.

Im sorry, but I do.
Your posting two verses is doing nothing more than what I have offered here.

Jesus tells every Christian, that includes the disciples right up through today, to teach everyone all that He commanded. Matthew 28:20 That includes what he taught about marriage in Mark 10:10-12 to believers and non-believers alike.

Mark does not include ALL of the details...he leaves out 'for every cause' and 'except for fornication' in his account

THAT is why God preserved FOUR gospels, poster, so we could harmonize them...

READERS SEE this article
http://theassemblyministries.com/page34.html

Mark left out more than just a few details. He was trying to relate the story of Jesus life more than trying to nitpick details.
That is why God gave us more than one account of that day.

To say that non-believers don't have to honor their situations as in this statement by you "
Quote:
The ONLY situation where there is a commandment to REMAIN UNMARRIED is when BOTH are believers.

It is a FACT that non-christians are not concerned about obeying Gods law....or do you deny this and believe that unbelievers are rushing to us to find out what God wants them to do?

THAT is why Paul tells two believers to reconcile or remain unmarried.
ONLY where it is two believers will there be a desire to do Gods will and make the marriage work.

But with UNbelievers there is no inclination for them to OBEY GOD...they will leave or abuse at their own discretion.
Paul knows this and so states that brethren who are yoked with an UNbeliever who doesnt want to be in the marriage are not in bondage to this union.
Paul, unlike some, shows compassion for OUR brethren who are battered and deserted by the ungodly.

I am beyond words at how damaging that is,

yeah...its far less 'damaging' to tell a christian woman who has been beaten and raped for 20 years, had her children molested and abused as well..that she is perpetually bound to this animal who has now deserted her and left her without any source of support as well. :o

Are you going to cut her a check to feed her children?
If not then your doctrine is FAR more damaging than mine or Pauls will ever be.

for belivers to possibly pass on such unsubstantiated falicies and un-Biblical opinions. To purposely leave a sinner in the dark of their sin or to say it doesn't matter cause they're not believers is to cast darkness in Christianity itself.

Nice try at putting words into my mouth.
No one said it doesnt matter....we simply accept the fACT that unbelievers arent going to do what GOD wants them to do.
They will beat, rape, molest, steal, abuse, and use harsh language with a believing spouse at THEIR whim......they dont care what God wants them to do....get it? THAT is why they are UNbelievers...

Pauls instruction simply makes provision for the believer who is abused and deserted by the ungodly..

It does matter, to God, if not to you.

Start putting word into my mouth and this conversation is over and I start posting stuff from my website to respond to you.

I did not say it doesnt matter.
I present what PAUL does in that the believer is NOT in bondage when they are yoked to an UNbeliever who deserts (among other things)

God loves everyone and wishes none to perish. Not to inform/correct/help someone out of sinful behavior is, in itself, sin, whether they be believers or not.

Sorry, *I* am not the one who made the provision in 1 cor 7:12-----
Paul wrote that because he is not as callous and hardhearted agaisnt his own brethren as some unscriptural doctrines are today.

Read the original post. All mankind needs to know God's will.
_________________

read my posts, THAT is Gods will for this situation.
And lets try to keep on track here....

~May God's will be done~

agreed

 

[follower of Christ]

REMEMBER

I want this thread to return to its purpose.

PROVE to me that 'except for fornication' was meant only for Jews.

Either you can prove this or you cannot.
Please do not post anything else that is not DIRECTLY related to that topic.
I dont want to get into too much irrelevance here as my time is very limited at this forum.

I dont want to have to call in moderation to keep this thread on the topic...and since we've both veered from that topic, Im insisting that we BOTH return to it.

DO YOU HAVE PROOF that 'except for fornication' was meant ONLY for the Jews or not?

Im not asking for unfounded opinion or your piecemealing together a couple passages to show that remarriage is supposedly adultery.

I ONLY want informatoin that proves that 'except for fornication' was ONLY applicable TO THE JEWS.
Im quite comfortable with my own understanding about remarriage and divorce and that is NOT the topic if THIS particular thread.

If there are any more posts that are not directly related to THAT topic Im going to have to ask a mod to come here and correct both of us..

thanks for doing the christianly thing here and honoring my request in my thread.

 

[Remember]

follower of Christ

[quote:efe47]:

It does matter, to God, if not to you.

Start putting word into my mouth and this conversation is over and I start posting stuff from my website to respond to you. [/quote:efe47]

I would not do such a thing. If you would have posted your words that I responded to when you posted the above, then it would be easily seen that I put nothing in your mouth. It came directly from you, by you. Anyone interested in what I had responded to can easily return to my post and see just that and how shocked I was that you could post that which you did.

You've been C&Ping from someplace. I've been wondering who all the "we" you've been posting includes because they certainly don't include me.

But, now, back to the subject at hand. :scatter:

 

[Remember]

REMEMBER

PROVE to me that 'except for fornication' was meant only for Jews.

Either you can prove this or you cannot.

I feel it's been proven over and over again in this thread. But since you seem to need more, I will show another piece of evidence from God's word (even though I believe I have previously done so).

A piece of a verse that can stand alone without any help. Some Bible versions have it as a separate sentence, some as an addition on the end of a sentence. It is a direct command from the inspired writer, Paul. It is not a mere suggestion. It is a point blank statement, no if's, and's or "exceptions":

From 1 Corinthians 7:11, Paul was inspired to write to us: KJV let not the husband put away his wife

NIV a husband must not divorce his wife

NKJV a husband is not to divorce his wife

Like I said, this is not a mere suggestion. This is a direct command for the covenant in which we live. For us to go against what is written in the word of God under our covenant is sin.

Yes, we are physically and (according to the laws of the land) legally able to divorce (but we are also allowed to kill our unborn babies, too) but it will still be committing a sin. God hates divorce, always did, always will. What God hates is sin. Jesus cleaned up Moses' mess a little bit for the Jews for the remainder of their covenant but that ended and so went "their" exception for a divorce.

The so-called exception does not apply to us.

Im not asking for unfounded opinion or your piecemealing together a couple passages to show that remarriage is supposedly adultery.

I have not posted opinion. I have posted Bible. I have piecemealed nothing. You asked for proof. I gave you Biblical proof from more than one source from within the Bible only.

I have more than amply shown that "except for fornication" was in a discussion regarding OT laws, specifically from Deut 24, and the results of that discussion satisfied the Jews regarding their currently pending OT laws, as it was meant to do.

I have also shown you exactly what the NT law is. There is to be no divorce.

This is NOT my opinion. It is directly from the word of God.

You can either accept God's word on this or not.
He permits you the choice.

 

[follower of Christ]

I feel it's been proven over and over again in this thread. But since you seem to need more, I will show another piece of evidence from God's word (even though I believe I have previously done so).

No, actually it hasnt.
The only thing you did was turn MY thread into your podium for MDR.
If you cannot give me PROOF, then please vacate the thread as I didnt ask for your viewpoints on MDR.

A piece of a verse that can stand alone without any help. Some Bible versions have it as a separate sentence, some as an addition on the end of a sentence. It is a direct command from the inspired writer, Paul. It is not a mere suggestion. It is a point blank statement, no if's, and's or "exceptions":
From 1 Corinthians 7:11, Paul was inspired to write to us: KJV let not the husband put away his wife

NIV a husband must not divorce his wife

NKJV a husband is not to divorce his wife

AGAIN !....that ONLY for marriages where BOTH spouses ARE BELIEVERS.
This is PROVEN IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE
7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,

Get it? The LORD ISNT SPEAKING TO THESE who are UNEQUALLY YOKED !
Paul has NO commandment from the Lord in the situation where one is married to an UNbeliever and CLEARLY shows in his example that if the believer is deserted by the UNbeliever, that they are NOT in slavery to that union/person !

This is getting quite redundant.


And Im sorry, but this in NO way shows that the exceptions were ONLY directed at the Jews.
All you have done here is do what I asked you NOT to do by presenting your views on MDR.
I can go grab a moderator if the OP isnt clear enough for you of if you are determined to derail my thread with your MDR nonsense.

Like I said, this is not a mere suggestion. This is a direct command for the covenant in which we live. For us to go against what is written in the word of God under our covenant is sin.

Ok...you want to play with 'commandments' ? Lets do so...
Im going to show you a COMMANDMENT from Jesus Christ Himself and when you find an excuse to not fulfill it, we all will see your hypocrasy.


READERS, I want you to watch as this poster starts finding 100 excuses NOT to follow this commandment from our Lord Jesus.

This is a "point blank statement, no if's, and's or "exceptions"

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
(Luk 6:30 KJV)

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
(Mat 5:42 KJV)

Remember your words above?
"Like I said, this is not a mere suggestion"

Now, Im asking you for $1000 because I have a car repair that needs to be done and do not have the money for it.

Are you going to start writing that check, because Ill give you my address right here and right now.

If not, please take your hypocrasy into someone elses thread.

Yes, we are physically and (according to the laws of the land) legally able to divorce (but we are also allowed to kill our unborn babies, too) but it will still be committing a sin. God hates divorce, always did, always will. What God hates is sin. Jesus cleaned up Moses' mess a little bit for the Jews for the remainder of their covenant but that ended and so went "their" exception for a divorce.

The so-called exception does not apply to us.

Im sorry, this simpy isnt supported at all
You seem to like to make claims then toss in some irrelevant verses and expect someone to fall for this nonsense.

What Jesus was cleaning up, as you say, was the allowance for 'for EVERY cause' (some uncleaness) divorce that Moses had tolerated.

Exodus shows us a CLEAR passage where God give JUST cause for a wife to leave a marriage because she has been deprived of what is owed her as a wife.
This is unrelated, however, to the 'for every cause' divorce by the man that Moses was permitting...the same kind of divorce we see with Herod and Herodias who put away their spouses for no just cause to marry each other.

YOu have given me NOTHING that I have asked for in this thread.
Please either come back with something substancial to PROVE that Jesus was ONLY speaking to Jews in His exceptions or do not post in this thread again.
Im not trying to be rude,but you are really derailing the tar out of my thread with your pushing of this erroneous MDR nonsense.

Pertaining to this comment..

God hates divorce, always did, always will. What God hates is sin

READER SEE this article
http://theassemblyministries.com/page6.html

God hates ending a marriage, that much is for sure, but His word NEVER says that it is always sin to divorce. If it were, then He Himself was threatening sin against Isreal.

I have not posted opinion. I have posted Bible.

The only thing you HAVE posted here is your views on MDR...I did NOT ask for that.
You havent offered a single thing even showing the first bit of evidence that Jesus was ONLY giving HIs exception to the Jews.

I have piecemealed nothing. You asked for proof. I gave you Biblical proof from more than one source from within the Bible only.

All you have 'proven' here is that you have no proof at all except for your MDR views that clearly do not take ALL scripture into account

Do you have my check written yet?

I have more than amply shown that "except for fornication" was in a discussion regarding OT laws, specifically from Deut 24, and the results of that discussion satisfied the Jews regarding their currently pending OT laws, as it was meant to do.

This is IRRELEVANT.
MOST of scripture is 'about' Jews and Jewish related material.
So Jesus was discussing a Jewish law...so what? THAT doesnt prove that His exception was ONLY pertaining to the Jews in HIS day.

I do not buy that Jesus was 'correcting' their 'interpretation' of Deut 24:!-4 as that leave far too many holes to fill in.

READERS check out some of these articles as they relate to this topic.
http://theassemblyministries.com/page51.html

I have also shown you exactly what the NT law is. There is to be no divorce.

Sorry, but you havent given the whole of the NT law
READERS SEE this article concerning abuse in a marraige
http://theassemblyministries.com/page43.html
Paul clearly shows that there IS condition for a believer leaving a marriage....ie "divorce"

This is NOT my opinion. It is directly from the word of God.

So is this

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
(Luk 6:30 KJV)

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
(Mat 5:42 KJV)

There are NO exceptions given in Jesus COMMANDMENT there.
My Paypal account is ready if you are going to follow Jesus' COMMANDMENT there...
My guess is you will find some 'context' to hide behind, just as those of your doctrine ALWAYs do.

When it comes to Jesus' commandments that you WANT to obey, you enforce them and reject context.
When it affects your own life, suddenly context is very important.

Prove youre not being hypocritical here, poster....do as Jesus has commanded you to do.

You can either accept God's word on this or not.
He permits you the choice.

Lets see if you will accept and obey or if you will give me 100 excuses for not obeying your Lords commands ;)