• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Why divorce is not an option for Christians?

arunangelo

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
181
Reaction score
33
To be a Christian is to follow Christ. To follow Him we must love Him. To love Him is to surrender our life to Him. To surrender our life to Him is to live a life that is His, and not ours. This means that we do and think what He does and thinks. We know that God is always faithful to us although we have been unfaithful to Him, and rejected Him by our sins. Furthermore, He sacrificed His own life so that we may be free of sin and have His life. To be a Christian, therefore, is to do likewise. In addition, since it is God who seals the marriage covenant no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6); and those who attempt to break this seal go against God. Divorce is therefore, absolutely prohibited for believers (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 16:18; Matthew 5: 31-32); and remarriage after divorce is adultery. Furthermore, a person whose spouse is unfaithful to him/her must stay faithful to his/her spouse just as God is faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).

God 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.
 
Now in regard to the article..... adultery is cause for divorce. And to make reconciliation with the spouse that cheated does not necessarily mean that we have to stay with the person who is unrepentant, but that we forgive them and move on. If people don't keep the Lord in their hearts (turn away from Him) then the marriage is not of the Lord but given over to the carnality selfishness and a spirit that is ungodly. The Lord does not put that together. We must take responsibility to seek after the heart of the Lord. When we stop doing that... then the Lord is not in it.
Why people think that we have no responsibility and that marriage’s are just going to happen "naturally" and everything is going to be rosy and fine because we say we are Christian is nonsense. We all must take responsibility to maintain our walk with the Lord.... when one person or both people in the marriage BREAK that walk, that focus on the Lord... that is when the Lord is no longer in it. We turn our backs on the Lord... He doesn't turn His back on us.... We all pay consequences for our actions and thoughts if we act upon those thoughts. Cheaters are not in the Lord, nor are they of the Lord. That therefore, leaves the Lord out of the marriage. Adultery is cause for divorce when there in no repentance or forgiveness. It takes two people to be responsible in the marriage. I'm sure a Loving God does not want us to suffer and stay in a marriage that is full of hell and disrespect for the marriage vows. The vows are broken when such ill regard and inconsiderateness is present. The Lord God I know does not want me to live with a person who is absolutely hell on earth! I was in a seven year marriage in which my husband was abusive and a cheater. I'll never go through that again! The Love of God is not there. God does not stay married to the devilish spirit, the devilish spirit is to be cast out. And if that devil-ish spirit is not repentant, shows no remorse and continues to commit to the act of fornication/adultery... then the person being cheated on is free to move on.

.
 
With regards to divorce, is it only adultery that allows for divorce to be justified in God's will? Are there any other reasons to be able to divorce? I have researched and came to the conclusion that I could not divorce for the reasons I was feeling at the time..

As a scenario..
If you were married to someone who kept getting in the way of your walk with the Lord and kept tripping you up or did not have any feel or need for walking with the Lord themselves....?
Not that I am in this situation at the moment, but I have felt it at times since my conversion and have got quite frustrated and a bit lonely at times..(not sexually)

Also, is it only physical sexual adultery that we are on about here or does this include spiritual adultery also?



http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/
 
Do you think Jesus would tell you to stay with a man who is beating you and your kids and preventing the work of God?

God knows people change and sin can over take us that's why God compensates sometimes and the rules change to meet his ultimate plan.
 
Now in regard to the article..... adultery is cause for divorce. And to make reconciliation with the spouse that cheated does not necessarily mean that we have to stay with the person who is unrepentant, but that we forgive them and move on. If people don't keep the Lord in their hearts (turn away from Him) then the marriage is not of the Lord but given over to the carnality selfishness and a spirit that is ungodly. The Lord does not put that together. We must take responsibility to seek after the heart of the Lord. When we stop doing that... then the Lord is not in it.
Why people think that we have no responsibility and that marriage’s are just going to happen "naturally" and everything is going to be rosy and fine because we say we are Christian is nonsense. We all must take responsibility to maintain our walk with the Lord.... when one person or both people in the marriage BREAK that walk, that focus on the Lord... that is when the Lord is no longer in it. We turn our backs on the Lord... He doesn't turn His back on us.... We all pay consequences for our actions and thoughts if we act upon those thoughts. Cheaters are not in the Lord, nor are they of the Lord. That therefore, leaves the Lord out of the marriage. Adultery is cause for divorce when there in no repentance or forgiveness. It takes two people to be responsible in the marriage. I'm sure a Loving God does not want us to suffer and stay in a marriage that is full of hell and disrespect for the marriage vows. The vows are broken when such ill regard and inconsiderateness is present. The Lord God I know does not want me to live with a person who is absolutely hell on earth! I was in a seven year marriage in which my husband was abusive and a cheater. I'll never go through that again! The Love of God is not there. God does not stay married to the devilish spirit, the devilish spirit is to be cast out. And if that devil-ish spirit is not repentant, shows no remorse and continues to commit to the act of fornication/adultery... then the person being cheated on is free to move on.

Adultery is not a cause for divorce for a Christian. Many people misinterpret the exception in Matthew's Gospel (5:31-32). This exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication). The exemption is against unlawful marriages between close relatives, which were considered unlawful (Leviticus 18:6-18), because they were considered incestuous (porneia); and against common-law marriages (which are also unlawful marriages), in which couples fornicate by living together. Some people try to equate porneia with adultery. However, in the second half of the 32nd verse in the above referenced Matthew’s gospel the Greek word for adultery is moiceia.
 
So my stepmother is an adulterer.. Who cares? She's happier than she has ever been.
 
animal said:
So my stepmother is an adulterer.. Who cares? She's happier than she has ever been.

What do you mean, "who cares"? :gah

We should all care whether the way we live one that would eventually lead to more harm than good, or whether it would eventually only be a path towards further harm of the spirit of a person or both partners in the marriage. The sin of unrepentance and unforgiveness carries forward, we can't run or hide from it... and if we don't deal with it, it only comes back to make us face it again.

.
 
Here are some interesting quotes from early Christian
writings regarding the Permanence of Matrimony: LINK
 
Relic said:
What do you mean, "who cares"? :gah

We should all care whether the way we live one that would eventually lead to more harm than good, or whether it would eventually only be a path towards further harm of the spirit of a person or both partners in the marriage. The sin of unrepentance and unforgiveness carries forward, we can't run or hide from it... and if we don't deal with it, it only comes back to make us face it again.

.

She divorced an abusive drunk. Left with nearly nothing but her three daughters. She remarried my father and we all couldn't be happier. I don't see why this even needs to be discussed.
 
Now in regard to the article..... adultery is cause for divorce. And to make reconciliation with the spouse that cheated does not necessarily mean that we have to stay with the person who is unrepentant, but that we forgive them and move on. If people don't keep the Lord in their hearts (turn away from Him) then the marriage is not of the Lord but given over to the carnality selfishness and a spirit that is ungodly. The Lord does not put that together. We must take responsibility to seek after the heart of the Lord. When we stop doing that... then the Lord is not in it.
Why people think that we have no responsibility and that marriage’s are just going to happen "naturally" and everything is going to be rosy and fine because we say we are Christian is nonsense. We all must take responsibility to maintain our walk with the Lord.... when one person or both people in the marriage BREAK that walk, that focus on the Lord... that is when the Lord is no longer in it. We turn our backs on the Lord... He doesn't turn His back on us.... We all pay consequences for our actions and thoughts if we act upon those thoughts. Cheaters are not in the Lord, nor are they of the Lord. That therefore, leaves the Lord out of the marriage. Adultery is cause for divorce when there in no repentance or forgiveness. It takes two people to be responsible in the marriage. I'm sure a Loving God does not want us to suffer and stay in a marriage that is full of hell and disrespect for the marriage vows. The vows are broken when such ill regard and inconsiderateness is present. The Lord God I know does not want me to live with a person who is absolutely hell on earth! I was in a seven year marriage in which my husband was abusive and a cheater. I'll never go through that again! The Love of God is not there. God does not stay married to the devilish spirit, the devilish spirit is to be cast out. And if that devil-ish spirit is not repentant, shows no remorse and continues to commit to the act of fornication/adultery... then the person being cheated on is free to move on.

.

Adultery is not a cause for divorce for a lawful Christian marriage because what God has joined to gether no one can seperate. Some people quote Matthew’s gospel (5:31-32) to justify divorce in case of unfaithfulness. The word in the Greek text for allowing divorce is porneia (which means incest or fornication). It referred to unlawful marriages between close relatives during Jesus’ time, which were unlawful (Leviticus 18:6-18), because they were incestuous (porneia). Note that the Greek word for adultery in verse 32 is moiceia (not porneia). The exception therefore is for unlawful marriages.
 
arunangelo said:
Adultery is not a cause for divorce for a lawful Christian marriage because what God has joined to gether no one can seperate. Some people quote Matthew’s gospel (5:31-32) to justify divorce in case of unfaithfulness. The word in the Greek text for allowing divorce is porneia (which means incest or fornication). It referred to unlawful marriages between close relatives during Jesus’ time, which were unlawful (Leviticus 18:6-18), because they were incestuous (porneia). Note that the Greek word for adultery in verse 32 is moiceia (not porneia). The exception therefore is for unlawful marriages.

While I am surprised to see this opinion, I do not disagree. I find Matthew 19 interesting. I am going to split the passage into two sections. The reason is because the Phraisees ask two different questions. The second question is an objection.
3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
In this text Jesus takes the question of the Pharisees. They ask if we can divorce for any cause. In essence, Jesus answer is "no." This is not good enough with the Pharisees, they want exceptions. To defend their point of view against Jesus they quote Deuteronomy 24:4 and the exception clause in the Law. The text for question 2 is below.
7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
EXPLAINATION OF THE PHARISEE OBJECTION
If one goes back to Deuteronomy 24 and reads verses 1-4, you can observe the "if... then" legal structure. In verses 1-3 we have the "if" part. Verses 1-3 are no advocating anything but merely describing a possible situation. "If" a man who finds a fault in his wife and divorces her. Jesus called this sin when he said "Moses allowed it because of the hardness of your hearts. Who has hard hearts? Sinners, unbelievers, etc. The text does not advocate divorce, it merely states an existing fact that some hard heated man might do in verses 1-3. Then in verse 4 we have the "then" clause. This hard hearted man was forbidden to remarry the wife if she has already been remarried.
CHRISTS REPLY
Christ did create an exception clause in this passage. A good question would be when Christ refers to pornia (fornication) is he referring to Deuteronomy 24? Is this the pornia the same as the uncleanness? The problem in the Deuteronomy 24 would be that the law had specific stipulations for adultery (stoning) and fornication. This would rule out either adultery or fornication being the uncleanness. By process of elimination, the only possibility would be that the uncleanness would be the Deuteronomy 18 too close of kin marriage.
 
arunangelo said:
To be a Christian is to follow Christ. To follow Him we must love Him. To love Him is to surrender our life to Him. To surrender our life to Him is to live a life that is His, and not ours. This means that we do and think what He does and thinks. We know that God is always faithful to us although we have been unfaithful to Him, and rejected Him by our sins. Furthermore, He sacrificed His own life so that we may be free of sin and have His life. To be a Christian, therefore, is to do likewise. In addition, since it is God who seals the marriage covenant no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6); and those who attempt to break this seal go against God. Divorce is therefore, absolutely prohibited for believers (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 16:18; Matthew 5: 31-32); and remarriage after divorce is adultery. Furthermore, a person whose spouse is unfaithful to him/her must stay faithful to his/her spouse just as God is faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).

God 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.
Dude, what do you do, stop in every 6 months to post this same tripe post again then not even stick around to be corrected ?
HOw many times have you posted this same post and on how many different forums ? Have you ever stuck around to actually be refuted ?
 
arunangelo said:
Furthermore, He sacrificed His own life so that we may be free of sin and have His life. To be a Christian, therefore, is to do likewise. In addition, since it is God who seals the marriage covenant no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6);
Bogus crap nonsense.
Paul PROVES that man CAN indeed put marriage asunder, chap. Deal with it.

I realize this is a pretty complicated concept for those of your fallacies, but your error makes Paul quite the heretic when Paul show that man CAN indeed put asunder (CHORIZO) what God has joined together.



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

By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

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


Supporting Evidence

1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.
L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separateâ€
What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.
See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mat 19:6 EMTV)

(Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)
Bear in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.

The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.
G5563
??????
ch?riz?
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away
That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11
(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.

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

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


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

Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.
1Co 7:15 KJV But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Remember “chorizoâ€G5563 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€) is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.

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

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

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


3.0

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

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


Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)
(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

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

4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.
 
arunangelo said:
and those who attempt to break this seal go against God. Divorce is therefore, absolutely prohibited for believers (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 16:18; Matthew 5: 31-32);
Nonsense
Jesus Himself said EXCEPT showing conclusively that adultery is NOT prohibited nor is adultery always the case in remarriage.
Paul showing that man CAN put marriage asunder (CHORIZO) and instructing the believer to allow the unbeliever to do so proves that you are flat out wrong, gent....like it or not.

and remarriage after divorce is adultery.
Wrong.
Jesus said EXCEPT...

Furthermore, a person whose spouse is unfaithful to him/her must stay faithful to his/her spouse just as God is faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).
Im sorry, are WE the prophet Hosea who was INSTRUCTED to marry a woman of fornication ?
Sorry gent, but unless GOD instructs a man to do so there is NO comparison to Hosea in OUR marriages.



Hosea and Gomer
By WmTipton


Some try to assert that Hosea and Gomer were foreshadows of marriage during this age of grace.
Let us see for ourselves what Hosea is about.

God TOLD Hosea to marry a harlot because of Isreals constant whoring / idolatry against Him.
He was showing, thru this prophet, how Israel was BREAKING the covenant He had made with them, and like a forgiving spouse, He had keep taking her back.

But God did not permit Israel, the nation as a whole, to continue in this.
In the book of Zechariah (11:10-11) He fully and finally broke / ended that covenant with them, as a nation.
One more prophet came ofter this, Malachi, then silence from God for over 400 years until John came out of the wilderness.

A brief read through of the first few verses in Hosea shows us clearly that it had nothing to do with all marriages, but was God showing Isreal through the life of this prophet what they had been doing to Him.

The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. (Hos 1:2-6)

Those who use Hosea for an argument also need to start doing every other thing in the OT commanded of His prophets.
God put away a covenant with a whoring nation and we may put away a whoring spouse, just as Jesus has confirmed .(Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9)
The fact is Hosea and Gomer are irrelevant in the MDR discussion as NONE of us are directed by God to go marry a harlot. Only if we were could we even begin to apply this situation to our marriage and even then it would ONLY be applicable to that marriage itself, not the hundreds of millions of others in the world today.

2.0

Some use the absurd argument that Hosea and Gomer got back together, so therefore its 'ok' to go against Gods instruction that a DIVORCED woman cannot return to her former husband once REmarried, but the fact is Hosea did not put Gomer away as per the law by giving her a writ of divorce.
Like the example spoken of in Romans 7 where also there is no divorce given, this woman simply went out and joined with other men knowing full well that she was married still to Hosea, so of course being a MARRIED woman giving herself to men NOT her husband she would be called 'adulteress'.

Deut 24:4 does not apply in this case because there was no writ of divorce. The same applies to David and Michals situations where she was Davids lawful wife, yet was given to another man. David simply took back his wife that he had never put away. Hosea is exactly the same.
 
arunangelo said:
God 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.
Horrible conclusions based on the actual CONTEXT.
The OFFENDING spouse would be the one who would be required to stop doing what they are doing.
If the INNOCENT spouse is given cause to end the marraige (adultery, abuse, abandonment) they are not required to return to the abusive spouse.
I suggest you find a bible and read it sometime.
 
ChevyRodeo said:
Do you think Jesus would tell you to stay with a man who is beating you and your kids and preventing the work of God?

God knows people change and sin can over take us that's why God compensates sometimes and the rules change to meet his ultimate plan.
No, God wouldnt.
These legalists who cant even seem to read the WHOLE word of God are stuck in these pet verses that dont present the whole scope of information.
Anyone with half a clue as to who our God is knows conclusively that He would NEVER require that His marriage covenant be defiled by abuse....this goes all the way back to Exodus 21:10.
 
arunangelo said:
Adultery is not a cause for divorce for a Christian.
Suure it is gent.



Matthew 5; proof that the exceptions are for today....
WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show conclusively that Jesus' exceptions DO apply to THIS covenant.

Supporting Evidence
In each of the following comments from Matthew 5 Jesus shows what WAS said and how things WERE and then states how HE says ARE.
Mat 5:21 You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not kill" --and, "Whoever shall kill shall be liable to the judgment."
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to the judgment. And whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of hell.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if you offer your gift on the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Mat 5:25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are in the way with him; that the opponent not deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
Mat 5:26 Truly I say to you, You shall by no means come out from there until you have paid the last kodrantes.

Mat 5:27 You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not commit adultery."
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mat 5:29 And if your right eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it from you. For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be thrown into hell.
Mat 5:30 And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and throw it from you. For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be thrown into hell.


Mat 5:31 It was also said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.
Mat 5:32 But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.


Mat 5:33 Again, you have heard that it has been said to the ancients, "You shall not swear falsely, but you shall perform your oaths to the Lord."
Mat 5:34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all! Not by Heaven, because it is God's throne;
Mat 5:35 not by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King;
Mat 5:36 nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your word be, Yes, yes; No, no. For whatever is more than these comes from evil.

Mat 5:38 You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
Mat 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist evil. But whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Mat 5:40 And to him desiring to sue you, and to take away your tunic, let him have your coat also.
Mat 5:41 And whoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him who asks of you, and you shall not turn away from him who would borrow from you.

Mat 5:43 You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy."
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you,
Mat 5:45 so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
If even one of these responses Jesus makes doesnt apply to this New Covenant, then NONE of them can be said as applying either.
If verses 5:31-32 do not mean that Jesus is saying "heres how things have been done (or as you believed that they were to be) but *I* am telling you that this is how they ARE" then we cannot apply any of the other passages, such as 5:43-44, to today either.
*IF* Jesus' response in Matthew 5:32...."But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication..." does not apply to the new covenant church, then neither does "But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you..." and it is entirely inconsistent and illogical to say otherwise.

The Jews had fooled themselves into believing that they had been 'instructed' or 'commanded' to put away their wives and to give them a writ of divorcement if they found some reason that they wanted to put them away. Jesus shows them that their understanding of Mosaic law is flawed, Moses never commanded this at all but simply allowed instead and only where they have just cause can they put a wife away and not be sinning against her.
 
arunangelo said:
Many people misinterpret the exception in Matthew's Gospel (5:31-32). This exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication). The exemption is against unlawful marriages between close relatives, which were considered unlawful (Leviticus 18:6-18), because they were considered incestuous (porneia); and against common-law marriages (which are also unlawful marriages), in which couples fornicate by living together. Some people try to equate porneia with adultery. However, in the second half of the 32nd verse in the above referenced Matthew’s gospel the Greek word for adultery is moiceia.
Sorry but you are wrong, as per usual..
Forncation is ANY and ALL sexual immorality committed by ANYONE, married or not as proven by the usage of the word in the scriptures.



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

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that the greek word 'porneia' is all inclusive of sexual immorality

Supporting Evidence
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 existence 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 committed.

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 ‘’fornication’’ are not married to each other.

Here is the current definition...

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 aren't married to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISN'T your lawful spouse, whether you're married or not.

Porneia is a word in the Greek language that much of the NT was written in originally.
It is not specifically a religious word, nor was it created to write about any specific sexual in in scripture and it does not center around religious intent/meaning, but simply is showing general sexual immorality regardless of its nature.
The word is as ambigious/subjective as the words 'sexual immorality' are. It is not limited to any specific sexually immoral act, but is used to blanketly speak about this type of 'immorality'.


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€, 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 )


In this next verse we see conclusively that porneia DOES cover 'adultery'.
1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
Very obviously if this woman was some one elses husband then to have her was 'adultery'.
But the text here only mentions fornication (porneia) instead of the word adultery which it SHOULD use if some fallacious doctrines were right and porneia did not cover acts of adultery as well by the married.


2.0

Fornication defined by Mosaic Law

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that the word 'fornication' is in part defined by the sexual prohibitions in the Mosaic law. (clearly that could never be an exhaustive list)

Supporting Evidence
Acts 15 shows and attempt to have GENTILES in the church follow the Mosaic law.
The council of Jerusalem shows that the gentiles werent to be troubled with it other than 4 things which include abstaining from blood and from fornication (sexual immorality).
It is therefore concluded that 'fornication' is DEFINED by the sexual sins listed IN the Mosaic law....this is evidenced by 1 Cor 5 and the man who was committing FORNICATION who had his fathers wife...a sin that was forbidden in the Mosaic law, but nothing that Ive seen specifically mentioned as being sin in the NT except that one passage.
Did Paul just pull this sin out of his ear ?
No.
Fornication....aka sexual sin...is DEFINED by the law and the acts forbidden therein. The law forbids a man to have his fathers wife and that is exactly what this man was condemned for and cast out of the church over.
(Act 15:5 ) But some of those from the sect of the Pharisees rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses...........Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:19-20 )

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

(1Co 5:1 EMTV) It is actually heard that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife!
The EVIDENCE supports that "fornication" in the New testament is DEFINED by sexual prohibitons from the Mosaic law.



3.0

We've established that porneia is used to cover a broad range of sexual immorality.
Now that that IS established, we see that it also quite conclusively covers PREmarital sex as well in 1 cor 7:1-2.
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:1-2 EMTV)
Coming at this with our previous conclusion that 'porneia' is ALL sexual immorality this passage shows conclusively that PREmarital sex is also wrong and needs to be dealt with by having ones own spouse.

Even without the previous conclusion that the word is ALL sexual immorality, this passage entirely on its own condemns PREmarital sex by showing that a man or woman is to have their OWN spouse.

Lets play this nonsense game that porneia is only prostitution for just a moment and examine the verse.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:1-2 EMTV)
Does it say to avoid this sexual sin let each have their own boyfriend/girlfriend ? Their own lover ?

No, it quite clearly shows that we are to have our own husbands or wives to avoid this sexual sin REGARDLESS of what it might actually be.

It is complete folly to try to assert that Paul MIGHT have also mean 'you can also have sex with someone else you arent married to as long as they arent a temple prostitute"...more like purposefully rejecting the facts.
Whether the immoral and argumentative can accept the facts or not, Paul ONLY gives ONE remedy for avoiding this sexual sin and that is to have OUR OWN SPOUSE.
*IF* you are going to partake of sexual intercourse GET MARRIED !
 
arunangelo said:
Adultery is not a cause for divorce for a lawful Christian marriage because what God has joined to gether no one can seperate.
Again, WRONG.
Jesus did not say NO MAN CAN separate.
Jesus DID say 'LET NOT man separate'.
Two entirely different concepts there, chap.
And the word used is (CHORIZO)

Paul uses this very same word in 1 Cor 7 when Paul says to let the unbeliever depart/separate...meaning that man CAN 'put asunder' (CHORIZO) against your ridiculous conclusions.

Some people quote Matthew’s gospel (5:31-32) to justify divorce in case of unfaithfulness.
Wrong, gent.
We quote the words of instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ to understand HIS intent...even if it escapes you personally.

The word in the Greek text for allowing divorce is porneia (which means incest or fornication). It referred to unlawful marriages between close relatives during Jesus’ time, which were unlawful (Leviticus 18:6-18), because they were incestuous (porneia). Note that the Greek word for adultery in verse 32 is moiceia (not porneia). The exception therefore is for unlawful marriages.
Wrong.
The usage of the word porneia cannot be confined to unlawful or incestous marriages alone gent.
By your nonsense views it would have been ONLY incestuous marriages that were being forbidden in Acts 15....completely absurd. ALL sexual immorality was being spoken against there and in other places where porneia is uses.
The word is AnY and ALL sexual immorality by the married or the unmarried.
When a married man or woman commits porneia (sexual immorality) it is the marriage specific crime of 'adultery'.
Getting it yet ? ;)

.
 
Back
Top