Divorce and Remarriage

[Amisk]

" I would speculate that on an average it is safe to say, ‘there are more divorced and remarried couples in today’s church congregations, than there are widows and widowers. Likely the majority of these couples were divorced and remarried while calling themselves Christians. In spite of the fact that Jesus forbid divorce for any other reason than adultery, an ever growing number of church folk are divorced on the grounds of mental abuse, a term that fits about anything you wish to attach to it (real or imaginary). The church seems to have missed the fact that Jesus made no allowances for remarriage of divorced people no matter the reason for the divorce." Ben Delmores Setting Sun Publishing

Used by permission

[mont974x4]

IMO, Delmores is wrong. In 1 Cor we see a case where an unbelieving spouse leaves and the believing spouse is then free. This means we can not say they are not free. Either they are free or not...the Bible says they are.


While we want to encourage repentance and restoration, the decisions made are between the people invovled and God....not the church and the people involved.

We must also remember that many people in our churches got saved later in life. What happened BC (before Christ) was repented of and forgiven, we have no right to hold the past over their heads when Christ doesn't. We either believe Christs blood was good enough to cover those sins or it wasn't...I know what I beleive.

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

What exactly is the point here? If people were divorced before they became Christians (as was my husband), are they to be bound to the first spouse after they come to Christ? We were neither one believers before we married, it is because we became believers that we felt compelled to marry.

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

IMO, Delmores is wrong. In 1 Cor we see a case where an unbelieving spouse leaves and the believing spouse is then free. This means we can not say they are not free. Either they are free or not...the Bible says they are.


While we want to encourage repentance and restoration, the decisions made are between the people invovled and God....not the church and the people involved.

We must also remember that many people in our churches got saved later in life. What happened BC (before Christ) was repented of and forgiven, we have no right to hold the past over their heads when Christ doesn't. We either believe Christs blood was good enough to cover those sins or it wasn't...I know what I beleive.

:thumbsup: Well said!

[MarkEvan]

Although I accept what Jesus says that the only reason for divorce between believing couples is unchastity, this I believe has a wider meaning than what the article gives it, the greek word used is pornea which means more than just adultery in the common sense, for instance I believe that it also would apply to a wife who is beaten by her husband or vice versa.

mark :)

[DIVA_for_Christ]

IMO, Delmores is wrong. In 1 Cor we see a case where an unbelieving spouse leaves and the believing spouse is then free. This means we can not say they are not free. Either they are free or not...the Bible says they are.


While we want to encourage repentance and restoration, the decisions made are between the people invovled and God....not the church and the people involved.

We must also remember that many people in our churches got saved later in life. What happened BC (before Christ) was repented of and forgiven, we have no right to hold the past over their heads when Christ doesn't. We either believe Christs blood was good enough to cover those sins or it wasn't...I know what I beleive.

:amen:

What God has put together, let no man put asunder. Well what about the marriages that God did not put together. There are plenty of married people who heard God tell them not to marry a certain person but they did anyway. They then have to go through the consequences of their disobedience, but with a repentive heart and the new understanding of being obedient, God will release them, in His timing, from what was not in His will for them in the first place.

[Amisk]

IMO, Delmores is wrong. In 1 Cor we see a case where an unbelieving spouse leaves and the believing spouse is then free. This means we can not say they are not free. Either they are free or not...the Bible says they are.


While we want to encourage repentance and restoration, the decisions made are between the people involved and God....not the church and the people involved.

We must also remember that many people in our churches got saved later in life. What happened BC (before Christ) was repented of and forgiven, we have no right to hold the past over their heads when Christ doesn't. We either believe Christs blood was good enough to cover those sins or it wasn't...I know what I beleive.

You are correct that they are to let the unsaved go. They are free of the marriage but you are reading into the scripture that which not there when you attempt to say that the believer has the right to remarry. The verse doesn't say that. The freedom that you desire the scripture to say can not be found anywhere in scripture.

[Amisk]

What exactly is the point here? If people were divorced before they became Christians (as was my husband), are they to be bound to the first spouse after they come to Christ? We were neither one believers before we married, it is because we became believers that we felt compelled to marry.

You ask a hard question. I can only say that a couple in your position should repent of any sin that was committed at the time of the marriage. What you do now is for you and God to decide. I see no scripture which tells people what to do in that case.

I note that one leading Evangelist explained it this way: "Those who have divorced and remarried should repent of the sin and then stay together." He went on to explain it this way, "In all likelihood you could not return to your first marriage anyway, that partner likely wouldn't want you anyway.
When you scramble eggs there is no putting them back into their original state, that would seem to apply here as well."
Sounds reasonable, I don't know of any scripture that tells one to do otherwise.

[mont974x4]

You are correct that they are to let the unsaved go. They are free of the marriage but you are reading into the scripture that which not there when you attempt to say that the believer has the right to remarry. The verse doesn't say that. The freedom that you desire the scripture to say can not be found anywhere in scripture.
I'm sorry but the lack of freedom some people see...just isn't there. It says they are free...either they are free or not, there is nothing in that passage that places limits on the freedom. Limited freedom, really isn't freedom is it?

Wich route do you want to take? Love, grace and mercy..or a hardline that drives people into needless guilt and condemnation?

Which route edifies our brothers and sisters? Which one acknowledges that Christs blood is sufficient to cover the sins involved in past divorces?

[Jody7818]

...the greek word used is pornea which means more than just adultery in the common sense, for instance I believe that it also would apply to a wife who is beaten by her husband or vice versa.

mark :)

Mark,

Where are you getting your resources for this?

[mont974x4]

Jody, I would guess he used a concordance (such as Strong's) or a good word study dictionary.

If you don't have one, I'd suggest e-Sword. It's a free download that comes with the KV and Strong's concordance. You can get other versions and study tools downloaded too..some are free, some aren't.

[Svt4Him]

You are correct that they are to let the unsaved go. They are free of the marriage but you are reading into the scripture that which not there when you attempt to say that the believer has the right to remarry. The verse doesn't say that. The freedom that you desire the scripture to say can not be found anywhere in scripture.

Oh but it does. But before I go there, I'll need to lay a bit of a foundation.

Can we agree:

a. The Bible agrees with itself from beginning to end?
b. The Bible was not an English book, and unclear verses have to be looked at in context and in the original language if contradictions appear.
c. The KJV is not the final authority.
d. Jesus would not have contradicted what God has said, nor changed the law of Moses, and Paul would not preach something that goes contrary to what Jesus taught?

Now if you can say why someone divorced can't remarry, and why you assume put away equals divorce:

(ASV) but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the
cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her
when she is PUT AWAY committeth adultery. (Bible in Basic English) But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife
for any other cause but the loss of her virtue, makes her false to her husband;
and whoever takes her as his wife after she is PUT AWAY, is no true husband
to her. (Darby) But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for
cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one
that is PUT AWAY commits adultery.(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the
cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her
that is PUT AWAY, committeth adultery. (LITV) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of
fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one
PUT AWAY commits adultery.(MKJV) 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. (Worldwide English) But I tell you, no man may send away his wife unless she has
committed adultery. If he does send her away, he is making her commit adultery.
And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away from her husband, he
commits adultery.(World English Bible) But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for
the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her
when she is put away commits adultery.(WYC) But I say to you, that every man that leaveth his wife [that every man
that shall leave his wife], except (for) [the] cause of fornication, maketh her to do
lechery, and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth adultery.(Youngs Literal Translation) But I—I say to you, that whoever may PUT AWAY
his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and
whoever may marry her who hath been PUT AWAY doth commit adultery.

Quoted with permission.

[rocklife]

Svt4Him, that is Matthew 19:9 correct? and Mark 10:11-12?

Niv also says of Matt 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

[twistedsketch]

What exactly is the point here? If people were divorced before they became Christians (as was my husband), are they to be bound to the first spouse after they come to Christ? We were neither one believers before we married, it is because we became believers that we felt compelled to marry.

Getting married isn't a sin. Jesus died to wash away sins. So unless that first marriage was adulterous by God's standards (and therefore not really a marriage) I don't see why the cross would dissolve it.

[Svt4Him]

Svt4Him, that is Matthew 19:9 correct? and Mark 10:11-12?

Niv also says of Matt 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

As does the KJV, so then one has to ask if there is a difference, and, if so, why. But that's getting a bit ahead, there are still the assumptions that have to be agreed on.

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

Getting married isn't a sin. Jesus died to wash away sins. So unless that first marriage was adulterous by God's standards (and therefore not really a marriage) I don't see why the cross would dissolve it.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying then that in God's eyes that my husband is married to two people? His first wife had remarried and had children long before he and I married. Where does that leave the situation?

[twistedsketch]

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying then that in God's eyes that my husband is married to two people? His first wife had remarried and had children long before he and I married. Where does that leave the situation?

That's where it gets confusing. Why did they get divorced?

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

You ask a hard question. I can only say that a couple in your position should repent of any sin that was committed at the time of the marriage. What you do now is for you and God to decide. I see no scripture which tells people what to do in that case.

I note that one leading Evangelist explained it this way: "Those who have divorced and remarried should repent of the sin and then stay together." He went on to explain it this way, "In all likelihood you could not return to your first marriage anyway, that partner likely wouldn't want you anyway.
When you scramble eggs there is no putting them back into their original state, that would seem to apply here as well."
Sounds reasonable, I don't know of any scripture that tells one to do otherwise.
This is exactly what we have done. We have been married now for almost 14 years and have 5 kids who we have tried to "train up in the way they should go". I can hardly imagine that God would not honor this or would require that my husband not remain in this marriage because he was married before. We have been forgiven, His blood took care of it. Thanks for your words though, it is nice when you get this sort of response instead of a legalistic, condeming one (I am not referring to any comments that I have gotten on this thread by the way!).

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

That's where it gets confusing. Why did they get divorced?
Well, neither one were Christians, so they got divorced for very unbiblical reasons. It just "didn't work out". It would not be a path that he would take today, he is a new creation in Christ. This is my point though, it was all BEFORE he was a Christian, I just can't see that God requires us to pay for sins that were committed before we came to know Him. Aren't we promised that our sins are covered by His blood? Why would this case be different?

[mont974x4]

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying then that in God's eyes that my husband is married to two people? His first wife had remarried and had children long before he and I married. Where does that leave the situation?
You are both free. I am guessing that you are both saved now and have repented.

You'll have to settle things in your own hearts between you and God.

My understanding is that divorce is permissable but not required in 2 circumstances
1. sexual immorality
2. abandonment

I don't want you to explain all the personal details here. Sit down with your husband and the Bible...pray together and seek His wisdom..not mine or anyone elses. If you feel convicted by Him, then recognize it and repent. Move forward growing closer to Him and closer as husband and wife. Once we are forgiven we don't need to live in guilt or shame for sins that He has thrown as far as the east is from the west.


read Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7

Remember...
No man can condemn those whom Christ has justified.

[mont974x4]

dang it, I typed to slow

lol

[twistedsketch]

Well, neither one were Christians, so they got divorced for very unbiblical reasons. It just "didn't work out". It would not be a path that he would take today, he is a new creation in Christ. This is my point though, it was all BEFORE he was a Christian, I just can't see that God requires us to pay for sins that were committed before we came to know Him. Aren't we promised that our sins are covered by His blood? Why would this case be different?

That's not what He is doing. Forgiving their divorce happened, and forgiveness means the divorce is off the record. As if they never divorced. Therefore, they would still be married. She did remarry first though, so there's a chance he may be off the hook. After all, that would count as adultery. I can't say for sure, though. You've got the kids and everything, so it would probably be worse to divorce again.

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

dang it, I typed to slow

lol
That's okay, it was a great post!!

[mont974x4]

thanks :)

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

That's not what He is doing. Forgiving their divorce happened, and forgiveness means the divorce is off the record. As if they never divorced. Therefore, they would still be married. She did remarry first though, so there's a chance he may be off the hook. After all, that would count as adultery. I can't say for sure, though. You've got the kids and everything, so it would probably be worse to divorce again.
Probably be worse to divorce again? Yes, I think it would definitely be worse, seeing that we have a marriage that we have wholeheartedly put in His hands and He has blessed us with 5 kids. I have a hard time understanding when people think that only some sins seem to be covered when there is true repentence and God has reached down and plucked you out of the sinful life you were leading. That is what He did with both of us. It is distressing though, when others seem to feel that our marriage is somehow "second class" in God's eyes because of what had happened before. It always strikes me as very legalistic. Not an attack on you, just my .02.

[mont974x4]

Probably be worse to divorce again? Yes, I think it would definitely be worse, seeing that we have a marriage that we have wholeheartedly put in His hands and He has blessed us with 5 kids. I have a hard time understanding when people think that only some sins seem to be covered when there is true repentence and God has reached down and plucked you out of the sinful life you were leading. That is what He did with both of us. It is distressing though, when others seem to feel that our marriage is somehow "second class" in God's eyes because of what had happened before. It always strikes me as very legalistic. Not an attack on you, just my .02.
I understand. I'm on my second marriage. My first ended on biblical grounds.

Still, we face that stigma/judgment from many.


I remind myself that they are not really judging and condemning me...they are second guessing the power of His blood.

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

I understand. I'm on my second marriage. My first ended on biblical grounds.

Still, we face that stigma/judgment from many.


I remind myself that they are not really judging and condemning me...they are second guessing the power of His blood.
I think you are right. I, however, am very thankful that He has promised that His blood covers all my sins now that I am His.

Thanks for the encouraging words.

[Svt4Him]

You are both free. I am guessing that you are both saved now and have repented.

You'll have to settle things in your own hearts between you and God.

My understanding is that divorce is permissable but not required in 2 circumstances
1. sexual immorality
2. abandonment



This is a contradiction in the divorce belief. If Jesus said it was only allowed from sexual immorality, then you can not add #2 as #1 is a dogmatic statement. Therefore Paul would have contradicted Jesus if he added #2.

Again quoted with permission:

Let us now see how that Jesus’ teachings is misunderstood.

A. Jesus said: Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth
adultery against her. (Mark 10:11) B. Before anyone should draw any conclusions that requires drastic action, like braking
up a marriage or imposing celibacy (and using Jesus’ teachings to support it) he
needs to know for sure what Jesus said.
1. The common or “traditional” view of what He said is that one who divorces his
spouse and marries another, commits adultery unless the one who initiated the
divorce did it because of adultery…
a. Thus, they claim that any divorced person who is now married, according to
Jesus is not really married; but the conclusion is an assumption based upon
what they think He meant.
b. Jesus did not say that “divorced” persons commit adultery when they marry,
regardless of the reason for the divorce.
2. Here is a paraphrase of what Jesus said: “If you ‘put away’ your wife and marry
another, unless it be for fornication, you commit adultery and anyone who marries
the one who was put away commits adultery.” (Matt 19:9).
a. “Put away” and “divorce” are NOT THE SAME THING.
b. “Put away” means, “send out of the house” and results in separation – not
in a legal divorce.

[marke]

IMO, Delmores is wrong. In 1 Cor we see a case where an unbelieving spouse leaves and the believing spouse is then free. This means we can not say they are not free. Either they are free or not...the Bible says they are.

I read it the same way, but I don't see any other exception.

While we want to encourage repentance and restoration, the decisions made are between the people invovled and God....not the church and the people involved.

Unless you are gay or something. Do you realize that more was written against divorce than about sexual practices in the NT? This means all those devorced people who voted against gays only condemned themselves. It's sad.

But I'm going to agree here too because for what measure you judge, you will be judged all the harsher and it it between two people.

We must also remember that many people in our churches got saved later in life. What happened BC (before Christ) was repented of and forgiven, we have no right to hold the past over their heads when Christ doesn't. We either believe Christs blood was good enough to cover those sins or it wasn't...I know what I beleive.

Note what he said above "What happened BC (before Christ) was repented of and forgiven". However, after BC we will answer for all our trespasses and be judged on all our deeds, good and bad. Goats to one side, lambs to the other. This is why we can't do and believe what we want. We will all be held accountable and none will be wronged on the day of Judgement. This is why wrong teaching is so harmful. With what mercy you extend will be extended back to you.

God Bless. II COR 9:15

[marke]

This is a contradiction in the divorce belief. If Jesus said it was only allowed from sexual immorality, then you can not add #2 as #1 is a dogmatic statement. Therefore Paul would have contradicted Jesus if he added #2.

Again quoted with permission:

Let us now see how that Jesus’ teachings is misunderstood.

A. Jesus said: Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth
adultery against her. (Mark 10:11) B. Before anyone should draw any conclusions that requires drastic action, like braking
up a marriage or imposing celibacy (and using Jesus’ teachings to support it) he
needs to know for sure what Jesus said.
1. The common or “traditional” view of what He said is that one who divorces his
spouse and marries another, commits adultery unless the one who initiated the
divorce did it because of adultery…
a. Thus, they claim that any divorced person who is now married, according to
Jesus is not really married; but the conclusion is an assumption based upon
what they think He meant.
b. Jesus did not say that “divorced” persons commit adultery when they marry,
regardless of the reason for the divorce.
2. Here is a paraphrase of what Jesus said: “If you ‘put away’ your wife and marry
another, unless it be for fornication, you commit adultery and anyone who marries
the one who was put away commits adultery.” (Matt 19:9).
a. “Put away” and “divorce” are NOT THE SAME THING.
b. “Put away” means, “send out of the house” and results in separation – not
in a legal divorce.
Help me Jesus. Word games all over the place. Come on folks, you want wiggle room, ask Jesus for forgiveness. Don't corrupt the Word to justify your actions and lead others astray.

The whole flavor to the teaching regarding divorce is don't divorce, period. With just one exception, otherwise, if you do you are guilty of this sin.

Don't kid yourself, God will not be mocked by word games. You can justify all you want, but the letters are still arranged into the words and paragraphs that speak the same thing. God put you together, "Let no man take you apart". End of teaching.

This is all basic Christianity 101 and can easily be read, not as a one liner which those who want to believe what they want to believe hold one to to justify their misguided opinions, paragraphs and paragraphs are written about it. Don't be deceived by wrong teaching an word games. Read it for yourself.

[Reyanah]

There are times when things happen beyond one's control and forgiveness can be obtained for those things....What happens to those who lose their spouse and children in an accident? Does the church put them in the same category?

[MarkEvan]

Mark,

Where are you getting your resources for this?

Hi Jody, first off I checked with strongs concordance to make sure that the word I was looking up in vines was the correct one, the word in the KJ is fornication, which according to strongs is pornea, (not sure how its spelt), so looking up fornication and pornea in vines I checked the greek meaning.

It said it stands for or includes sexual imoraltity.

The includes is the part of the passage that I take means that it is more than just sexual immorality.

Mark :)

[chris777]

this is an odd thread, its almost as if post are missing or something.

Anyway.

I wanted to state that I think its wrong to advocate divorce for anything other than adultry.

I agree domestic violence, and abuse are reprehensible, but I feel that all means of reconciliation be made before divorce is sought.

Now obviously this would not nessesarily apply if the abuser was a non believer. But if it is a believer he should be chastized by the church, as he is not fufiling his role to care for his own flesh (wife).

But to arbitrarily start spouting off "possible" exceptions is not scriptural.

I have a question on topic. I was brought up in the church vaguely, in that I knew the commandments, but as i child i never comprehended salvation, or baptism (which i still have yet to do)

Anyway, I got involved with a woman who was married, who told me her husband abused her.
I used this situation to "justify" my adultry with her , in that I thought I was treating her better than her 1st husband.

We married, had a child, and then She just up and tells me she didnt love me anymore. Shortly thereafter before our divorce was final she moved yet another guy into our home.

I originally allowed the divorce thinking giving her space would help her get her head straight. But even though she moved someone else in I just kept the original reason.
several years later, and a few semi reconciliations/fornications with the same ex wife.
I began to believe In Jesus, and repented.

I know what I did was wrong, and i feel i destroyed 2 families including my own.

I am vehementl yagainst divorce now.
But never theless I am single, my ex is living wit hanother abusive man, and I have our daughter.
ME and her 1st husband have come to a mutual toleration, in that our mutual ex wife had 3 children with him, so we are agreeable for our kids.

Scripturally speaking Can I ever remarry?

Technically I wasnt a christian, but I did know what I was doing was against the commandments.
I do not want to justify myself, or excuse it.

And i Feel its an issue of obedience, not the blood.

A friend recently visited a church where all the deacons were remarried, some more than once, and they saw nothing wrong with it.

I do I would not want to be astumblig block to another

[Svt4Him]

Help me Jesus. Word games all over the place. Come on folks, you want wiggle room, ask Jesus for forgiveness. Don't corrupt the Word to justify your actions and lead others astray.

The whole flavor to the teaching regarding divorce is don't divorce, period. With just one exception, otherwise, if you do you are guilty of this sin.

Don't kid yourself, God will not be mocked by word games. You can justify all you want, but the letters are still arranged into the words and paragraphs that speak the same thing. God put you together, "Let no man take you apart". End of teaching.

This is all basic Christianity 101 and can easily be read, not as a one liner which those who want to believe what they want to believe hold one to to justify their misguided opinions, paragraphs and paragraphs are written about it. Don't be deceived by wrong teaching an word games. Read it for yourself.

I really do hope Jesus helps you. When you talk about word games, perhaps we can look at what the Word actually says? See, if you are on a firm foundation, you are not afraid to look at truth without using arguments like this. If you actually have a reply, feel free to post it, as this post is like a cloud with no rain.

Now let's again look at some of the words:
(ASV) but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the
cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her
when she is PUT AWAY committeth adultery. (Bible in Basic English) But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife
for any other cause but the loss of her virtue, makes her false to her husband;
and whoever takes her as his wife after she is PUT AWAY, is no true husband
to her. (Darby) But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for
cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one
that is PUT AWAY commits adultery.(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the
cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her
that is PUT AWAY, committeth adultery. (LITV) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of
fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one
PUT AWAY commits adultery.(MKJV) 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. (Worldwide English) But I tell you, no man may send away his wife unless she has
committed adultery. If he does send her away, he is making her commit adultery.
And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away from her husband, he
commits adultery.(World English Bible) But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for
the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her
when she is put away commits adultery.(WYC) But I say to you, that every man that leaveth his wife [that every man
that shall leave his wife], except (for) [the] cause of fornication, maketh her to do
lechery, and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth adultery.(Youngs Literal Translation) But I—I say to you, that whoever may PUT AWAY
his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and
whoever may marry her who hath been PUT AWAY doth commit adultery.

Weird how it's a word game to actually use the word. But wait you say, it's 101 so this is obvious that put away and divorce mean the same thing. Well again let's see:

Deuteronomy 24

1When
a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she
find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in
her: then let him (#1) write her a bill of divorcement, and (2)give it in her
hand, and (3) send her out of his house.

Write a bill of divorce=same as send her out? Amazing how the word games keep coming, since it's now obvious that this really says

Deuteronomy 24

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and write her a bill of divorcement.

[Hagakure]

Why are people so upset about this when remarrying/divorcing, etc. has no bearing on your eternal life? Relax.

I've done things in my life you wouldn't believe! And that was AFTER God had called me. Did He lay me out and destroy me? No. Did He lay a curse on me? No! Not only did He show me an unwavering amount of mercy, but He continues to bless me to this day! In fact, my relationship with the Lord is so much more intense and personal than ever before!

I seriously don't mean to come off like a jerk but man, relax. In the greater scheme of things, Jesus wants a relationship with you, the end.

If you are screwing up along the way, don't you think God is powerful enought that He would minister to your spirit and convict you and let you know what to do and what not to do, and that He would lead you the right way?

If God is All-Powerful and He created the Earth in 6 days, how can you possibly imagine that a "divorce" would be the 1 thing that God's love, mercy, and grace couldn't penetrate?

Person "A": "God is the Lord over the Earth, He created everything in it, and He sent Jesus to die for your sins and that you may live with Him forever in Heaven."

Person "B":"Yeah, but I've been divorced and remarried for whatever reason."

Person "A":"Oh, well forget what I said, God can't help you now."

Give the Lord some credit...

[Jody7818]

Hi Jody, first off I checked with strongs concordance to make sure that the word I was looking up in vines was the correct one, the word in the KJ is fornication, which according to strongs is pornea, (not sure how its spelt), so looking up fornication and pornea in vines I checked the greek meaning.

It said it stands for or includes sexual imoraltity.

The includes is the part of the passage that I take means that it is more than just sexual immorality.

Mark :)

I don't see where the word porneia has to do with abusing one's spouse. I did a search on this word, and I only came up with terms and statements that are related to all forms of sexual immorality.

[Followers4christ]

IMO, Delmores is wrong. In 1 Cor we see a case where an unbelieving spouse leaves and the believing spouse is then free. This means we can not say they are not free. Either they are free or not...the Bible says they are.


While we want to encourage repentance and restoration, the decisions made are between the people invovled and God....not the church and the people involved.

We must also remember that many people in our churches got saved later in life. What happened BC (before Christ) was repented of and forgiven, we have no right to hold the past over their heads when Christ doesn't. We either believe Christs blood was good enough to cover those sins or it wasn't...I know what I beleive.




"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."-Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:32)


When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."-(Mark 10:10-12)


"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "...-(Malachi 2:16)

[Followers4christ]

This is just my opinion...


Why would God allow an unbeliever to divorce a believer (1 Corinthians 7:15)? Because according to the bible you should not yoke yourself to an unbeliever in the first place (2 Corinthians 6:14-15).Remember that when you marry someone you become one flesh (Genesis 2:23) and why would you want to become one flesh with an unbeliever? But if you are already married to a unbeliever then you should try and save him/her by showing him/her Christ through you (1 Corinthians 7:16) .If you save him/her through your marriage then you are no longer yoked with an unbeliever.God Bless

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

Why are people so upset about this when remarrying/divorcing, etc. has no bearing on your eternal life? Relax.

I've done things in my life you wouldn't believe! And that was AFTER God had called me. Did He lay me out and destroy me? No. Did He lay a curse on me? No! Not only did He show me an unwavering amount of mercy, but He continues to bless me to this day! In fact, my relationship with the Lord is so much more intense and personal than ever before!

I seriously don't mean to come off like a jerk but man, relax. In the greater scheme of things, Jesus wants a relationship with you, the end.

If you are screwing up along the way, don't you think God is powerful enought that He would minister to your spirit and convict you and let you know what to do and what not to do, and that He would lead you the right way?

If God is All-Powerful and He created the Earth in 6 days, how can you possibly imagine that a "divorce" would be the 1 thing that God's love, mercy, and grace couldn't penetrate?

Person "A": "God is the Lord over the Earth, He created everything in it, and He sent Jesus to die for your sins and that you may live with Him forever in Heaven."

Person "B":"Yeah, but I've been divorced and remarried for whatever reason."

Person "A":"Oh, well forget what I said, God can't help you now."

Give the Lord some credit...

:thumbsup:

[linssue55]

" I would speculate that on an average it is safe to say, ‘there are more divorced and remarried couples in today’s church congregations, than there are widows and widowers. Likely the majority of these couples were divorced and remarried while calling themselves Christians. In spite of the fact that Jesus forbid divorce for any other reason than adultery, an ever growing number of church folk are divorced on the grounds of mental abuse, a term that fits about anything you wish to attach to it (real or imaginary). The church seems to have missed the fact that Jesus made no allowances for remarriage of divorced people no matter the reason for the divorce." Ben Delmores Setting Sun Publishing

Used by permissionFrom my notes.......the short version.....


Divorce

The word "divorce" means "freedom to remarry." Biblical divorce gives the right of remarriage (under certain conditions). Divorce was permitted under the Mosaic law, see Deuteronomy 24:1-4. There was one exception. In the Old Testament the man always divorced the woman. However, the principle, applies both ways.

Look at Deuteronomy 24: Verse 1 - "some uncleanness": adultery and desertion. Under the Mosaic law divorce was abused and distorted because there were many reasons for this incleanness. Cf. Malachi 2:11-17; Leviticus 5,7,10,11, 13; Numbers 19; Deuteronomy 23. A man who wanted to get rid of his wife would get her to touch some dead animal or the clothes of someone who had died, or go to a funeral. He would then immediately send for a judge and decalre his wife unclean.

Verse 2 - Biblical divorce means the right to remarry. " ... she may go an be another man's wife."

Verses 3,4 - Exception: She may not marry #1 if there is a marriage in between, even if #2 dies or divorces her legitimately (Verse 2 concept)

1) Verse 3 "latter husband": husband #2
2) Verse 4 "former husband": husband #1
"after that she is defiled": Defiled in the mind of husband #1; husband #1 is short-circuited sexually because she has been with another man. She is not defiled as far as her second marriage -- but in regard to her husband she is defiled.
"land to sin": Maximum number of incompatible marriages. The sin will take many ofrms: Homosexuality, lesbianism, beastiality, etc.

Divorce in the New Testament is permitted under certain conditions. (Two believers or two unbelievers in marriage)

a) Adultery: Matthew 5:32; 19:9
b) Desertion: 1 Corinthians 7:15 Person can desert mentally, and this is ususally followed by overt desertion.
c) Victim of divorce gimmick -- Deut. 24:2
d) Victim of spouses' continued implacability, like hatred, Deut. 24:3.

If the marriage bond is broken in a mixed marriage, God only allows it to be done by the unbelieving partner, 1 Corinthians 7:15. By mixed marriage is meant a believer married to an unbeliever.

[Svt4Him]

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."-Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:32)


When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."-(Mark 10:10-12)


"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "...-(Malachi 2:16)

Now why is this version/translation of the Bible more accurate than the one I posted? Could it not also be said you are choosing a translation that agrees with you and ignoring the rest? (that is the common argument I hear btw)

If God hates divorce, why did He command His people to get a divorce?

[mont974x4]

SVT, God never commaned divorce...he only allowed it because of the hardness of heart of people.

[Followers4christ]

Now why is this version/translation of the Bible more accurate than the one I posted? Could it not also be said you are choosing a translation that agrees with you and ignoring the rest? (that is the common argument I hear btw)

If God hates divorce, why did He command His people to get a divorce?
Im using the same version I always use NIV and I have no idea what version you are using.Please tell me where in the bible you are referring too,about God commanded His people to get a divorce.If you are referring to Deuteronomy 24,then tell me where in there did God Command his people to get a divorce.All it was telling us about were the laws back then.One more thing never try to accuse me of choosing a different version just to have it agree with me.Because I have never or will never do that, when im wrong I always admit it,because I have so self pride.I only serve the Lord.God Bless

[mont974x4]

put away...using Strong's

H1644
גּרשׁ
gârash
gaw-rash'
A primitive root; to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce: - cast up (out), divorced (woman), drive away (forth, out), expel, X surely put away, trouble, thrust out.




G630
ἀπολύω
apoluō
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.


It would appear to me that it is more serious than just a simple seperation.

[Svt4Him]

SVT, God never commaned divorce...he only allowed it because of the hardness of heart of people.

Really? What is Ezra 10 about?

9So all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered at Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth of the month; and all the people sat in the open square of the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of heavy rain. [/URL]10Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have transgressed and have taken pagan wives, adding to the guilt of Israel. (qvb://0/anchor/10)11Now therefore, make confession to the Lord God of your fathers, and do His will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the pagan wives.”
12Then all the assembly answered and said with a loud voice, “Yes! As you have said, so we must do. (qvb://0/anchor/12)13But there are many people; it is the season for heavy rain, and we are not able to stand outside. Nor is this the work of one or two days, for there are many of us who have transgressed in this matter. 14Please, let the leaders of our entire assembly stand; and let all those in our cities who have taken pagan wives come at appointed times, together with the elders and judges of their cities, until the fierce wrath of our God is turned away from us in this matter.” (qvb://0/anchor/14)15Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite gave them support.
16Then the descendants of the captivity did so. And Ezra the priest, with certain heads of the fathers’ households, were set apart by the fathers’ households, each of them by name; and they sat down on the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter. [URL="qvb://0/anchor/17"] (qvb://0/anchor/16)17By the first day of the first month they finished questioning all the men who had taken pagan wives.


44All these had taken pagan wives, and some of them had wives by whom they had children.


If put away and divorce are the same, then these men were required by God's law to divorce their spouses. But if put away and divorce are not the same, then this makes sense.


Divorce in the New Testament

In the Greek New Testament the verb translated ?to divorce? is apoluo. The root meaning of apoluo is ?set free, release, pardon,? or ?let go, send away, dismiss.?5 One of the most frequent usages of apoluo in the New Testament is in the sense of setting someone free. It is used of the releasing of Barabbas (Mark 15:15). It also appears when Agrippa said that Paul could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:32). When the writer of Hebrews said that Timothy had been set at liberty, he also used apoluo (Hebrews 13:23).
Apoluo is also translated as forgive (Luke 6:37). In Luke 2:29, when S~mon saw the child Jesus and prayed, ?Now lettest thou thy servant depart,? the word translated ?depart,? signifying death, is apoluo.
The noun form used in the New Testament, divorcement, is the Greek apostasion. It carries with it the idea of relinquishing property after sale, of giving up one?s claim.6 Apostasion comes from the verb aphistemi, which literally means ?to stand away from.? The verb carries the idea of leaving, forsaking. A closely related word, apostasia (from which we get our word apostasy) is used in Acts 21:21, where some said that Paul taught the people to forsake Moses. It also appears in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where Paul said the falling away would come before the second coming.

The New Testament equivalent of the bill of divorcement (sepher kenthuth) of Deuteronomy 24:1 is biblion apostasiou. This literally means ?a book of separation, dismissal,? it appears in Matthew 19:7. Apostasion also occurs in Matthew 5:31.

In the New Testament both the verb for ?divorce? (apoluo) and the noun (apostasiop) continue the Old Testament concept of complete dissolution of the marriage bond. In both Testaments the meaning of divorce is clearly more than putting away the wife with separate bed and board. It is granting freedom for the party to marry again.
Neale Pryor. Divorce ? It?s Meaning. Your Marriage Can Be Great. Thomas B. Warren, Ed. (98-104).




Quoted with permission

[mont974x4]

Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 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.
Mat 19:9 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.


That would suffered in verse 8 means allowed. It wasn't commanded.

As to Ezra, its been awhile since I read that book, I'll get back to you.

[mont974x4]

wives

H802
נשׁים אשּׁה
'ishshâh nâshîym
ish-shaw', naw-sheem'
The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).: - [adulter]ess, each, every, female, X many, + none, one, + together, wife, woman. Often unexpressed in English.

Given the context of Ezra I would say it is safe to assume the adulteress definition for this word. If I remember right, sexual immorality was very much a part of pagan worship in surrinding nations..to include nations that God had brought to capture the Isrealites. So, they would have had biblical grounds for the divorce...not in conflict with Matthew 19.

Still, this was Ezra commanding the action. Altho, I don't remember Ezra or the Isrealites being punished for it....which makes sense to me..as it does not conflict with the NT and the two reasons it is allowed, yet not commanded, for divorce.

Perhaps God showed them grace...as He does still show us grace today.

[Svt4Him]

Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 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.
Mat 19:9And 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.


That would suffered in verse 8 means allowed. It wasn't commanded.

As to Ezra, its been awhile since I read that book, I'll get back to you.


Regardless, it was still a command to divorce you spouse, not simply put her away. A put away woman was in a heap of trouble, whereas a divorced woman could go remarry.

But I would again ask if we agree on those assumptions I posted earlier.

And a last question: When Jesus said that Moses commanded a divorce be given because of the hardness of the heart, could it be possible that men had hard hearts, so they were simply putting away their spouses and not divorcing them? And when a woman was put away, a husband did not have to give her a "get" or repay the dowry or give her anything. Not saying if you agree with it, just could Jesus have mentioned the hardness of heart in relation to a man putting away a spouse?

Here is the current link of women being put away:

Jewish Women in Chains

by Norma Baumel Joseph

(http://www.ujafederation.org/content_display.html?articleID=9301) [In discussion with brethren on a certain list regarding my stating that the Jewish men were “putting away” their wives and not divorcing them (as per Deut 24:1-4), the reply was that what I said was untrue. It was truly amazing how they took up for the Jews. In doing some internet surfing I ran across an article, “Jewish Women in Chains,” that indicates that what I was teaching is still being practiced today.]
Jewish divorce, like any other, can be simple or complicated; a release or a tragedy; straightforward or a swindle. It can set people free to resume or reinvent their lives, or it can embroil individuals and families in a never-ending cycle of abuse. The intent of rabbinic Judaism was to ensure a tolerable disengagement. Regrettably, the current implementation of the halakhic (Jewish legal) system does not meet that minimal standard.
Many individuals, women and men, rabbis and volunteers, have labored to maintain a fair practice. And in some cases it does work.
However, the biblical account of divorce found in Deuteronomy, while accepting marital breakups, establishes a procedure that is at the heart of the problem. "When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it comes to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemliness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy. 24: 1-2) Clearly, the man is the initiator, the actor. And while rabbinic law established that there need be no grounds for divorce other than mutual consent, it enforced the structured order of the verse: the male is the active legal principle. He must initiate, author, and give the document to her. She receives it and only then is free to resume control.
While in most cases Judaism's tolerant acceptance of divorce enables a decent split, in too many situations this male prerogative becomes the means for extortion, vengeance and affliction--certainly not a biblical ideal. Thus, although her consent to the divorce is necessary, the woman is still at the mercy of the man. In the course of the development of Jewish law, many improvements have been incorporated into the system in an attempt to limit the man's unilateral power and prevent the misery. The rabbis were aware of and sensitive to women's vulnerability. But... A Jewish divorce requires a get, a document that a man freely gives to his wife and she must voluntarily accept. Without this document neither partner may remarry according to Jewish law. Today, this affects Conservative, Orthodox and all Israeli Jews. The Reform movement often relies on local civil divorce courts and the Conservative movement has empowered its central court to intervene and act unilaterally to effect a divorce when there are insurmountable problems.
But throughout Israel and in the Orthodox community outside of Israel, the pattern of insisting on the biblical directive has left too many women agunot. An agunah is a woman who cannot remarry because her husband is unable or unwilling to give her a get. The term literally means "anchored" or "tied down" and is first found in verb form in the biblical story of Ruth (1:13). The original talmudic use of the word was limited to cases in which the man had disappeared and literally could not act as a legal instrument in the Jewish divorce proceedings. Recently, popular usage has expanded the term to apply to all cases of women who are unable to remarry because their husbands will not acquiesce and give the divorce document.
The problems for women within this system are obvious. Procedurally dependent on her husband and on a rabbinic court, her future children also become pawns in this tug of war. If a woman without a get gives birth, her newborn children will be considered the product of an adulterous union and hence be categorized as mamzerim, Jews who are not allowed to marry other Jews. There is no remedy. To be sure, both a man and a woman can be found guilty of adultery, but the category depends on the marital status of the woman only. The applicable result is that the woman suffers the most from an incomplete divorce: not only from the possible consequences for future children, but in being chained to a marriage that has for all intents and purposes ended.
The irony is that if the Jewish process of divorce was established to set one free, even to encourage remarriage, the current reality is one in which the process itself has created a group of people who are not free. And the numbers and problems are increasing--but the numerical dimensions of this issue should not become the primary consideration. Our social activism should not become a matter of counting heads. Where there is injustice, we are commanded to pursue justice. I personally know many silenced women suffering the fate of an anchored life. Their stories, not their numbers, are our call to action.
For Jewish society today, for all of us, divorce constitutes a major moral problem. Not because of the increase in numbers or because of the guilt of either party, but because of the inequities of the process and the indifference of the larger community. People no longer married, no longer living together, are still tied to each other. Bound together and abandoned. The credibility, viability, and continuity of Judaism are on the line.
The proliferation of unsettled cases has convinced many individuals and organizations to come forward. There are solutions and vehicles for action. Social awareness and education are the first steps. In the necessarily incomplete list that follows, there are numerous groups and resources available. Some organizations have taken on the task of working with individual cases, others have promoted educational formats. Working within both the secular and Jewish systems, activists have initiated both civil and halakhic remedies.

Regarding the article below, Howard Justice and David Willis have said I misrepresented the writer. Read it carefully and judge.
Mike Willis, an ultra conservative preacher and long time editor of Truth Magazine (now Guardian of Truth), gave the following exegesis of Deut 24:1-4:
“A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to legislate in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in which man was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for her future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and yet she could not live with her husband. This left her in destitute circumstances quite frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate was something that would aid women who had been put away by their husbands.”
“The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put away his wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that she was free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were giving to them."
Mike Willis Dayton, Ohio Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, pp. 227-230 April 3, 1980.



Reprinted with permission from www.socialaction.com (http://www.socialaction.com/)

[mont974x4]

I addressed Ezra in post # 47.

I'm sorry, what assumptions are you hoping we'd agree on? I must have missed them. :\

[chris777]

Perhaps God showed them grace...as He does still show us grace today.


I do not speak of every incidence of divorce, and remarrage.

But I ask ,Just because his grace is given to us freely, should we not be concerned about obedient to his word?

[mont974x4]

I do not speak of every incidence of divorce, and remarrage.

But I ask ,Just because his grace is given to us freely, should we not be concerned about obedient to his word?
Absolutely.

[Svt4Him]

I do not speak of every incidence of divorce, and remarrage.

But I ask ,Just because his grace is given to us freely, should we not be concerned about obedient to his word?

Totally. And we really need to ensure that the word we believe is consistent with the whole Word of God.

[mont974x4]

Totally. And we really need to ensure that the word we believe is consistent with the whole Word of God.
Yep, which is why I am enjoying looking at all these passages with ya'll here.

except...now it's about time for bed. lol

good night and God bless

[Svt4Him]

wives

H802
נשׁים אשּׁה
'ishshâh nâshîym
ish-shaw', naw-sheem'
The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).: - [adulter]ess, each, every, female, X many, + none, one, + together, wife, woman. Often unexpressed in English.

Given the context of Ezra I would say it is safe to assume the adulteress definition for this word. If I remember right, sexual immorality was very much a part of pagan worship in surrinding nations..to include nations that God had brought to capture the Isrealites. So, they would have had biblical grounds for the divorce...not in conflict with Matthew 19.

Still, this was Ezra commanding the action. Altho, I don't remember Ezra or the Isrealites being punished for it....which makes sense to me..as it does not conflict with the NT and the two reasons it is allowed, yet not commanded, for divorce.

Perhaps God showed them grace...as He does still show us grace today.


This is not the best hermeneutics. I see nothing in Ezra to say it means adulterous. Then the question is in the 720 times it's used in the OT, how often does it? I can find where it's used to mean woman, as in when God created man and woman, but the other times it means wife, as in Abraham and Sarah. I read the context to be what it says, and have never read a translation that says they were not their wives, unless you can post one. Not only that, but you then imply sexual immorality, but the verse seems to imply they were sad to put away their spouses, as they had children. It is quite a stretch to then say they were with women they were not married with.

[mont974x4]

This is not the best hermeneutics. I see nothing in Ezra to say it means adulterous. Then the question is in the 720 times it's used in the OT, how often does it? I can find where it's used to mean woman, as in when God created man and woman, but the other times it means wife, as in Abraham and Sarah. I read the context to be what it says, and have never read a translation that says they were not their wives, unless you can post one. Not only that, but you then imply sexual immorality, but the verse seems to imply they were sad to put away their spouses, as they had children. It is quite a stretch to then say they were with women they were not married with.
Given the context of who they married..well...they were adulterous wives. I believe they had married pagans, for lack of a better term.


I'm sure they were sad. I would be.

[chris777]

I do not speak of every incidence of divorce, and remarrage.

But I ask ,Just because his grace is given to us freely, should we not be concerned about obedient to his word?

Maby I phrased this wrong or read the replies wrong, but were the replies, yes we should not be concerned about obedience to his word, or
Yes we should be concerned about obeying the word of God?

Sorry the replies just appeared ambiguous to me, thats one reason I would rather be in an acrual verbal discusson sometimes lol

[Svt4Him]

Given the context of who they married..well...they were adulterous wives. I believe they had married pagans, for lack of a better term.


I'm sure they were sad. I would be.

I like where you're going with this, and will come back to it again as it lines up with what I believe, I just need to make sure we're on the same page. So I need to ask, what is an adulterous wife, is it one where there is legal marriage?

Again it ignores the fact that this term is NEVER referred to as an adulterous wife, but we can ignore that for now.

[New_Wineskin]

" I would speculate that on an average it is safe to say, ‘there are more divorced and remarried couples in today’s church congregations, than there are widows and widowers. Likely the majority of these couples were divorced and remarried while calling themselves Christians. In spite of the fact that Jesus forbid divorce for any other reason than adultery, an ever growing number of church folk are divorced on the grounds of mental abuse, a term that fits about anything you wish to attach to it (real or imaginary). The church seems to have missed the fact that Jesus made no allowances for remarriage of divorced people no matter the reason for the divorce." Ben Delmores Setting Sun Publishing

Used by permission

Well , I speculate that this is very typical of the leaven of pharasee-ism that is abundant in the groups . It does worse than ignores the fact that spousal abuse exists but minimizes it as "so what ?" . The reason why this is speaking of Law is that there has absolutely no compassion or desire to protect those that are abused . There is no solution to provide sanctuary - no solution to confront the attackers . The only thing that the author of that piece desires or demands is obedience to the Law . Just as Jesus told the Pharasees about breaking the Sabbath - the Sabbath was made for man ( ie man's benefit ) not man for the Sabbath ( ie placing the law about humans for which Jesus died ) . There is no love indicated . WIthout love the author has already violated the essence of any Law even though they claim to hold them in high regard .


Back to divorce . Any abuse on a person's part towards their spouse is breaking the vow and a certificate of divorce . There is no more marraige at that point . Anything else is simply a declaration of what has already happened .

[Starcrystal]

Well , I speculate that this is very typical of the leaven of pharasee-ism that is abundant in the groups . It does worse than ignores the fact that spousal abuse exists but minimizes it as "so what ?" . The reason why this is speaking of Law is that there has absolutely no compassion or desire to protect those that are abused . There is no solution to provide sanctuary - no solution to confront the attackers . The only thing that the author of that piece desires or demands is obedience to the Law . Just as Jesus told the Pharasees about breaking the Sabbath - the Sabbath was made for man ( ie man's benefit ) not man for the Sabbath ( ie placing the law about humans for which Jesus died ) . There is no love indicated . WIthout love the author has already violated the essence of any Law even though they claim to hold them in high regard .


Back to divorce . Any abuse on a person's part towards their spouse is breaking the vow and a certificate of divorce . There is no more marraige at that point . Anything else is simply a declaration of what has already happened .

Divorce shouldn't happen but it does. The abuse issues, and the fact Jesus DID allow for divorce if there was unfaithfulness.
One pastor used to feel there should be no divorce and remarraige. He was so adamant about it he refused to marry a divorced person in his church. That is until a couple came to him to get married. they were previously divorced. Pastor had a choice. Either marry them and let them go with Gods blessings, or turn them aside knowing full well they would continue to live in sin and probably would not even want to get married by a pastor if one turned them away. So he married them.

Legalism should never be applied when it comes to this topic. Each individual situation is different. Some divorces should not happen at all. But I believe some are even ordained of God especially when an abusive spouse is destroying their partners faith or cheating. This would go along with the Ezra allowances.

[MarkEvan]

I don't see where the word porneia has to do with abusing one's spouse. I did a search on this word, and I only came up with terms and statements that are related to all forms of sexual immorality.

As I said the interpretation I gave was based on what Vines had to say of the greek word, "stands for or includes sexual immorality," I understand that this is perhaps to little to go on to justify my position, but I believe that gives the possibility that the word Porneia has a wider meaning than most think.

Mark :)

[New_Wineskin]

Legalism should never be applied when it comes to this topic. Each individual situation is different.

I completely agree . I don't consider that legalism should be applied to any topic .

[mont974x4]

I like where you're going with this, and will come back to it again as it lines up with what I believe, I just need to make sure we're on the same page. So I need to ask, what is an adulterous wife, is it one where there is legal marriage?

Again it ignores the fact that this term is NEVER referred to as an adulterous wife, but we can ignore that for now.
Perhaps it would be best to focus in what constitutes a marriage? The Bible talks about a man being joined to a prostitute. Does simply having sex contitute marriage? Does it require a certain ceremony? Is sex the ceremony? What about cultural diferences in how the wedding (ceremony) is performed?

Legal? hmmm Personally I don't think it matters much. All that does is give the people involved certain benefits according to the laws of the land. I would prefer to consider the biblical implications and what contitutes marriage in the eyes of God.

IMO, we can ignore the procreation issue because God gave us sex for more than just procreation. Plus, many couples can not and do not have kids.

I believe it is the joining of a man and woman physically, emotionally and spiritually...functioning as a family unit....partners, helpers, a team. Therefore, biblically speaking...no matter what laws a nation passes...homosexual marriage is impossible.

just thinking out loud as we talk this through

[Svt4Him]

Perhaps it would be best to focus in what constitutes a marriage? The Bible talks about a man being joined to a prostitute. Does simply having sex contitute marriage? Does it require a certain ceremony? Is sex the ceremony? What about cultural diferences in how the wedding (ceremony) is performed?

Legal? hmmm Personally I don't think it matters much. All that does is give the people involved certain benefits according to the laws of the land. I would prefer to consider the biblical implications and what contitutes marriage in the eyes of God.

IMO, we can ignore the procreation issue because God gave us sex for more than just procreation. Plus, many couples can not and do not have kids.

I believe it is the joining of a man and woman physically, emotionally and spiritually...functioning as a family unit....partners, helpers, a team. Therefore, biblically speaking...no matter what laws a nation passes...homosexual marriage is impossible.

just thinking out loud as we talk this through

I don't follow. There are some marriages God does not consider valid. Those type of marriages require one to put away their spouse without divorcing them, ie family members marrying. But other types of marriage are valid, and for those types, a bill of divorce is required.

[chris777]

Divorce shouldn't happen but it does. The abuse issues, and the fact Jesus DID allow for divorce if there was unfaithfulness.
One pastor used to feel there should be no divorce and remarraige. He was so adamant about it he refused to marry a divorced person in his church. That is until a couple came to him to get married. they were previously divorced. Pastor had a choice. Either marry them and let them go with Gods blessings, or turn them aside knowing full well they would continue to live in sin and probably would not even want to get married by a pastor if one turned them away. So he married them.

Legalism should never be applied when it comes to this topic. Each individual situation is different. Some divorces should not happen at all. But I believe some are even ordained of God especially when an abusive spouse is destroying their partners faith or cheating. This would go along with the Ezra allowances.

This is disturbing that he would compromise his beliefs, just so that they might be Justified in their sin.

Now obviously I do not know the full situation, but you have alluded they were already living in fornication.

I am Divorced, and while Technically I could remarry, I have not as of yet, because I feel it is a cop out, in my personal situation.
But for them to bsically hold something over the pastor, is wrong.

[simonjandrews]

" I would speculate that on an average it is safe to say, ‘there are more divorced and remarried couples in today’s church congregations, than there are widows and widowers. Likely the majority of these couples were divorced and remarried while calling themselves Christians. In spite of the fact that Jesus forbid divorce for any other reason than adultery, an ever growing number of church folk are divorced on the grounds of mental abuse, a term that fits about anything you wish to attach to it (real or imaginary). The church seems to have missed the fact that Jesus made no allowances for remarriage of divorced people no matter the reason for the divorce." Ben Delmores Setting Sun Publishing

Used by permission
it is sad but true how church goers deviate from the bible.

[simonjandrews]

Perhaps it would be best to focus in what constitutes a marriage? The Bible talks about a man being joined to a prostitute. Does simply having sex contitute marriage? Does it require a certain ceremony? Is sex the ceremony? What about cultural diferences in how the wedding (ceremony) is performed?

Legal? hmmm Personally I don't think it matters much. All that does is give the people involved certain benefits according to the laws of the land. I would prefer to consider the biblical implications and what contitutes marriage in the eyes of God.

IMO, we can ignore the procreation issue because God gave us sex for more than just procreation. Plus, many couples can not and do not have kids.

I believe it is the joining of a man and woman physically, emotionally and spiritually...functioning as a family unit....partners, helpers, a team. Therefore, biblically speaking...no matter what laws a nation passes...homosexual marriage is impossible.

just thinking out loud as we talk this through

there was a post off a young lady asking the question you just awnsered. I think she was called hannie.i think you are right is says in various passaes in the bible that ppl went into a woman and became one, it dosent say about wedding ceremony.

[Starcrystal]

This is disturbing that he would compromise his beliefs, just so that they might be Justified in their sin.

Now obviously I do not know the full situation, but you have alluded they were already living in fornication.

I am Divorced, and while Technically I could remarry, I have not as of yet, because I feel it is a cop out, in my personal situation.
But for them to bsically hold something over the pastor, is wrong.

He still holds those beliefs and denounces divorce in his sermons. But as I do he says every situation is different so he wants Gods mind on it rather than making a blanket judgment. I don't know if the couple were living together or just "doing it." - (fornication). I don't see the pastor justifying their sin, he married them so they would be a proper union in Gods eyes and NOT be in sin. Once they are married and joined they are no longer in sin. I do not think that pastor would marry every person who came to him who was seeking remarraige after divorce either....

[mont974x4]

I don't follow. There are some marriages God does not consider valid. Those type of marriages require one to put away their spouse without divorcing them, ie family members marrying. But other types of marriage are valid, and for those types, a bill of divorce is required.
I'm sorry, I see no diference between "put away" and "divorce". It seems to be just semantics to me.


Jay..who's still researching, praying, and meditating on this issue and applicable Scriptures.