ChristiansUnite Forums

What does the Bible say about divorce? and the "Church"?
What affect has this had on our society?

Hi rapha4u  :)

I assume you mean "divorce" in relation to the church.

To paraphrase, my understanding is that God hates divorce(from I believe Malachi, last book of the OT).

In the New, Jesus says in Mark(10:5) that for our hardness of heart God allows a certificate of divorce to be written.

Jesus goes on to say, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; (and vice versa).(v.11)



Essentially, divorce, in all its permutations, is the result somewhere of the hardness of heart.

Unless forgiveness enters the equation, the hardness of heart multiplies.

Until you have whole churches, literally, pregnant with hurting and, hardened, hearts.

Very hard hearts indeed.  Very hard.  

And I'm so sorry.  It is so sad.  And hard.


"For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts.  So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless."  (Malachi 2:16)



    :'(

true. it also says that if your spouse commits adultery it is acceptable. or if you are married to a nonChristian and you're a Christian and they insist on leaving, you are not bound. God hates it, but you are not at fault under the above 2 circumstances.

Yes, "...except for unchastity...", I think it says, maybe in I Corinthians.  And the nonChristian partner, also in the same passage I think ( 7?).

Interestingly, as I recall, Paul there seems to treat it very matter of fact.

Almost as if its a business relationship.

And along in there too, somewhere, he seems to regard the ideal of marriage as the betrothal, or engagement, stage.

I.e., if you could just stay, sorta like, "best friends".   :)

But that's off topic.  We're talking about getting divorced here, not married.   :-X

1. God hates divorce.
2. God allows divorce for one reason ONLY -- adultery.
3. God also allows unbelieving spouses to "depart" or separate from their believing partners.
4. Society ignores God and His Word and does as it pleases.
5. In North America, more and more Christians are following "society" instead of God's Word. This is a part of the general "falling away" of Christendom before the coming of Christ.

Is divorce the question or remariage?

We cant stop or mates form divorcing us, if they do via our laws, as christians, do we then use those same laws to justify remarriage?

llama,
 Thank you for responding to this query. Thank you also for starting, as Christ did {Matt.19:4), with the Creator, Who hates divorce (Mal.2:16). I believe there is only one reason for divorce, as you say, and that is for the hardness of “our” hearts. For societies sake, I believe, our Lord allowed divorce for “adultery” (pornea) or gross perversion. But in Christ the love that “perseveres” (1 Cor.13:7) is the law we are under.
 When Paul talks about “the unbeliever leaving” (1 Cor.7:15) it should be in the context of the whole of that chapter of “remaining in the situation he was in when God called him” (vs.20)
 I believe the so-called “church” is under God’s judgment and that is why the divorce rate is higher in the “church” than out in the world. The “leaders” are not preaching the truth in this area…
 I believe the “not bound” is not for the freedom to remarry but for the freedom to be single or be reconciled. Love, forgiveness and prayers are powerful weapons of our warfare.
 ;)
rapha4u

Well, the Bible does say that if an unbeliever divorces, then the believer isn't bound. I agree with you that professing Christians follow after society rather than the world-in all areas of life. The problem with divorce, though, is it takes two to get into a marriage, but only one to make the decision to leave. And that leaves the other Christian holding the bag. *sigh*

Greetings,

The Word of God does not, teach anything anywhere about being set free to remarry another by divorcing ones husband or wife, believers who obey the Lord are to remain unmarried, unbelievers do whatever they plaese.
 
God never allowed divorce, it was Moses who allowed it, because of  hardness of their hearts,  and whosoever is bound to be divorced is to remain single, this is what the Lord has commanded.

Jesus made this very clear;

 It hath been said (you will not find God saying this anywhere is scripture), Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:   But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.  (Mat 5:31-32)

Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.   And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.  (Mat 10:11-12)

For those who disagree with Jesus;

Consider these principles taught of Gods Word, elsewhere.

http://www.marriagedivorce.com/mdgodswordfulltext.htm

Malachi 2:13 - 17

"…You flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because He no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, "Why?" It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant."

"Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He is seeking Godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. "I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel, "and I hate a man covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the Lord Almighty. "So guard yourself in your spirit and do not break faith." (NIV)

Malachi's teaching:

1. Breaking faith with a covenant marriage partner is breaking faith with God.
2. The breaking of the covenant by a wayward spouse results in a severing of their relationship with God as He refuses to hear or pay attention to offerings or prayers, no matter how sincere. Obviously repentance must be sincere and restorative covenantly.
3. God was party to the marriage covenant as witness and an active participant by making the man and woman His own personal possession.
4. Faithfulness to the marriage covenant is necessary to produce Godly offspring. Without it the future of God's people is threatened.
5. The covenant relationship belongs to the wife or husband of the youth, the first one. This is the union that God is a witness to and the enforcer of.
6. Even though one of the parties may be unfaithful, as described here, to the original covenant, it remains in force for God says that the betrayed one remains the partner. This dispels the notion entirely that adultery dissolves the marriage covenant.
7. God twice warns specifically not to break faith with the spouse of your youth, the original union. These are direct warnings against divorce and remarriage.
8. Divorce is a spiritual attack with spiritual results and lasting spiritual consequences.
9. Divorce is a violent ripping away of the cloak covering the husband provides for his wife, and the wife for the husband.
10. God Hates Divorce! He truly does. That's why He never severs the covenant bonds and punishes those who violate them.

This is God's final word on marriage and divorce in the Old Testament. Those hoping to apply some earlier Old Testament provision allowing divorce and remarriage should be careful. God was increasingly leading people closer to the New Testament age in which we live. "



Look at what God says, concerning the prayers of a believing husband, who does not honor the wife of His youth, likewise I am sure the wifes prayers are hindered, if she does not submit to the authority of her husband over her.

1 Pet 3
5  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6  Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7  Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Blessings,

Petro

Petro,
 Thank you for your insightful response to this very tragic state of the "church". The statistics say that the divorce rate in the "church" is higher than in the "world". Of those who are initiating divorce 65% are women and if children are in the equation it's up to 85% of women initiating divorce . Is there something wrong with this picture?
 Thanks for the link. It's lengthy but I'll read it and, if I desern it's merits, will pass it on.
 We as a people need to repent! (Isa.6:5)
rapha4u

rapha4u,

Yes sir, it is a sad state of affairs, being a man, I can see that the problem lies in Christian women, chosing unbelieving men for husbands, as well as husbands for wives.  

In many cases, it is the presussres brought on by society, what with all the sex out of wedlock or relationships without any commitment, it is acceptable to moving in together and the need to look good, fit and trim, it is almost sickening the emphasis placed on the flesh rather than the Spirit.

Don't get me wrong, a little excersize is ok, but not to extremes.  

It is the Spirit that giveth life the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (Jhn 6:63)



14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: [belse were your children unclean; but now are they holy.[/b]

Note the reason why, Moses allowed divorce;

1  Cor 7
14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

God does desire Godly offspring from families who are faithfull to Gods Word??

Absolutely,

God Bless,

Petro

Petro,
 I read Restoration of Christian Marriage A Call for Reformation
By Stephen W. Wilcox and did my flesh squirm!   ;)
Thank you again!
God is sooo good!  ;D
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/mdgodswordfulltext.htm

May the purification of His Church be our goal, to His glory (Pet.4:17) in the Name that's ubove all other names, our Lord Jesus Christ, so be it and whatever it takes...

Amen!

Petro, I think the remarriage is in the wording. It says, "except for fornication." Which means that in the case of fornication, adultery isn't an issue because the other person broke the covenant.

  It hath been said (you will not find God saying this anywhere is scripture), Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.  (Mat 5:31-32)

Lets look at what Jesus said about divorce again....

It hath been said (you will not find God saying this anywhere is scripture), Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.  (Mat 5:31-32) KJV

What I have emboldened, plainly reads as follows;

"32  But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery.  And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.   English Standard Version

The only reason why anyone divorces a wife is because of the hardeness of his heart, since he will not forgive her,  her sexual immorality included.

Whether you will accept it or not the truth of this matter is that;

Sexual immorality is not the root cause for a wife straying, it really is grounded in the husbands neglect of his wife;  because unless a husband nurtures his relationship with his wife, to;

....dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; 1 Pet 3:7  

...wives will loose interest in their husbands especially if the husband is unfaithfull, and stray from the sanctity of marriage.

Now using your interpretation of this verse to teach Jesus allowed divorce and then remarriage with another, you have him contradicting himself, but as the scripture says;

Rom 3
4  ........, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


Consider what Jesus goes on to say about this matter;

Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.  And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mk 10:11-12) KJV

Easy to read version;

 Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her , and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery.   English Standard Version

It is clear that no matter what the reason is for divorcing ones wife, to re-marry is to commit adultery against the first wife.

A man may divorce his wife for fonication, but nowhere does Jesus say, that he can re marry, both he and she are to remain single The apostle make this clear at 1 Cor 7.

If they marry to someone else, they commit adultery against each other, the only other option is to  remarry each other.

And God has made it clear He hates divorce, this his will, that none divorce his wife or husband, no matter what the reason, if one cannot live in peace with the wife of his youth, it is better to separate, than divorce, God can work and wants to reconcile husbands and wives one to the other, but if neither are willing to forgive each other, then their will is going to be done, regardless of what Gods will is..

He has spoken...


Blessings,

Petro

Petro, I read the post, but nothing there explains away that verse. It never directly addresses the statement, "saving for the cause of fornication." That is in there. And no, Jesus isn't contradicting Himself by His own words. I'm not sure where you got that from. All the other verses in there, wonderful as they are, do not contradict this one. *shrug* It says what it says. And so those other verses must acoomodate this one. I dont think the problem in Malachi was that men were divorcing unfaithful wives, or the other way around. The one who commits adultery breaks faith, not the other way around.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

I think that when considering this question we must see what Christ said:


What is God's opinion of divorce? "...but from the beginning it was not so.'[/b] Hard words, yes.  But hence Jesus followed up with:


That's good enough for me.  Just don't.   :)

The question isn't whether or not divorce in general is okay-I'm not making a case for divorce. What I am saying is that Jesus's words clearly state that if the spouse committed adultery, that is the person who broke faith. Not the one who got the divorce under those circumstances. So, we can't go around faulting people who aren't guilty, because if we do, we violate the ninth commandment. So it really is important to be precise.

Divorce, when it is sin, is hated by God. All sin is bad news. But if there are cases when it *isn't* sin, we can't fudge it into the sin category of our own accord and so slander a brother or sister in the faith. I know what else the Bible says. But to know the truth means taking all of the Bible seriously, including Jesus's own words in this verse. The question is, why don't Jesus's words apply here?

Well, that's very well written, Wh.

But my understanding was sort of Petro's:


It is clear that no matter what the reason is for divorcing ones wife, to re-marry is to commit adultery against the first wife.

A man may divorce his wife for fonication, but nowhere does Jesus say, that he can re marry, both he and she are to remain single The apostle make this clear at 1 Cor 7.

If they marry to someone else, they commit adultery against each other, the only other option is to  remarry each other.



    ???

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, i have given you his word.
 


While this may be true, you have failed to show, where divorce releases the man from the marriage oath taken before God.

People who want to teach divorce is approved by Gods word, usually want to justify themselves, not Gods Word.

But thanks for your comments anyhow..

Petro

By the way,  go back to;
 

1 Cor 7
1  Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Now ask yourself,

If a man can put his wife away for fornication, and he re marry, why is is his first wife still considered an adulteress, while he lives, and if he dies, she is no longer called ajn adulteresss, or as the Word says above;

she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Go figure...??


Blessings,
Petro

Hmmmmmm....


    :-\

Actually, you haven't given me His word. God has given me His word, and you are attempting to take part of it away.  

What exactly does, "saving for the cause of fornication" mean, Petro?

Do you not realize, scripture is never to be used to contradict or nullify other scripture. This isn't a proper use, and it cannot lead to the truth; anything short of the whole truth isn't the truth at all. So, what is the purpose of that phrase? It has a meaning.
 

People who willfully neglect some aspect of scripture to suit their own tastes, or who take the liberty of editing God's word, are usually not submitted to God, but have become a law unto themselves. As it is written:

John 7

7:24Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Well, is the man exempt from the law, just because he put away his wife because she commited sexual immorality??

Assuming she did.

The marriage was not abolished or annulled before God.

The oath was "till death do us part, before God as our witness"
 
There is a principle, behind the teaching.

Can anyone elaborate??


Blessings,

Petro

Well, the answer is in that verse. What does that phrase mean?

I thot as of the latest, we wuz talking 'bout the first thwee verses of I Corinth. 7.

That is, that in the event of a partner's death, we are free again to marry, and only in that event?

Thus, as Petro is saying, "..'til death do us part...". ?

That in the eyes of God once married we iz alwayz marweed 'til death seperwates us.

   

    ???

Whitehorse:

I believe you are correct in your interpretation of THE ONE SINGLE EXCEPTION THAT GOD MAKES (Matt.5:32; 19:9).  In other words, if there is a clear case of infidelity on the part of one partner, the Lord (1) allows the innoncent party to divorce and (2) allows the innocent party to then remarry without condemnation.

However, this remains the only exception. The GENERAL rule set down by the Lord is found in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18, as well as Malachi 2:16 a; Romans 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:10-17.

Therefore, we should look at Matt.5:32 and 19:9 very closely, since a superficial reading makes it appear that God is NOT making an exception [and bearing in mind that under the Law of Moses the unfaithful partner would have been put to death]:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, SAVING FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION [adultery], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced comitteth adultery (Matt.5:32)... And I say unto you, Whosover shall put away his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery (Matt. 19:9).

Now, if we temporarily omit the phrase "saving for the cause of fornication" or "except it be for fornication", we get the GENERAL CONSEQUENCE OF DIVORCE:

The wife
"Whosover shall put away his wife...causeth her to commit adultery [and] whosover shall marry her that is divorced commiteth adultery."

The husband
"Whosover shall put away his wife... and shall marry another, committeth adultery.

The exception
Whosoever shall put away his wife [for her fornication] and shall marry another, committeth [not] adultery.

Remarriage of the adulterous wife deemed adulterous
Whosoever marrieth her that is put away [whether for the exception or not] doth commit adultery.

The assumption here is that the sinning partner is the woman.  However, the teaching could be reversed with the man as the sinning partner, and it would not change the teaching. [At that time in history, men were initiating divorce, unlike today].

The reason the Lord allows the innocent partner to remarry is that the very fact of fornication by the sinning partner annuls the marriage bond, just as in the case of a widow, the death of her husband annuls the marriage bond.

Our Lord is a just as well as a holy God, and He will not punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty.  The single state is never the norm in Scripture, and the Lord assumes remarriage throughout.  However, the only acceptable remarriage will be that of the innocent partner in a clear case of infidelity (or a widow or widower). This is borne out by all other relevant Scriptures.

I think we need to know what the customs were in the time of Christ.  From what I understand, when a couple was engaged they were considered married even though the marriage was not consumated.  If either decided they didn't want to marry the other, they still had to divorce to do so.  Maybe Jesus was referring to just such a situation when He said except for fornication.  When two people are married and one is unfaithful I always thought it was called adultery.  It would be called fornication in the case of the engaged couple mentioned above assuming they both were virgins to begin with.  Jesus freed the injured party to marry in this case.  If two people have consumated their marriage and one is unfaithful it's called adultery and neither are free to marry even if they divorce.

cris

Hellow rapha,

 ;D

I want to inject a new thought  into a somewhat tense interpretation of marriage.  

So what does the church think?    Well, those that have endured a divorce learn a new word, and it is

"justification"  

Just like they believe that when their sins are forgiven and God no longer remembers them, is is "just as if I'd" never sinned.  

People have "justified" divorce.... they seek forgiveness from God and think that it is "just as if I'd" never been married, and then they think they are "free" to marry again as though there was never a first marriage.

Justification is a forgiveness and a forgetting of sins, but those who are "just as if I'd" ---still have to live with the repercussions of their forgiven sins.  For example, if one smokes cigarettes for years, and seeks deliverance from that bad habit which harms the "temple" given by God, then certainly, the person is justified, their habit is "just as if I'd" never smoked cigarettes.  But justification doesn't take away the possibility of lung cancer because of their actions.

The same is true for marriage and divorce.  If one is "justified" of their divorce, that they have repented of their sins involved in the divorce, while the sin is justified, it doesn't make the marriage covenant with God disappear.  

God never changes.  He still hates divorce, and "justification" doesn't change that.

The "church" and the believers of the "church"  need to go back to the basics in marriage, and seek God's will.  


~serapha~

And where is that scripture? It's great how people like to edit what God says, add or take away, and say they're in God's will even as they oppose them. This situation doesn't apply to me. My priblem is when humans think they have more authority than God. So now I ask. Is that verse in the Bible, or isn't it? And if it is, by what authority do you nullify this verse?

Cris:
Whenever the Lord spoke during His earthly ministry, He spoke for all ages, all times, and all customs. He was certainly not addressing Jewish customs exclusively in His teachings (other than to condemn the traditions of men).

In fact, in Mathew 5, the Lord took the interpretation of the Ten Commandments to the highest possible level and said: "But I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman TO LUST AFTER HER he hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (verse 28). Here the Lord used the word "adultery" in the general sense of fornication [since "whosoever" could apply to married and unmarried men], and this Scripture applies to all ages and all times. We can also see from this that the words adultery and fornication have been used interchangeably.  

 
There are many who try to narrowly apply the words of Christ regarding divorce to "betrothal", but if that were the case the Lord would have made it clear -- God is not the author of confusion. Betrothal may be included but the teaching is for marriage as marriage.

.

That is one interpretation, but it flies in the face of Scripture. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4 we read: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favouor in his eyes... then let him write her a bill of divorcement... and when she is departed out of his house, SHE MAY GO AND BE ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE...".

In the NT, the Lord took this permissive ordinance of God [because of the hardness of your hearts] and ruled that this was no longer applicable, but that He would allow just one exception -- fornication or adultery [Vine's Expository Dictionary tells us that "in Matt. 5:32 and 19:19 [porneia or fornication, which is illicit gotcha146], stands for, or includes adultery".

Therefore it is only when the exception exists that there is an exception to re-marriage.

Sower,

Depending on what denomination we are, we tend to espouse the interpretation of that denomination.  Besides the scripture allowing divorce on the grounds of fornication or adultery in Matt. 5-32, Jesus also said in Luke 16-18 that everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.  In Matt. 5-32 Jesus says that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.  The man is divorcing his wife because she has already been unfaithful.  She is an adultress.  In this case the man can divorce her but it doesn't say he can remarry.  In fact, it says that (for whatever reason) a man divorces his wife and remarries he commits adultery.  If a man divorces his wife for other reasons, anyone who marries her commits adultery, including her.  If he remarries, he commits adultery.  I think the scripture is very clear here.  It doesn't seem fair but that's how it is.

I'm not sure but I think the original issue in this thread had to do with remarriage of a divorced person - whether or not it was allowed in the case of fornication or adultery.  The scripture allows divorce if the spouse is unfaithful but does not allow remarriage according to Luke 16 vs. 18.  I think God still considers two people married whether they divorce or not.  The marriage bond is forever.  The divorce paper is something else, probably protection for all parties involved.  At least, it was in the time of Christ.

cris

Here is the inspired answer;

Mat 19
4  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10  His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11  But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

Blessings,

Petro

I noticed you emboldened the last part. And it is true that many will not want to accept all of God's word. It happens every day.

But Jesus wasn't saying it was okay not to be able to accept His teaching. What He was saying, is that some couldn't, and if they can't, they should not put themselves in a position to sin.

But this does not mean we can edit out parts of what He says, because He is God and we are not.

The correct answer isn't the one that is harshest.
It isn't the one that is softest.
It isn't the one that is in the middle.

The correct one is the one that takes all of what God says, all of it, and applies it all correctly and with precision.

serapha,
Do you think this may be the reason the divorce rate in the "church" is greater than in the world?
rapha4u

Petro,
 That's how we were set free from the bondage of sin! Christ died and we died in Him. That is a powerful truth. God is so awsome. When sin presents it's self just point it back to the cross. It died there and so did I. So I am now free to live the new life in Jesus Christ, glory!

I noticed you emboldened the last part. And it is true that many will not want to accept all of God's word. It happens every day.

But Jesus wasn't saying it was okay not to be able to accept His teaching. What He was saying, is that some couldn't, and if they can't, they should not put themselves in a position to sin.

But this does not mean we can edit out parts of what He says, because He is God and we are not.

The correct answer isn't the one that is harshest.
It isn't the one that is softest.
It isn't the one that is in the middle.

The correct one is the one that takes all of what God says, all of it, and applies it all correctly and with precision.


Okay, well then what is the clear application with precision in this case, Whitehorse?


   ???   :)

What case?

THE CASE HERE YOU ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT.


*sigh*

whitehorse,

OK...................?

What other sayings of God , can you add to what has or has not been said, already??

And,  To whom would you say, this saying is given??

Is it all men, or some men??

If it is all men, ...Why can not all men receive it, do you suppose??

If it isn't given to all men, will those to whom it is given, receive it??


Blessings,

Petro

PS  Here is the simpler translation;

All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.  ESV

 

rapha4u,


Amen, Brother,

But NOT all, can accept that.

Men want to add to this great truth, their own 2 mites ..

Now is it true, that what is written in the NT is...........;

... given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  2Tim 3:16-17

If is true, them shouldn't men of God, believe it??

Even the blood shed at the cross covers the sin of adultery, which Gods children commit ignorantly or willingly.

That is how great, this truth is...

Have a blessed New Year, you and your family,

God Bless,

Petro

whitehorse,

I didn't say I disagreed with everything you posted;


Can't is a word which is closely associated with the word won't.

Usually when children disobey there father or mother, it is because they won't, it is a matter of the will, because it has to do with obeying fathers word, not that they can't.

The fact is they can, but they do not want to.


Do you see it this way at all?


Blessings,
Petro

Can't is a word which is closely associated with the word won't.

  (http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/avatars/zanimals/zanimals31.gif)


Ahem.  Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

Anyway, isn't the whole divorce question summed up in the simple statement:  "Unless our spouse dies any remarriage is adultery." ??


sorry.  I don't mean to be mean here.  :-[  Isn't this sorta just the case?

Petro,
Isa.1:19 I can see what you are saying and in my experience that is true. I'll see something I am unwilling to do and camp there, until the Lord in His wisdom moves me on to a place that I am willing. Sometimes the road is hard so now when I see something that I need to do and I recognize it as the flesh that is resisting, saying it's impossible, I persist in seeking God's will. This is better than going through a lot of "tederizing". He will prevail! amen?
rapha4u

Symph,


Actually,  It doesn't matter what we think, I think if we were all honest with ourselves, we would just simply admit, Gods word is what matters, our are just opinions..

And to obey is better than sacrifice..

I trust you are having  a Happy New Year Day...........


Blessings,
Petro

rapha4u,

Amen and don't feel las if you are alone.

I have rope burn on my bowed neck myself....

Life would be much easier if we just simply quit fighting the tether, God wants to keep us  on the straight and narrow path, because He knows what is best for us.

I never understood the argument Christians always put forth, rejecting Gods sovereignty, either His Spirit works in Us to will and to do of His good pleasure or it doesn't.  

Those that believe this, also know that it began long before we came to trust His Word, and had it not been for His drawing no one would ever come to Him.

But I am glad you see something, which may add to your understanding of His word, afterall isn't this the reason why we study and read it.

Not only to hear, it but do it.

Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.



God Bless,

Petro

Thank you, Petro.

Marriage is a wonderful thing.

But its' vows, it's promises, it's love, are what make it wonderful.


What we see is society increasingly attmepting to change and revise those vows and promises--to dilute them, water them down.  

Marriage becomes a contrivance, an inconvenience, an imposition.

Or an arrangement to achieve material benefit or acceptance--as the gay movement views it.

The human race as we know it, is under deliberate and deadly attack.  The foes are not kidding around.  Marriage is an obvious--and possibly the most important--target.

symph,

Amen,  it was only one generation back, when a hand shakle was as good as done.

Oaths today doesn't mean beans.

Imagine if the President can sware and oath to tell the whole truth, and then answer a question while under that oath, with a bare face lie, and get away with it, and there is no outrage from the people, that tells you the state of affairs of the people that elected him in this country.

Thats a reflection of our first family.

An Dan Rather still  had nerve to say the man was basicly honest.    

Amazing...............

Any way, I am with you, I think thats exactly what scriture teaches, and that is the reason why the country is going downhill fast.

People want god and the name God out of governement, and then complain, "Why does God allow these things to happen to us??

We know why??

Blessings, to you,

Petro

 

Thank you, Petro.... :)

That depends on whether or not you want to accept what Jesus said. Yes. Divorce is out of the question in all cases except two, according to scripture. And the "except for marital unfaithfulness" is right smack in the middle of the sentence. If you feel Jesus was wrong, then that is your decision. But then, you would be saying that Jesus was wrong.

But that is my issue here. And people are acting like if I don't agree with them, then I'm somehow advocating convenience and temporality, which isn't the case.

But the truth is, I'm taking issue with the concept of placing more merit in personal opinion than God's holy word and omnipotent authority. Please understand, I'm not accusing you of this, of course; I'm just explaining to you. That is what gets me boiling mad.

Because, I see pagans and witches putting their own opinions over God's every day, and one could expect it from them, because they reject Christ. But sometimes they're looking for a way out of that. They sometimes want the truth.

Now, I'm not talking about you here, Symphony. Please understand that. I'm taking issue with a general problem: when a Christian places personal opinion over God's very clear word, now that is what makes all these unbelievers I witness to say they want nothing with "organized religion." It gives them every excuse to deny God because of all the believers they know that are doing it, too. Or they make up their own rules about TV or grape juice versus wine and say that people are in "sin" if they do not submit to these rules that are not found in the Bible. Now, sinful TV is something else. Getting drunk is something else. These things are sin. God is God and we are not.

And so it gives these unbelieving people every excuse to accuse the saints of hypocrisy.

And there's the spirit of condescention and degradation. It makes it so clear to these unbelievers that God's people are not submitted to God's word at all. And it's driving these nonChristians away from Christ, it is leaving them disillusioned, it is the very essence of having a form of worship but denying the power thereof. And people are losing their eternal souls over it.

It's very rare when I get this angry, but I love the people I minister to. I don't want them to go to hell, and if they do, I don't want it to be on account of our family in Christ. And I certainly don't want my dear brothers and sisters in Christ to have to face judgment for these things, either. That's why I'm angry.

I have never seen a passage of scripture saying marring a divorced person  ok. If any one here has please post em.

Do i believe remarriage is unforgivable NO.

 We have to many scriptures tell us of His forgivness.  The wages of sin is death, in divorce some thing dies. All to often it is the children who suffer the most. Children living daily with out Dad. Divorce,  the act of divorce says to me God can not heal this relationship. The couple who divorce live with the conquences of their actions. Sorta the same as the fat girl lives with the conquences of glutteny forgiven but fat.

Other christians should do their best to support marriage. I know this wife has been guilty of, having coffee talking about who has the worst hubby, Not very Christlike. Divorced christians need tons of prayer and support we so often kill our wounded.

Okay.  I've read through most all of this thread again, including your posts, carefully, Whitehorse.  Thank you.

Whitehorse, your concern, and perhaps Sower's here, is that we hastily paint divorce with too broad a brush, thereby even slandering, judging, incriminating or otherwise alienating those who are divorced--for whatever reason--and furthermore risking the loss of their/our souls.

For the Christian growing in Christ, just the issue for him/herself, without ever getting involved himself, is a certain test enough--the temptation being to launch into a condemning tyrade of how evil everyone is.  It goes right to the nexus of how to be alive in Christ without gloating over the contrast this creates--a very human and typical temptation.

Actually, the central question here isn't about divorce at all, since we are all agreed that divorce is at least permitted.

The central question here is about re-marriage.

While there may not be a specific verse outlining this, the general upshot, intent, and "spirit" of those verses approaching it--from both Paul and our Lord--and others perhaps, not to mention just the underlying definition of the word "marriage" in the first place(that is, "...the two become one flesh..."), indicate that marriage is forever(in the same way that "diamonds are forever"(in fact, that's the title of a James Bond movie, even amidst all the adultery and fornication of a James Bond movie ).

Add to this still further, "...he that even looketh on a woman lustfully hath committed adultery with her in his heart..."(Mtt 5:28).


...and you have a general defnintion of this "animal" called "marriage", that it is a hot potato that does allow a safety valve(called "divorce"), but, because of its definition, recognizes no compromise(re-marriage).  Shucks!  You can't even THINK about a woman and darn it! You've committed adultery!!!

So that's just how "sensitive", or discreet, or hallowed, the very idea of marriage itself, really is.

But, as Whitehorse and perhaps Sower are wanting to, very understandbly, prevent, or discourage, we many times immediately take that out to the wood shed and take the glory of it all out on the poor, unbelieving, or unsuspecting, or unknowing, or vulnerable, or ignorant, or unaware, "sinner".

And we go off gloating in our Christian self-righteousness.

Before anyone comes to Faith in the Word of God, they must see themselves as God sees them, and God does show them that they are sinners, they must repentance, and not just feel sorry, but a heartfelt contrite repentance of the heart.

So, if someone becomes a Christian by Gods grace, he understands what repentance means and also, what he has been saved from, and of course wants to live a pleassing life to God in Christ subjected to the Spirit of Grace.

Christians will sin, and the scriptures asure us we have an advocate who interceds at the throne of grace, Jesus.

I know that in this day and age, there are many teachings, that christians find offensive, and there are churches that won't preach them, because they divide and insult people, whether it be visitors or the congregation, especially in this area of identifying and pointing out sin.

This may be one of the reasons, why unlearned or young christians  divorce and remarry without giving it much thought, sometimes this is do to there misunderstanding that if they just si9mply belong to a congregation and do what the church requires of them, everything else will take care of itself,

It may also be do, because the mature Christians do not spend time discipling or mentoring them, in godly living, I am not saying this is the principle reason, but I remember speaking once to a reverend , who admitted to me, he did not believe a principle doctrine his denomination espoused in their articles of faith, and when I asked him, how he dealt with it as far as preaching or teaching it, he answered simply by stating well we do  not discuss it because it divides.

Imagine that?  Not being able to preach or teach the entire gospel because it insults some.

I know its insulting to preach the sinfulness of sin in this day an age, but unfortunately it is essential both in the presentation of the Gospel and as a matter of course in the teaching of it.

The teaching of divorce was never taught by the word of God at all,

All Jesus said was that Moses allowed it, but it was never  to be, from the begining.

And because Moses allowed to put a wife away for fornication, you can divorce if you won't forgive her.

That is what the verses we have discussed teach. Pure and simple.

Yes, the blood of Jesus will cover a multitude of sin, anyone who divorces, especially Christians, should be made to know divorce  is not Gods will, and neither is re marriage, He desires reconciliation, because Christians are ministers of reconciliation.

The idea is not to condemn them but to try and reconcile them, anb if they won't reconcile for what ever reason, they should be instructed that the Lord wants to remain single.

But how many pastors teach this things?, hard to say, if the divorce rate is this high within the church, one of two things, either the leaders are not speaking pout against it, or the christians simply don't feel like doing it Gods way.

Marriage is lifelong commitment..

Blessings,

Petro

Symphony, thank you. You did hit a lot of things that concern me.

I guess the big thing for me is taking authority over God Himself. It's like looking outside at the stars, planets, and endless universe and, as a finite li'l human being, claiming authority over it's Maker. Very serious business.

When someone changes the word of God, or distorts it, or reapplies parts of it in ways that weren't meant, and then says, "This is what God says." That is how every error begins. There's a lawlessness to it that is absolutely horrifying.

And I think you're right; the spirit of pride comes because if the person is not submitted to God Himself, then who are they submitted to? What is the philosophy behind this?

And then imagine when that pride is inflicted upon someone who walks into the church. Maybe they've made some bad decisions, they admit it, and they need someone to gently show them how to get life back on track. Not from a Super Christian, for there is no such thing, but from a fellow believer who likewise has weaknesses and tendencies, but greater maturity and self-control. Someone who is blameless and sanctified.

It's when we don't truly see the sin in our hearts that we become unsubmitted to God, and abuse the hurting, the lost, people disillusioned. It was the publican who acknowledged his wickedness that went away justified before God, not the Pharisee.

But that aside, God's word needs to be God's word.

As for remarriage, absolutely. Marriage is a covenant, but also a type for the union of Christ with his people. So, remarriage under this understanding is a very serious offense indeed. Jesus does not forsake His people and marry another. If not His bride, who would He be marrying? And this is what we testify when we marry another while our spouses are still alive. We are pointing, in our ceremony, to a future event and how it will be.

We do not work on the Sabbath, because we are pointing to an eternal rest.

We do not remarry, because God has one spouse.

It's in understanding the true meaning behind our Christian duties and ceremonies and law that we see why it is not to be taken lightly.

And this can only be done properly when we have a submission to all of God's word.

Thank you for your gracious post. It was excellent.

So you have never seen a passage which permits re-marriage after divorce or separation. However , I will provide you with one Scripture from the OT and one from the NT THAT PERMIT RE-MARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE.  We will not go into an expostion of these Scriptures, simply note the fact that they are recorded and you have failed to notice them:

Deuteronomy 24:1,2
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
AND WHEN SHE IS DEPARTED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, SHE MAY GO AND BE ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE.

1 Corinthians 7:27,28
Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed.  Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.
BUT AND IF THOU MARRY, THOU HAST NOT SINNED;...

Whose words are these? Moses and Paul's or God's? If we dismiss these as not being divinely inspired, we have nothing but shifting sand. If they're inspired, God had a reason for giving them. So let's not continue insisting about God never allowing a divorced person to re-marry. There's your proof.

These Scriptures are not to encourage divorce and re-marriage but to discourage unbelief. God is BOTH a holy and a just God, and we must see Him as He is. In the OT, the penalty for adultery was death. The "uncleanness" -- real or imagined -- is not adultery, but could be anything other than adultery. In the NT, Christ made one single exception for divorce -- adultery -- and that same single exception applies to the remarriage of the innocent partner.

sower,

This is a poor explanation of these verses in trying to prove re-mnarriage is allowed by the Word of God.

It is clear the only thing the looses anyone from the oath of marriage is DEATH, being loosed does not just include those who are widowed, but those who never married, since they are not bound.

Consider these verse when putting the verses you have given forth.

Rom 7
7:1  Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law
of her husband.

Now, just because Christ has loosed us from the law, are you saying a man may put his wife away, and re-marry?

If so, then are you implying it is OK not to, observe the the commandment agains fornication?



Unbelief in what?

Consider what the Apostles and Elders confimed at the First Council at Jerusalem.

24  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25  It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26  Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27  We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
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.


If adultery is a form of fornication, anyone who still has a living partner who was married to them an re marries cause them to comit adultery.

Petro

Deut 24:1-4
24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
KJV
Had I seen these, above, verses 35 years ago I may not have stayed married.  Looking at these I am wondering what they say about( verse 4) reconciliation. I am wondering if marriage, by law, the ceremony, etc , is what is being talked about here or is it sleeping with a person.

 
1 Cor 7:25-28

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
KJV
In my view verse 28 in speaking of the  virgin restricts remarriage at the very least for the her.  27 plainly says seek not a wife.  

Romans 7:2,3



So from this VERY CLEAR statement, we cannot come to any other conclusion than that divorce is not permitted under any conditions.  The passage is clear that a woman is under the law of her husband as long as he is alive.  Period.  No allowance for divorce.

Right?

Wrong.  That's not the whole story, is it?  If this were the only passage of Scripture that deals with the subject, I've given the correct interpretation.  But we know it's not.

Similarly, the passages where Jesus speaks on the subject are not the only ones that deal with it.  If we are not going to commit the Red Letter heresy (giving more authority to the words which Christ spoke on earth than to the words which He spoke by His Spirit through the Apostles), then we have to look at ALL of the passages that deal with the subject, and come to an understanding which takes ALL the truth into account.

1 Corinthians 7:12-15



The word for bondage in this passage is the same word as is used in the Romans passage above.  The context is the same - marriage and its permanence.  OR lack thereof.   A woman whose unbelieving husband departs is as unbound as the woman whose husband dies.  


By New Testament times, no-one was being put to death for immorality.  The Romans did not allow it.  It matters not whether they SHOULD have been or not - the fact is, they were not.  The case of the woman taken in adultery only shows the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders - they knew perfectly well that no-one could stone the woman.

Since adulterers were NOT put to death for immorality, it cannot be argued that re-marriage was permitted in cases of adultery because the adulterer would be dead.  

Well a couple of things here. Forst, going back to my post to Sym, Jesus tell the pharisees that Any man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery. So I'm saying this to qualify what I said yesterday.

Quartus, I think I understand what you are saying, but I just clarify one thing; Jesus has all authorit, because He is God. So, it isn't a matter of giving more authority to Him than the Holy Spirit in speaking through the apostles, fo all authority belongs to the triune God, with the Father as the first person in the trinity. And all three are in agreement.

The issue is not reading everything God said. He spoke through the apostles and Jesus told the things He told as well. So all authority belongs to Jesus, including that which was spoken through the apostles.

But yes-I absolutely agree with you on taking all scriptures into account, because they all come from God.

When we have a misunderstanding, we shouldn't squash the Bible into what we thought we understood any more than we should try to jam a puzzle piece that clearly doesn't belong where we thought it would. Instead, we look for the right piece. Agreed, 100% on this.

As for Rome, the Jews did have some sovereignty. In fact, Paul was left in prison by Felix as a favor to the Jews. So the threat of the woman being stoned was real. But I think we don't stone people today because of the Lord, not because of Rome. ;)

Reba, exactly. That's why it's so important to know all of scripture. Jesus clarifies in the NT that this allowance was made because of the hardened hearts.

But once the woman remarried, she has made a covenant with a new man. So to go back to her first husband would violate the covenant again. So it would be both, because sleeping together should only be in the context of marriage.

In the second set of verses, the church was under a time of severe persecution, and this made it even harder for married couples. In a tiome of such persecution, the churhc was best off focusing on the Lord because thir faith would be tested, and this was hard for amrried couples. So Paul isn't restricting marriage; anyone could do as they liked and get married. He wasn't calling it sin, because there is no prohibition against marriage. In fact, there was a prohibition against prohibiting marriage! But he was just saying it would be easier because they were being persecuted, and it would make it harder to focus on the Lord, etc.

Petro:


The issue is not whether my "explanation" is "poor" or "excellent".  Reba said she had NEVER SEEN a Scripture that permitted remarriage after divorce, and now she and you and everyone else have seen the Scriptures, but perhaps are unwilling to accept them as God's Word.  Your argument is not with me but with God.


That is how you would prefer to read it, but now you have Scripture that tells you that death is NOT the only reason for loosing the bonds of marriage, and now it is up to you, and Reba, and anyone else to simply BELIEVE IT.  Again, your argument is with God.


These verses ARE NOT in conflict but are complementary and supplementary to all the other teaching. What they are telling us that as long as two people are married they are BOUND, and only death severs the bond.  No more and no less. They are not addressing the EXCEPTION which the Lord dealt with.


Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death [the Law of Moses] and placed us under a higher and better law -- the Law of Christ. the Law of Liberty, the Royal Law.  This law has only ONE commandment -- love.  And if we love God and our spouses according to this law, we will not even contemplate adultery or divorce or separation or re-marriage after making a marital mess.  So I am not implying that anything is "OK" or "not OK".  I am simply pointing out that no sincere student of God's Word can deny that God Himself allows re-marriage after divorce under very specific circumstances.  That's all.


Unbelief in the living God. If we teach [contrary to the Word] that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN A MAN OR WOMAN RE-MARRY, we make God unjust and we make Him a liar [God forbid]. This leads to unbelief since God is not only holy, but He is also just. He is also merciful and gracious, and none of these attributes are ever in conflict.  

By showing you Scripture that God does indeed allow re-marriage after divorce UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, I have upheld the justness of the Almighty -- He does not punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty.  He sets the innocent spouse free to re-marry, since the unmarried state is NOT ideal [with some exceptions].


In response: (1) adultery is a form of fornication (2) it is a sin (3) God allows divorce for adultery only and (4) God permits the innocent spouse to re-marry, if he or she so wishes. This satisfies the holiness of God as well as His mercy and justice.  In God's eyes the sinning partner has annulled the marriage-bond, just as death annuls the bond.

Also, in God's eyes marriage is UNTIL DEATH, and the partners are ONE FLESH. and believers are not to even consider divorce and re-marriage.  If believers are having marital problems either one or both of them are walking in the flesh, not in the Spirit.  It is a spiritual problem and needs to be dealth with as a "spiritual problem". However, there are some who violate the marriage bond with their unfaithfulness, therefore God allows -- PERMITS -- the next best thing, just as He PERMITTED divorce in the OT.

Eggstackly my point, Whitehorse.   Some folks will elevate the words that Christ spoke while on earth ABOVE the words that He caused (by His Spirit) to be written by the apostles.  This is what I referred to as the Red Letter Heresy.  (As in, Red Letter Edition of the Bible.)  This is wrong.  It matters not through whom God spoke His Word - it is still God's Word.  

For example, Jesus regarded the teachings of Moses as the Word of God.  But here in this thread we find Petro saying:



Yet this same Jesus, speaking of this same Moses, said:

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mark 7:10

And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.Mark 1:44


Same Moses, doing the same thing.  What is he doing?  Acting as God's mouthpiece.  Moses did not permit divorce on his own authority any more than he gave any of the rest of the law and ordinances on his own authority.  He spoke God's Word.

Amen!

 SOWER


 Can you tell me what it is i need to believe?  Sower you are new here and i dont have a clue how to understand your posts  can ya help out a little... If you did not understand my other post  ....I agreeed on Duet 24 with you.. although i am thankfull i did not 'see' those verses 35 years ago. Well i am mostly thankfull  :P

You talked abut these Cor verses i do not see any place here that say go marry a divorced person do you?

1 Cor 7:25-28

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.


Wow Petro it is not often you and i are placed together YIKES!

Deuteronomy 24:1,2
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
AND WHEN SHE IS DEPARTED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, SHE MAY GO AND BE ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE.

1 Corinthians 7:27,28
Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed.  Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.
BUT AND IF THOU MARRY, THOU HAST NOT SINNED;

Boy, Sower, that ain't what my RSV says at all.

Deut. 24:2 says, "...and if she goes and becomes another man's wife..."

There.  That says "if".  

In fact, that whole passage you point to, is actually vss. 1-4, not just 1-2.  That passage is talking about her relationship to the first husband; only by implication can you discern that possibly--again, possibly is there any real endorsement or approval if she does indeed go and marry another man(before she then returns to the first).

So you are reading an interpretation into that passage that is not there at all.  It says "if", and just becuase she does go and do it, doesn't mean it has God's blessing.

In your I Cor 7 passage above, that's talking about marriage generally; you are misconstruing to mean "re-marriage".

Petro:
The teaching of divorce was never taught by the word of God at all,

All Jesus said was that Moses allowed it, but it was never  to be, from the begining.

And because Moses allowed to put a wife away for fornication, you can divorce if you won't forgive her.


Symph:   Especially your point, Petro,  "...if you won't forgive her..."      

It might even be possible to forgive her, but go ahead and divorce her.

Maybe this is the example Joseph sets for all of us--a very beautiful example--Matt 1:19:  

"...and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly."   :)


Joseph obviously was forgiving her, since he intended to do it quietly, and didn't want to shame her.  :)

But he still was going to divorce her, so he rightfully believed that he had been wronged.  :(


But that passage reflects no resentment or revenge towards her.  :)  Joseph is exercising what you would do in such a case as his.  She broke the bond--and those are the stakes:  If one breaks the bond, then the bond is broken.  It's not the end of the world.  You don't have to strike back at the other person.  But, at least in this case, Joseph did take the necessary action.(I'm only speaking in the sense if it really were true that Mary had been unfaithful--which of course was not the actual case...).

That's part of the "trust" element when we enter into "holy matrimony"--because it indeed is holy.  Those are the stakes.  It's a "trust".  And the hurt, the cost, the insult, is invisible to the offending party, unfortunately, many times.  But that doesn't change what marriage is.

Someone, somewhere, has to understand this.  If no one ever understands this, marriage and everything goes down the toilet.

Marriage isn't just a business contract, or even just a contract--tho it is that.

If you can just go and "re-marry", then it's no longer "marriage" in the first place.

And this is what we see happening all around us.  "Marriage" can now mean between two men.

And soon I assume it also will mean between two of anything(between a man and his dog, I guess).

And then, I suppose, two--or more, of anything.

Untill it means nothing at all.

BEP,

I can see that this thread has truned into a discussion about what scriptures teach and do not teach, and it probaly does not belong in the Bible Study forum.

 



quartus,

By the well welcome to the forum.

No one here is arguing the divorce, is not permitted, it is clear from the words of Moses and Jesus, a husband was and I suppose still is permitted, for the reason of fornication, to put away his wife, and as you can see there is no end to them that believe this.

According to Jesus, it was commanded by Moses;

"because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

Here is the passage;

Mat 19
3  The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8  He saith unto them,   Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for sexual immorality, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10  His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11  But he said unto them, ,All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.


Some now in your haste to answer, you have missed this point.

We all agree divorce was permitted. "because of the hardness of mens hearts"

What is not permitted is re-marriage, period..however if a child of God remarries, while his or her spouse lives, even the  sin of adultery which is committed, is forgiven, because it is covered by the blood of Jesus.

Marriage was a lifelong commitment, while Fornication

is "sexual immorality", it is not the same thing as adultery;

fornication describes "sexual immorality" by a Single person

, while Adultery distinguishes from Fornication

as "sexual immorality" by a  Married person, you simply

confuse both,  we see the principle of the teaching clearly,

of what is and was permitted according to the Law of Moses

at;  Mat 19:18-19.

Notice this carefully,

18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

What is described at verse 18, is fornication, not adultery

Christians that divorce cannot accuse their wives or husbands of "Fornication", because in reality they commit "Adultery", you may poo poo this all you want, but the scriptures are clear on this matter..

Sower,

I do not argue against Gods word, it is your interpretation of it, that I take issue with.

This is made clear in the verses written at Rom 7, (of which I shared the first 2, to get your responses.

As I see it, it is carnal christians rejection of the authority of the Gods word that is the root cause of their denial of what is written, and they reinterpret the scriptures to their own damnation.

You ask why is the church of Jesus is experiencing turmoil in this day and age, this is it , what is written for their admonishment and edification is to hard for them, to accept.

Clearly this is what upsets whitehorse..............is the right teaching of Gods written Word, he wants it toned down or softened because he does not want sinners insulted...

While the enemy, tears at the foundations of God's own word's of the account of the creation, so called christians attack the authority of the same word, from the within, discrediting it, no wonder the Name of God is blasphemed among unbelievers.

They (when unbelievers, SEE that christians witnessing to them, do not themselves believe Gods word) see how christians live their lives,  and only use this, as an excuse to further blaspheme and rail against the God of heaven.

Allow me to fill in the rest of the passage at Rom 7;

7:1  Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5  For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6  But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7  What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, The shallot not covet.
8  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10  And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11  For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12  Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13  Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14  For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17  Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelt in me.
18  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelt no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20  Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelt in me.
21  I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Why is it christians involved in sin, always justify themselves by saying, God really didn't mean that, it really is a denial of what God has said (Gen 3:1) challengin the Authority of Gods Word

And of course in order to justify it, they change what has been said.

And we've have heard it here, a denial that Jesus own words have any weight at all on this matter..but are equal with Moses.

The fact is people divorce and re-marry  because as I said before, its not that they can not obey, but it is that they won't.

The scriptures have been given....do with them what you desire.

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
 
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

1 Cor 7:1-
39  The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

The same apostle who wrote 1Cor 7:1-39, wrote the same passage at Romans  7.

It is useless for you to quote scriptures you agree with while leaving out those you disagree with.

Christians marry divorce and re-mary, because they are incontinent, if christians didn't go out seeking mates, and interfering with reconciliation of divorced christians, those who are separated and or divorced could be reconciled, but because they serve the law of sin with their flesh they do their own will, rather than Gods.


Blessings,

Petro

Quartus,


Agreeed   :)

Symphony,

You can see, that one must put aside Gods written word to maske it say what one wants, and of course if one version doesn't fit our theology, their is always others.

This is a perversion of Gods word by the  professionals preachers churches hire now a days, if you could ask these who ordained gay bishops, if they believe the Genesis account of the creation, you would find they do not, this is obvious by their interpretation that God created them both man and woman.

as you said marriage is anything they want it to be.


Gen 2
24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Blessings,
Petro

reba,

I disagree with quartus, so I can't imagine what it is you agree with me..??


Blessings,
Petro

Petro do yo believe the spoken words of Jesus carry more weight or  ,what ever term you use, then the other words of of the bible?



I think it was Sower that  lumped us in the same thoughts.

reba,

So as not to leave confused about what it is I disagree with quartus about is his statement above.

Jesus own words carry more weight the quartus'sss;

Mat 19
8  Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


As you can see quartus says to trust Jesus words on this matter is likened to heresy..

(quote)"If we are not going to commit the Red Letter heresy (giving more authority to the words which Christ spoke on earth than to the words which He spoke by His Spirit through the Apostles), then we have to look at ALL of the passages that deal with the subject, and come to an understanding which takes ALL the truth into account(end of quote)

Of course I believe what Jesus said and give it more weight than what others spoke, Jesus was there at the creation and knew what was in the mind of the Father when He created man in His own image.

And what Moses and all the other prophets including the Apostles have written about this matter do not supercede His Words.

As you can see even the red letters have been watewred down by newer versions, even denying the diety of Jesus.

Divorce between man and woman, was never in view from the begining...by God.

And that is fact, substantiated by RED LETTERS. Because the Creator spoke them, and if anyone knows He does.

Blessings,

Petro

Thank you Petro for being honest in stating your view.   I am supprised  you hold different passages of scripture at a lower standard then others. Jesus IS the Word. This is for sure another thread.


On a personal level about divorce I am thankful i did not  "see" the scriptures in Duet 24 ...  35 years ago i would have used them  as an excuse to leave, a way out, a twist of the meaning of the WORD.  Marriage is very importiant it is used as a picture over and over in scripture.   Malachi makes it very clear what God thinks of divorce. He dont hate a lot.

Sower,

By the way the only statement I agreed with you at your reply #59, was;


And precisely this is what I see,  the root cause being,  to which christians twist Gods word to make it teach what is clearly not written in Holy Writ.

Jesus said;

Jhn 3

12   If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

When one believes that God has not said what He has said, how can that person believe spiritual truths.

Notice carefully;

Gen 2
24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Both shall be one, a man and a woman, one flesh.

Jesus quoted these  very words then,  added to this very saying, the following;

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mat 19:6

And as I pointed out to you this was to be from the beginning.  Mat 19:8.


Like quartus, you do not differentiate ADULTERY from FORNICATION, yet the scriptures do.
In your haste to make scripture teach your adopted doctrine, you lump both together , this is the error.

Let the Word of God, define the Word of God, don't meddle..

In refering to the Commandments, Moses said;

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

You assume, that adultery, is the same as Fornication, because in the above scripture, it is called adultery, because it involves a married woman, the man could be unmarried, and it still would be called adultery. If both were unmarried it would be called ...............Fornication.

Quartus quoted the passage of the woman taken in adultery who was brought before Jesus
"taken in the very act:" it says at Jhn 8:4.

Adultery is sexual immorality committed by a married person.

Fornication is the acts of sexual immorality committed by an unmarried person.

This is fact.......whether you accept it or not, 1 Cor 7:1-2 tells us what "Fornication" is;

Note;

1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

A Christian can only divorce his wife for "Fornication", not "Adultery".  And the fact is, that christians divorce for all sorts of other things except "Fornication" , and yet the Word is explicit, it is the only reason why they may divorce their wives.

A bill of divorce for Fornication was a certificate given publicly, to show forth that the woman being married,  had had sexual relations prior to the bethrothed coming together in a sexual union with,  before being joined by God's blessing,  as it were..

And when Jesus spoke these words, written at Mat 19, Mk 10 the certificate was to be given to the woman before the physical union not afterwards.

There is nothing said, of divorce after the consummation of the marriage, except;

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Divorce is brought about by the hardness of mens hearts, make no mistake about.


Blessings
Petro

Symphony:

Pitting the RSV against the KJV means nothing, since the majority of those who are discussing this have already accepted the words of the KJV as God's Word. You can either deny that the KJV is God's Word or you can accept it as God's Word and also accept that what I have posted is EXACTLY WHAT OUT ENGLISH BIBLE SAYS -- no "ifs" "ands" and "buts".
We can go into a lengthy dissertation of all the errors of the RSV, but that's not the issue. If the KJV is accepted by believers as God's Word, and if it states EXACTLY what I have quoted, there is no further wiggle room.


The purpose of posting that Scripture was to PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is AT LEAST ONE VERSE in the Bible in which God permits remarriage after divorce -- NOT TO GIVE AN EXPOSTION ABOUT WHAT THAT CHAPTER IS TEACHING, or what the book of Deuteronomy is all about, or how the Lord pointed to this verse and pointed to the "hardness of men's hearts".  Also we are NOT talking about ENDORSEMENT OR APPROVAL.  We are talking about PERMISSION, so let's not go after red herrings.  The question before us is : "Did or did not the Lord PERMIT remarriage after divorce, both in the OT and in the NT?"  The honest answer is "Yes", the evasive answer is "My translation says something else".

Again, you are misreading the text and the intent of my post.  The plain English is very plain, and needs no "interpretation":
"AND WHEN SHE IS DEPARTED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, SHE MAY GO AND BE ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE".  What goes before and what comes after is not the issue.  Neither the interpretation of this passage by the Lord.


It is not I who is misconstruing, but you who are "dodging" the import of those verses.  They are very plain: "BUT AND IF THOU MARRY [AFTER BEING LOOSED FROM A WIFE] THOU HAST NOT SINNED".  There is nothing to interpret. It's plain as day. Again, what goes before, and what comes after is not the issue. We are not into an exposition of 1 Cor. 7.

It seems that now that the Word is before us, some are trying to squirm out of its plain meaning. This is not about condoning, encouraging or endorsing divorce.  This is about believing that every word in Scripture -- no matter how uncomfortable it is to our preconceptions -- is God's Word. This is about not denying what God has said, or subtracting from His Word.

Duet 24  

The more i read the  different bibles the more i see Duet 24  is not a justification of divorce. But a picture of the divorced Israel, but that is again another thread.

When pressed I would never agree that Jesus own words are less authoritaive then the Prophets, His Word is to have preeminence, but as you can see, even the well versed or perhaps the un well versed, would claim Jesus didn't know what He was talking about.

Simply put, He is the Prophet of Prophets...if you doubt anything thats wrtten  don't run to strike out Jesus's words, because they disagree with your own preceptions of what the Word says, the fact is the prophets words when understood properly will agree with everything he ever said...


It is a blessing to hear it, and it just simply shows your character, an faithfulness not only to Gods will, but to your commitment to marriage. Even if you were not a Christian before (you didn't say), but moreso, if this was the case.

There are very few today who can say I have been married to one person all  my life and will continue till I die. Nor would they want to say it.

We also, had our marriage restored by Jesus, because we were willing to trust Him, we came to the Lord together, over 10 yrs after marrying,  and presently enjoy his blessing soon to celebrate our 36th year together as man and wife.

It is amazing what God can do when we bow to His will, and set ours aside.

God Bless,

Petro

sower

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.


married ?  dont divorce....  divorced ? dont marry

And by the way;

This is why I hold to Jesus words above that of anyone else;

Deut 18
17  And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18  I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

God will judge all men by the words Jesus spoke, not what other propohets prophecied, they prophecied concerning Him that was to come, who would bear the Words of God.

Even John the Baptist said it;

Acts 19
4  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.


Blessings,
Petro

 Way cool Petro!   How wonderfull to be so blessed  :)

Sower, in your argument, and as Reba points out above too, I don't think you can use I Cor. 7:25-28, in the re-marriage question.

That passage is talking about the unmarried, or, as the KJ has it, "virgins", as it begins, in v. 25, there; and when they might subsequently marry(v. 28).  V. 28 is contextually part or subsequent to v. 25.  That passage is talking about marriage of unmarried, or virgin, people.

As for the Deut. 24 passage, I will concede your point in v. 2 there only as incidental to her being divorced by her first husband, not as "permission" by God, as you assert.  But, forgoing other references in either Old or New Testament(which is of course not the case), then as of just this passage you cite, I would have to leave it an open possiblity, and that it does illustrate your answer as to at least one verse in the OT that does at least allude to the possibility of re-marriage without, possibly, it being automatically condemned as adultery.  I don't think, however, that it illustrates an endorsement, or that it even grants permission.  The context of the passage is concerned with her relationship to the first husband.  There is not enough information given there to discern whether her subsequent marriage is a "good" idea with God or not and, clearly, her return to the first is definitely not a good idea, tho it certainly does influence the question of return to her first husband.

On the Matt. 19:9 deal, okay, in the case of fornication(adultery), he may, apparently, remarry.  BUT, who is he going to marry now?  It has to be someone never-married.  Or, can it be a), someone formerly married who (in today's custom) put her husband away for adultery, or b) someone who was put away, by her former adulterous husband?  If it can be the latter, that is b, then we have to read that exception into Jesus' closing remarks there in that vs. 9, "...and whoso marrieth her which is put away", tho that is not much of a stretch since Jesus' context there does readily imply that the one there being put away is the offending party(and not the offended one), and that if she were instead only the offended, rather than the offending, one, then it would be okay.

So, perhaps in the "spirit" of Mt 19:9, we might say an offended party to any marriage can remarry and, they can even marry someone else formerly married, as long as they too were an offended party, is that right?

So, "remarriage" can only be between offended parties, or one offended party and one never-married.

And if a never-married person marries an "offended" party, it is not adultery.

 
Or, in other words, an offended ex-spouse can only commit adultery in re-marriage if the new partner is an offender.

(by "offended" I'm meaning a victim of infidelity, and by offender, the one who commits the infidelity)

   ::)


Can I go out and play now.   :P

Boy!  What a topic!  You get more posters here than church members on a Sunday evening fish fry!   :D  Seriously though, I think we miss some very important factors when we approach the "adultery clause" we tend to hold so dearly to.  One factor, is that that particular clause only shows up in the book of Matthew - the gospel written to the Jews.  The scenario shows up in, I believe, 2 other gospels, but the clause only shows up there.  Why?

I personally believe it's because of the Jewish marriage tradition.  When they came out of Egypt, divorce ran amuck.  The custom in Egypt was, afterall, divorce.  Moses, not God, permitted divorce, but predicated that divorce with the tradition I speak of.  What tradition?  When a couple married, the groom would go home to mom and dad, and the bride would go home to her mom and dad.  The groom would then watch his bride for a year.  If he found her to be unfaithful, he was permitted, by Moses, to divorce her.  They had never become "one flesh."  If he found her faithful, then he would come and accept her as his wife, hence the parable of the groom coming for his bride.  It wasn't their wedding night...it was a full year later, and she'd passed the test!

When Jesus deals with this matter in Matthew, He says "in the beginning it was not so."  He attributes the practice to Moses.  He does so only in the book of Matthew, written to the Jews from a Jewish perspective according to a Jewish tradition set up by Moses.  Feel free to investigate it, but it is true.  What Jesus said still stands.  "In the beginning, it was not so."

Is this to hard to swallow?  I love how God deals with those who fail to keep to this understanding.  Does He destroy them, or crush them?  NO!!!  Rather, He blesses them.  Consider David and Bathsheba.  They committed adultery.  David committed murder.  They married, and according to Jesus, committed adultery again.  What does God do?  He gives them Solomon!  The very line of Christ comes from a relationship that was in disagreement with the dictates of God.

We beat ourselves up about this.  Don't divorce!  But just because someone does, does not mean that God will not work in their lives, even through their lives for His honor and glory.  God is so gracious in this matter.  Why can't we be?

25Now concerning the virgins (the marriageable [3] maidens) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion and advice as one who by the Lord's mercy is rendered trustworthy and faithful.
26I think then, because of the impending distress [that is even now setting in], it is well (expedient, profitable, and wholesome) for a person to remain as he or she is.
27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28But if you do marry, you do not sin [in doing so], and if a virgin marries, she does not sin [in doing so]. Yet those who marry will have physical and earthly troubles, and I would like to spare you that.  AMP

25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.  NIV

25   Now concerning virgins I have (26) no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who (27) by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
26   I think then that this is good in view of the present (28) distress, that (29) it is good for a man to remain as he is.
27   Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28   But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.  NASB

Allinall   :)

(http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/pound.gif)
Too funny!


(http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/grinser/grinning-smiley-003.gif)
Amen!

Symphony


Is your room clean AND your homework done?  :P

Hi, Reba.  Yikes.  Well, sort of.  :-X


Hm.  No more Sower.    :-\


   :-[

Oh, where to start, where to start?

Petro, maybe a little set theory would help. (Or a dictionary.)   Fornication is sexual immorality.  Adultery is sexual immorality by a married person.  Fornication is the larger set, adultery is a subset of fornication.  Exactly like a square and a rectangle.  A square is a form of a rectangle - they are not two different things.  However a rectangle is not necessarily a square.  The set, "squares" is a subset of the set, "rectangles".  Or take cars as an example.  A Corvette is a car.  A car is not necessarily a Corvette.  The set, "Corvettes" is a subset of the set, "cars".

Adultery is fornication. Fornication is not necessarily adultery.  The set, "adultery" is a subset of the set, "fornication".

A person who has committed adultery has  committed fornication.  Look it up in the Greek and the Hebrew.  This is basic stuff, Petro.



No, what I said was that giving the RED LETTERS more weight than the rest of Scripture is heresy.  It is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit.



That is the essential point, Petro.  What "Moses and all the other prophets including the Apostles have written " ARE the words of Jesus, every bit as much as what he uttered while here on earth.  No more, and no less.


And the Creator spoke what Paul wrote, and what Peter wrote, and what John wrote.  He spoke what Jeremiah wrote and what Isaiah wrote.  He spoke every word from Genesis 1:1 up to Revelation 22:21.   ALL carry equal weight, because they have the same Divine source.

This is the doctrine of inspiration.   To hold otherwise is heresy.

I hope this helps others on this board understand where you are coming from.  

Now using these verses, posted by Reba, I would like to point out somehting very important.


authored Reba at reply #81

25Now concerning the virgins (the marriageable [3] maidens) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion and advice as one who by the Lord's mercy is rendered trustworthy and faithful.
26I think then, because of the impending distress [that is even now setting in], it is well (expedient, profitable, and wholesome) for a person to remain as he or she is.
27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28But if you do marry, you do not sin [in doing so], and if a virgin marries, she does not sin [in doing so]. Yet those who marry will have physical and earthly troubles, and I would like to spare you that.  AMP

25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.  NIV

25   Now concerning virgins I have (26) no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who (27) by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
26   I think then that this is good in view of the present (28) distress, that (29) it is good for a man to remain as he is.
27   Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28   But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.  NASB

Note verse 25..

In another thread I started, allinall, and 2d Tim, agreed (not that this is why it makes it this the  Gospel), that Pauls opinions while sound, and probaly understood to carry weight, can never or should never be used to replace what the Lord has commanded or stated.

Besides from this verse onward, when undertsood in the lite of all other scripture it confirms what the Lord had already stated concerning divorce.

So if this passage is used to as the proof text to teach, marriage after divorce by a Christian,  is alright with God, I would have to say, this teaching is not of God, but of man, since even Paul herein, makes it clear he is simply voicing his opinion on this matter.

Clearly he new perfectly the Lords commandment on this matter, and defines what is commanded from what, is not.

Now we can see why, Christians when they discern false teachings should stand up to teachings which are not commandments of God at all, this is exactly how heresy begins.

In its infant stage it is really an issue of "The Authority of God's Word" over man's opinions of what His word means..



Blessings,

Petro

"hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Yes, Petro, I don't think that passagel--I Cor. 7:25-8--is at all talking about remarriage, but simply marriage of "the unmarried"(as my RSV terms it), or "virgins", as the KJ says.  It seems clear to me.  It's not talking about remarriage there.  That doesn't mean there that Paul is therefore condemning remarriage.  It's just that that's not the point there.

I'm a bit surprised that someone of Sower's insight would construe that any other way.  He hasn't returned yet.

Matthew 19:9 may be a bit different.  It may be possible to construe that as an allowance to remarry.

Sower's and Whitehorse's point is, though, I believe, that the victim in an adultery case, should not be forced to be held accountable too, and is therefore free to remarry.

I know of several cases personally where this is the case.  The woman has gone on to remarry and currently living happily, apparently--or, at least, making the most of it.  But in either case, I do not know the man they have each married, but it's possible that if he put his first wife away, that then these current remarriages are adulterous.  

I mean, a victim of a former marriage can still commit adultery by marrying a new, adulterous spouse(if he/she is committing adultery towards the spouse of his/her earlier marriage).

Whew.  Nap time.   :P

Sym,


Divorce is a very sensitive subject, and I am sure painful, but clearly the stance taken by some, is more damaging because of the advice offered by misinterpretation of scripture.
 
I have seen how divorce because of adultery takes its course, and usually the remarriage is like the partners sending a messages to each other.

And of course when looking for guidance from pastors or counselors they would gravitate to those who will agree with them and give them answers which they already desire to hear, and if it is that they can remarry after finding someone to marry then thats what they will do.

Using the example as you stated; of Joseph willing to put away Mary the Lords mother for being found with child is key, to understanding all this passages.

I am sorry, that this is so misunderstood;

However there is no excuse for it among Christians;

Adultery is not a reason for divorce, Fornication is the exception.

Joseph was going to put Mary away for fornication, not adultery.

Understanding this will illuminate all the scriptures on this subject.

Whether this will change minds, who knows??

I think as I said before, christians will do what they want to do, regardless, may it never be..but isn't this the root reason why they divorce and marry because of adultery and all other reasons.?

Adultery and Fornication is sexual immorality, and they do describe the same act, but one refers to a married person, while the other a non married person.

Mary would have been put away by Joseph for fornication not adultery, since she had never known a man.
 

Blessings,

Petro

These definitions are your own, the Bible defines itself, it doesn't need you to define words for it.

Besides, I would be more apt to believe it, before I would accept yours. I have given you the difference between both words even the examples of the words as used in scripture.

You are on your own , form here on..



No, what I said was that giving the RED LETTERS more weight than the rest of Scripture is heresy.  It is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit.

This is not an issue, unless you want to make it one as you can see, I explained this ealy, Divorce and remarriage  is a matter of the Authority of Gods word and the believers, this is clear.
 

That is the essential point, Petro.  What "Moses and all the other prophets including the Apostles have written " ARE the words of Jesus, every bit as much as what he uttered while here on earth.  No more, and no less.
You deviate from your point, since inspite of what the apostle has stated, the verses on which you build your re-marriage doctrine is an opinion, not a commandment, and above all else, it is clear it has nothin to do with previously married persons.



And the Creator spoke what Paul wrote, and what Peter wrote, and what John wrote.  He spoke what Jeremiah wrote and what Isaiah wrote.  He spoke every word from Genesis 1:1 up to Revelation 22:21.   ALL carry equal weight, because they have the same Divine source.

This is the doctrine of inspiration.   To hold otherwise is heresy.

I hope this helps others on this board understand where you are coming from.  

Me thinks you need to read the passage you misinterpret and
equate as commanded by the Lord.

I was under the impression that when one took a scripture out of context,  this is where the road to heresy began.

To misinterpret and then teach the misinterpretation as gospel, causinf others to sin, is heresy.

Consider what your are saying, before make accusations..


Blessings,
Petro

2 Tim 3:16

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
KJV


Petro is some of Gods inspiration less then others?

Clearly opinions given by the Apostle, can be used for all of these things if they are observed, and will produce Godly mresults; however, they are not equal to commandments given by the Lord.


It is a different animal.

Take Pauls advice given by opinion at the passage in question, even if one misunderstands it, and ignores it by doing his own will, thou there are consequences which will bring on difficulties, the person not observing the advice will not have broken feloowship with the Lord; while on the other hand, transgrss th Lords Commndment and you have broken fellowship with the Lord.

Will He answer prayer, while living in transgression? Maybe and maybe not, clearly there are instances where the Word explicitly states the prayers are hampoered becuse of sin.

So, its not a matter of one scripture being more inspired than another, but it has everything to do, with one being more authoritative over others.

Are you able to see the diference??  

If not, What else can I say??  That hasn't already been said.


Blessings,
Petro

Petro thank you for your honesty.

 From this time forward i will reguard you as one that does not accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. I think you are wrong but it's  your business.

reba,

It matters little to me, what you will do or will not do..and never will, you have been known to be wrong before..

So what?

Blessings,

Petro

In my humble opinion it is much better to make a wise choice in marriage in the first place than to seek a way out afterwards.  I had a wonderful marriage. Here are a few pointers for single Christians hoping to marry :

Don't Marry if : -

* both partners are still young. Marriages between two partners who are under 21 are more likely than not to end in divorce or separation.

* you feel that you had a bad relationship with either of your parents, and your prospective spouse seems to you to be someone "just like" that parent.

* you and your partner consistently seem to have difficulty accepting each other's ideas, fight most of the time, or simply don't appear to understand each other.

* conversations frequently contain any of the following phrases:
"Do you really love me?" "I wish you were more like..." "You have to give up those friends. We can only have mutual friends now."  "I can't stand it when you spend time alone reading (pursuing a hobby) (meditating) (whatever). You should spend every minute with me."

* your decision to get married has been heavily influenced by either partner's parents. Many people, seduced by the wealth, acceptance, flattery, or even cooking of a potential in-law, find themselves at the altar promising to spend their lives with someone for whom they don't have any genuine feelings.

* your partner has traits you abhor. (such as a violent temper or poor grooming habits), yet you find yourself unable to raise the issue for fear of offending.

* you find yourself being too anxious to please a partner who gives little in return, or who, you feel, makes consistently selfish demands and rarely considers your welfare.

* after extensive discussion, you're still unable to agree on where you're going to live or under what circumstances  (i.e., career changes or new income opportunities elsewhere) you would move in the future.

* your values regarding material goods are radically different. Couples often have major conflicts when they realize, after getting married, that one spouse prefers a modest standard of living, while the other insists on lavish surroundings and a steady ascent up the ladder of success.

* either partner is desperate to marry as soon as possible. Do not marry anyone out of panic or pressure from another person. No matter who's applying the pressure, and no matter what the reason (pregnancy, the need to leave home, a ticking biological clock, to fit in (all your friends are married), loneliness, fear of independence, or fear of upsetting plans already made.

These recommendations were not mine but were taken from a CorelDRAW! art form

Lance,

 Really good ideals. Welcome to the forum.



Petro,

 I my post was from a sad heart.  Always being right has never been a problem to me.  Good day

Thanks for the welcome Reba.

LOL @ your post to Petro.  :)

reba,

That explains everything, did it ever occur to you, understanding scriptural teaching is most important, that you may be a doer, not just a hearer.

This is why christians divorce, they should be doers not just hears, and justifying oneself by cherry picking verses is not the answer.

Have a good day..


Petro

lance, welcome to the forum,

This is good advice, God knows the world needs sound advice, but if it doesn't contain principles of the Word of God, it is futile.

AAA, has a program that has adopted some biblical teachings of scripture, distorting its teaching, and leading some further from sound Biblical teaching and the principle theme of the sciprtures, unless these address the root cause, SIN, they are bound to fail.

But thanks for your post anyhow.

Petro

Thank you for your advice Petro.  I know it doesn't contain the Word of God, BUT NEITHER DOES IT CONTRADICT IT.

You will get plenty of the Word of God before you are though with me Petro—maybe too much !  LOL

Reba:

Thanks for showing that all translations are generally in agreement. What we need to do is look at the entire chapter, and discover that Paul is addressing a variety of issues relating to marriage, but he is not necessarily making statements in a systematic or chronolical order.  Therefore I will present an expostion outline of this chapter in a spearate post.

This is just like interpretations of 1 cor. 14:4, which is acutally  a REBUKE in the context of chapters 12-14, but whiich is misinterpreted again an again as a COMMENDATION because it suits the pirposes of modern tongues-speakers.

1 Cor. 7:27-28 is an example of THE EXCEPTION which the Lord makes, and it is in the way of PERMISSION, not RECOMMENDATION. The recommendation is in verse 27, the perimission in verse 28. Why don't we just accept that as an expression of God's grace?

Sower let me see if I understand you…. My words in bold
1 Cor 7:27-28

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? you have an exception seek not to be loosed. From this you are excepted also Art thou loosed from a wife? you have an exception  seek not a wife. From this you are excepted also

28 But and if thou marry, you have an exception  thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, you have an exception  she hath not sinned you have an exception . Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. From this you are excepted also

KJV
 
I dont think so  Sower  ???



Divorce has brought much pain to friends and family. I believe the church errors in not holding marriage to a very high standard. Please understand I also believe the church kills it’s wounded. We should support each other more so when we have stumbled, over divorce or any other problem, sin, illness fill in the words that suite ya best. I do not believe remarried live in a constant state of adultery. Nor do i think they should  live under a cloud. We are free in Christ.

B.A.I.K. (Boy am I confused).  Reba, are you boy or girl ?

A grandma  Lance

Thanks Reba.  It's nice to know.  I try to be gentle with the fair sex but some are tougher than the men.  LOL

Great, But please don't change words and twist verses like michael, there....

Petro

Lance In my humble opinion it is much better to make a wise choice in marriage in the first place than to seek a way out afterwards.

That was sorta my thinking.

I had a wonderful marriage.  

Um, HAD?    ???


Folks, um, I'm thinking we're picking this baby doll to bits?   :-\

If questions about marriage end up reducing it to technicallities, um, that's exactly what marriage is about transcending?

The rest of our lives are caught up with the "technicalities" of things--how to get along, how to do our work, how to tie our shoes.  ::)

Marriage is about loving each other.  Walking in His spirit apart and then, when you meet, and marry, walking in His spirit together.

And then, it's a model of our relationship with Him.  

If one breaks it off, does that change my relationship with Him?

(hint:  "no")


Isn't marriage just a "type" of a larger reality?     :)


   



     
     

Yes Symphony "HAD" as you say.  The reaper called and whisked her away.
Job 1:21 ....... Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
Amen

I would like to also add a little something concerning adultery being an acceptable reason for divorce that an evangelist also said to me that makes it a little clearer. She said that adultery is an acceptable reason for divorce, but if it was a mistake and you can forgive the person and stay married God would prefer that. But if the person has made a lifestyle out of being an adulterer those are more along the terms in which getting a divorce from an adulterous mate are acceptable. But of course like most people stated God dislikes divorce. Committing adultery once out of a moment of weakness is different than a mate making a bad habit out of it. Neither are excusable of course, but if you can keep the marriage bound together by forgiving that mate then that would be good.

God hates divorce, yet according to verse 8 He divorced Israel. For what reason? Adultery.


Jer 3:1  They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. 2  Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. 3  Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. 4  Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth? 5  Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest. 6  The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7  And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.


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


9  And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10  And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. 11  And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. 12  Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. 13  Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. 14  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:


Pilgrim

Jer 3:7-9

7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

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

9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
KJV

Deut 24:1-4
24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
KJV

Yes Symphony "HAD" as you say.  The reaper called and whisked her away.
Job 1:21 ....... Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.


Thank you, Lance.

I'm sorry.  :-X   :-\

 :(  sorry Lance