Divorce?

[Petro]

posted by qurtus at reply #57
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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

[Reba]

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

[Petro]

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

[Reba]

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

 Way cool Petro!   How wonderfull to be so blessed  

[Symphony]

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.  

[Allinall]

Boy!  What a topic!  You get more posters here than church members on a Sunday evening fish fry!    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?

[Reba]

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

[Reba]

Allinall  

[2nd Timothy]

Boy!  What a topic!  You get more posters here than church members on a Sunday evening fish fry!  

Too funny!

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?

Amen!

[Reba]

Symphony

Can I go out and play now.  

Is your room clean AND your homework done?  

[Symphony]

Hi, Reba.  Yikes.  Well, sort of.  


Hm.  No more Sower.    


   

[Quartus]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.  

[Petro]

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?"

[Symphony]

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.  

[Petro]

Sym,

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.

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