Divorce?

[Whitehorse]

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

[Allinall]

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

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?  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.

Matthew 19:7-8

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:

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.  But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

Matthew 19:10-11

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

[Whitehorse]

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?

[Symphony]

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.



   

[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

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

dont think the problem in Malachi was that men were divorcing unfaithful wives, or the other way around.

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

[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

[Symphony]

Hmmmmmm....


   

[Whitehorse]

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

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

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.

[Petro]

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

[Whitehorse]

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

[Symphony]

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.

   

   

[Sower]

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.

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.

[cris]

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

[serapha]

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

Hellow rapha,

 

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~

[Whitehorse]

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?