Divorce?

[Quartus]

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.

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:

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.

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.

[Whitehorse]

Amen!

[Reba]

 SOWER

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.

 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  

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!

[Symphony]

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".

[Symphony]

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.

[Petro]

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

[Reba]

Quartus,


Agreeed  

[Petro]

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.

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

[Petro]

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

reba,

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


Blessings,
Petro

[Reba]

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.

[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

[Reba]

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.


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.

[Petro]

Sower,

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

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.

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.

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].

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

[Sower]

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".

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.

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).

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

[Reba]

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.