Warrior777

Sorry guys, I am trying to read some of your answers and still want to get back to some of you, but we had a death today in our immediate family and I am just having a hard time concentrating here right now. I will come back to this thread at a later time, maybe a few days, and will try to weed my way through all of this. Please keep responding, especially if you see anything else that maybe we missed (mostly in regards to the remarriage issue itself), but make sure it follows and is in line with all scripture and principle of interpretation. Thanks, God bless...

 

Should a physical abused spouse separate if it gets too violent or life threatening, yes! Should there be reconciliation and repentance, yes! In any case if the spouse separates then they need to stay single until they can reconcile and nobody is or was implying that a spouse should stay in the same house with that violent partner.

 

This is the key issue here….does the couple stay separated then for life? Waiting for the abusive spouse to repent? What if the abusive spouse refuses to repent? Again I will explain this below

 

 

 

1 Cor 7:10-11

ONCE AND FOR ALL:

ABUSE is NOT a biblical reason for divorce, NOWHERE in scripture is it mentioned (now specifically talking about our new covenant and the rules that JESUS and PAUL set which applies to us today). One can read things into scripture by speculation as with all scripture and make assumptions but it is not a valid comparison that one could build doctrine on.

Should a physical abused spouse separate if it gets too violent or life threatening, yes! Should there be reconciliation and repentance, yes! In any case if the spouse separates then they need to stay single until they can reconcile and nobody is or was implying that a spouse should stay in the same house with that violent partner. If there is an unbeliever involved and they leave (not if the believer leaves!), then the believer is not bound anymore to that unbeliever.

This is found in the scriptures and anything else in that case is opinion, which many people here have been giving a lot of, without at least trying to support it with other scripture like I asked and applying sound bible interpretation rules).

Please keep it on topic of the OP and questions and back it up with scripture and biblical principles, biblical historical backgrounds (they all have to agree with/can't contradict known scripture and need to be compatible with the NEW Covenant) 

Please help.

I don't know if these questions have already been asked.

Please answer them again if they have been asked.

If 2 born again Christians gets divorces and then remarry each other, under any circumstances, many are saying they are living in adultery.

Those of you who agree with this, please answer.

 

Do these people live in sin the rest of their lives?

Do these people never get God's blessings in their marriage?

Do these people lose their salvation?

Well partially of what you are asking I wanted to know also, that's why I started this thread. There have been answers given so far, so I will not go into detail here. One has to take some scriptures and apply in principle to fully explain or understand. Scripture is not quite clear on some detailed issues.

Taking what Jesus said as basis, then it depends who divorced and why and what happens afterwards. If you mean that the 2 Christians marry each other again after they have been divorced, then this is not adultery (they both have to still be single), it's actually desired and the best possible outcome.

If the one that divorced (except for adultery) remarries someone else, they both commit adultery (the ex-spouse and their new partner). Some suggested that only the new union at creation of the new marriage is seen as adultery, not the ongoing marriage, since it is again a new covenant between two people. There has to be repentance for adultery though.

The one that had been divorced (not for adultery) can remarry after their spouse who divorced them remarries first (which by extension would still be adultery against the first spouse).

I hope this answers your questions. Take it prayerfully with caution though, these are somewhat logical conclusions derived from scripture and principles, not written in stone anywhere.

 

 I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known.

To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before).

 

When there are unknowns it is unwise to build a solid doctrine on that belief with unknown factors. You choose to see no contradiction but base that on what? Nothing. Lets deal with what is known as you suggested. We know Jesus said there is only one reason for divorce. What we know is that Paul then says well actually there is a bit more which is not in any way indicated in what Jesus said. Yet for some reason you want to think Paul is just clarifying what Jesus said! Sorry just does not add up. So it comes back to what I said which is that it isn't as simple as you suggest.

 

I am not going into this any deeper here, this is somewhat of a side study and you can open another thread to discuss this. A simple answer: If you see this as a contradiction, then just take of what is known - Jesus mentioned one reason, Paul adds another (or explains further, whatever). BOTH are scripture, so very easy to follow. Case closed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin.

In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is:

Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law.

 

Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think.

 

Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread.

 

Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question

 

 

Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it.

Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known.

 

but that is what you are doing. Jesus said there was only one reason for divorce which is adultery. You have decided that since Paul said there was another reason then he is just expanding on what Jesus said! Sorry but no you can not read that into it. As I said it is not as clear as you are making out. You also have not addressed the other question. The very real argument about there being a difference between putting away and divorce. I'm saying scripture is not as clear as one suggests. Others have posted things that are known that have not been addressed and affect this topic. If correct then people need to examine their view.

You are essentially approaching this with a view in mind and then reading scripture rather than reading scripture and forming your view. 

 

 

 

Sorry, could you write your question again, there was a lot to read and I had to respond to many people, if the question wasn't directed to one of my quotes I either did not pick up on it or I might have answered it in one of my posts/answers to other quotes/questions. Did you read all my posts to see if I might have touched your subject you are referring to? If I did, then I most likely have not posted an additional answer to it again. Thanks.

 

with all due respect you should not be telling people to read back through the thread to find things if you are not willing to do so. No you have not addressed it but it is repeated here in this post anyway.

 

 

I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known.

To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before).

 

Also you have asked many questions , how am I supposed to know which one is not answered and which one you actually mean? I have many people to answer here and write and read and research, I just do not have the time that I can go all the way back and reread everything and then guess on top of it, when it is of no great time consuming deal for you to just rewrite your question to me, as you now did, thanks.

 

To answer that question you could have just done a quick word study yourself (blueletterbible):

 

"To put away" - apolyō

 

Meanings: To set free, release, to let go, dismiss and it is used here for the meaning of divorce. It is the term the KJV uses to describe divorce in these cases you were questioning, so it's the same meaning.

 

As I said if you are going to tell others to go back to find stuff then you should not have a problem with others telling you the same thing. Essentially I am asking you to apply the same standards to yourself that you expect of others.

 

Put away and divorce are not the same. Also looking at context such as cultural situations it was practice for men to not actually divorce their partners but ignore them and not support them as required. There was words used in original languages that translated as divorce so why use a different word that is not clear in its meaning if divorce is meant? The question really is not that easily answered.

 

The word study I showed you was a greek word used in the NT and in context of the issue at hand it ALWAYS can be substituted for divorce. The issue you are talking about was the reason that Moses allowed and started to implement the letter of divorce back under the law, so that the spouses legally where separated otherwise they would just "hang in there" if left by their spouse for just any reason and there was a lot of confusion as one would just go with another spouse without really being legally unbound, etc... but this is under the law and does not apply nowadays, since Jesus changed it (back to what it should be).

 

Not really, since what you are saying then would contradict Jesus who mentioned ONLY adultery as a reason - NOT abuse. Further the abuse issue is a very vague one at best. Like I had stated before in a post, almost anything can be used to describe abuse that is not done just so in a loving way that it should be. There is all kinds of abuse and having a verbal agreement can already be seen as some kind of emotional, verbal abuse.

Then anybody could find any reason to get rid of their spouse, if they just don't want to be married anymore.

She cannot be legally divorced when Jesus says that if she divorces her husband for any other reason than adultery, she is committing adultery (if she remarries). And then goes on to say that who marries her also commits adultery.

So unless she is not remarrying, she can be reconciled to her husband, after she marries again, she can't. So if she divorces and no adultery was committed (yet), then goes to marry another, then she commits adultery, otherwise it would not make any sense.

So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question.

Deut 24 only talks about giving a letter of divorce, because the husband found some unclean issue (does this now always imply adultery?), nothing about abuse either...

Deut 24 doesn't protect the wife (nor a future husband!) under what Jesus said , if she committed adultery (uncleanness found in her!?) then she is not to remarry at all according to Jesus - not Moses.

 

 

Your confusing the issue...firstly Yeshua didn't come to change or abolish any of Moses laws but to fullfill them by expanding on them.

 

Lets deal with abuse

 

Biblical Legal grounds for a Divorce In domestic Abuse:

 

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him do so; in such brother or sister is not morally bound. But God has called us to peace.

 

Key Issue: - who is an unbeliever?

                  - Who caused the separation?

 

Now the argument one would immediately raise is 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not speak of Abuse or about Christians....this is really superficial.

 

1st Issue  - who is an unbeliever

 

In the church we are to take sin seriously and that includes sin within a marriage. Yeshua instructed his disciples as to what should happen if someone refuses to repent of sin as a Christian.

 

Matthew 18v.15-17, If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

What Jesus insists on is that sin, even sin between a married couple in their own home, is the responsibility of the church. The church’s role is to call to account those who are guilty of wilful, deliberate, and persistent sin. And those who refuse to repent are to be treated as unbelievers.

 

Further

 

1 Timothy 5:8, If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

Now would we all agree that if a Christian spouse batters another Christian spouse refuses to repent, refuses to seek counciling from the church is not providing for his or her immediate family? and is that a true believer? In such a case SCRIPTURE calls that "type" of a Christian worse than an unbeliever and should be treated as a Pagan.

 

2nd Issue - Who caused the seperation.

 

The unbeliever is doing the separating; in this case its the "Christian" spouse who is refusing to repent and has thus destroyed the covenant he has committed the act of desertion. It permits the victim of abuse to take out a legal divorce as she is no longer MORALLY BOUND

 

In other words 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a no-fault divorce clause for abuse, HOWEVER 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same as allowing divorce for any disaffection. Because abuse is defined as a pattern of conduct designed to obtain and maintain power and control over the other. 

 

So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question.

 

 

Have the couples, once they divorced tried to reconcile? Has there been any repentance? if the one spouse has remarried to a third party, then who broke the covenant first? If the Male spouse broke the covenant first and after a passing of time remarries to a third party, the female spouse of the first marriage is not morally bound to that covenant any longer and may freely marry.

 

To conclude the Bible teaches 3 Grounds for Divorce

 

1. Adultery within marriage permits the believer to instigate a divorce

 

2. Abandonment or desertion by unbelieving spouse permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce).

 

3. Abuse which results in constructive desertion permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce)

 

 Thanks for answering my last question, that's pretty much what I was looking for.

About the abuse issue, I think you are taking this to a point where context does not allow to make this an automatic reason that you can read into 1 Corinthians 7, otherwise others could come and make up other reasons that also would validate the spouse to be an unbeliever. Oe actually could insert any sin into this. This is then again almost right there where we had it with Moses and the letters of divorce. BTW I did not say that Jesus abolished the law, of course He fulfilled it but he also changed it, as can be seen in this subject matter we are talking about.

Thanks for your input, even though I don't agree on the one issue, you helped this along quite a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? 

Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused.

husband and wife are on flesh.

Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together.

That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar.

 

 

 

another poster:

 

regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the

actual marriage relationship

 

faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused

 

So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him'  is kind of disingenuous IMO

 

faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real

 

 

 

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point

 

 

yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison?  It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually

puts men in a pretty bad light too

 

Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line

 

If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ

 

I would have thought we were pa

Forget the slave example, for your sake, bad example. However, scripture does not give "abuse" or other reasons as justifications, right? If so, where?

 

 

Actually I thought it wasn't that bad of an example myself.

 

To anyone who is taking offense by this:

 

Faith pleases God was taking two examples and comparing them in principle and NOT in content. It is biblical to do that.

Jesus is doing that all the time:

 

Luke 14:26

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

 

Now Jesus is not saying to hate your family, since that would directly contradict anything else He said about it. This is not hate in context of the content of this scripture, it is a comparison to the love we should have for Him that makes everything else seem as "hate" or to love less.

The same way a woman and a slave or husband and master are not directly compared but there is a relation in principle of endurance. If this one is to endure, not being one in flesh, how much more should the other one, that is - so: if you love your family like that that, who are NOT God, how much more should you love Jesus, which actually means one should follow Him and do His will and nobody else's, not even your family.

 

Also Jesus is using these kind of principle comparisons in pretty much all of the parables. He compares us to sheep! Now that's not even in the same category of species! If stupid sheep can even follow their master, how much more so should we. Now why is no one offended by that?

 

That's at least how I understood it and "faith pleases God" can correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

Well God knows the heart, eh?

 

I have to really pause at a man who would believe there is ANY comparison that equivocates marriage to a slave and his/her master

 

Please don't mention Jesus.  He does not see marriage the way some people here seem to see it.

 

Where does Christ call the members of His body slaves?

 

I thought that faith did a pretty good job of explaining his opinion already.  Now I understand that other tents have been put up in that camp.

 

endurance?  Really?  I'd like to see Jesus approve of a man throwing his wife...who weighs almost 90 lbs less then him, across the room into a wall

and then walk away while she can't even straighten up because he put her back out.

 

Jesus would call that endurance?  I can't say what I would like to say without breaking the TOS

 

I just love how someone can sit in judgement regarding abuse and act all high and mighty and tell someone that is God's will for their life

 

And so people who disagree that continuing and unrepented of abuse ends the marriage covenant are offended?   Yet, Jesus said if anyone offends

one of these little ones...children...it would be better if a millstone were tied around his neck and he went swimming in the ocean

 

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,

and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.  Matthew 18:6

 

Since y'all are taking such liberties with scripture, let me take one.  A man who abuses the woman he married and kicks her in the stomach after throwing

her down a flight of stairs, throws suppers on the floor and laughs, lies about her and to her constantly, spits in her face, slams her around, throws her

out of bed and sundry and various other things, and all the while pretending to be a Christian, has not broken the covenant he made between the woman,

God and a bunch of witnesses in church?  

 

But if a man commits adultery and does not otherwise harm his wife, the wife can leave and divorce and remarry?  koo koo

 

Jesus died for each person INDIVIDUALLY.. Marriage is not the reason Jesus died.  And an abusive man is not a Christian IMO....there is no love in his

heart and Christ is NOT his Head.  I don't care what excuse is offered.  If a man can act proper in church then he can control himself in the home as well.

 

 

And people wonder why spousal abuse continues in Christian circles.....phffffftt!

 

Some people here and myself have been giving good biblical reasons and answered correctly with many biblical examples according to biblical hermeneutics to make it very comprehensible what we mean and what the Bible/GOD states about that matter, but you are creating one straw man after another and turn around the words, meaning and intensions that have been stated, because you do not want to understand. This is now all that I can say about this. You state a lot of IMOs, now that is your right but again, it's your opinion and only that, if you cannot find it in the Word of God. I want to get this back on track to my OP, so I am done discussing this side topic.

 

 

 

No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? 

Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused.

husband and wife are on flesh.

Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together.

That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar.

 

 

 

another poster:

 

regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the

actual marriage relationship

 

faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused

 

So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him'  is kind of disingenuous IMO

 

faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real

 

 

 

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point

 

 

yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison?  It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually

puts men in a pretty bad light too

 

Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line

 

If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ

 

I would have thought we were pa

Forget the slave example, for your sake, bad example. However, scripture does not give "abuse" or other reasons as justifications, right? If so, where?

 

Actually I thought it wasn't that bad of an example myself.

To anyone who is taking offense by this:

Faith pleases God was taking two examples and comparing them in principle and NOT in content. It is biblical to do that.

Jesus is doing that all the time:

Luke 14:26

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Now Jesus is not saying to hate your family, since that would directly contradict anything else He said about it. This is not hate in context of the content of this scripture, it is a comparison to the love we should have for Him that makes everything else seem as "hate" or to love less.

The same way a woman and a slave or husband and master are not directly compared but there is a relation in principle of endurance. If this one is to endure, not being one in flesh, how much more should the other one, that is - so: if you love your family like that that, who are NOT God, how much more should you love Jesus, which actually means one should follow Him and do His will and nobody else's, not even your family.

Also Jesus is using these kind of principle comparisons in pretty much all of the parables. He compares us to sheep! Now that's not even in the same category of species! If stupid sheep can even follow their master, how much more so should we. Now why is no one offended by that?

That's at least how I understood it and "faith pleases God" can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Thank you. I feel like my words were misunderstood even after I clearly explained that a slave/wife is different.

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point. It uses a lesser position as an example for remaining. How much more should one flesh remain? The Word only gives 2 reasons for divorce and remarriage. These are being ignored and being added to.

I can't help but think some may just want to justify this obvious sin, or the sins of others who remarry without the Lord's blessing. Because no scripture has been given to violate what Christ said regarding remarriage and divorce.

 

No worries. Hopefully it is understood. Of course as I said I disagree with your conclusion because of the other factors that I don't feel you have considered in that scenario.

 

There have been some scriptures given that could suggest otherwise although are not clear. However your position still relies on assuming the debate over put away vs divorce has been resolved. I have raised that several times and only one person has responded to it. There is what I believe to be credible evidence that word was wrongly translated as divorce and instead should have been put away which was a practice where a man would basically ignore his wife and refuse to give her a certificate of divorcement which means she could not go back to her parents and would not be having her needs met as the husband is required while the husband goes and gets himself a new wife.

 

It is interesting also that Jesus says there is only one reason for divorce but as you say there are two reasons given. So is Jesus wrong? Or is Paul wrong? The very act of Paul giving another reason contradicts what Jesus said.  Jesus said except for this ONE reason. I myself find myself in the category Paul mentioned. Mind you I have no desire to remarry because a part of me will always love my ex wife. Also since things did not work out when I discussed things and compromised on some things (not important things and not my beliefs) then next time I would approach marriage with a my way or the highway approach which simply would not work so no point in trying. Of course legally I am not divorced because I have no desire to be the one to fork out the court fees to process the paperwork. If she wants to remarry then she can pay for that. So I can't actually remarry even if I wanted to!

 

I am sorry to hear about your situation, this definitely cannot be easy, but can there be a reconciliation in time, does she believe in Jesus at all? There are many testimonies, where there was a separation even after many years and the couples had a great marriage afterwards. One of my friends had a divorce and both stayed single for several years. Each one God worked on in the time they were separated. Then they had a reconciliation and some deliverance and worked things out, then remarried and now have a very good marriage.

Well Paul actually doesn't give a reason for divorce, it's more a reason one would not be bound anymore to their spouse, if they left, being an unbeliever and divorce the believer. The believer is NOT to divorce the unbeliever as long as they stay with them. There is already a spiritual covenant issue (like spiritual adultery) if you want to see it like that.

Most English versions still mistranslate the verse http://biblehub.com/malachi/2-16.htm

 ““For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel”

 

What do ancient translations say?

1. Septuagint (LXX)

a. aABQV: “But if, having hated, you divorce …” ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαποστείλῃς

b. L: “But if having hated, divorce!” …” ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαπόστειλον

c. W: “But if you hate, divorce!” ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσῃς ἐξαπόστειλον

2. Targum: “But if you hate her, divorce her, says the Lord God of Israel, and do not conceal sin in your garment”

3. Qumran: 4QXIIa can be translated either “But if you hate (her), divorce” or “If hating her, he divorces” but the former is more likely. (NAC, 363)

4. Vulgate: “When/if you hate her, put her away” cum odio habueris, dimitte.

 

Not one ancient translation of Malachi 2:16 directly reflects the Hebrew text as we have it preserved in any of our new translations, and none of the ancient translations translate it  as “I hate divorce” or as the KJV, “the Lord … saith that he hateth putting away.”

 

Once you’ve observed the difficulty with the text as the original text is choppy…and viewing ancient translations on the matter…Malachi 2:14‐16 teaches us that God regards wrongful divorce as a sin of treachery against one’s wife and against Himself. God doesn’t hate divorce if it’s done for the right reasons like abuse or adultery.

 

Think about it when abuse is in a marriage….there’s no righteousness left, there’s no blessing from God is there?….Its better for you if you hate your husband or wife to rather just divorce.

 

 

 Thanks for the word study.

The reason for abuse is not given in the NT though. Jesus gives the only rule for divorce to be allowed and that is due to adultery.

The same point I would make in the case of the Samaritan woman:

Well Moses law is still "there", but we are not under it, especially in the case of divorce, Jesus did change it, when He said that the letter of divorce can only be given in case of adultery, not like Moses who allowed the letter to be given for other reasons. The actual "rule" before that, was Jesus mentioning the original intent for marriage to be lifelong.

Well back then one could marry another divorced woman, if I understand this correctly, who also was divorced through a letter of divorce by her husband for other reasons than adultery. So this should be the same then as one's own wife coming back to her first husband after she had remarried? Even if she was an unfaithful wife, one still could take her back through forgiveness? I just still don't see the harder case for remarrying the ex-wife again, than marrying another one's ex-wife. Just not clear to me, I thought maybe God gave a reason for it somewhere in scripture why this is treated as such ( or maybe by principle of another deeper issue?).

Not really, since what you are saying then would contradict Jesus who mentioned ONLY adultery as a reason - NOT abuse. Further the abuse issue is a very vague one at best. Like I had stated before in a post, almost anything can be used to describe abuse that is not done just so in a loving way that it should be. There is all kinds of abuse and having a verbal agreement can already be seen as some kind of emotional, verbal abuse.

Then anybody could find any reason to get rid of their spouse, if they just don't want to be married anymore.

She cannot be legally divorced when Jesus says that if she divorces her husband for any other reason than adultery, she is committing adultery (if she remarries). And then goes on to say that who marries her also commits adultery.

So unless she is not remarrying, she can be reconciled to her husband, after she marries again, she can't. So if she divorces and no adultery was committed (yet), then goes to marry another, then she commits adultery, otherwise it would not make any sense.

So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question.

Deut 24 only talks about giving a letter of divorce, because the husband found some unclean issue (does this now always imply adultery?), nothing about abuse either...

Deut 24 doesn't protect the wife (nor a future husband!) under what Jesus said , if she committed adultery (uncleanness found in her!?) then she is not to remarry at all according to Jesus - not Moses.

 

 

 

 

As your wife committed adultery, even the naysayers against divorce would agree you can remarry.  In fact many would state adultery is THE reason for being allowed to divorce

and remarry.

 

The Bible also states that if the unbeliever wishes to leave...let them...Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.  I Cor 7:15

 

However, I have no problem with you wanting her to stay...I can understand that.

 

That's the black and white answer...and this is not hypothetical for many here..

 

Just to quickly interject here, I think you answered you own question/statement here that you stated in the prior post.

If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin.

In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is:

Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law.

 

 

 

Uh...no....

 

I answered fire's post....NOT the op.  You are drawing conclusions here and not representing my post

 

I have given my thoughts on the matter throughout this thread.

 

I have not altered my position.

 

I am starting to get irritated by those who want to jam their take on one verse into everyone elses' life.

 

 

Didn't draw any conclusions that are misrepresenting your post:

 

This was your prior post I was referring to:

"I simply no longer believe God expects us to stay with a spouse that is unfaithful to the marriage covenant and I believe there are more ways then one to break that covenant"--

 

Then you answered fire's post with the truth from scripture, you answered him exactly that what you were saying you didn't believe in that statement you made prior. I have read your thoughts, that's exactly why I posted this.

Nobody is jamming their take (especially) on ONE verse down anybody's life. Why would you think that? If at all this is a quest for truth and we are comparing all scriptures with each other (not just one) in light of scripture itself and the principle of it.

Reread what I stated, there is only an answer to how scripture is and must be interpreted so that it is not done wrong. There are scriptures that can't be changed into any other meaning, they are self explanatory. If it says, e.g. "you should not lie" one can't go and say well, if it helps someone else, a little lie is not that bad or permissible. That would be altering scripture by adding to it. We just can't do that and still be in God's will. That's what I meant.

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion and believe but you have to be aware that it could be out of the will of God to do so, and the example you gave on this topic it just is not supported by scripture, no matter how anybody wants to turn or interpret it, there is just no interpreting that into it there. That's all.

 

 

 

 

Didn't draw any conclusions that are misrepresenting your post:

 

This was your prior post I was referring to:

"I simply no longer believe God expects us to stay with a spouse that is unfaithful to the marriage covenant and I believe there are more ways then one to break that covenant"--

 

Then you answered fire's post with the truth from scripture, you answered him exactly that what you were saying you didn't believe in that statement you made prior. I have read your thoughts, that's exactly why I posted this.

Nobody is jamming their take (especially) on ONE verse down anybody's life. Why would you think that? If at all this is a quest for truth and we are comparing all scriptures with each other (not just one) in light of scripture itself and the principle of it.

 

 

yeah....no, I understood pefectly what you said and why you said it.

 

You consider my statement to be opinion and what I replied to fire as biblical truth.

 

Well, you haven't read my thoughts...or the times I change what I wrote...you have read what I wrote; that's it...that's all.  I have plenty more thoughts on the matter

which I have not expressed and most likely will not express.  

 

FYI, I have already done my quest for truth and agonized over it, so again, you do not know my thoughts.  

 

My statement does not contradict anything.  I answered fire according to his situation.  Nothing more nothing less. There is nothing for debate in his situation because

it is simple and involves adultery. Try and hold two thoughts together on that one and you might see what I am getting at.  

 

As far as what you state regarding scripture, well I have no arguement with that...but you are not the final authority on all that scripture states...I don't believe anyone is.

I believe the Bible is the word of God...but too many people try and make it their own words and then say they speak for God.  Been there, listened to that and wish

I hadn't.

 

 

 

 

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion and believe but you have to be aware that it could be out of the will of God to do so, and the example you gave on this topic it just is not supported by scripture, no matter how anybody wants to turn or interpret it, there is just no interpreting that into it there. That's all.

 

I disagree.  Telling someone they may be out of the will of God and believing they know everything a person thinks because they read a few posts is really

stretching things IMO.

 

Really.

 

I meant "your thoughts" as far as you put them down here - the very same words you used -- "I have given my thoughts on the matter throughout this thread." --, please do not twist my words now to mean something else.

Of course I don't know your thoughts that are not expressed.

You said you replied fire with biblical truth, that's exactly my point.

So there is biblical truth, whatever else that is NOT written, you cannot add it in there because you think or believe, it should be in there. That would be NOT biblical truth.

Doesn't have anything to do with me being a "final authority" - where do you even get that from and why do you make this personal? I just stated that there are rules by what "authorities", if you want to call them that, agreed upon what are a sound interpretation rules for scriptures, called biblical hermeneutics. 

If you believe one just can make up other reasons (for whatever), when these reasons are not specifically given in scripture or through comparison with scripture and sound principles, then that is out of context and seen as unbiblical, no matter what you say.

That's all I have to say about that. But this is not my point for the OP, to discuss something not biblical and I asked for scriptures, biblical principles in context and or background historical info, etc. so please keep it on topic, thanks.

 

 

There has been much division in this thread, and it is not surprising.

I think this couple needs to turn to God and find the answer.

Not the flesh, and not man, but God himself.

And he does not leave us void of answers for everything in our lives.

This couple ultimately has to make the decision for themselves.

And they should ask God's guidance.

I have found three verses to help them.

 

1. James 1:5;

"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you".

 

2. Psalm 37:4;

"Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart".

 

3. Proverbs 3:5-6;

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight".

 

Which couple specifically are you referring to? 

My earlier point was that there has to be a rule that guides this matter one way or another, God is not a respecter of persons. One just can't give their blessing to one couple remarrying and not to another, when their situations are pretty much the same. There is too much at stake, running of finto a direction that easily could be out of God's will and into sin. Then they don't know that they need to repent of it, because it is not seen as sin, since a church gave it's blessings to something they should not have...

 

The couple I was referring to was in the OP.

If they cannot be reconciled to their previous marriage and their hearts are right with God, they should be able to marry.

This couple knows more about themselves than others.

This whole thread sounds more like a group of Talmudic Rabbis than anything else.

 

There is no actual couple really in the OP. It's a question about certain situations of divorce and remarriage that are not quite clear or specifically addressed in the scriptures and the quest for truth of how to deal with that.

The one that divorced btw, has NO right to remarry unless their former spouse has committed adultery.

This has nothing to do with Talmudic Rabbis, this is a biblical scriptural debate, the Talmud is not part of the Word of God.

They are manmade laws, but I for my point want to know the will of God (not man), not only for my life but others that might also benefit about finding the truth, so what is so bad about this?

 

 

 

 

If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin.

In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is:

Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law.

 

Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think.

 

Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread.

 

Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question

 

 

Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it.

Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known.

 

but that is what you are doing. Jesus said there was only one reason for divorce which is adultery. You have decided that since Paul said there was another reason then he is just expanding on what Jesus said! Sorry but no you can not read that into it. As I said it is not as clear as you are making out. You also have not addressed the other question. The very real argument about there being a difference between putting away and divorce. I'm saying scripture is not as clear as one suggests. Others have posted things that are known that have not been addressed and affect this topic. If correct then people need to examine their view.

You are essentially approaching this with a view in mind and then reading scripture rather than reading scripture and forming your view. 

 

 

 

Sorry, could you write your question again, there was a lot to read and I had to respond to many people, if the question wasn't directed to one of my quotes I either did not pick up on it or I might have answered it in one of my posts/answers to other quotes/questions. Did you read all my posts to see if I might have touched your subject you are referring to? If I did, then I most likely have not posted an additional answer to it again. Thanks.

 

with all due respect you should not be telling people to read back through the thread to find things if you are not willing to do so. No you have not addressed it but it is repeated here in this post anyway.

 

I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known.

To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before).

Also you have asked many questions , how am I supposed to know which one is not answered and which one you actually mean? I have many people to answer here and write and read and research, I just do not have the time that I can go all the way back and reread everything and then guess on top of it, when it is of no great time consuming deal for you to just rewrite your question to me, as you now did, thanks.

To answer that question you could have just done a quick word study yourself (blueletterbible):

"To put away" - apolyō

Meanings: To set free, release, to let go, dismiss and it is used here for the meaning of divorce. It is the term the KJV uses to describe divorce in these cases you were questioning, so it's the same meaning.

 

 

As your wife committed adultery, even the naysayers against divorce would agree you can remarry.  In fact many would state adultery is THE reason for being allowed to divorce

and remarry.

 

The Bible also states that if the unbeliever wishes to leave...let them...Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.  I Cor 7:15

 

However, I have no problem with you wanting her to stay...I can understand that.

 

That's the black and white answer...and this is not hypothetical for many here..

 

Just to quickly interject here, I think you answered you own question/statement here that you stated in the prior post.

If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin.

In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is:

Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law.

 

 

 

Uh...no....

 

I answered fire's post....NOT the op.  You are drawing conclusions here and not representing my post

 

I have given my thoughts on the matter throughout this thread.

 

I have not altered my position.

 

I am starting to get irritated by those who want to jam their take on one verse into everyone elses' life.

 

Didn't draw any conclusions that are misrepresenting your post:

This was your prior post I was referring to:

"I simply no longer believe God expects us to stay with a spouse that is unfaithful to the marriage covenant and I believe there are more ways then one to break that covenant"--

Then you answered fire's post with the truth from scripture, you answered him exactly that what you were saying you didn't believe in that statement you made prior. I have read your thoughts, that's exactly why I posted this.

Nobody is jamming their take (especially) on ONE verse down anybody's life. Why would you think that? If at all this is a quest for truth and we are comparing all scriptures with each other (not just one) in light of scripture itself and the principle of it.

Reread what I stated, there is only an answer to how scripture is and must be interpreted so that it is not done wrong. There are scriptures that can't be changed into any other meaning, they are self explanatory. If it says, e.g. "you should not lie" one can't go and say well, if it helps someone else, a little lie is not that bad or permissible. That would be altering scripture by adding to it. We just can't do that and still be in God's will. That's what I meant.

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion and believe but you have to be aware that it could be out of the will of God to do so, and the example you gave on this topic it just is not supported by scripture, no matter how anybody wants to turn or interpret it, there is just no interpreting that into it there. That's all.

 

 

There is no simple answer. Was the bible created for man or man for the bible? According to Paul the things that were written down were for our learning. When I was immature in my faith I was very perverse and legalistic in my application of the scriptures to any life situation. Everything God did has been out of love as God is love. There is a time to marry, a time to divorce, a time to remarry as well as a time to stay unmarried after divorce. Love is the answer. One might think that divorce and remarriage can never be the way of love. Let that one alone to live by their conscience. For them to do so cannot be love. Love has done a great many things. Love sent a whole nation into captivity and dispersed among the nations. Love flooded a world to save 8 people alive. Love knows when to say when. Love knows when to say yes or no. Follow after love in everything. We live in perilous times and love demands we act according to the best interest of all involved including ourselves. So whatever we do with marriage, divorce and remarriage it must be done in love. Let no man tell you that you cannot do what love demands because of some silly legalistic narrow view of God through a personal perception of scripture viewed as dogma because they think so. Live according to love as God gives you ability. Wouldn't it be grand if no one ever divorced? God bless all who marry!

I get what you are saying and in many cases things need to be balanced out, but this is very dangerous ground you are walking on with this. What does legalistic really mean? Yes we do need to do everything in love, but we need to do it with God's will and word in mind - always! Love demands to follow scripture - God's will - to the best way we can, especially where scripture is known for a matter:

John 14:15, 21

If you love Me, keep My commandments.

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.

John 15:10If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

1 John 5:1-3 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. ² By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. ³ For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

This is written all over the Bible. God really emphasizes to keep scripture, by this we know that we are walking in Love. If we are not "legalistic" the way I understand it you are using the term, then we can very easily be off track and on a dangerous course where our deceived and sometimes wicked hearts lead us to, especially when our minds are not renewed and we think we are walking in love, so it must be the right way, so let's take scripture not so seriously (it's an easy pitfall this way).... - In the end we have to be guided by/through (rightly applied!) scripture to be in the will of God, because that's were the will of God is known and should we get a personal word from God, it still has to line up with scripture.

Again, scripture is very clear when divorce is allowed, that was not so much my original question (except the one about the remarried couples). Any other way or form that we veer away from that or make up our own rules (when and what is allowed and create special cases) we are in danger of walking off the path into sin.

And this is why I started this thread, to find out the truth behind the issue of remarriage so not to veer off into a path that is out of God's will, not only for me, but most likely millions of others that are confronted with the same questions (who also want to do the right thing), since with this issue of remarriage it is not so clear in some cases, but it is very clear in others (e.g.divorce) and where that is known we have to abide by it, because if we don't, then we are actually walking OUTSIDE of Love - since the opposite is also true:" He who does not keep my commandments does NOT love Me and is NOT abiding in My love!"

Jesus faced this very same problem. People were believing that they could be righteous because they followed the law even the ten commandments and he corrected them and their legalism. You say that I am walking on very dangerous ground and I agree with you as people wanted to kill Jesus because he said the things I do in principle. The more 'religious' people are the quicker they are to see the truth as a lie. Jesus would protect a woman caught in the very act of adultry of whom her infraction was confirmed by eye witnesses yet those who know this would cast out those who are caught up in divorce and don't do exactly what is 'commanded' in scripture. Was it not commanded to keep the Sabbath holy? Did not David, Jesus disciples break the Sabbath? Doesn't the Scripture say that they saw Jesus had broken tge Sabbath? But I say unto you that love is what is commanded of us. Love as defined by God as God is love. I am learning about love everyday. Love is that which preserves life instead of destroying it. I have been a liar, thief, cheat, con, adulterer, idolater, murderer, blasphemer, persecuter of the righteous and much much more yet today Jesus stands at the right hand of the father making intercession for me.

My problem in my ignorance was that I did not understand the difference between cannot and will not as it pertained to sin. I am not giving people license to do as they will concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage but I am standing for each and every persons right to do as they truly believe God would have them do out of love. There is a time to kill and a time to heal. God is judge. God is love. Trust in God.

 

Well again, yes we always have to do the things we do out of love, that is a given and there is also grace but that is especially nowadays easily abused and in turn leads to more sin. Now when you mention the various examples (and I could go into each one of them and the specific situations and backgrounds and why, but that will lead into an off topic discussion), each one is different with different backgrounds. Jesus never broke the law, He though had the right to extend it or modify it for the new covenant and He was actually well within the law when He did that and additionally He was the One that under the era of the new covenant could extend grace and see who had a repentant heart and who didn't, but that was after the fact of the sin and He also said to go and sin no more - because then worse things will happen!! Further He also didn't say who remarries another commits adultery and should be stoned - we have to compare apples to apples. On the topic of what Jesus said, it is God's law (under the new covenant), which must be kept, if not we are easily out of covenant and that leads to death, which is warned by many in the NT, no matter how much you did out of love. I recall the believers that are standing in front of Jesus at the judgment and he told them to depart, even though they thought they had done things that were commanded, but obviously they were still in sin somewhere that love or grace could not cover. Or Paul warning with a list of sins that if committed (unrepentant) one would not enter into the kingdom of God. So the reason to be lenient in some cases out of love and it ends up being or leading into sin is what I called dangerous. And that has nothing to do with being religious, because then following Jesus commandments as such would be religious and that is absurd. Rather we have to judge and apply the commandments in love but nevertheless they have to be applied and adhered to. "Seeing truth as a lie" is religion that twists the truth but following God's commandments and rightly applying it (as with all scripture as foundation) is truth and our duty, not a lie! And if we are not admonishing others to do as well we are even unloving, since we should help each other staying on the right path and correct them if necessary and turn a sinner to repentance, that is love, not letting them go down that way further. If that is called legalistic then I rather be legalistic than out of the will of God, let alone in willful sin. I myself want all the help I can get. I rather have someone tell me the legalistic truth in love, than they think they love me and letting me continue in error, because out of the notion they are applying grace.

Back to our topic in light of which I answered the question/comment is, that there are rules set by scripture and Jesus Himself that are there for a reason. The part where scripture is known, again it has to be followed or as Jesus said, one is easily entangled in adultery, no matter if love was the reasoning behind it and remarrying and applying love to a situation, where we think God should be lovingly giving His blessings to it, because we think it should be so done out of love but in fact actually totally lead ourselves or others right into a pitfall of sin. That's why I think it is important to make sure all the rules that apply to this topic are known, so that we know how to decide in each case applying the same rules to it that are scriptural, so we don't let emotions decide our judgment. If we have to make up our mind with each case anew depending on what we think should apply then why did Jesus give us the word and the rules and the warnings of sin to begin with? 

This is the reason I started this topic, because I wanted to know, for myself and most likely many others out there how the rules apply to be still in God's will where scripture was not quite clear  (to me at least), how one could or shall proceed in specific cases, if someone could come up with an explanation in context and light of all known scriptures and principles of scriptures, original translations, backgrounds and how things were dealt with back then, to find an answer to this subject. There can only be one truth for this topic that applies to the different situations mentioned of possible variations of divorce and remarriage, but for all people alike with the same rules, there aren't different truths for each person or their situations.

I hope I could express myself correctly to get this point across so that it is understood what I meant.

Thanks for all your input though, it's good to mention every aspect of this.

 

 

Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread.

 

Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question

 

Sorry, could you write your question again, there was a lot to read and I had to respond to many people, if the question wasn't directed to one of my quotes I either did not pick up on it or I might have answered it in one of my posts/answers to other quotes/questions. Did you read all my posts to see if I might have touched your subject you are referring to? If I did, then I most likely have not posted an additional answer to it again. Thanks.

 

 

If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin.

In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is:

Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law.

 

Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think.

 

Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread.

 

Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question

 

Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it.

Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known.

 

My two cents worth on the subject...

 

Malachi 2:13-16 — The concept of divorce

 

To start I wish to address the issue when quoting this verse, that the belief has been God hates divorce....but this is not true due to the bad translation of this verse....there is not a shred of textual evidence that the text ever read “I” [ykna], for the phrase "I hate Divorce".

 

The true interpretation is as follows:

 

Malachi 2:14 ‐16 teaches us that God regards wrongful divorce as a sin of treachery against one’s wife and against Himself. Although God hates wrongful divorce, He neither hates all divorces in the same way nor hates every aspect of divorce.

 

He hates what occasions every divorce. He hates the results that often flow to children and to the injured parties of divorce. And God hates divorces wrongly obtained on grounds that He has not permitted.

 

Jesus’ comments on divorce reinforce this conclusion. He specifically recognized it as constituting a change from God’s original plan: “but from the beginning it was not so,” and then it was only because of hardness of heart that the Holy Spirit through Moses allowed divorce (Mat.19:8).

 

Jeremiah 3:1-8, 12-13 - God divorced Israel yet continues His appeal for her to return.

 

The God who cannot sin divorced His wife. Since God cannot do wrong, divorce cannot be inherently sinful; otherwise God would have sinned in divorcing Israel, who played the whore.

 

Regulations of Divorce & Remarriage

 

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

 

1.When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,

2 And when she departs out of his house she goes and marries another man,

3 And if the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her as his wife,

4 Then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she is defiled. For that is an abomination before the Lord; and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.

 

Please note: If a remarriage to a third party does not occur, the original pair may be reunited in marriage, as is evident from God’s invitation to North Israel to return to Him (Jer. 3:12-13). In fact, the goal of any divorced person whose spouse has not remarried should be to experience the grace of God in healing the breach and the reuniting of the divorced couple.

 

If the remarriage to a third party does occur, the original par may not reunite in marriage, as that would be an abomination before the Lord.

 

Does remarriage after a divorce constitute a real marriage in God’s eyes?

 

John 4:16 He said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” 17 The woman answered and said,“I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.”

 

Please Note: The woman had been divorced and remarried five times, for whatever reasons, did not nullify the fact that each remarriage constituted, in God’s eyes, a real marriage.

 

The issue was the fact that the woman had not remarried for the sixth time, but was living in immorality with another man, teaches that co-habitation does not constitute a marriage.

 

Remarriage = On-going Adultery?

 

Matthew 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

Please Note; - It is true that the Greek present tense often indicates on‐going action. It is not true, however, that the present tense always indicates on‐going action. Both lexical and contextual factors in Matthew 5:32 indicate that the present tense was used in order to make a statement that is timeless and universally true, and that it was not used to indicate that the actions involved were ongoing.

 

Rather the establishment of a second marriage covenant (not sexual union in the second marriage) breaks the first marriage covenant which is why Jesus calls it adultery. Thus sexual union within a second marriage is not adulterous. This conclusion fits well with Jesus’ distinction between the Samaritan woman’s five husbands and current live‐in, as well as making sense of why the OT did not regard sexual union within a second marriage as adultery deserving the death penalty.

 

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 - Believers are not to divorce

 

Please Note:- The command not to separate stands; but (Paul says) if the wife disobeys this command (and presumably, this holds for the husband too) and does separate from her husband,

she must remain unmarried so that she will be in a position at all times to repent and be reconciled to her husband. If she marries another, Deut. 24:1‐4 would apply.

 

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 - What about the unequally yoked?

 

A believer must not divorce (ἀφίημι) an unbelieving partner who is willing to make a go of their marriage. Indeed, the believer is told to do all he or she can to hold the marriage together for the sake of the unbelieving partner (hoping he/she will come to know Christ through continued association with the believer) and for the sake of the children (who if taken out of the believer’s care would be counted and treated as pagans, i.e., “unclean”).

 

First of all thank you for your two cents, every penny counts..lol.

But I have a few questions that I have to ask, not to contradict what you are saying but for further understanding and clarity.

To Malachi

Do you have any further proof that the text you mentioned was mistranslated and is there a translation that corrected that?

About God sinning, I think the rule of adultery (that Jesus is also mentioning) would apply here, since Jesus said that in this case a divorce (and remarriage) would not be sin. I also believe that God had no other choice in this matter, anyways He already had a reconciliation in mind down the road, when He sent Jesus. Of course this was not God's perfect will, and I still think He hated to do that but again, had to.

Regulations of Divorce & Remarriage

Now this mostly deals with a remarriage to the same ex-wife when she remarried or didn't in the meanwhile.

"If the remarriage to a third party does occur, the original par may not reunite in marriage, as that would be an abomination before the Lord." -- Now on a side note: I always wondered why this is seen as a greater abomination or even as such, when marrying someone that has been divorced from another partner before seems to be not so much a problem (under OT conditions at least)? Would it not be better, at least to finally reconcile instead of taking another woman, who also was another man's wife before? Where is the logic there or let's say what makes it such a problem or what is the difference before God, is there a deeper reasoning for it?

Does remarriage after a divorce constitute a real marriage in God’s eyes?

This is a good point you are bringing up here and I heard about this before, but my question would be, is that still under the old law that Moses allowed to give letters of divorce, which the Samaritan woman would fall under in this case, therefore under that law those indeed were all legal divorces with legal remarriages? It seems though as Jesus makes a new rule (or brings back the original one) that divorce should not be, at least not that easy and only permitted if actually adultery occurred, under the new covenant? But the remarks He made to the woman was about a situation, that was applicable at that time she lived in. He also seems to not make a real judgment about it, just states the current and past situation of the woman to let her know that He knows about her, giving a word of knowledge.

Remarriage = On-going Adultery?

So if I understand this right then even though that the second marriage covenant is ongoing, it is only adultery at the time it is created, but the covenant itself that is continuing is not continuing to be in adultery? (Not talking about the sexual unions here, though for a marriage covenant to be valid there has to be a sexual union - at least the first one). Does this mean that the sexual union alone, let's say before a second marriage, but after the first one would not be considered adultery then which would break the first covenant with the first husband?

Also my reasoning about the death penalty for adultery in second marriages would not be an issue under the OT, since there was still a legal letter of divorce, which makes it a bit complicated to take some situations into the new covenant, since the rules for it changed.

This would also bring us to a point/question I mentioned earlier: If there was a divorce for another reason than adultery and one spouse had left to marry another, is that still considered adultery then against the first spouse, that would therefore in effect break the marriage covenant before God? So is in that case the remarriage of the first spouse legally allowed to remarry, who had been divorced by their leaving partner? In other words, does the exception rule of adultery apply also in this case that Jesus had mentioned?

There has been much division in this thread, and it is not surprising.

I think this couple needs to turn to God and find the answer.

Not the flesh, and not man, but God himself.

And he does not leave us void of answers for everything in our lives.

This couple ultimately has to make the decision for themselves.

And they should ask God's guidance.

I have found three verses to help them.

 

1. James 1:5;

"If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you".

 

2. Psalm 37:4;

"Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart".

 

3. Proverbs 3:5-6;

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight".

Which couple specifically are you referring to? 

My earlier point was that there has to be a rule that guides this matter one way or another, God is not a respecter of persons. One just can't give their blessing to one couple remarrying and not to another, when their situations are pretty much the same. There is too much at stake, running of finto a direction that easily could be out of God's will and into sin. Then they don't know that they need to repent of it, because it is not seen as sin, since a church gave it's blessings to something they should not have...

 

 

The 1 Cor. 7:15-16 passage is the basis of my thought. If the spouse has left you and married another, was that person a believer and have they continued in the faith (he who endures to the end shall be saved). It would seem to me that if they were an unbeliever, you are free to remarry. (In such case the believing spouse is no longer bound to the other.)

The problem is that a person who has been so deeply wronged has a lot of baggage to bring into the next marriage, and will need Christian counseling quite often. Our baptist pastor married a woman who had been divorsed under such circustances. They went through years of counseling to work it all out. He also was having trouble being ordained because he had married a divorsed woman. But it was decided in favor of ordination on the basis of her innocence in the situation leaving her free to remarry.

Willa

 

Thanks for your reply.

The case you are talking about in Cor. is a clear case of an unbeliever leaving, so divorce is permitted here but does it automatically imply that remarriage is allowed in this circumstance? It doesn't really say. It just speaks about not being bound to the unbeliever anymore (unequally yoked) in a covenant. If combined with the scripture in Matt 5 it doesn't seem that it indicates a freedom to remarry unless there was also adultery involved with that unbelieving spouse?

It seems to me if a person is no longer bound by a covenant, she is them free to remarry. If a person marrys some who is in covenant with another there would be adultry. But where there is no longer a covenant there can't be adultry. That is how my mind is reading it.

 

Yes, you have a point there, even though I have heard the opposite being presented before, with that scripture meaning that they are not bound to that person anymore, but just loosed from that marriage, they said that it would not automatically mean that they are free to remarry showing somewhat of a contradiction when citing Jesus' only exclusion of adultery. So I threw this viewpoint out here to see if someone can either refute or maybe strengthen it with comparison of other scriptures even in principle.

I know that if I am wrong on the following then there are plenty of mature knowledgable christians on here to correct me and I always welcome correction when I am shown to be wrong. 

I know we are all human and can make mistakes at times.  I am not talking about those who make a mistake that they truely repent of and would never do again.  I know there have been times when I have got angry over something my husband has said or done and then later realised I was wrong.

 I have always looked to the bible to guide me on how we are to treat our family members and what is godly behaviour toward them.  One verse that has always struck me as powerful over this is: 1Ti 5:8  But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.  I am no Greek scholar but Strongs definition of the term 'provide not for' is:

 

προνοέω

pronoeō

pron-o-eh'-o

From G4253 and G3539; to consider in advance, that is, look out for beforehand (active voice by way of maintenance for others; middle voice by way of circumspection for oneself): - provide (for).  This suggests to me that we should always have the welfare and wellbeing of our family first and formost in our thinking and actions toward them.  I do understand we all make mistakes and are not perfect yet so I am not talking about someone who has made a dreadful mistake and is turely repentant and would never do it again but two questions do occur to me over this verse:

1) Is someone who is committing adultery truely looking out for family first?

2) Is somone who is abusing their family truely looking out for their family first?

To be honest I don't see how they could be.  If that is the case then this verse does tell us that they have denied the faith and anyone that denies the faith is an unbeliever no matter what they call themselves.  Their fruits have given them away as to what they truely are in their hearts.  Jesus does back us up in this when he tells us the two great commandments: Mat 22:37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mat 22:38  This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Is abuse showing love for your family? No it is not.  Is adultery showing love for your spouse/family?  No it is not.  Abuse and adultery do not show the fruit of the Spirit either: Gal 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,Gal 5:23  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law; Eph 5:9  (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth).  What is good and righteous about abuse and adultery?  Nothing.  So if I am right then an abuser or an adulterer is denying the faith and no more than an unbeliever trying to pretend to be a believer so in that case this verse would apply: 1Co 7:15  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

 

I do believe that Jesus gives us the verses about divorce as He knows that the reasons for divorce can, often, can lead us away from Him and all Gods promises.

 

These are just my own opinions fwiw.

   

   

    

 

I get what you are saying and first of all thanks also for your input. You brought up an intriguing aspect of this, but we have to be careful, because then we can throw in pretty much any sin at our partner and easily make an unbeliever out of him/her. Like you said we all make mistakes and if that spouse is a saved child of God ,who is somewhere off the path maybe momentarily, God gives them time to repent. I believe that verse that Paul was writing to the Corinthians was about a married couple where one of them got saved during the marriage and the other one refused. He describes how the believing spouse should behave toward the unbeliever to win them over, but if they absolutely don't want to have anything to do with the Christian faith and they leave, then the believer is not bound to them, because it says that how can one know if they ever will convert. This is based on the given foundation that a believer should not marry an unbeliever to begin with.

That's why your proposed comparison is not quite something I would base a judgment on, there are several things that play into a walk as a believer and also the maturity level one is walking in their faith, as well as many other things that have to be considered. Though it's true that these behaviors mentioned should be part (or not, respectively) of a believer's life in an ideal perfect case and the lack of these also are exhibited by an unbeliever, but we all still are learning and walking out our salvation. There are unbelievers that only give lip service to the faith but they usually do not exhibit any fruit of the Christian walk really and the discernment of the Holy Spirit should give that away.

So I would caution against this, especially citing abuse, which could almost mean anything that is not quite done in a loving way, as a cause for divorce with the excuse that now we made an unbeliever out of someone. That is at best quite dangerous in making us out to be judging as God, as judge and executioner in this case, just to find and excuse and reason to justify our own desire, here it would be to remarry.

I have stayed away from this thread because it is personal for me. However, it seems that people love talking in hypothetical situations these days. But this is real and affects real people with real feelings. So let me put a face to this conversation so people don't have to use a hypothetical.

 

My situation with this is simple. When me and my now ex-wife got married she was following no religion and I was a satanist. During our marriage I got saved, she did not. Long story short, she left me telling me she had been sleeping with other people and wanted to be with one of them and also she didn't agree with Christianity, she wanted to follow Wicca or witchcraft as most would call it. I begged her to stay and she would not. After a few years, she decided she wanted to marry another guy she had hooked up with, which meant she needed to divorce me. I fought the divorce but she went through with it and divorced me against my will. I am a single Father of 2 kids ( yes I got the kids ) if I was to find someone and remarry, would it be a sin? Why or Why not.

 

I ask for responses but I am not sure if I will respond much because of this being so personal for me. I  hope everyone understands. 

First of all I am very sorry that happened to you, and yes, it is even harder when children are involved. But I thank God that He saved you out of that past dark path you were on and brought you into the Light.

To briefly answer your question, as I already did several times in my prior posts (if you care to read or reread), because it is also especially for people like yourself that I made this post, to ask for truth to make it known and provide answers that will bring people into the right walk with God or keep them on it. 

Since your ex-wife was unfaithful in this case scripture states that you are free to remarry since she had broken the marriage covenant. Especially in your case I have to say, if your ex-wife was not interested to accept Jesus even any time down the road and leave the occult ways, it would have been extraordinary hard to continue this relationship, since there would have been a lot of spiritual issues, more so than with an unbeliever who just doesn't believe, without being into the occult. 

As your wife committed adultery, even the naysayers against divorce would agree you can remarry.  In fact many would state adultery is THE reason for being allowed to divorce

and remarry.

 

The Bible also states that if the unbeliever wishes to leave...let them...Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.  I Cor 7:15

 

However, I have no problem with you wanting her to stay...I can understand that.

 

That's the black and white answer...and this is not hypothetical for many here..

Just to quickly interject here, I think you answered you own question/statement here that you stated in the prior post.

If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin.

In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is:

Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law.

 

 

Sin leads to Hell and death. We should not willfully sin after receiving knowledge of the truth. However, I will not ask who ascends or descends. I am not the deciding factor for one's salvation. However, you should have clean hands and a pure heart. You should also work out your salvation with fear and trembling... no?

Divorce is not adultery. We are talking about remarriage and what is adultery. 

Although this is a sensitive issue, there is a simple answer. And Jesus gives it. He did not say it's complicated when asked, did He?

 

 

The issue is in evaluating this discussion on marriage, divorce, and re-marriage one must take a look at the entire flow of Scripture.

Again, let me rephrase my question.

If a person divorces and re-marries yet they claim Jesus Christ as Savior are they going to face eternal death (hell)?

God bless,

GE

 

 

I think I already answered this question several times in my posts and answers to others, please reread my posts for it, thanks.