Remarriage after divorce

[faith pleases God]

 

 

 

How can someone defend a stance the Bible does not permit?

 

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

 

How is this debated???

If someone holds to a different doctrine than what Christ teaches, what religion is that?

 

Why justify disobedience?

Only to feel okay about living in sin.

So apostle Paul is following a different religion then? Paul does condone divorce for a different reason. 

 

 

Here is a interesting question. What is adultery? We know Israel committed adultery without a sexual act. So adultery is not neccesarily sexual. Since the root word can be translated in a non-sexual way then the question needs to be asked

 

No offense, seriously, I take the personal out of this and do not mean this as an attack. We are in a doctrine forum, not a personal counseling one. I really don't, and I do love you. But this proves my point exactly

How is this debated???

There are different types of adultery and what is alluded to here in Matthew should be obvious.

 

No one can put away their wife except for the Greek word porneia which has been translated as fornication. Which is illicit sexual intercourse.

moichaō is the word used for adultery which is 

1. to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife

 

Perhaps because you are newer to the site but posting like this is seen as YELLING online. Which is a bit rude. I'm sure that wasn't your intent.   Just an FYI.

God bless,

GE

 

FYI I've been here for 5 years. I meant it as an emphasis...not yelling...sorry others yell.

[faith pleases God]

 

Is sexual abuse a reason for divorce? If denied sex and abused in this way, should we divorce? this could also be considered mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Our bodies are not our own. Is this abuse a cause for divorce?

 

Abuse is not a godly way of dealing with another person. So, I think that a separation in the case of what you ask is in order.

What if an abuser never repents?

God bless,

GE

 

 

I've been neglected and abused. Mentally, sexually, emotionally, physically, etc... Am I in the right to leave my spouse with 3 kids and murder my family?

[faith pleases God]

 

 

Is sexual abuse a reason for divorce? If denied sex and abused in this way, should we divorce? this could also be considered mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Our bodies are not our own. Is this abuse a cause for divorce?

 

Abuse is not a godly way of dealing with another person. So, I think that a separation in the case of what you ask is in order.

What if an abuser never repents?

God bless,

GE

 

 

I've been neglected and abused. Mentally, sexually, emotionally, physically, etc... Am I in the right to leave my spouse with 3 kids and murder my family?

 

Is this your opinion or God's will?

[Openly Curious]

another poster said:

Right so you are declaring that God (through Jesus the Son) said that ONLY adultery is acceptable reason for divorce. Yet we see in 1 Corinthians 7 a different reason being made acceptable. We also see spiritual divorce as being acceptable to divorce by the fact that God did it. So perhaps we should not be so quick to declare it clear cut and easy to understand.

No that is not what I was declaring. That is what you said and assuming on your own. I did not say that the physical act of adultery was the only reason for divorce. But what I was saying pertaining to the particular verse in Matthew 5:28 that it was not addressing the subject of spiritual adultery. As you had said that the verse also included spiritual adultery as well as physical adultery. I do not agree that it also includes spiritual adultery. But that the verse is specifically addressing the physical act of adultery itself. Not that it was the "only" reason given for divorce. I was not using the word "only" in that capacity. You have done that. There are other passages of scripture that speaks about spiritual adultery (which is idolatry).

You had also said in reference to the verse in Matthew 5:28-29. That the meaning of lust was the same meaning of the lust Jesus had when "he earnestly desired to eat the passover..." I do not agree that the lust Jesus had was the same lust in meaning as Matthew 5:28. But instead that they are different. Just as there is a big big difference between a physical act of adultery and spiritual adultery they are two entirely different things that can't be entwined together. Which you are doing.

 

Correct you have not read it because as I said translators changed wording to make things unclear. When I look at what the church has taught in the past as to what lusting means I see such heartache and guilt as people fall short of the false expectations.

 

No I was not agreeing with what you have said in regards to the translators concerning the lust in Matthew 5:28 and the lust Jesus had when he earnestly desired to eat the passover as being the same lust. I do not believe they are the same but very very different.

In the English language the term "lust" is often associated with sexual desire, probably because of that verse. But the English word originally was a general term for desire. The word "lust" translates the Greek word in Matthew 5:27-28. Coveting your neighbors wife may involve sexual desire. But it's unlikely that coveting a neighbors house or field is sexual in nature. But both are sin and are not moral. However in Christianity they are seperated. The definition of passon and lust is further categorized as an inappropriate desire that is inappropriately strong, therefore being morally "wrong". While passion for proper purposes is maintained as something God given an moral "right". A person can have wrong sinful lust in their heart that has crept in some how and not commit the sin of adultery. Just as a person can have good desires and things in their heart but never do those good and right things within their hearts. In the Lord if a person is not unrighteous because they have wrong sinful lusts in their hearts but they are unrighteous if they act on and do those wrong sinful desires in their heart. It is the same in the Lord if a person has godly desires that are right and noble in their hearts it doesn't make them righteous unless they act on and do those righteous things.

If my spouse has lustful sinful desires in their hearts and begins desiring to have sex with another person other than me that does not make them an adulterer because those desires are there. My marriage bed would still be undefiled having no uncleanness with in it. But if my spouse entertained those wrong sinful desires and then gives themselves over to them and literally goes and has sex with another person other than me. Then at that point my spouse has become an adulterer and sinned, and then they have brought uncleaness into my marriage bed. But if they never physically have sex with another person other than me and instead they resist those kind of wrong sinful lust and temptations that has arose in their hearts. Then they are not guilty of adultery they have not sinned therefore my marriage bed is pure. So just because a person has wrong sinful lust at times that doesn't make them an adulterer. Unless they act on them and actually go out and committing the actual sin itself. And just because a person has righteous desires in their hearts it doesn't make them righteous unless they practice and do those righteous things in their hearts to do. We are to shun the evil and "do" the right. So I see a difference in what you were saying in relation to your analogy of the lust in Matthew 5 and being the same lust a Jesus had when he said he "earnestly desired to eat the passover.

 

So you once again confirm that only sexual adultery is what allows divorce so when divorce occurs for spiritual adultery then it must be wrong.  Therefore God sinned according to you.

 

No I am not confirming that nor have I said it was the sole reason to grant a divorce.  You are assuming that on your own.  I have not shared any of my personal views and beliefs concerning divorce and remarriage within this thread.  I am only addressing what you have said.   I am saying the verse in Mathew 5 does not address spiritual adultery just physical adultery.   Physical and spiritual adultery are two seperate and distinct things and should not be joined together as being the same because they are not.

 

The question I asked  wasn't a silly question to ask on my part because I have never said nor have I read it any where in scripture where physical adultery was the "only" reason given for divorce.  That was why I asked for you to provide the scriptures so I could see it for myself.  Those that came to Jesus in Mathew 5 had only came to him for the purpose of tempting him about divorce uses adultery as their springboard.  Jesus answered them according to the intent of their heart and exposed the sin of their heart within his answer to them.

I have already addressed above at the beginning in how I was using and meaning by my use of the word "only" in my post and it was not in the way you took it to mean. I meant that the verse was not speaking concerning spiritual adultery but speaking about physical adultery to those who had came to him asking about it. Those who had came to Jesus on that day had come with the intent in their hearts to tempt Jesus in this matter. Jesus exposed that intent and exposed what was in their hearts with the answer he gave to them concerning what the law said. The verse was not addressing both physical and spiritual adultery within his answer.

[another_poster]

Are you a christian?

I think if you are going to ask that kind of question you should at least provide some reasons why you are asking. I can't see anything I've said that would indicate I wasn't. Accusing me of breaking the rules should have some evidence. After all one must be a christian to post in the Inner Court. In any case yes I am a christian.

[another_poster]

No that is not what I was declaring. That is what you said and assuming on your own. I did not say that the physical act of adultery was the only reason for divorce. But what I was saying pertaining to the particular verse in Matthew 5:28 that it was not addressing the subject of spiritual adultery. As you had said that the verse also included spiritual adultery as well as physical adultery. I do not agree that it also includes spiritual adultery. But that the verse is specifically addressing the physical act of adultery itself. Not that it was the "only" reason given for divorce. I was not using the word "only" in that capacity. You have done that. There are other passages of scripture that speaks about spiritual adultery (which is idolatry).

However the passage itself says that. You don't need to as the passage does and therefore means one of three things.

1. Jesus was wrong and didn't know what he was talking about

2. Paul was wrong and therefore the letters of Paul can not be considered God's word

3. The meaning is not as clear as many suggest

 

You had also said in reference to the verse in Matthew 5:28-29. That the meaning of lust was the same meaning of the lust Jesus had when "he earnestly desired to eat the passover..." I do not agree that the lust Jesus had was the same lust in meaning as Matthew 5:28. But instead that they are different. Just as there is a big big difference between a physical act of adultery and spiritual adultery they are two entirely different things that can't be entwined together. Which you are doing.

 

No not quite what I said. I said the word means the same thing. That is in both passages it means 'to earnestly desire'. So in the matthew passage it would read Whoever looks upon a woman earnestly desiring her has committed adultery in their heart. While in the other passage it would read as it does with Jesus saying "I have earnestly desired to share the passover with you" So clearly there is a difference and that difference is the object of that earnest desire. Earnestly desiring after good things is not sinful while eqrnestly desiring bad things is sinful. So the difference is there just as you said.

 

In the English language the term "lust" is often associated with sexual desire, probably because of that verse. But the English word originally was a general term for desire. The word "lust" translates the Greek word in Matthew 5:27-28. Coveting your neighbors wife may involve sexual desire. But it's unlikely that coveting a neighbors house or field is sexual in nature. But both are sin and are not moral. However in Christianity they are seperated. The definition of passon and lust is further categorized as an inappropriate desire that is inappropriately strong, therefore being morally "wrong". While passion for proper purposes is maintained as something God given an moral "right". A person can have wrong sinful lust in their heart that has crept in some how and not commit the sin of adultery. Just as a person can have good desires and things in their heart but never do those good and right things within their hearts. In the Lord if a person is not unrighteous because they have wrong sinful lusts in their hearts but they are unrighteous if they act on and do those wrong sinful desires in their heart. It is the same in the Lord if a person has godly desires that are right and noble in their hearts it doesn't make them righteous unless they act on and do those righteous things.

 

Can you find two scholars who support that theory? I say two because you can usually find someone to say anything but two people generally means there is something worth considering. In the passage Jesus makes it clear that it is looking at woman lustfully (with earnest desire) that is sinful. You are saying that is wrong. What in that passage says to you that looking lustfully (different to just looking and/or admiring) is not sinful like it says.

 

 

It was not a silly question on my part because I have not read any scripture that states that adultery is the "only" reason for divorce. That is why I ask for you to provide one. I have already addressed above in how I was using and meaning which I used the word only in my post and it was not in the way you took it to mean. I meant that the verse was not speaking concerning spiritual adultery but speaking about physical adultery to those who had came to him asking about it. Those who had came to Jesus on that day had come with the intent of their hearts to tempt Jesus in this matter. Jesus exposed the intent of their hearts that day and exposed what was in their hearts in his answer to them concerning what the law said. The verse was not addressing both physical and spiritual adultery within his answer.

 

Wrong I did not take "only" in the way you describe. However the passage is very clear Anyone who divorces his wife EXCEPT for adultery and remarries  commits adultery. It does not say except for adultery and possibly some reason I might get someone else to mention later on. The wording there makes it clear there is only one reason if you are arguing that it is clear. Now you are saying it really isn't that clear and there are other reasons. Well sorry you can't have it both ways. Either it is clear or it isn't.

 

 

No I was not agreeing with what you have said in regards to the translators concerning the lust in Matthew 5:28 and the lust Jesus had when he earnestly desired to eat the passover as being the same lust. I do not believe they are the same but very very different.

 

Did I ever say you agreed with me? No I did not. I said "Correct you have not read it because..." So I was agreeing you have not read it. I then went on to state why you had not read it. You seem to be struggling with comprehension. is there some reason for that such as english being your second language or something? Something I need to consider when phrasing my posts?

[another_poster]

 

To Another Poster.  I am not ignoring the Old Testament.  I said I am giving more weight to the New Testament.  There is a big difference.  When Jesus clarifies what "some uncleanness" means, I believe him.  I do find this funny, considering all the things people said about the Old Testament teachings on polygamy.  I used the law of Moses to defend the practice, and people claimed Jesus changed this.  It is funny how people conveniently hold to the Old Testament to defend divorce and re-marriage, but not to defend polygamy.  The fact of the matter is, Jesus told the disciples in private how God feels about divorce for any cause other than fornication. 

 

The Bible says she is to submit to her husband in everything.  Now, before going any further, 

So we come back to the view that Jesus obviously didn't know what he was talking about when he said there is only ONE reason for divorce as there are in fact two reasons.

 

You still have not acknowledged that the bible instructs the husband to submit also and why that does not apply

[Guest Butero]

I want to address two things to InChrist.  First of all, violating the marriage covenant is not grounds for divorce unless you violated it by committing adultery, so it is irrelevant what vows people took.  I have already addressed that repeatedly.  Your argument is that if you break the marriage vows, that is grounds for divorce, and the Bible never says that.  The Bible states that wives are to be ruled over by their husbands in Genesis, and they are told to submit to their own husbands in the same way as we are to submit to the Lord.  Is Jesus a benevolent dictator?  He is supreme in authority.  He tells us we are his friends if we do whatsoever he says.  And this example I am going to use for the second time is not only for you but for Another Poster.  He gave us an example of what submission to one another means, when he washed the disciples feet.  He simply meant he meets our needs.  If submit to one another meant that the husbands weren't above the wife in authority, it would mean Christ is not above us in authority, and he would have to submit equally to us.  We would submit to him, and he would submit to us.  The very idea is ludicrous.  The husband is referred to as Lord, as Christ is referred to as Lord over the church.  You call my holding to scripture egotistical and unbiblical?  What you are teaching is unbiblical.  I am one of a handful actually holding to scripture.  You are bringing a bunch of things outside the Bible into this to create an unbiblical doctrine.  Do you even know what unbiblical means???  You are going contrary to the Bible, while I am standing on what it says.  You are clearly the one promoting things that are against God's Word, and therefore unbiblical.  If I get time later, I will give you all the scriptures where it tells us wives are to obey, submit, and be ruled over by their husband, and we will see who is unbiblical while you try to find ways to make what it actually says appear to mean something else.  I am glad you were able to figure out what I was saying.  The husband is a benevolent dictator in the home, and it is completely Biblical. 

[Guest Butero]

Once again, I have to defend scripture from Another Poster.  Jesus gave two reasons for divorce.  How you might ask?  Because the entire Bible is inspired by God, which means Jesus is it's true author, even when another human vessel wrote down the words.  God knew what would become the canon, because he inspired the Bible, and because he is all knowing.  He intended that Paul would give us the teachings on abandonment, so in that way, it is the teachings of Christ. 

 

There is one thing I do have to consider here that hasn't been brought up.  Paul never actually states a man or woman that was abandoned can re-marry.  He only states they can accept that the unbeliever left, and they are not in bondage in such situations.  We are assuming that when he says they are not in bondage, that automatically means they can re-marry.  If you want to continue down this road, I have to consider that perhaps that is wrong.  Jesus does know what he is talking about, so if you can't see these two positions working together, perhaps abandonment doesn't clear the way for re-marriage?  That would completely throw a monkey wrench into everything you said, and it is more likely to be true than all the extra-Biblical arguments you and InChrist are bringing into this. 

[Guest Butero]

I feel sorry for all the people you are deceiving with your false doctrine, but that is another matter.  Breaking the marriage covenant is not given as grounds for divorce.  That is the problem with what you are teaching.  You are claiming that if the marriage covenant is broken in any way, that means there is grounds for divorce, and there is no scripture that says that.  I take the Bible as written, and you are adding to scripture to create an unbiblical doctrine.  You can't prove anything you said.  Yes, you can show a historic document showing what was expected in marriage, but you can't show that failing to live up to it is grounds for divorce and re-marriage, and you never will be able to show that because it is not true.