Allowing Divorce following marital unfaithfulness

[Guest Prakk]

Divorce is a punishment of a sinner. The sinner being the straying wife who errs in the area of adultery. It is considered by some to be a mercy since the alternative was stoning. The more merciful action of course would be forgiveness and continuing in marriage. This is not always possible since some wives stray and stay that way. God even depicts himself as divorcing his wives in Jeremiah 3.

Hugh McBryde

[Smalcald]

Wow, the complexities of modern living really do throw a curve into how scripture advises us about divorce. I think scripture is clear that divorce except for unfaithfulness of your spouse is sin, and that if you are the cheating spouse you are indeed continuing to sin if you remarry (where does that leave repentance?). But what does adultery encompass? I would argue that abuse and abandonment are part of adultery, and are justifiable for a person to leave the marriage and to remarry if they exist. If your spouse has left you or your spouse cheated on you, from a scriptural standpoint you can remarry.

But beyond that, on these second and third marriages and going back in time, etc, I don't think we really have a clue, beyond looking very honestly at our motives, you have to be a math major just to figure out all of the relationships anyway.

I think we should stand back a little and look at the source of the problem, not necessarily focusing only on the damage and aftershocks of divorce. Our churches should lead in promoting healthy marriage from the start. When couples are married in our Churches ensure that they understand that marraige is ordained by God to bond two people as one flesh, it is serious business and it is a spiritual affair, not just romantic. There are three people in each marraige, you promise God and you promise your spouse to be faithfull. Pre-marital counseling does work, not living together prior to marriage increases the chances of NOT getting divorced, waiting beyond the age of 19 increases greatly the chances of not getting divorced, waiting to become sexually active increases the chances of NOT getting divorced. We know a bunch of things about increasing the odds, and I think Churches can help in doing this. Most Christians want to get married in a Church, requiring congregational membership of both parties and pre-marital counseling would be a good first step. I mean it is just crazy that evangelical Christians have such high divorce rates, where is the fruit, we obviously need some help in this area.

Our failure on this issue makes it very hard for us to have anything to say to the outside world about sexual and relational morality in other areas of modern life, including all of the issues surrounding gays.

[Fisher of Men]

FoC writes:

What about commands for a woman not to have sex with an animal?

Are those ok now since they werent repeated?

The list of sins listed in Gal. that will put someone in hell is accompanied with the phrase, "and such like things".

Christians supposedly having the Holy Ghost shouldn't need someone telling them what "such like things" mean.

Also "uncleanness" would provide a category for beastiality. It should also be recognised as something "else not according to sound doctrine" as stated by Paul.

So it's not true that beastiality is not repeated as a prohibited act under the NT

We are not under the OT in Christ except where the 2 covenants share the same moral requirements. Or put more correctly, the 2 covenants share some things in common thought they are distinct and separate covenants.

By the NT, divorce is immoral as it disrespects the basis of marriage in the first couple wherein divorce was impossible.

Divorce is still impossible seeing that the lawful couple are one body; one person. Like with Adam and Eve, only death can render the couple as no longer one flesh.

Moses's allowance for divorce was only for the hardness of hearts. It never was truth.

John 1:17

Those going to Deut. 24 etc to try to justify divorce for ANY reason are simply showing their bondage to the OT law in that particular doctrinal area where Christ has brought a change.

The NT changes a lot of things.

Some things are stricter now under the NT. Some OT things have been relaxed or abolished.

Divorce is one of those abolished things as it contradicts the pattern after which marriage was fashioned in Adam and Eve.

Mark 10:2-12 happens to be the complete truth as written. Interpreting Matt. 5:32; 19:9 to mean divorce is allowed for adultery is a direct contradiction of the plain wording of Mark 10 and Luke 16:18.

The divorce for fornication as exemplified by what Joseph was about to do with Mary (premarital divorce for fornication, not adultery) does NOT contradict the straightforward apparent wording of Mark and Luke.

Hence also, "what God has joined together let not man put asunder" is also allowed to mean exactly that.

Something that the divorce for adultery position must also contradict.

[Fisher of Men]

Jesus plainly was conceived before Mary was married to Joseph. Read Matt. 1.

No, Jesus was not born an illegitimate child becauae Joseph "took" Mary, meaning they began to live together as husband and wife some months before Jesus was born. During their espoused state, they were given the titles of husband and wife but did not live together. Their culture used the words husband and wife the way we would today use the phrases husband-to-be and wife-to-be. So the definitions of husband and wife possessed duality. There existed the premarital wife and the married wife.

So when the angel said to Joseph "fear not to take Mary thy wife", He did not say fear not to take Mary to be thy wife. "Mary thy wife" was the possessive form the same as if I said to you, don't forget to take your wife to the restaurant.

Mary was regarded as his "wife" in their form of engagement. So there existed such a thing as a "virgin wife". This is proven to be the case in their culture as far back as Deut. 22 where we again see a wife who is a virgin by way of being betrothed.

The translators of the filthy NIV had not the revelation of the duality of the definitions as existed not only in the Jewish but also in the Greek cultures. Even in parts of Africa today among the indigenous tribes, labola (dowry) would be paid and the woman would thereafter possess the title of the man's wife even before the final ceremony after which she would then begin to live with her husband.

So the exception clause pertains to any culture where the man could terminate the status of the woman being his wife PRIOR to the time when she became his wife (after our definition meaning the woman is living with her husband).

After they are husband and wife meaning living together, no longer in engagement, there is no way out as there was no way out for Adam and Eve.

It was impossible for Adam to say Eve was not one flesh with him. That reality could not be altered no matter what she could do except die.

And even though Jesus established marriages as unbreakable as Adam and Eve's marriage, those determined to remain under the Law will find ways to circumvent the reality that the lawful husband and wife today possess that identical status as revealed by Jesus and reiterated by Paul in Eph. 5.

No man is justified by the law, yet modern Christianity denies that reality and justifies divorce and remarriage as allowed by Moses which Jesus plainly said was not so from the beginning.

Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

The law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Ignoring the reality of the duality of definitions of "husband" and "wife" and "put away" blinds the ignorer from how a man can be allowed to "divorce" yet at the same time be prohibited to divorce. Divorcing the wife BEFORE marriage was allowable. Divorcing the wife AFTER marriage is NOT allowable as it contradicts "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder".

The anger and disdain shown to me for defending this truth is similar to what John the Baptist faced with Herodious.

I can say Mark 10:2-12 means exactly what the plain wording appears to be plainly saying as it applies to divorcing the lawfully married wife. The divorce for adultery (prisoners to the law) cannot accept the plain truth as worded there. They must also warn others from being deceived by accepting those plain words in childlike trusting faith.

Whoever marries the divorced wife commits adultery because whoever marries her is having sex with another man's wife. The divorce does not dissolve the first lawful marriage. Only death makes the couple no longer one flesh. Just like Adam and Eve.

The man who divorces his wife will also be judged and bear responsibility for his wife's adultery by remarriage because by divorcing his wife he is causing her to commit adultery whether it be by remarriage or otherwise.

Please, stop saying you believe Jesus' words on divorce and remarriage while you endorse divorce and remarriage. Rather, say you choose to hold to what Moses allowed under the OT law. That would be more honest as the divorce for adultery position must denounce the plain wording in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18

The reasoning used from what was omitted in the separate accounts of his resurection etc. are not applicable to the plainly spelled out doctrine of divorce and remarriage. We can piece that together concerning the resurrection. There is no contradiction.

Allowing divorce, as do the proponents divorce for adultery, are in direct contradiction of the phrase, "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

My understanding of the exception clause fully supports that phrase.

The woman put away for fornication and the woman divorced in Matt. 5:32 are two separate situations. Thats why the one is NOT being caused to commit adultery while the other DOES commit adultery by marrying another.

The putting away for fornication is the premarital divorce, they have not been joined together by God through his institution of marriage.

The woman with whom whoever marries her commits adultery had been joined together in marriage.

That's the way words work.

[Smalcald]

I usually lump fornication and adultery together as part of sexual sin. But I don't have any problem with the definition of fornication above, in fact it makes more sense. Then we have one general definition for sexual sin. Having sex when we are not married to the person we are having sex with, which is the whole point anyway of Christian teaching on sexual morality.

[Smalcald]

It is fascinating.

You should do a study on the translated words, which surround sexual teachings in general. There is quite a bit of confusion from what I have seen, we have words used such as "effeminate" or "homosexual offender",