Disturbed about Matthew 5:32

[DWH2003]

So much has been said in this thread... I am concerned this lady will be confused on a variety of issues...

 

(1) Can we understand the Bible? Understand it correctly? As God intended?

Paul explains the purpose of his apostleship:

Ephesian 3:3 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles,— 2 if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; 3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, 4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; 

We can read what is revealed by God to the apostles, like Paul, and understand the same thing Paul understood.

 

(2) Is forgiveness possible? Does this mean we can continue in sin?

Forgiveness is possible, because God made it possible by sending Jesus to die for us (John 3:16).  The Bible is clear, God is willing to forgive us of murder, adultery, lying, theft... and all of our sins!  No one in all the posts above that I have read has said forgiveness is impossible.  Though some have used forgiveness to mean people can continue to sin against God... which is a problem.

Does forgiveness give us an excuse to continue in sin because grace will cover sin?  Paul, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, answered this:

Romans 6:6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? 3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

Forgiveness was never intended by God as a justification for ongoing / continuing sin.  "God forbid" is a clear negative statement.  God's grace does not give permission to persist in sin.  God's grace is to get us OUT of sin.  If you believe differently or argue differently, please stop and think about what you are promoting. It is very serious. Eternally serious.

 

(3)  Is it WRONG to obey God? Is it "legalism" and "Pharisaical"?

Hear the words of Jesus,

Matt. 7:24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock: 25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon the rock. 26 And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: 27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof.  28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: 29 for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

If obedience is wrong and Pharisaical, then Jesus was wrong and a Pharisee, for Jesus said people need to actually do what He says!

The definition of sin is disobeying God, missing the mark, lawlessness (1 John 3:4)! So, if someone encourages people to not obey God... they are encouraging sin! The opposite of what Jesus taught!

People use the term "pharisee" and "legalism" incorrectly.  Pharisees were never condemned for obeying God... they were condemned for not keeping God's word (Matt. 23:2-3).  They were condemned for pretending to serve God while actually following their own, invented loop-hole doctrines (Mark 7:6-8). So why do people use the term "Pharisee" to condemn those who promote actually following God?! 

"Spirit" vs "letter" of the law.  This is never used in the Bible to justify disobedience to God.  Never.  It is used as a contrast between two systems of law:  the Old Law written with letters on tables of stone & the New Law revealed by the Spirit and written on hearts (by faith).  In every passage this contrast is made, the charge is that people did not keep the letter as they should have.  Hence the need of a New Law which allows for pardon (but that also does not excuse ongoing sin).  Romans 2, Romans 7, 2 Cor. 3.  Read them and see. Using "Spirit" vs "Letter" to create a loophole and allow disobedience is not speaking as God speaks.

 

(4)  The text on marriage, divorce & remarriage...

 Matthew 5:31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

THE RULE: Everyone who divorces commits sin.  Everyone.  Jesus spoke to Jews, yes, but He was preaching the gospel (Luke 16:16) which applies to everyone (Mt. 24:14).  Jesus contrasted what Moses said to them with "but I say unto you".  Jesus' rule here is different from & stricter than what Moses allowed in Deuteronomy 24.

THE EXCEPTION: "Saving for the cause of fornication" means putting away your spouse because they cheated on you sexually is the one allowance God grants for divorce.  It is the one, stated exception to the rule of no divorce. 

Some would like to make the rule Jesus expressed meaningless.  They approach this, sadly, like the Pharisees looking for loop holes & ways to justify ongoing sin, rather than forsaking sin (Luke 16:15).

CAUSE:  Cause cannot occur after the divorce and still be considered the "cause".  Thus, if a divorce takes place with no fornication involved, then God says neither can marry another in Matthew 5:32a & b.  Is this strict?  Yes.  Does that mean God didn't say it or didn't mean it? Or that God will just smile and pat us on the head if we ignore it?  Jesus spoke of the broad easy way which leads to destruction vs the difficult and narrow way which leads to life (Matt. 7:13-14).  It is your individual choice whether to actually believe Jesus or not believe Him...

God did not say that following Christ would be easy & pleasing to our personal desires. Instead of working so hard to justify sin, we should humble our hearts, actually believe Jesus and let Him do the justifying!

 

Summary:

We can understand God's word as He intended us to.

Forgiveness is possible.  But forgiveness / grace is not permission to create loop holes or make excuses to continue in sin.

 

Believe Jesus (Matt 5:32).

Believe Jesus (Mark 16:16).

Believe Jesus (Matt. 7:24-29).

Edited August 9, 2018 by DWH2003

[GandalfTheWise]

4 hours ago, DWH2003 said:

"Spirit" vs "letter" of the law.  This is never used in the Bible to justify disobedience to God.  Never.  It is used as a contrast between two systems of law:  the Old Law written with letters on tables of stone & the New Law revealed by the Spirit and written on hearts (by faith).  In every passage this contrast is made, the charge is that people did not keep the letter as they should have.  Hence the need of a New Law which allows for pardon (but that also does not excuse ongoing sin).  Romans 2, Romans 7, 2 Cor. 3.  Read them and see. Using "Spirit" vs "Letter" to create a loophole and allow disobedience is not speaking as God speaks.

I disagree with this paragraph as written.  It completely ignores and to some extent misrepresents the core of Christianity.  As Christians, we are new creations that are being transformed into a people that by nature bear spiritual fruit and live a righteous life because it becomes what we naturally do because of the new nature we have.   To portray Christianity as us trying as hard as possible to change ourselves and follow God's rules as best as possible ignores the whole idea that as Christians our new nature flows from abiding in Christ.   It is not the issue that we try hard not to sin and Christ's atonement covers us when we aren't successful, but rather than Christ's atoning work includes both our forgiveness as well as an ongoing spiritual transformation into a new creation for whom sin is not a part.  God doesn't just forgive us and then leave us on our own to try to be good.  He both forgives us and changes us into a new creation that naturally does what He intends.   Many Christians think that being a Christian is mainly about having forgiveness for sins and that it's up to us to then try as hard as possible not to sin.  The reality is that it is not possible for us in our own strength to do this to any great extent and we will inevitably fail when we try to do this.  It is the new creation and spiritual transformation that God is bringing about in us that causes us to change and sin less over time.

As a more practical example, consider the fruit of the Spirit in Gal 5:22-23 and look at patience (or long-suffering or forbearance in various versions).  There are two distinct ways Christians approach this.  One is the legalistic rule method whereby patience is considered something we must work toward and achieve as evidenced by how we behave in trying situations.   The second is that patience is something that naturally emerges inside of us over time as we grow spiritually grow and abide in  Christ.

In the rules based outlook, things frequently become defined on the basis of obedience or disobedience.  It's basically a sin each time we fail to be patient in a particular circumstance and become angry or strife driven (which without much a stretch is a work of the flesh).   In this approach, it is up to us to avoid problems as much as possible.  In this approach, we might be well advised to take an anger management class to learn techniques to increase our patience.  In this approach, the focus is on achieving the correct actions by any means possible.  In this outlook, decreases in sin are mostly due to us trying hard enough to avoid doing it.  In this outlook, spiritual growth is assumed to be a result of working hard to be obedient and not to sin.

In the spiritual transformation outlook, it's up to us to consistently walk with God and grow spiritually.  As we grow spiritually over time, fruit (such as patience) will naturally emerge more and more in our lives.  We'll simply find ourselves being angry and full of strife less and less often and being truly patient inside more and more.  We won't have learned how to successfully count to 10 when angry, but we will simple be angry less often.   In this approach, our focus is on what God's priority is for us at a given time to grow more spiritually.  In this outlook, sin decreases in our lives because we are being transformed and simply don't do those things as much or anymore.  Rather than being focused on figuring out what actions are or are not permissible, this outlook focuses on what things are spiritually healthy or unhealthy and causes us to grow.

When it comes to giving advice to Christians about things, these two outlooks often end up in extreme conflict.  The "do it in your own strength" party counsels to determine the rules and then rigidly follow them to the best of our ability with no excuses allowed.  The "grow spiritually" part counsels to do what will produce the most healthy spiritual growth in a particular person in a particular circumstance.

In a rules based outlook, the focus on sin is avoiding breaking rules.  In a spiritual transformation outlook, the focus on sin is about being changed so that sin is a smaller and smaller part of what drives us to do things.   A rules-based approach to marriage defines divorce in a technical sense and primarily concerns itself with a checklist of if certain actions are technically met.   A spiritual transformation approach to marriage sees it in its entirety as a spiritually thriving and healthy union that brings glory to God and that causes each partner to be stronger together than alone.  In this outlook, divorce is a symptom of a much greater failure (and much worse thing) of a spiritually decaying relationship that fell short of everything God intended for it step by ugly step over time.   For people with this view, the most important thing is not the final formal dissolution of a marriage but rather the entire ugly unhealthy process that lead to the dissolution.

[DWH2003]

  22 hours ago, DWH2003 said:

"Spirit" vs "letter" of the law.  This is never used in the Bible to justify disobedience to God.  Never.  It is used as a contrast between two systems of law:  the Old Law written with letters on tables of stone & the New Law revealed by the Spirit and written on hearts (by faith).  In every passage this contrast is made, the charge is that people did not keep the letter as they should have.  Hence the need of a New Law which allows for pardon (but that also does not excuse ongoing sin).  Romans 2, Romans 7, 2 Cor. 3.  Read them and see. Using "Spirit" vs "Letter" to create a loophole and allow disobedience is not speaking as God speaks.

@GandalfTheWise

Hello! I hope you are having a pleasant day.

 

You quoted a paragraph by me on "spirit" vs "letter" indicating disagreement.  I asserted the following points:

(a)  It is used to contrast two systems of law - Old vs New Law.

(b) This contrast is never used the the Bible as justification for disobedience.

(c) I also affirm that the New Law provides pardon, while not excusing ongoing sin (ex. Romans 6).

If you disagree with any of these points, please show me in the text of scripture what would deny what I affirm.  A & B are found in Romans 2, Romans 7 and 2 Corinthians 3.   As for C, please show me in the Bible where ongoing sin is allowed. I can show where God forbids the ongoing practice of sin & identifies one who practices sin as of the devil & refusing God's grace... but have yet to find any indication that God tolerates or approves of ongoing sin.

---

You wrote: "I disagree with this paragraph as written.  It completely ignores and to some extent misrepresents the core of Christianity.  ...God doesn't just forgive us and then leave us on our own to try to be good.  He both forgives us and changes us into a new creation that naturally does what He intends."

I never said God leaves us alone. You have inserted something into my views that is not there.

I agree that He changes us. The question is, "How does He change us?"  Miraculously / by force? Or... by using our willingness & free will?  Does God make us automatons, programmed to move without any heart of our own? Is He dragging us to Heaven against our will or without own own ability to love / reject God?  God says, "he that will, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22:17).  God said this is how He does it.  He involves our choice & effort.

---

You added, "Many Christians think that being a Christian is mainly about having forgiveness for sins and that it's up to us to then try as hard as possible not to sin.  The reality is that it is not possible for us in our own strength to do this to any great extent and we will inevitably fail when we try to do this."

I never said that salvation is "in our own strength" or "alone" without God.  Are you under the impression that when Jesus died for sin and the Spirit revealed what we should do to receive this fantastic mercy - that if we actually do what God says, then we are accomplishing salvation "in our own strength" or "alone" without God?  I did not forgive my own sins. I did not create the New Testament, which is sanctified by the blood of Christ (Luke 22:20).  I walk by faith in Him, not by faith in myself...

---

You add:  "As a more practical example, consider the fruit of the Spirit in Gal 5:22-23 and look at patience (or long-suffering or forbearance in various versions).  There are two distinct ways Christians approach this.  One is the legalistic rule method whereby patience is considered something we must work toward and achieve as evidenced by how we behave in trying situations.   The second is that patience is something that naturally emerges inside of us over time as we grow spiritually grow and abide in  Christ."

 

So, you believe that obeying God's word is... legalism?  Obeying what God says to do is... a bad thing?  Perhaps you should reconsider your concept of Christianity?  Is Christianity designed to encourage disobedience (promote sin) against God?  

Jesus said, "Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:" (Matt. 7:24-29).  Was Jesus wrong?  Or is actually doing what Jesus said the right thing?

---

You add, "In the rules based outlook, things frequently become defined on the basis of obedience or disobedience.  ...In this outlook, spiritual growth is assumed to be a result of working hard to be obedient and not to sin."

Jesus defines things on the basis of obedience vs disobedience...

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

"Iniquity" is literally defined as lawlessness, disobedience to laws or rules.  So, according to Jesus, obeying is good, and disobeying is bad.  Jesus spoke in terms of laws & rules.  Yet you indicate that a "rules based outlook" is... wrong?

Who made the rule that a rules based outlook is wrong?  I know it wasn't Jesus...

---

You continue:  "In the spiritual transformation outlook, it's up to us to consistently walk with God and grow spiritually."

 

Please think about what you said here.  You speak against a rules based outlook, yet now affirm "it's up to us to consistently walk with God".  How exactly do we walk consistently with God without rules from God?  How can we grow spiritually without following what God defines (rules!) as spiritual growth?

And again, who made the rule that spiritual transformation is what you say it is?  I know it wasn't Jesus...

---

You continue:  "As we grow spiritually over time, fruit (such as patience) will naturally emerge more and more in our lives.  We'll simply find ourselves being angry and full of strife less and less often..."

 

Right after saying "it's up to us to consistently walk with God" you now seem to suggest that it happens automatically.  Which is it?  Is it up to us or not?  To be consistent, you will have to deny "it's up to us to consistently walk with God" as "legalism" or else accept that God's offer of salvation actually requires a response from us.

---

You add, "In a rules based outlook, the focus on sin is avoiding breaking rules.  In a spiritual transformation outlook, the focus on sin is about being changed so that sin is a smaller and smaller part of what drives us to do things."

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life eternal; the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.l of God.

 

Jesus said those who reject his sayings... reject Him.  His words, rules, teachings... cannot be separated from Him.

Jesus said those who reject His word will be judged by His word in the last day.  This doesn't sound like a good way to face Him in Judgment, does it?

Why was Jesus promoting what you say is the wrong approach?

---

You add, "A rules-based approach to marriage defines divorce in a technical sense and primarily concerns itself with a checklist of if certain actions are technically met."

So, you are saying we should not do what Jesus says in Matt. 5:32?  That His rules do not matter? 

Matthew 5:32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Are you saying that a person can put away their spouse, for any reason, and marry another and be fine with Jesus?

Are you saying that one who is put away can remarry and be fine with Jesus?

When your points are followed to their conclusion, you are making void what Jesus said!  Is this really where you want to stand? Against the King's word?  God forbid that I ever go contrary to my King!  Even though the rule of my King is at times hard for me to bring myself into submission to (I depend on His grace for sure), the fault is not with Him but with me!  With us as weak & foolish!  Neighbor, by passing His rules is not the solution to our problems, it is the cause of our problems!  Bypassing His rules is disobedience, is lawlessness, is sin.  Please think carefully about what you are encouraging...

---

You add, "A spiritual transformation approach to marriage sees it in its entirety as a spiritually thriving and healthy union that brings glory to God and that causes each partner to be stronger together than alone.  In this outlook, divorce is a symptom of a much greater failure (and much worse thing) of a spiritually decaying relationship that fell short of everything God intended for it step by ugly step over time.   For people with this view, the most important thing is not the final formal dissolution of a marriage but rather the entire ugly unhealthy process that lead to the dissolution."

 

So, instead of paying attention to what Jesus actually said... you suggest we should see it "in its entirety" by not looking at the details or rules Jesus gave?  How does ignoring Jesus bring glory to God?

 

-To Him be all glory and praise.

Edited August 10, 2018 by DWH2003

[GandalfTheWise]

@DWH2003   I decided not to quote your post in the interest of space and to address my main point which you correctly point out I did not make very clear.  I do appreciate the time you took to clearly point this out in a graceful manner.  This is helpful for me to hone what I'm trying to say.

As an FYI, I've been a serious Christian for over 40 years.  Much of what I now understand about Christianity has come from observing many Christians over decades and just simply watching what has born what type of fruit in people's lives over the course of their lives.  I've seen many changes in many people over the years and heard countless testimonies about many things and seen many things in my own life. 

I've observed that positive growth in Christians and a movement away from sin seems to occur from a combination of things, some under our control and some which God had to deal with in His power.  

1. There are some things that are trivially under our control and volition that we simply decide to do that help us grow spiritually.  We can decide to read our bible and pray instead of watching the morning news.   We can choose to attend church instead of golfing. For these things, it's simply a matter of choosing to do them.  My observation is that often God seems to prioritize certain of these things and bring them to our attention as which are most important to deal with at a particular time.

2. There are things that are a matter of general growth and maturity.  As we spend time with God (via prayer, bible reading, meditation, being with other Christians, etc.), there is a spiritual transformation and change that just simply seems to occur over time.  I would relate this to the fruit of the Spirit.  It is something that grows because we are abiding in Christ.  My observation is that this fruit seems to grow faster in some people than others.  From what I've seen, it seems to be the people who spend the most time in *quality* spiritual disciplines deep in their heart grow the most.  This is where I see the biggest divergence between what I was calling a rules-based outlook and a spiritual-transformation outlook.  It is the difference between putting our focus primarily on *what* God wants us to do versus putting our focus on *who* God wants us to become.   It's been my observation as a general trend that serious Christians who have their focus more on *what* God wants them or others to do simply do not seem to achieve the level of spiritual growth of those who have their focus more on *who* God intends for them to be.  Those who focus on the *what* (what's my call, what does God want me to do in a particular situation, what should I be doing to serve God, or basically what are my obligations and responsibilities as a Christian) just seem to get sidetracked into worrying more about what is happening around them than inside of them.  Those who focus on the *who* seem to be more introspective and develop a deeper spirituality over the years because they are less distracted by what is happening around them.  Their bible study, prayer, meditation, etc. seems to get more focused on inner change than outward action which in the long run lead to more spiritual growth.   I spent about the first 3 decades of my Christian walk focused on the whats.  God took me away from all of that for a few years and put my focus on who He wanted me to be.  It was like being a Christian was totally different.  Much of the weight and burden I'd been unwittingly carrying for years was gone and I felt much freer and lighter spiritually.  In addition, I found that my efforts at ministry became easier and more effective.  It was like ministry became a natural outflow from who God made me to be that was easy rather than labor that depended mostly on how diligent, faithful, and prayerful I was.  I also started to notice that many Christian had been talking about this for ages, but I hadn't noticed it.   I still haven't figured out a clear way to put this into words except that it is the difference between *doing* and *being*.

3. There are besetting sins and behaviors that we cannot seem to shake on our own.   I used to blame this type of stuff on lack of repentance, lack of self-control, and point the finger at the person who I thought was unwilling to change.  I now see it as symptoms of something that God needs to heal.  There are spiritual and emotional injuries in our lives that need healing.  Often addictions, compulsive behaviors, and other things that seem to be out of our control are due to things that need God's healing in our lives.  Severe spiritual or emotional trauma (and worse chronic trauma as a child) often leave us crippled in ways that simply prevents us from leaping and dancing spiritually as God intends.  It often requires a special work of God's healing and intervention to deal with these things.  Sometimes this might be over time meeting with a counselor or just a special time of prayer where God heals someone.  I've heard a variety of testimonies where some type of spiritual or emotional healing had the unexpected result that addictions or compulsive behaviors just disappeared.

With regard to Jesus' commands.  I treat them quite seriously, but even more seriously I want to understand what He was teaching as God's ideal and if indeed everything He said (usually to Jews who were under the Law of Moses) is directly and exactly applicable to Christians today.  For me, it is not a question of picking and choosing what is convenient, but rather understanding what the ideal and principle is so as to be able to give faithful and healthy spiritual counsel that will help people grow rather than being a lawyer who ties huge burdens on people.

If a man addicted to porn came onto this site and asked, "I'm addicted to porn.  In Matt 5:29 (And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.), Jesus says I'd  be better off blinding myself than continuing in sin and risking going to hell.  and in Mark 9:47 Jesus says the same thing.  I don't know what to do.  I'm too scared to blind myself but I don't want to go to hell.  Besides, if I blind myself, then I'll stop seeing porn and stop sinning.  Isn't that a good thing?  I don't know what to do."     I'm confident that several Christians would immediately hop on and tell him NOT to do it.  They'd then go on to explain why this wasn't a direct command and that he shouldn't consider doing it.  A few might comment that it was the Holy Spirit working in him to prevent him from doing it.   The question this raises for me is *why* all of us are so certain that Jesus' words here are not a command (even though they are phrased that way).  If pushed,  we'll ultimately invoke the excuse that it violates our common sense that He couldn't possibly have meant that.  So we look carefully at those words and ask what truth was that He was teaching to His listeners because there's no way He could have possibly meant it literally.

I used to take Jesus' command about divorce literally.  I then ran into a situation with some Christian friends that forced me to seriously consider if there wasn't a deeper principle involved rather than a literal command.  I'll call them Bob and Betty.  When Betty was in HS, she had a boyfriend (calling him Jim) and became pregnant.  Some advised her to get an abortion and not rush into marriage.  She wouldn't consider that and with no way to support herself (and I had the impression of being disowned by the family but I'm not sure), saw marriage as the only option.  She and Jim married and divorced about a year later and they literally never spoke or saw each other again.  He wanted nothing to do with custody or a kid and last she heard he had left the state.   Some years later, she met Bob (no prior marriage), they married and Bob adopted her son.  As I recall about 3 or 4 years into their marriage (and I think a couple more kids at that point), they both became Christians.  When I met them, they'd been Christians for about 10 years and had 4 kids.  I would never have know anything about her past except that she had considered pursuing ministry credentials.  Our denomination did not allow ministers (or their wives) to have been divorced.  She was told it would be okay if she could find Jim and get him to sign an annulment.  She was utterly shocked by this (and I was too when she was asking my views on it).  It was like why should two signatures on a piece of paper have any relevance decades laters.

In the process of thinking about this, I was lead to a few disturbing conclusions.  My literal interpretation was forcing me to think Bob and Betty were active adulterers and that in theory, God would want them to immediately separate to stop sinning.  Thus,  most of their kids who had only known them as solid Christian parents in a solid Christian family would need to experience a separation.   In addition, my literal interpretation was forcing me to the point where had Betty had an abortion and not felt the need to marry Jim, she wouldn't be in that situation and Bob and Betty's marriage would have God's blessing.  Thinking of her son (whom I knew) and realizing that I had painted myself into a corner that if he had been aborted and she hadn't married Jim,  Bob and Betty wouldn't be sinning but because she had the courage to have him (and Bob to adopt a son that wasn't his) they were active adulterers.

As I read Matt 5:32 carefully, I realized that there was no way out for Bob and Betty to not be sinning.  Then I started reading all the context and started asking myself, why is 5:29 obviously not a command (but a principle of some type) and 5:32 obviously a command?    I was honest with myself and realized I rejected 5:29 as a literal command primarily because my common sense said it was too extreme and couldn't possibly be a command so it forced me to look for a deeper principle.  I then started wondering if my thinking about breaking up a Christian family and telling the kids that their parents had to separate because it was God's will would fit the same category.  Hey kids, it's God will for your parents to separate because she didn't abort your older brother when she had the chance but made a harder life choice to keep him.   I decided that was starting to become extreme enough to consider the possibility I should treat 5:32 similarly to 5:29 and look for a principle.  I'll not repeat it here (my first post on about the 2nd or so page of this thread covers it) what I consider to be the principle and ideal of marriage Jesus was teaching (throughout other passages as well).

The bottom line for me is that it is not about choosing to ignore some of Jesus' words, but rather to study diligently and consider carefully  to make sure I'm not missing something important.  I see incorrectly dismissing something literal as being equally bad as taking something literal that shouldn't be.  I try to as systematically and honestly as possible to understand why I am choosing what I am with scripture with regard to literal or principles as being the primary intended meaning. 

[JohnKing67]

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding from the Bible is that you could divorce and remarry but only under two conditions.   One is if your ex-spouse was unfaithful and commited adultery but you stayed faithful. The other is if your spouse dies and you become a widow.

[Blood Bought 1953]

 

My late Aunt was divorced seven times.She was a Christian.She paid the price here on Earth .Some Of her ex husbands were quite wealthy.....she died alone and broke......she also died forgiven and saved......because of her faith in Jesus.....just like the rest of us

[DWH2003]

@JohnKing67  God only gives one exception to the rule of no divorce - thus a divorce *because* your mate fornicated / cheated on you is allowed (Matt. 5:32; 19:1-9).  The innocent one who put away the guilty is, in this case, allowed to remarry.

Death is not a cause of divorce.  It is the natural end of marriage. (Romans 7:1ff).

 

@GandalfTheWise

I very much appreciate the courtesy found in this forum.  It is challenging to discuss differences today without people becoming hostile, especially when such difference affect our relationship with God.  It is refreshing to be able to test one another's views without animus.  (Prov. 27:17)

---

You expressed much about your experiences.  While I certainly do not want to diminish experience, I think we can agree that our experience is not the standard by which to judge right and wrong.  Only revealed truth can be the standard (John 12:48).

You write:  "With regard to Jesus' commands.  I treat them quite seriously, but even more seriously I want to understand what He was teaching as God's ideal and if indeed everything He said (usually to Jews who were under the Law of Moses) is directly and exactly applicable to Christians today.  For me, it is not a question of picking and choosing what is convenient, but rather understanding what the ideal and principle is so as to be able to give faithful and healthy spiritual counsel that will help people grow rather than being a lawyer who ties huge burdens on people."

Respectfully, I find that you have done the same thing as before.  You express regard for commands... yet in the end play down and diminish following commands as legalism ("being a lawyer").  This approach colors everything you express, resulting in encouraging the setting aside of Jesus' word.  Please point me to the passage where Jesus ever condemned or played down obedience to God's word.  I can point to many passages where Jesus taught the need to actually follow Him.

---

You referenced Matt 5:29 in dealing with porn.  While I agree that the interpretation of this as a literal command is a misunderstanding, I would differ on why.  What is common sense?  Traditional wisdom, personal experience, a gut feeling?  Are any of these the standard for interpreting the Bible?  No.  So, what helps us to see whether this statement by Jesus is to be literally applied or not?

God says there is a pattern to the sound words which are in Christ Jesus, in faith and love (2 Tim. 1:13).  Not only a pattern, but one that we are to hold to.  All literature & speech have patterns.  With any communication, for example, we are to take it literally, as written/stated, unless context demands otherwise.  So, did Jesus literally promoted self-mutilation?  If so, then why did He also instruct (via the Spirit) that we are not to harm / abuse the body (1 Cor. 6:13, 19-20)?   Did Jesus contradict Himself?  Certainly not.  Letting the Bible interpret the Bible, shows that this cannot be promoting literal self-mutilation.

Jesus frequently used figures of speech.  He called Herod a fox, for example (Luke 13:32).  Herod was not literally a fox. And, do we believe that Jesus was promoting cannibalism in John 6:51-59?  If He was not promoting literal cannibalism, why did Jesus press His point in such an offensive figure?  The people Jesus spoke to in this way were having a very hard time seeing past their own desires.  They followed Him for physical food (John 6:26-29).  Having seen the miracles Jesus did, they thought only of their belly, not God's purpose in sending a Savior.  These are the same people who just before sought to come and (by force!) make Jesus their earthly deliverer from Rome (John 6:15).  They focused on their desires, not God's purpose.

Jesus spoke in this way to wake them up.  To force them to confront the absurdity of their self centered thinking & sinful lives.  Sadly, we also learn from this that some people refuse to wake up:  "Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (John 6:66)

Matt. 5:29 cannot be understood as a literal instruction to intentionally do oneself bodily harm, because that would violate other principles of God (be a sin).  What then could possibly be the meaning of Matt. 5:29?  To convey how serious sin (lawlessness) is.  This passage is telling us that we do not want to continue living selfishly & disobeying God because we will end up in a place of eternal punishment.  The horrific & repulsive idea of plucking out our own eye... pales in comparison to our choosing the path to eternal punishment.  This passage, in fact, teaches the need to actually walk by faith - not bypass what God says.

---

You wrote:  "I used to take Jesus' command about divorce literally.  I then ran into a situation..."

Respectfully, what in the Bible requires a non-literal interpretation of Matt. 5:32?  Situational adjustments to morals originates with man.

---

You continue:  "...When Betty was in HS..."

Just based on what you describe:  Nothing stated indicates fornication being the cause of her leaving her husband.  Thus, divorce without Biblical cause is a violation of Matt. 5:32.  Also, when she remarried after this, Jesus says this is adultery (again Matt. 5:32). 

From what you describe, understanding the passage wasn't hard, until... you emotionally sympathized with someone whose sinful choices had consequences.  Sympathy with hardship is one thing.  But sympathy should not lead us to change what Jesus said.  This is not the solution.  Jesus taught that following Him would be hard.  Luke 14:27 "Whosoever doth not bear his own cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

Are you saying that we can reject bearing our own cross and still be a disciple of Jesus?  That we do not have to deny ourselves, and we can still follow Him?

---

You write:  "In the process of thinking about this, I was lead to a few disturbing conclusions.  My literal interpretation was forcing me to think Bob and Betty were active adulterers and that in theory, God would want them to immediately separate to stop sinning.  Thus,  most of their kids who had only known them as solid Christian parents in a solid Christian family would need to experience a separation."

Would God ever break up a family?  Ezra 10:44.  Israelites had violated God's OT law by leaving their original wives and marry others, and even had children by those wives.  God required them to separate.  Why?  Malachi 2:11-16 explains that God hates divorce (v. 16).  Yet, you encouraged someone to stay in the very situation that God says He hates - divorced and married to another contrary to God's NT law (Matt. 5:32)?

Malachi also adds in v. 17, " Ye have wearied Jehovah with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? In that ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of Jehovah, and he delighteth in them; or where is the God of justice?"

Not only had they divorced and remarried contrary to God's will, but they also called this "good" and said God delights in them.  But God had not changed His mind... despite human claims to the contrary.  Think about. Contradicting God is not a good place to be.

---

You add:  "In addition, my literal interpretation was forcing me to the point where had Betty had an abortion and not felt the need to marry Jim, she wouldn't be in that situation and Bob and Betty's marriage would have God's blessing."

This is another indication of incorrect reasoning.  Instead of reasoning from God's word, you are reasoning from the consequences.  But let me ask, what consequences to sin are ever pleasant?  If you start there... then what word from God will we not want to alter?

Why not rather blame the sinner (as God does) instead of God or His word?  After all, we have to admit our sin before we can see our need to a Savior... not deny it and accommodate it.  If she hadn't committed fornication... she would not have become pregnant out of wedlock.  If she had faced the consequences of her choices even then (raised the child herself or put it up for adoption) instead of marrying a man who lacked principles... she would not have faced the issue of divorce a mere year later. It is certainly not God's fault (or His word). God didn't force her to act this way. She made her own choices.  But like Cain, it is easy for us to cry afterwards about how unfair the results of our sins are.  Besides, is abortion (baby murder) even an option... ?

---

You add:  "As I read Matt 5:32 carefully, I realized that there was no way out for Bob and Betty to not be sinning."

No way out... to not be sinning?  How about forsaking the sin?  Why not encourage them to trust God and conform to His wisdom?  There was/is a way out.  Jesus Himself revealed what the rules are so we could see the way out.  Would it be easy? No.  But that is the whole point of dying to self, taking up our cross and following Him...

---

You add:  "I was honest with myself and realized I rejected 5:29 as a literal command primarily because my common sense said it was too extreme and couldn't possibly be a command so it forced me to look for a deeper principle."

 

So, based on "common sense" you rejected it as literal.  Not because the Bible said so, but because you thought it was not.  I appreciate your honesty, even though I disagree with your method of setting aside Jesus' word.

Mark 7:8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. 9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.

Let me ask, if I can stay in adultery and be right with Jesus... are there other sins I can commit & stay in?  Perhaps bank robbery... ?

[GandalfTheWise]

@DWH2003   I truly appreciate your civil and respectful tone on such a matter of fundamental disagreement.

 

3 hours ago, DWH2003 said:

Let me ask, if I can stay in adultery and be right with Jesus... are there other sins I can commit & stay in?  Perhaps bank robbery... ?

Please note that in the following response, I am NOT implying or insinuating anything about any particular posters on this site!   I'm going to respond in the 3rd person and speak about a hypothetical Christian.   I'm going to respond using a scriptural example of adultery that is probably much more common in the church today than second marriages.

Jesus clearly said in Matt 5:28 (But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart  Matt 5:28 KJV) ) that viewing porn with lust is the same as adultery.  (I'm reading a modern equivalent into this, but I think most Christians would agree that this would fit that description.)   I see two sides to dealing with adultery which is caused by porn.  There is mitigating the behavior by using internet filters, having accountability partners, isolating oneself from porn in every shape and form.  This might significantly reduce the number of times an act of adultery is committed and reduce the consequences of it, but it does not eliminate the bondage from it.  The second aspect is being free from porn rather than mitigating bondage.  Freedom from porn means that internet filters, accountability partners, and other such things are not needed.  Freedom from porn means that porn has no attraction for someone and that they are free from the lure of it.   When an unsolicited e-mail with a female in some state of undress with a link arrives, this will probably be a huge battle for a man addicted to porn.  For a man free from porn, it's an annoyance to be deleted to avoid getting their computer potentially infected by malware.

My view is that the key issue is bondage versus freedom.  The acts of adultery via porn flow out of being in bondage to it.  A person fighting a porn addiction will face many battles, winning some and losing some over a period of time.  However, even after a long time having not failed, the lure and draw is sitting there waiting to suck them back into it.  In contrast, a person that God has set free from this addiction is free indeed.  Even if the opportunity presents itself, the victory is easy because they are walking in freedom not bondage.  For this person, their victory is through Christ, not their will-power, determination,  and internet filters.

My response is that a Christian man who is addicted to porn (and hence adultery or fornication) is saved and in Christ.  There is still further work of God needed in his life to free him from that and other bondages but that is a part of the maturation and growth process that God takes us on and done on God's timing.  There is a time in my life I would have judged such a brother in Christ as a "good" or "bad" Christian (and perhaps not a Christian)  depending on how successful they were in avoiding access to porn and how many times they overcame temptation than fell and how sincere they were about wanting to change.  However, now, I see brothers and sisters in terms of whether they are in bondage or in freedom from certain things.  It is being a new creation in Christ that brings freedom, not self-effort to overcome bondage.  Only Christ truly breaks bonds, we can merely mitigate their effect by trying hard.  It is not an issue about choosing to stay in adultery or not (when addicted to porn), it is about God setting us free from it so that we no longer walk in it.  Working to mitigate damage is helpful in avoiding some consequences, but it is freedom that God gives that eliminates the acts of sin by bringing freedom from sin.  I've heard many testimonies over the years from many Christians about God delivering them from various addictions or other bondages in such a way that such things just fell away (sometimes after years or decades of struggles).

The previous paragraphs are the crux of my beef with when I see Christians putting more emphasis on outward behavior than the inward condition of the heart.  Our outward behavior and acts of sin are due our inward condition.  Men in bondage to porn are going to commit acts (individually to a greater or lesser degree depending on how seriously they work to mitigate it).  Men free from bondage to porn can just walk away whenever it shows up because it has no hold on them.  Christians who overemphasize the rules, commands, and directives in the NT (and sometimes OT) often put people's focus onto trying to fix the outward behavior through their own efforts.    Should we mitigate some outward behaviors?  Of course.  Keeping alcohol away from an alcoholic will likely reduce the chance for physical harm.   But, if our mitigation methods become our focus, we often lose sight of inward transformation and change as our priority and start to feel as if our success and failure as a Christian depends on how hard and sincerely we are trying to defeat sin.

One of the observations I've made with regard to Matt 5:32 is that most proponents of a literal interpretation rarely seriously approach the historical context and how that might affect the meaning and intent (e.g. the listeners were Jews under the law of Moses, how many marriages were arranged or economic in nature and how many were self-chosen for love, how was marriage the same or different then compared to western civilization today, what were the historical debates among the various schools of Rabbis on the issue of marriage and divorce, what was the societal context of Jesus' words, how would the original listeners understood Jesus and how would what He said affect them).  There is typically a take it the way it is written and don't ask any questions approach. 

The bottom line with regard to who is right about Matt 5:32 will end up being in the spiritual fruit.  If literalists are correct, then churches and Christians who fail to obey Christ are going to see more problems in marriages and a general spiritual malaise because of their neglect of Christ's words.  If the literalists are incorrect, they are going to be rigid dogmatists that destructively split Christian families in second marriages with spiritual damage to children, hinder divorces in dangerous abusive situations, and in general replace God's will for particular situations with their convictions.

[Blood Bought 1953]

 

 

Let me ask, if I can stay in adultery and be right with Jesus... are there other sins I can commit & stay in?  Perhaps bank robbery... ?

 

A true Christian who has a new heart would not be inclined to perform such sinful acts ......If he doe he does not lose his salvation....faith in the Shed Blood determined that.....As a Christian, if you think you can do such things and “ get away with it”, you are in for a rude awakening—- go ahead and try it and see what happens...God knows how to chastise His Children, trust me, I have experienced it and He does not play around.If you are a Believer , God is going to get you Home ....unwise, disobedient  children will have the butts kicked all the way there .It’s our choice.

[DWH2003]

@Blood Bought 1953  I am asking about the logical consequences of his position.  I completely agree that the "get away with it" attitude will face a rude awakening.  If we do not listen to God's word, and His correcting of us here, then... judgment will be a terrible thing to face.

Prov. 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes;
But Jehovah weigheth the hearts.
3 To do righteousness and justice
Is more acceptable to Jehovah than sacrifice.

If obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice, why do we treat obedience as if it is less acceptable? Even sinful?  Why do we make arguments that contradict the word of God and justify the continued practice of what God says is wrong?

I am not talking about self-righteous, man earning / figuring out his own way (Prov. 23:2a).  I am talking about trusting God enough to do what God says (Prov. 23:3) from the heart (Prov. 23:2b).

 

@GandalfTheWise

 

Respectfully, you did not answered my question:  "if I can stay in adultery and be right with Jesus... are there other sins I can commit & stay in?  Perhaps bank robbery... ?"  You seem to dwell on subjective results... and speak of the heart, while down playing a need to do what Jesus actually said.  How can we have Jesus in our heart while rebelling against Him?

Let me phrase it a differently.

 

Is it a sin to obey God?

Is it a transgression to do what God says to do?

or

Is it righteous & holiness to do what God condemns?

Is it right to do the opposite of what God says?

Can we continue to practice sin and still go to heaven?

Can we be right with God while committing sin?

Edited August 14, 2018 by DWH2003