The divorce and remarriage question

[JCISGD]

According to Jesus in Math 5:28 "Whoever lusts after a women has already commited adultery", and we know that marriage is the only lawful outlet for sexual expression and intimacy.

The word "Whoever" makes no exceptions, and Rom 7:2+3 teach the truth that marriage is until death and that anything else is adultery. Therefore infidelity cannot make way for divorce and remarriage as it is still adultery.

Dictionary.com defines the word "Adulterate" as " to debase or make impure by using inferior materials or elements; use cheaper, inferior, or less desireable goods in production of (any professedly genuine article)"

Therefore IMO the only lawful reason for divorce can only be marriage that was unlawful in the first case, such as incest, homosexuality, having living spouse from a lawful marriage etc. Another exception is in the Jewish culture when fornication was committed by a betrothed person before the actual marriage cerimony that took place 2 yrs after the engagement. In Jewish culture the two were considered married at engagement and could only be broken off/divorced for this one reason.

The acceptance of divorce/remarriage in the Christian church is a modern phenomina, IMO people should seek God on this most serious and far reaching topic, and not be swayed by the counsel of anyone including myself, as "no adulterers will enter heaven".

The word translated to fornication was porneia, and the dictionary definition for that Greek word is harlotry (including adultery and incest); fig. idolatry_fornication. The reason why the church accepts adultery as grounds for divorce and re-marriage is because Jesus stated that porneia was Biblical grounds, and that includes adultery. This is not talking about adultery in one's heart. When Jesus spoke of adultery in one's heart, the point he was making was that God looks at a man's heart and not just what he does outwardly. He was not expanding the definition of porneia to include simply having lust in one's heart, and making that grounds for divorce.

I disagree, IMO Jesus was saying lust in the heart is the precursor to all adultery although not always acted out, therefore they are one and the same thing.

But I also dont think adultery is grounds for divorce as that is to say adultry allows the other to commit adultery, as Rom 7: 2+3 are clear that all remarriage is adultery. Therefore Jesus was not making allowance for divorce on the grounds of adultery and was only addressing the Jews where the marriage could be broken off if Porneia was found before the 2 yr engagement period expired. In nearly all verses on the matter both words Mocheia and Porneia are used showing that they are not interchangeable in this context.

Each must give account for their stance, i am convinced of mine unless i see more compelling evidence than i have so far.

[JCISGD]

Y'all are trying real hard to make me feel guilty for divorcing a gay man who practices witchcraft, ya know....

I would like to know this: can you explain why people always (and I mean ALWAYS) take Paul's words over Jesus' words when it comes to this subject? Who is Paul in comparison to Y'shua???? Last I looked, Paul didn't die for our sins, did he? Then why would we take Paul's words on the subject of divorce over our Elohim Y'shua????

Perhaps I'm all wet for asking the question, but it really bugs me when someone starts quoting a servant over the Master.

a.

I dont think anyone is trying to make you feel anything, if you have Gods peace concerning your descision having unpredjudicly weighed all the evidence/light available to you, then you can stand the promise "therefore there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus".

Pauls words cannot be taken over Jesus as they came directly from Jesus. So where there appears conflict we must find out where we are wrong in our intreptation and of whom, Jesus, Paul or any other. The confusion arises when folks try to make scripture say things it does not and IMO Jesus` supposed "exception" for divorce has been misunderstood by those who are self taught and do not know the full facts. Paul also never gave direct exception to divorce and the closest he does is a vague verse on letting unbelieving spouses depart, if he meant divorce surely he would used the word divorce. Paul certainly would not contradict his own words in Rom 7: 2+3. or Jesus` words that "whoever divorces commits adultery and whoever marries a divorced women commits adultery"

Im not sorry if people are offended thats their choice, i will be very sorry if i mislead anyone but i am forcing anyone to adhere to whati say nor ami speaking rashly or unresearched. I speak only because i truly believe a great bulk of the church is teaching error on this. I personally have been hugely affected by divorce from a woman previously married and lost having my two children growing up with me. I also have now been single for 20 yrs, not without great trials and not what would like for my life.

No matter how unpalatable the truth, twisting it will not void the consequences of violating it.

[princess2000]

Stepping in with the RC view point. Jesus said, no, no divorce, he said it's adultry to marry a divorced woman, and it's adultry to marry again after divorcing your wife. That's not the RC view point yet, that's what the bible says, don't ask me where. This is the RC view point, if you're going to get a divorce then get an annullment, an annullment means that the love was not there from the begining. From what I understand, it's really hard to get an anullment, and there's books and books on the situation. I know one example, if the guy or the girl says "oh this marriage will only last two months" if it doesn't work out, even a couple of years later, that phrase is grounds for an annullment because the parter was never committed for more then two months.

Peace out

~Beka

[OneLight]

Stepping in with the RC view point. Jesus said, no, no divorce, he said it's adultry to marry a divorced woman, and it's adultry to marry again after divorcing your wife. That's not the RC view point yet, that's what the bible says, don't ask me where. This is the RC view point, if you're going to get a divorce then get an annullment, an annullment means that the love was not there from the begining. From what I understand, it's really hard to get an anullment, and there's books and books on the situation. I know one example, if the guy or the girl says "oh this marriage will only last two months" if it doesn't work out, even a couple of years later, that phrase is grounds for an annullment because the parter was never committed for more then two months.

Peace out

~Beka

The problem with annulments, as I see it, is that the Priest can not know if there was never love in the first place. That is just their way of excusing their followers from sinning in their eyes. For someone to get married, there had to be love, for most marriages, or they would never of married. One, or both parties, just gave up on their relationship, for some reason.

I believe the scripture you were looking for is found in Matthew 5:31-32 Furthermore it has been said,

[Arthur Durnan]

Yes, I wholeheartedly accept Matthew 5:31,32 re divorce and continued adultery (porneia, harlotry). Jesus' beloved Apostle Paul's teachings should never be thot to be in opposition to his Savior's. God's intent re holy matrimony is for a lifetime; man's oft intention is temporary "unless it works out." It should be much more difficult to get married than it is today. Judeo-Christian matrimony is not simply like a "Hellyweirdo marriage": i.e. a good way to spend a weekend!

[sheya joie]

1 Corinthians 7 goes on after verse 13 to say:

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

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.

Still later in the same chapter:

These scriptures are speaking of spouses that are not Christians who choose to leave the Christians spouse, probably because of Christianity, and if they choose to leave let them, but Christians are not under this type of thinking. We can't just choose to leave one another as we are married.

1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

1Co 7:28

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned

; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

You have to remember that Paul chose to stay unmarried and his views on it is that the unmarried can serve God better because he is not distracted by his spouse and can devote all of their attention to God, but if people want to get married they can and don't sin.

This is NOT saying that if my unbelieving spouse leaves me I can remarry because that contradicts this -

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Romans 7:1-3

If you have been married before and marry somebody else while your ex is still alive you are living in adultery. They only two things that let us out of being married are the death of our spouse and infidelity. You have to live by these scriptures -

"Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband"

If you use the scriptures you quoted for the purpose you suggest then you create a contradiction.

And yet the verses

are

Scripture, and Paul wrote them for a reason. It's not like I wrote them and tried to slip them into the Bible. What could they mean except what they plainly say?

[2Joyful]

Y'all are trying real hard to make me feel guilty for divorcing a gay man who practices witchcraft, ya know....

I would like to know this: can you explain why people always (and I mean ALWAYS) take Paul's words over Jesus' words when it comes to this subject? Who is Paul in comparison to Y'shua???? Last I looked, Paul didn't die for our sins, did he? Then why would we take Paul's words on the subject of divorce over our Elohim Y'shua????

Perhaps I'm all wet for asking the question, but it really bugs me when someone starts quoting a servant over the Master.

a.

Anitarose, I stand with Christ and with you. Jesus is right there He knows whats going on and He knows your heart. He also know the degree in which you tried to mend your marriage in hope that your husband would repent and work in restoring the marriage. He choose self therefore, you were free to divorce him and believe me you have God's blessings. Keep the faith, sister.

[2Joyful]

Y'all are trying real hard to make me feel guilty for divorcing a gay man who practices witchcraft, ya know....

I would like to know this: can you explain why people always (and I mean ALWAYS) take Paul's words over Jesus' words when it comes to this subject? Who is Paul in comparison to Y'shua???? Last I looked, Paul didn't die for our sins, did he? Then why would we take Paul's words on the subject of divorce over our Elohim Y'shua????

Perhaps I'm all wet for asking the question, but it really bugs me when someone starts quoting a servant over the Master.

a.

Anitarose, I stand with Christ and with you. Jesus is right there He knows whats going on and He knows your heart. He also know the degree in which you tried to mend your marriage in hope that your husband would repent and work in restoring the marriage. He choose self therefore, you were free to divorce him and believe me you have God's blessings. Keep the faith, sister.

I don't know who is taking Paul's teachings ahead of Christ? Jesus stated that the only grounds for divorce and re-marriage was fornication which includes adultery in the Greek. Paul only gave one other exception, and that was a case where two people enter a marriage, and both are sinners. Then one gets saved and as a direct result of their new found faith, their spouse abandons them. Why would this be an additional exception and not going against Jesus' teachings? Because when one person in the marriage gets saved, the old sinful person that originally entered into the marriage covenant died, and they were born again a new creature. Paul stated that if the unbeliever is content to remain married to the believer, the believer should not divorce them, but if the unbeliever leaves the believer, they are not in bondage in such situations. The entire Bible is the Word of God, and whether it was penned by Paul or by someone quoting Jesus, it is all innerant.

Greetings,

My reply had nothing to do with Paul, I was making a statement to Anitarose , that Christ knows the whole truth as an encouragement to her.... nothing more..... Sometimes I feel readers of a post maybe in search of an debate, rather than realizing the response sometimes is posted to help lift up a hurting family member in Christ.

[anitarose]

Y'all are trying real hard to make me feel guilty for divorcing a gay man who practices witchcraft, ya know....

I would like to know this: can you explain why people always (and I mean ALWAYS) take Paul's words over Jesus' words when it comes to this subject? Who is Paul in comparison to Y'shua???? Last I looked, Paul didn't die for our sins, did he? Then why would we take Paul's words on the subject of divorce over our Elohim Y'shua????

Perhaps I'm all wet for asking the question, but it really bugs me when someone starts quoting a servant over the Master.

a.

Anitarose, I stand with Christ and with you. Jesus is right there He knows whats going on and He knows your heart. He also know the degree in which you tried to mend your marriage in hope that your husband would repent and work in restoring the marriage. He choose self therefore, you were free to divorce him and believe me you have God's blessings. Keep the faith, sister.

I don't know who is taking Paul's teachings ahead of Christ? Jesus stated that the only grounds for divorce and re-marriage was fornication which includes adultery in the Greek. Paul only gave one other exception, and that was a case where two people enter a marriage, and both are sinners. Then one gets saved and as a direct result of their new found faith, their spouse abandons them. Why would this be an additional exception and not going against Jesus' teachings? Because when one person in the marriage gets saved, the old sinful person that originally entered into the marriage covenant died, and they were born again a new creature. Paul stated that if the unbeliever is content to remain married to the believer, the believer should not divorce them, but if the unbeliever leaves the believer, they are not in bondage in such situations. The entire Bible is the Word of God, and whether it was penned by Paul or by someone quoting Jesus, it is all innerant.

Greetings,

My reply had nothing to do with Paul, I was making a statement to Anitarose , that Christ knows the whole truth as an encouragement to her.... nothing more..... Sometimes I feel readers of a post maybe in search of an debate, rather than realizing the response sometimes is posted to help lift up a hurting family member in Christ.

Fair enough. I guess I should have directly responded to Anitarose. All three of us seem to agree that she is free to divorce. The only thing I could not understand is why she would attack the teachings of Paul, not only because to do so is to discredit scripture, but because those who are saying she has no grounds for divorce are relying on Jesus' teachings, not Paul's. They are doing it based on the word fornication, and are not looking at the original Greek word translated fornication.

Here is something else to consider. If you are going to say that the teachings of Jesus are more important than those of Paul, then one could argue that Jesus didn't write any of the gospels, but that his disciples did, and they could have made a mistake in repeating his exact words. On the other hand, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. I don't hold to that kind of nonsence, because I believe the entire Bible is the innerant Word of God, but if you are going to pit Jesus against Paul, this opens the gospels up to criticism as well.

I attack no one's teachings, I simply ask a simple question because it seems like most people, when they don't get the whole story, seem to want to "attack" using Paul's teachings rather than Y'shua's. And it would seem to me (but perhaps others don't see it the way I do) that Y'shua's teachings, because of who He is, would have more weight than anyone else's.

Maybe I'm a bit more sensitive to this particular topic because I'm living through the "hell" of it and it's fresher than it would be in other instances. If I haven't made myself clear on this, I apologize because I'm only speaking from personal experience, and I'm afraid that's a bit colored because of other's ideas on the subject. I trust you all will forgive me but like I have stated, subjects like this one only tend to rip the scab off and it does hurt a lot.

a.

[Arthur Durnan]

I think our Lord's declaration in Matthew 19 re holy matrimony was: (a) male & female, not lesbian or homosexual; (b) monogamous, not polygamist; © the leaving of mother & father; © a lifetime vow & personal commitment one to the other. Or did I read too much into Christ's straightforward declaration on this extremely important subject?