Divorce and Remarriage - Part 8 (Final)

[Abiding in His Word]

How Does a Man Make His Wife Commit Adultery?

Note that Jesus said, "Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery ." This again leads us to believe that He was not laying down a new law of remarriage, but only revealing the truth about the sin of a man who divorces his wife without a good cause. He "makes her commit adultery." Some say that Jesus was thus prohibiting her remarriage, because He makes it to be adultery. But that is absurd. The emphasis is on the sin of the man doing the divorcing. Because of what he does, his wife will have no other choice but to remarry, which is no sin on her part as she was just the victim of her husband's selfishness. In God's eyes, however, because the man left his wife destitute with no other choice but to remarry, it was just as if he forced his wife into bed with another man. So the one who thinks he has not committed adultery is held guilty for a double adultery, his and his wife's.

Jesus could not have been saying that God held the victimized wife to be guilty of adultery, as that would be completely unfair, and in fact would be utterly meaningless if the victimized wife never remarried. How could God say she was an adulteress unless she remarried? It would make no sense whatsoever. Thus it is plain to see that God is holding the man guilty for his own adultery, and the "adultery" of his wife, which is really not adultery at all for her. It is lawful remarriage.

And what about Jesus' next statement that "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"? There are only two possibilities that make any sense. Either Jesus was now adding a third count of adultery against the man who thinks he has never committed adultery (for a similar reason as He added the second count), or Jesus was speaking of the man who encourages a woman to divorce her husband in order to marry her so as "not to commit adultery." If Jesus was saying that any man on earth who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery, then every Israelite man during the previous hundreds of years committed adultery who, in complete compliance with the Law of Moses, married a divorced woman. In fact, every man in Jesus' audience that day who was presently married to a divorced woman in full compliance with the Mosaic Law suddenly become guilty of what he was not guilty just one minute before, and Jesus must have changed God's law at that moment. Moreover, every person in the future who married a divorced person, trusting Paul's words in his letter to the Corinthians that such was not a sin, was actually sinning, committing adultery.

The entire spirit of the Bible would lead me to admire a man who married a divorced woman. If she had been a blameless victim of her former husband's selfishness, I would admire him as much as I admire a man who marries a widow, taking her under his care. If she bore some blame for her previous divorce, I would admire him for his Christ-likeness in believing the best of her, and for his grace in offering to forget the past and take a risk. Why would anyone who has read the Bible and who has the Holy Spirit living in him conclude that Jesus was forbidding everyone from marrying any divorced person? How does such a view fit with God's justice, a justice that would never punish someone for being a victim, as is the case of the woman who is divorced through no fault of her own? How does such a view fit with the message of the gospel, which offers forgiveness and another chance to repentant sinners?

In Summary

The Bible consistently says that divorce always involves sin on the part of one or both parties. God never intended for anyone to divorce, but mercifully made provision for divorce when immorality occurs. He also mercifully made provision for divorced people to remarry.

If it wasn't for Jesus' words about remarriage, no one reading the Bible would have ever thought that remarriage was a sin (except for two very rare cases under the old covenant and for one rare case under the new, namely, remarriage after one was divorced from a Christian as a Christian). We have, however, found a logical way to harmonize what Jesus said about remarriage with what the rest of the Bible teaches. Jesus was not replacing God's law of remarriage with a stricter law that forbids all remarriage in every case, an impossible law for people who are already divorced and remarried to obey (like trying to unscramble eggs), and one that would create unlimited confusion and lead people to break other laws of God. Rather, He was helping people to see their hypocrisy. He was helping those who believed they would never commit adultery to see that they were committing adultery in other ways, by their lust and by their liberal attitude toward divorce.

As the entire Bible teaches, forgiveness is offered to repentant sinners regardless of their sin, and second and third chances are given to sinners, including divorced people. There is no sin in any remarriage under the new covenant, with the exception of the believer who has been divorced from another believer, which should never occur since true believers are not committing immoralities and there is thus no valid reason to divorce. In such a rare event that they do, both should remain single or be reconciled to each other.

Footnote:

1. For example, consider the comments of one divorced pastor who found himself cut off from the body of Christ when he remarried. He said, "It would have been better if I had murdered my wife than divorced her. If I had murdered her, I could have repented, received forgiveness, lawfully remarried, and continued in my ministry."

--------------------------------------------------
Permission received for posting from:
http://www.shepherdserve.org/dmm/dmm_13.htm

See Divorce and Remarriage Part 7
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=42290

[Ready1]

Some say that Jesus was thus prohibiting her remarriage, because He makes it to be adultery. But that is absurd.

Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

To him who sayeth it is absurd, to him it is absurd. But I will stick with Jesus.

Edited to add:

Is there even a remote, remote, remote possibility that Jesus actually meant what he said, and that the condition of our marriages reflects the condition of our hearts in this our age? Are we not the Laodicean church who thinks it is "...rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: "

I think this article, which cannot accept the straightforward teaching of scripture on one of the points that Jesus makes so clearly, shows how far away the Church of America really is.

[Abiding in His Word]

To him who sayeth it is absurd, to him it is absurd. But I will stick with Jesus.

Edited to add:

Is there even a remote, remote, remote possibility that Jesus actually meant what he said, and that the condition of our marriages reflects the condition of our hearts in this our age? Are we not the Laodicean church who thinks it is "...rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: "

I think this article, which cannot accept the straightforward teaching of scripture on one of the points that Jesus makes so clearly, shows how far away the Church of America really is.

Ready1, the author was not implying that scripture is absurd; you must know that. It is the interpretation of some that he considers absurd. The reason he considers the interpretation absurd is because it makes no sense whatsoever when viewed in the context of the whole Word of God. It implies that there is something inherently evil or sinful in the innocent victim of divorce. Would the absurdity become any clearer if we say that anyone who marries a former alcoholic be guilty of drunkenness? Or if anyone marries a person who was formerly a theif becomes guilty of his sin?

If someone is put away (divorced) by their partner through no choice of their own, they are not guilty of any sin any more than the victim of rape or incest. Would you see a red flag if someone said that you cannot marry a victim of incest?

Yes, there is something wrong with the condition of our hearts when we think that the innocent party in a divorce is guilty of adultery because his or her spouse was. The condition of our hearts is also obvious when we justify the lifelong punishment of a divorced Christian when Jesus puts our sins behind us and took our punishment upon Himself.

.....Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1Cor 6:11

Divorced persons are (as are murderers, thieves, idolaters, etc.) washed, sanctified, and justified. Therefore, we must re-examine the scripture in question to ascertain it's correct meaning and how it would have been understood by those hearing it.

[daffodyllady]

Yes, there is something wrong with the condition of our hearts when we think that the innocent party in a divorce is guilty of adultery because his or her spouse was. The condition of our hearts is also obvious when we justify the lifelong punishment of a divorced Christian when Jesus puts our sins behind us and took our punishment upon Himself.

Abiding,

What is marriage? Jesus said that it is the joining of two into one. Two persons become one person, in some mystical way that we humans do not understand fully. Yet, God sees them this way, and the way God sees things, is the way things really are.

Now, you ask how can it be that the wife of an adulterous husband (or vice versa) could be caused to commit adultery by the sinning partner, while not committing sin on her (or his) own.

We need to look at another Scripture. I Corinthians 6:

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

We the church, both collectively and individually, are one with Christ. In a way that only God sees. We cannot see this union any more than we can see a marriage union. But both unions are made spiritually, by God in Heaven.

This passage ties our union with Christ to the sexual unions we have on this earth. Look closely: when adultery or fornication is committed, the bodily members of Christ are involved in that sexual union.

When I am married to someone, I am intrinsically one with them, in a way that surpasses my own understanding. It is very possible, that they take part of me into that adulterous relationship with them. Christ himself does not sin while his members are forced against his will into a sinful relationship. Nor does an innocent member of a marriage sin while their marriage partner takes part of them into that adultery. But it does violence both physically and spiritually to the innocent person.

Physically? yes. Did you know that every person you have had sex with, has mingled cells with yours within your body, and you will carry them in your body for the rest of your life? Scientifically proven.

I would not be surprised that the words of Christ are true in a far more literal sense in this, than we could ever understand.
--------------------------

Now, as far as penalizing the innocent one in a divorce. You know and every one else knows that God does not punish the one who does not choose to sin. Yet He commands clearly that remarriage after divorce is wrong. Why? Because the first marriage is only dissolved upon death. It is no penalty to the wife of a brain-dead man who still loves him, to stay married to him! Nor is it a penalty to a divorced woman, to remain faithful to her original vows, if she still loves him!

And such is the command of Christ!

[Ready1]

Ready1, the author was not implying that scripture is absurd; you must know that. It is the interpretation of some that he considers absurd.

I was simply trying to point out that it is the words of Jesus which he is calling into question and saying are absurd. That is why it is important to see the words of scripture and how they compare to our own interpretations.

[Abiding in His Word]

Now, as far as penalizing the innocent one in a divorce. You know and every one else knows that God does not punish the one who does not choose to sin. Yet He commands clearly that remarriage after divorce is wrong. Why? Because the first marriage is only dissolved upon death. It is no penalty to the wife of a brain-dead man who still loves him, to stay married to him! Nor is it a penalty to a divorced woman, to remain faithful to her original vows, if she still loves him!

Daffodyllady, you continue referring to your own faithful feelings of one who may be braindead or otherwise. This is/was never the issue. Nor am I referring to a woman who has lost her legs in a car accident who considers this one of the inconvenient facts of life. Nor am I denying that we often suffer the consequences of another sin in this life. If we can put this to rest, and continue on with the subject which was the focus of my contention, which is a verse from scripture, then we will stay on course. Otherwise, we are simply expressing personal thoughts and values.

This is the verse which remains, imho, interpreted incorrectly as it contradicts other scripture:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

This is the penalty I speak of and have issue with our interpretation with.

If we are interpeting this as: the innocent victim of a divorce can never remarry because she is guilty of adultery, this interpretation cannot imho be supported anywhere in the Word. Only the individual who commits adultery can be held accountable for adultery.

If you can show me a scripture where a person is guilty of another's sin (not the consequences of another's sin), I will reconsider my stand on this verse.

[Abiding in His Word]

I was simply trying to point out that it is the words of Jesus which he is calling into question and saying are absurd. That is why it is important to see the words of scripture and how they compare to our own interpretations.

I disagree once again, that the author was calling the words of Jesus absurd. He was calling an interpretation of Jesus' words absurd and clearly explains his reason.

[daffodyllady]

Daffodyllady, you continue referring to your own faithful feelings of one who may be braindead or otherwise. This is/was never the issue.

The issue is not feelings. The issue is a choice to remain faithful.

Nor am I referring to a woman who has lost her legs in a car accident who considers this one of the inconvenient facts of life.

It seems to me, that you think it is a penalty for a person to not be able to be married. I am pointing out that it is not a penalty. It is simply what God has allowed, and what God has commanded.

Nor am I denying that we often suffer the consequences of another sin in this life. If we can put this to rest, and continue on with the subject which was the focus of my contention, which is a verse from scripture, then we will stay on course. Otherwise, we are simply expressing personal thoughts and values.

edited to add: I deleted this portion of my response, Abiding, because it was too harsh. I am sorry for saying it, ok?

This is the verse which remains, imho, interpreted incorrectly as it contradicts other scripture:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Which I have shown you clearly, and more than once, that it does NOT contradict any other scripture! It only contradicts the MODERN interpretation of those other scriptures!

This is the penalty I speak of and have issue with our interpretation with.

If we are interpeting this as: the innocent victim of a divorce can never remarry because she is guilty of adultery, this interpretation cannot imho be supported anywhere in the Word. Only the individual who commits adultery can be held accountable for adultery.

Ok, I think I see where the problem lies. We do not believe that the basis of the non-right to remarry as pertaining to the innocent spouse, is that they are guilty of adultery.This verse says nothing such. What it says is precisely what it says: That remarriage after divorce is adultery. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, as to what the basis for the prohibition is, you have to look elsewhere. The basis is thus: That God joined them together. And that He who joined them can alone dissolve that union at death. And that Jesus calls remarriage after divorce adultery. And that a wife who leaves her husband, may be living unmarried, but yet has a husband. And that she is forbidden to remarry. And that Paul commands divorced people not to seek a new marriage partner. And that God himself divorced Israel in Jeremiah 3:8, yet in verse 14, he says he is still married to them, and begs them to return to Himself. Therefore, the Scriptures all agree, that the first marriage continues until death parts them, no matter what unfaithfulness happens, and no matter what decree man puts forth.

The prohibition for remarriage is simply this: She is still married. You cant marry someone if you are already married.

If you can show me a scripture where a person is guilty of another's sin (not the consequences of another's sin), I will reconsider my stand on this verse.

As I said, the issue is not guilt.

[Abiding in His Word]

You feel very strongly the way you do about this, because you are divorced and remarried. Your interpretation of the verse is a defense of your personal marital status.

Wherever did you get that, daffodyllady? It's not so. But I do think it's my choice and mine alone whether or not to disclose personal information about me on the board. I hope you would agree.

[daffodyllady]

[
Wherever did you get that, daffodyllady? It's not so. But I do think it's my choice and mine alone whether or not to disclose personal information about me on the board. I hope you would agree.

Before I saw this reply, I felt the rebuke of the Holy Spirit, and deleted that portion. Please forgive me.

[aaron]

This is the verse which remains, imho, interpreted incorrectly as it contradicts other scripture:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Abiding, as I have often heard this verse repeated in Christian circles, could you list some verses you have in mind that suggests Luke 16:18 is not 'cut and dry' when it comes to divorce. I'd like to look them up, I glanced through this thread and didn't see them, thx.

[Abiding in His Word]

Before I saw this reply, I felt the rebuke of the Holy Spirit, and deleted that portion. Please forgive me.

Forgiven....thanks, daffodyllady.

[Abiding in His Word]

This is the verse which remains, imho, interpreted incorrectly as it contradicts other scripture:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Abiding, as I have often heard this verse repeated in Christian circles, could you list some verses you have in mind that suggests Luke 16:18 is not 'cut and dry' when it comes to divorce. I'd like to look them up, I glanced through this thread and didn't see them, thx.

Hi aaron, I posted this yesterday : If you can show me a scripture where a person is guilty of another's sin (not the consequences of another's sin), I will reconsider my stand on this verse.

But scripture is clear that:

......each one of us will give an account of himself to God. Rom 14:12

Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. James 4:17

One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. Romans 14:5

But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. James 1:14

The parable of talents in Matthew 25 - each is judged based on his use of the talents given him

The parable of evil and faithful servants - each is judged according to how he served

Ananias and Sapphira both answered for the sin because both fully, willingly participated

Many of the parables show compare one man's judgement against another's

A wife who is put away by her adulterous husband is no more guilty of his adultery than she is guilty of David's adultery or anyone else's sin. Yes, they may suffer as a result of another's sin, that goes without saying that a wife will suffer as a result of her husbands adultery just as a victim of an accident caused by a DUI suffers. Accountablity for one's own sins is basic Christianity.

[mark s]

I'm not seeing that this is a matter of "being guilty of another person's sin". I think its more to do with the fact that God makes a union between two people when they marry, and while people think that they can just dissolve that union by their own decree, the Bible does not support that.

Just because someone gets a civil divorce doesn't mean that God counts that union broken.

So that when someone who has divorced their spouse for reasons other than sexual immorality remarries, they are remarrying even though they are still joined to their original spouse, therefore, it is adultery.

"Let her remain unmarried, or let her be reconciled to her husband." Even being "unmarried", she yet has a "husband". Just because man says its so doesn't always make it so.

[Ready1]

We do not believe that the basis of the non-right to remarry as pertaining to the innocent spouse, is that they are guilty of adultery.

I have seen the phrase "the innocent spouse" or "the innocent party" throughout this thread. It is a phrase used commonly in Christian circles when speaking of divorce and remarriage. It is not a scriptural term. It is my belief that marriage is a union of two people, a partnership, if you will. Two people who must work together, play together, discuss together, work through problems together, walk together, talk together, and yes, hurt together. While I believe that there is often one partner who gives up on the marriage before the other partner does, I seriously question whether it is truly valid to use the term "innocent party" when speaking of a marriage failure. Because we all have failures in our marriages. We all hurt our spouses. None of us are perfect or can claim that we have acted circumspectly in every aspect of our marriage. That's what commitment is all about, commitment to our partner regardless of the circumstances. My wife has overlooked many of my faults. Many times. Have I overlooked some of hers? Yes. So if our marriage "fell apart" (theres that 'no-fault' terminology) which of us would be the "innocent party"? Neither of us.

Would one of us be free to remarry? Jesus said neither of us would be free to remarry.

[Abiding in His Word]

I'm not seeing that this is a matter of "being guilty of another person's sin".

Hi Mark

This is what's being discussed and debated from this part 8 of the series:

"Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery ." This again leads us to believe that He was not laying down a new law of remarriage, but only revealing the truth about the sin of a man who divorces his wife without a good cause. He "makes her commit adultery." Some say that Jesus was thus prohibiting her remarriage, because He makes it to be adultery. But that is absurd. The emphasis is on the sin of the man doing the divorcing. Because of what he does, his wife will have no other choice but to remarry, which is no sin on her part as she was just the victim of her husband's selfishness.

Just because someone gets a civil divorce doesn't mean that God counts that union broken.

Of course He does. That is/was the purpose of the certificate of divorce in the OT and the certificate of divorce in our society. That doesn't mean that He's happy with our failure to live within His best design for two people, but recognize it He does just as any other sin we commit because of the flesh.

God gave Moses the 10 commandments and in the judicial laws of Deuteronomy, Moses set the boundaries and punishments for breaking them.

So that when someone who has divorced their spouse for reasons other than sexual immorality remarries, they are remarrying even though they are still joined to their original spouse, therefore, it is adultery.

That directly contradicts the law in the OT:

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. Deu 24:14

This law regulated marriage and those who would put away their wives without just cause. But the woman who was put away is not called an adulterer because she remarries. The certificate of divorce was give for that express purpose; so she could remarry and prove she was divorced.

Jesus never speaks against the certificate of divorce and God Himself said He used it in sending away His spouse nor do either prohibit it's use for the dissolution of marriage. The restriction of divorce to the case of indecency, and the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced is to regulate divorce sought for improper grounds or for "any cause."

"Let her remain unmarried, or let her be reconciled to her husband." Even being "unmarried", she yet has a "husband". .

This interpretation is the one that the author considers absurd. If a divorce is permitted by the OT and Jesus reinforces unfaithfulness as a valid reason for divorce in the NT, to hold the innocent spouse guilty of that divorce and penalized him/her for the other's sin is not scriptural. We are not understanding that principal correctly as we know no one is held responsible for another's sin.

[Abiding in His Word]

I have seen the phrase "the innocent spouse" or "the innocent party" throughout this thread. It is a phrase used commonly in Christian circles when speaking of divorce and remarriage. It is not a scriptural term. It is my belief that marriage is a union of two people, a partnership, if you will. Two people who must work together, play together, discuss together, work through problems together, walk together, talk together, and yes, hurt together. While I believe that there is often one partner who gives up on the marriage before the other partner does, I seriously question whether it is truly valid to use the term "innocent party" when speaking of a marriage failure. Because we all have failures in our marriages. We all hurt our spouses. None of us are perfect or can claim that we have acted circumspectly in every aspect of our marriage. That's what commitment is all about, commitment to our partner regardless of the circumstances. My wife has overlooked many of my faults. Many times. Have I overlooked some of hers? Yes. So if our marriage "fell apart" (theres that 'no-fault' terminology) which of us would be the "innocent party"? Neither of us.

Would one of us be free to remarry? Jesus said neither of us would be free to remarry.

Hi again Ready1,

When I have used the term "the innocent spouse" in this thread, it is used to refer to the spouse who is divorced against his/her wishes because of adultery on the part of the other. According to some, the spouse who was divorced against his/her wishes is held to being single for the rest of their lives and is also guilty of adultery is they choose to remarry. If this is true, "the innocent party" is guilty of adultery also. For lack of a better term, I have used this one to define the party in the marriage who was not guilty of adultery.

[mark s]

I'm not seeing that this is a matter of "being guilty of another person's sin".

Hi Mark

This is what's being discussed and debated from this part 8 of the series:

"Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery ." This again leads us to believe that He was not laying down a new law of remarriage, but only revealing the truth about the sin of a man who divorces his wife without a good cause. He "makes her commit adultery." Some say that Jesus was thus prohibiting her remarriage, because He makes it to be adultery. But that is absurd. The emphasis is on the sin of the man doing the divorcing. Because of what he does, his wife will have no other choice but to remarry, which is no sin on her part as she was just the victim of her husband's selfishness.

I realize that this is the assertion being made. However, I think its a misdirection from what is actually happening.

Jesus did more that simply speak of one person's sin. He also taught principles in these passages.

Its like saying, don't jump off a tall building, because gravity will make you fall. This is a statement made to a certain person in a certain context, yet contains a principle applicable to all.

[mark s]

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. Deu 24:14

Abiding, I realize this question calls for speculation, and you needn't answer, but it bears asking, How, or why, is she defiled? That is, if divorce is such a clean break?

[Abiding in His Word]

Just because someone gets a civil divorce doesn't mean that God counts that union broken.

If we can see it's broken, the legal system of the OT and ours today sees it's broken, why do we think God doesn't?

In addition, a divorce whether valid or not according to the adultery exception, is forgiven and God no longer holds either party (assuming repentence) accountable for that sin. Just as He forgave Paul for hundreds or perhaps thousands of murders, the moment of repentence wipes away that sin and He remembers it no more. That's why it makes no sense to interpret the innocent party as required to remain unmarried as a result of another's adultery.

"Let her remain unmarried, or let her be reconciled to her husband." Even being "unmarried", she yet has a "husband". Just because man says its so doesn't always make it so.

In context, the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 7 has the end-times in mind:

But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none.....1Cor. 7:29

I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is....1Cor. 7:26

With this in mind, are we relegating all single people to remain single for the rest of their lives?

Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. 1Cor. 7:24

I think we would agree that context means everything.

[mark s]

"Let her remain unmarried, or let her be reconciled to her husband." Even being "unmarried", she yet has a "husband". .

This interpretation is the one that the author considers absurd.

Then his argument is against Paul, the one who made such a statement, of course, inspired by God. These are His Words, not mine.

It's one thing to say that it doesn't mean that, but the fact is, it does actually say that.

Her options are, that is, if she wishes to follow the Biblical instruction,

Remain unmarried

or

Be reconciled to her husband.

There isn't too much interpretation needed here, imo.

[Abiding in His Word]

Her options are, that is, if she wishes to follow the Biblical instruction,

Remain unmarried

or

Be reconciled to her husband.

There isn't too much interpretation needed here, imo.

I replied to the context of this scripture above.

[mark s]

Just because someone gets a civil divorce doesn't mean that God counts that union broken.

If we can see it's broken, the legal system of the OT and ours today sees it's broken, why do we think God doesn't?

That is, unless for the cause of adultery . . .

We think God doesn't see it as broken because Jesus said that if you remarried without that exception you commit adultery, and if you marry one divorce without that exception you commit adultery.

In addition, a divorce whether valid or not according to the adultery exception, is forgiven and God no longer holds either party (assuming repentence) accountable for that sin.

Indeed it is, however, a thief, who steals millions, and buys houses and cars and whatever, when he repents, and is forgiven, does that mean he gets to keep all that stuff?

A person divorces their spouse for "any cause", and repents. What is the right thing to do? Reconcile to their spouse? Or continue as a divorced person, with the same mind as when they got the divorce? Remarry? Or remain unmarried, hoping, trying for reconciliation?

Just as He forgave Paul for hundreds or perhaps thousands of murders, the moment of repentence wipes away that sin and He remembers it no more. That's why it makes no sense to interpret the innocent party as required to remain unmarried as a result of another's adultery.

To me that seems non sequitor. The sin is indeed forgiven, but if repentance is real, there is more that follows. Divorce is from the hardened heart, now the heart needs to be softened, and returned . . .

"Let her remain unmarried, or let her be reconciled to her husband." Even being "unmarried", she yet has a "husband". Just because man says its so doesn't always make it so.

In context, the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 7 has the end-times in mind:

Are you suggesting that this only applies to people in the end times? I think it has general application, and complements Jesus' teaching perfectly.

But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none.....1Cor. 7:29

I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is....1Cor. 7:26

With this in mind, are we relegating all single people to remain single for the rest of their lives?

Naturally, we have to look at the rest of the verses - if they marry, they have not sinned.

Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. 1Cor. 7:24

I think we would agree that context means everything.

[Abiding in His Word]

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. Deu 24:14

Abiding, I realize this question calls for speculation, and you needn't answer, but it bears asking, How, or why, is she defiled? That is, if divorce is such a clean break?

On the contrary, I don't believe it calls for speculation at all.

If you do a little study on the word, you will see that a person is sometimes guilty of defiling themselves because of their sin:

Num 5:28 'But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.

Eze 23:7 "She bestowed her harlotries on them, all of whom were the choicest men of Assyria; and with all whom she lusted after, with all their idols she defiled herself.

and some sins defile others:

Eze 33:26 "You rely on your sword, you commit abominations and each of you defiles his neighbor's wife. Should you then possess the land?"'

If the woman in question has, in fact, been guilty of some uncleanness, she has defiled herself by that uncleanness. If she has been sent away and has not been guilty of indecency, he has defiled her by sending her away unlawfully and perhaps without a certificate of divorce.

Had this law been followed, there would, no doubt, be very few divorces. But in order to get around the adultery or uncleanness law, we know the Hebrews began to divorce for other or any reason.

An interesting story about defiling another and then divorcing her is that of Amnon and Tamar. He violated her by raping her and then "put her away." She saw the sending away as more insulting than the rape.

But she said to him, "No, because this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you have done to me!" Yet he would not listen to her. rape. 2Sam. 13:16

[mark s]

What I'm asking is, if divorce establishes a clean break between spouses, and God sees it that way, that the one flesh union is totally dissolved, then where is the sin that defiles in this circumstance?

For the sake of argument:

A woman is divorced from her husband for any cause. She is completely free to remarry.
She is divorced again from her husband, for any cause. Or, she is widowed by him. She is not completely free to remarry, that is, not to her first husband, because she has been defiled. What is the sin that defiles her?

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. Deu 24:14

Its not said to be her fault that her second husband died. In case of a second divorce, this isn't laid to her account either.

If the woman in question has, in fact, been guilty of some uncleanness, she has defiled herself by that uncleanness. If she has been sent away and has not been guilty of indecency, he has defiled her by sending her away unlawfully and perhaps without a certificate of divorce.

She isn't considered defiled within, or by her first marriage, its only after her second marriage. Would she not be free to remarry her first husband if she had not been remarried? Her defilement came only as a result of her second marriage. And its not as a result of how the second marriage ended - even if her husband dies, she can't go back to her first husband.

This would mean that her defilement is not as a result of her conduct within her first marriage. If she were defiled by being sent away unlawfully, doesn't that go against your argument that remarriage is freely allowed because none are held guilty for another's sin? But even so, the defilement only comes following her remarriage.

There is no prohibition against a divorced couple remarrying each other.

The only logical conclusion here is that her defilement is a result of being remarried to another. There must be more to the one-flesh union than that it is subject to the whim of man.

What the Law revealed incompletely - much the same as with murder, and adultery, here with marriage - Jesus revealed more fully.

[daffodyllady]

Of course He does. (count a union broken when a divorce is decreed.) That is/was the purpose of the certificate of divorce in the OT and the certificate of divorce in our society. That doesn't mean that He's happy with our failure to live within His best design for two people, but recognize it He does just as any other sin we commit because of the flesh.

Yes, he knows what we have done, and he even uses our language that we use to describe what we have done, But that doesn't mean that what we think we have done, we have actually gotten accomplished.

When a marriage takes place, two things happen. On earth, union is accomplished, and in heaven, union is accomplished. Man does his part, and God does His part. Two into one. When a divorce takes place, man tries to undo the union. He does put apart on earth, the part he has done on earth. The co-habitation ceases. But does God undo what He has done in heaven? If you look carefully at what God said in the New Testament, you will find that God does not undo the union in heaven. Man does indeed put asunder. But he is considered an adulterer, even if he pursues divorce very "legally."

God gave Moses the 10 commandments and in the judicial laws of Deuteronomy, Moses set the boundaries and punishments for breaking them.

So that when someone who has divorced their spouse for reasons other than sexual immorality remarries, they are remarrying even though they are still joined to their original spouse, therefore, it is adultery.

That directly contradicts the law in the OT:

precisely. Christ changed the law.

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. Deu 24:14

This law regulated marriage and those who would put away their wives without just cause. But the woman who was put away is not called an adulterer because she remarries. The certificate of divorce was give for that express purpose; so she could remarry and prove she was divorced.

correct. And God put up with the scheme of man, to do all this divorcing and remarrying. But when Christ came, he changed the rules. He brought them back to Kingdom Standards. Creation Principles.

Jesus never speaks against the certificate of divorce

yes he did. He did not directly name it as such. But he said whoever gets divorced and remarries, is an adulterer. That is speaking of the certificate of divorce.

Remember, God did not give the command to get a certificate of divorce. It was simply something that man had cooked up and was doing prior to the commandment given in Deut 24. God was simply making a rule to keep them from swapping wives back and forth, like cattle.

and God Himself said He used it in sending away His spouse

Yes. He was using the language that MAN had invented, to communicate with them. And remember, God himself, after divorcing Israel, said He was still married to her! Jer. 3:8-14 After God divorced Israel, because of her defilement, He still begged her to return to Him, and called her His wife. This demonstrates that God Himself did not hold to the idea that divorce ended a marriage. Are you able to understand what I am trying to say?

nor do either (God or Jesus) prohibit it's use for the dissolution of marriage.

Marriage is not dissolved by divorce. God only counts it broken. The proof of this is in the Greek in Romans 7:2 and I Corinthians 7:27. (Look up the word "loosed" in the Strong's. there are two words in the Greek, that were translated "loosed". They have different meanings.)

The restriction of divorce to the case of indecency, and the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced is to regulate divorce sought for improper grounds or for "any cause."

..."Let her remain unmarried, or let her be reconciled to her husband." Even being "unmarried", she yet has a "husband". ...

This interpretation is the one that the author considers absurd.

Well, if he considers a literal interpretation absurd, when the language of the verse is crystal-clear, and only upon the basis of his interpretation of other verses... I would caution greatly against accepting ANY of his interpretation of the Word!

If a divorce is permitted by the OT and Jesus reinforces unfaithfulness as a valid reason for divorce in the NT,

Which He does, but only in the Jewish betrothal context. Otherwise, the Scriptures would contradict themselves.

to hold the innocent spouse guilty of that divorce

No guilt, Just grace.

and penalized him/her for the other's sin is not scriptural.

Right again. It is no penalty to remain married in God's eyes, which is what God says is true.

You are correct. If, as you say, this interpretation of the Scriptures is correct, where the Old Testament law concerning divorce and remarriage is still in effect today, then the Scriptures contradict themselves, and some fancy footwork has to be done on some very clear and plain verses in the New Testament.

[aaron]

Thanks for posting those verses, Abiding.
This is another great thread that has that little mouse running on that wheel inside my head getting a good workout.

[daffodyllady]

The only logical conclusion here is that her defilement is a result of being remarried to another. There must be more to the one-flesh union than that it is subject to the whim of man.

Amen! Now that is some logical thinking.

Mark, What is your take on Jeremiah 3:1

They say, "If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?" but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

Notice that "They say", not "I have said". What are your thoughts on that?
Also notice that God pointed out clearly that He Himself did not operate that way. He even said that He gave Israel a certificate of divorce, but yet he begged her to come back, and called her still his wife. What is your take on this?

Just tryin to think--Daff

[mark s]

Mark, What is your take on Jeremiah 3:1

They say, "If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?" but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

Notice that "They say", not "I have said". What are your thoughts on that?
Also notice that God pointed out clearly that He Himself did not operate that way. He even said that He gave Israel a certificate of divorce, but yet he begged her to come back, and called her still his wife. What is your take on this?

Just tryin to think--Daff

God gives great grace!

I think God demonstrated His perspective of His relationship with Israel in Hosea. And even having divorced Israel, He committed Himself to her reconciliation to Him.

I see here one unified whole.

[Abiding in His Word]

I was afraid this would happen. I purposely posted the article about divorce and remarriage in 8 parts to ensure the discussion stay manageable. It has not.

I don't think it's unreasonable to request that we deal with each part of the series to either agree with or refute his interpretation of the various scriptures within each. That way what's happening doesn't continue. We're all over the place.

Paul's words in 1 Cor. 7 are discussed, I believe, in Part 5.

Jesus word's on the Sermon on the Mount, pretty sure, are discussed in Part 6.

This was being discussed in a fairly orderly manner for awhile, but got off base to the extent that now I find it unmanageable and nearly impossible to respond to posts. Daffodyllady posted above that one of her replies took 2 hrs. to respond to. That was what I was trying to avoid by posting a series.

What was being discussed from Part 8 of the article was the interpretation and meaning of Luke 16:18 and whether someone who marries a divorced woman is guilty of adultery.

I need to ask that we please stay here until we either agree on it's meaning or find we will never agree and/or we choose to respond to another part of the series which entails an examination of a different scripture.

Any objections?

[mark s]

Certainly not. I'll endeavor to stay within the specific topic of the OP. I hope you understand when other Scriptures will need to be brought into the discussion.

[Abiding in His Word]

Certainly not. I'll endeavor to stay within the specific topic of the OP. I hope you understand when other Scriptures will need to be brought into the discussion.

Well....that's where this thread got waaay off topic. When you started your thread about divorce and specified "New Testament" I found it difficult to stay within those confines because I believe in the harmony of both the old and the new.

We can only try, I guess, but this one has gotten out of control for me anyway. I am preparing for a hurrican in between after all.....

[burien1]

I`ve prayed for your safety, Abiding, and all our brothers and sisters in Christ that live in Florida. May God see you safely through this storm.

YSIC,
Brenda

[mark s]

How Does a Man Make His Wife Commit Adultery?

Note that Jesus said, "Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery ." This again leads us to believe that He was not laying down a new law of remarriage, but only revealing the truth about the sin of a man who divorces his wife without a good cause. He "makes her commit adultery." Some say that Jesus was thus prohibiting her remarriage, because He makes it to be adultery. But that is absurd.

Is such a statement absurd? The Bible teaches that marriage is meant to be for life, that remarriage, under the first covenant, defiled, that the divorced are to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to their original spouse, and that someone who divorces, then remarries, commits adultery.

How then is this teaching, which is clearly expressed by Jesus, absurd, that the woman's remarriage is adulterous?

If we accept that God counts the wedding bond to be dissolved only on His terms, and not on our whims, then this is perfectly sensible that remarriage is adulterous when God has not dissolved the existing union.

The emphasis is on the sin of the man doing the divorcing. Because of what he does, his wife will have no other choice but to remarry, which is no sin on her part as she was just the victim of her husband's selfishness. In God's eyes, however, because the man left his wife destitute with no other choice but to remarry, it was just as if he forced his wife into bed with another man. So the one who thinks he has not committed adultery is held guilty for a double adultery, his and his wife's.

This is an interesting statement to make considering that this author doesn't seem to believe that the wife's remarriage is adulterous.

Jesus could not have been saying that God held the victimized wife to be guilty of adultery, as that would be completely unfair, and in fact would be utterly meaningless if the victimized wife never remarried. How could God say she was an adulteress unless she remarried? It would make no sense whatsoever. Thus it is plain to see that God is holding the man guilty for his own adultery, and the "adultery" of his wife, which is really not adultery at all for her. It is lawful remarriage.

How is it that the man could be guilty of his wife's adultery if it wasn't actually adultery?

It really can't be both ways. Either her remarriage is adulterous, or it isn't. If it is, well, it is. If its not, then how can anyone, him or her, be guilty? No sin was committed, according to Servant. If its "lawful remarriage", its not adultery. If its adultery, its not "lawful remarriage".

The only way Servant can support this argument is with "doublespeak". He's guilty of the sin she didn't commit?

And what about Jesus' next statement that "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"?

Which, BTW, is a simple statement of principle. Not, "If you, a Pharisee, trying to circumvent your understanding of the Mosaic Law, can convince . . ." Jesus' statement was simple and precise.

There are only two possibilities that make any sense. Either Jesus was now adding a third count of adultery against the man who thinks he has never committed adultery (for a similar reason as He added the second count), or Jesus was speaking of the man who encourages a woman to divorce her husband in order to marry her so as "not to commit adultery."

This is a logical fallacy. There are not only two possibilities that make any sense.

He is giving a much more complete understanding of what is involved in marriage to begin with. Jesus' disciples, when they heard Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce, responded that marriage wasn't such a good thing. Jesus replied that this teaching wasn't meant for everyone, and not everyone chooses to marry.

If Jesus was saying that any man on earth who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery, then every Israelite man during the previous hundreds of years committed adultery who, in complete compliance with the Law of Moses, married a divorced woman.

The Law recognized that divorce occurred, but the Law did not authorize divorce.

Even granting him his argument, Romans 5 teaches us that sin is not accounted when the Law is not given. If God hadn't told man that something is wrong, He doesn't account it against him when he does it. But once he's been told, that changes.

In fact, every man in Jesus' audience that day who was presently married to a divorced woman in full compliance with the Mosaic Law suddenly become guilty of what he was not guilty just one minute before, and Jesus must have changed God's law at that moment. Moreover, every person in the future who married a divorced person, trusting Paul's words in his letter to the Corinthians that such was not a sin, was actually sinning, committing adultery.

Jesus said, from the beginning it was not so. We need to keep perspective. God's view of marriage was in the Scripture from the beginning. And, of course, Paul did not authorize divorce and remarriage for any cause in his Corinthian letter.

The entire spirit of the Bible would lead me to admire a man who married a divorced woman.

Considering that Jesus clearly, plainly stated that to do so was adultery, I hardly have any comment for this.

If she had been a blameless victim of her former husband's selfishness, I would admire him as much as I admire a man who marries a widow, taking her under his care.

Would you likewise admire the man who takes an hundred under his care? This is the same sort of pragmatism. "Well, its good because it helps her." That's a pragmatic worldview that ignores God's Word. God instituted methods for their care, and we shouldn't try to justify our own wrongdoing that way.

If she bore some blame for her previous divorce, I would admire him for his Christ-likeness in believing the best of her, and for his grace in offering to forget the past and take a risk.

Though he would be disobeying what Christ taught, and would be complicit in her being removed from being reconciled to her husband.

This just goes from bad to worse, yet Servant finds it commendable?

Why would anyone who has read the Bible and who has the Holy Spirit living in him conclude that Jesus was forbidding everyone from marrying any divorced person?

Having read the simple, plain Scriptures that we all know, having been reading them lately, aside from the specific exception named, I can answer why. I understand God to mean what He says, and to say what He means. That's why.

How does such a view fit with God's justice, a justice that would never punish someone for being a victim, as is the case of the woman who is divorced through no fault of her own? How does such a view fit with the message of the gospel, which offers forgiveness and another chance to repentant sinners?

Where is the repentance possible when they've gone off and remarried? That's kind of closed the door on repentance, and reconciliation. And not being free to remarry isn't punishment, its protection, imo.

Never in Scripture is "another chance" with a new spouse authorized, approved, condoned, or otherwise taught as something God wills for us. The thief who steals can repent, and work, to be able to give. The liar can repent, and speak truth. And the adulterous can repent and reconcile to their spouse, that is, unless they've made a new covenant with someone else, which then doesn't permit reconciliation.

In Summary

The Bible consistently says that divorce always involves sin on the part of one or both parties. God never intended for anyone to divorce, but mercifully made provision for divorce when immorality occurs. He also mercifully made provision for divorced people to remarry.

Yes, and No. That is, not for any cause. God mercifully tells us those things that we need to know, the things that are true about us, and our relationships with each other, so that we can live in the real world, not just fooling ourselves that we are free to do whatever we want.

If it wasn't for Jesus' words about remarriage, no one reading the Bible would have ever thought that remarriage was a sin (except for two very rare cases under the old covenant and for one rare case under the new, namely, remarriage after one was divorced from a Christian as a Christian).

Jesus, and Paul, and God's example. But even so, Jesus' words are enough. When God tells you something, isn't it best to listen?

We have, however, found a logical way to harmonize what Jesus said about remarriage with what the rest of the Bible teaches. Jesus was not replacing God's law of remarriage with a stricter law that forbids all remarriage in every case, an impossible law for people who are already divorced and remarried to obey (like trying to unscramble eggs), and one that would create unlimited confusion and lead people to break other laws of God. Rather, He was helping people to see their hypocrisy. He was helping those who believed they would never commit adultery to see that they were committing adultery in other ways, by their lust and by their liberal attitude toward divorce.

Servant's argument boils down to this:

Jesus intended to show the Pharisees that when they divorced and remarried outside of reasons of sexual immorality it was, in reality, adultery. But Jesus didn’t mean that when you divorce and remarry for reasons outside of sexual immorality it is, in reality, adultery.

Wouldn’t this be a double standard? I think so.

As the entire Bible teaches, forgiveness is offered to repentant sinners regardless of their sin, and second and third chances are given to sinners, including divorced people. There is no sin in any remarriage under the new covenant, with the exception of the believer who has been divorced from another believer, which should never occur since true believers are not committing immoralities and there is thus no valid reason to divorce. In such a rare event that they do, both should remain single or be reconciled to each other.

Jesus did not limit He teaching. He said, "Whomever".

Footnote:

1. For example, consider the comments of one divorced pastor who found himself cut off from the body of Christ when he remarried. He said, "It would have been better if I had murdered my wife than divorced her. If I had murdered her, I could have repented, received forgiveness, lawfully remarried, and continued in my ministry."

I daresay this statement portrays a self-serving mindset, and a complete disregard for God. Better to have murdered??? Of course, his new ministry would be in prison . . .

I want my divorce!!! I want my new wife!!! I want my ministry!!! I want it all!!!

It would have been better if he had not divorced, or if, having divorced, he would have remained unmarried, or reconciled to his wife.

For Servant to use this sort of anecdote to support his view kinda blows my mind . . .

[mark s]

Certainly not. I'll endeavor to stay within the specific topic of the OP. I hope you understand when other Scriptures will need to be brought into the discussion.

Well....that's where this thread got waaay off topic. When you started your thread about divorce and specified "New Testament" I found it difficult to stay within those confines because I believe in the harmony of both the old and the new.

Umm, I didn't start a different thread . . .

We can only try, I guess, but this one has gotten out of control for me anyway. I am preparing for a hurrican in between after all.....

for you!

Personally, find that we need other Scriptures to interpret the ones we are looking at. At the same time, realize what you are seeking, some way to make this discussion more manageable.

I've posted a point by point response to this part 8, and since primarily its a series of logical arguments, that's what I've primarily responded to.

[Abiding in His Word]

I`ve prayed for your safety, Abiding, and all our brothers and sisters in Christ that live in Florida. May God see you safely through this storm.

[Ready1]

Hi again Ready1,

When I have used the term "the innocent spouse" in this thread, it is used to refer to the spouse who is divorced against his/her wishes because of adultery on the part of the other. According to some, the spouse who was divorced against his/her wishes is held to being single for the rest of their lives and is also guilty of adultery is they choose to remarry. If this is true, "the innocent party" is guilty of adultery also. For lack of a better term, I have used this one to define the party in the marriage who was not guilty of adultery.

Hi Abiding,

I understand your use of the term "the innocent spouse", but I am trying to point out that it is not a scriptural term. It is rather a term which suggests that there is no responsibility for the problems of the marriage, but rather that the person is guiltless for the difficulties of the marriage. I think that such terminology implies blamelessness and sets us up for our human reasoning, which allows us to discard God's simple statements that we find in His word, such as Luke 16:18.

I would ask this question again:

Is there even a remote, remote, remote possibility that Jesus actually meant what he said, and that the condition of our marriages reflects the condition of our hearts in this our age?

May the Lord watch over you and your family while the wind blows and beyond.

[Abiding in His Word]

Is such a statement absurd? The Bible teaches that marriage is meant to be for life, that remarriage, under the first covenant, defiled, that the divorced are to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to their original spouse, and that someone who divorces, then remarries, commits adultery.

How then is this teaching, which is clearly expressed by Jesus, absurd, that the woman's remarriage is adulterous?

I believe his remark about absurdity is directed toward the interpretation of this verse:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

It is understandable, reasonable, and scriptural that every man who divorces his wife (except for the cause of immorality) in other words, for any reason, and marries another commits adultery.

What is not understandable, reasonable, and scriptural is the interpretation of Luke 16:18 if it is interpretated that someone who marries the one who was put away (no reason given here for putting here away) commits adultery. That's the interpretation the author takes issue with. The verse implies that the one who was put away is penalized when no sin is laid to her account.

If we accept that God counts the wedding bond to be dissolved only on His terms, and not on our whims......

I don't think anyone is implying divorce is acceptable or permissable for "whims." That's what the Pharisees did.

then this is perfectly sensible that remarriage is adulterous when God has not dissolved the existing union.

Are you suggesting that God was consulted, blessed, and approved every marriage?

The emphasis is on the sin of the man doing the divorcing. Because of what he does, his wife will have no other choice but to remarry, which is no sin on her part as she was just the victim of her husband's selfishness. In God's eyes, however, because the man left his wife destitute with no other choice but to remarry, it was just as if he forced his wife into bed with another man. So the one who thinks he has not committed adultery is held guilty for a double adultery, his and his wife's.

This is an interesting statement to make considering that this author doesn't seem to believe that the wife's remarriage is adulterous.

Jesus could not have been saying that God held the victimized wife to be guilty of adultery, as that would be completely unfair, and in fact would be utterly meaningless if the victimized wife never remarried. How could God say she was an adulteress unless she remarried? It would make no sense whatsoever. Thus it is plain to see that God is holding the man guilty for his own adultery, and the "adultery" of his wife, which is really not adultery at all for her. It is lawful remarriage.

How is it that the man could be guilty of his wife's adultery if it wasn't actually adultery?

It really can't be both ways. Either her remarriage is adulterous, or it isn't. If it is, well, it is. If its not, then how can anyone, him or her, be guilty? No sin was committed, according to Servant. If its "lawful remarriage", its not adultery. If its adultery, its not "lawful remarriage".

The only way Servant can support this argument is with "doublespeak". He's guilty of the sin she didn't commit?

Please look at Luke 16:18 again, Mark, and allow me to put it in the context of Jesus' entire answer to the Pharisees who were listening to Him and scoffing at His words.

And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been reached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. "Everyone who divorces his wife (for any reason) and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery. Luke16:15-18

In this discourse, Jesus says nothing about a woman's sin of immorality or indecency or anything. In fact, if adultery was involved on the part of either, according to the law, they would have been stoned. Jesus knew that law. So..... in light of His knowledge of the law against adultery and it's penalty along with the Pharisees knowledge of the law against adultery and it's penalty.....I still maintain that this very pointed, direct statement was made specifically to the Pharisees. Jesus was forcefully making a powerful statement to refute their practice of divorcing their wives for the slightest reason thereby totally making a mockery of God's purpose for a husband and wife.

And what about Jesus' next statement that "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"?

[quoteWhich, BTW, is a simple statement of principle. Not, "If you, a Pharisee, trying to circumvent your understanding of the Mosaic Law, can convince . . ." Jesus' statement was simple and precise.

I agree with you that the Pharisees had been, not only trying, by in fact successfully circumventing the purpose of the Mosaic Law regarding marriage.

There are only two possibilities that make any sense. Either Jesus was now adding a third count of adultery against the man who thinks he has never committed adultery (for a similar reason as He added the second count), or Jesus was speaking of the man who encourages a woman to divorce her husband in order to marry her so as "not to commit adultery."

This is a logical fallacy. There are not only two possibilities that make any sense.

It may seem like a fallacy to you, but he is sure that a wife who was put away through no fault of her own does not have to pay the penalty for being put away. That's why he is trying to determine the other possibilities that may sense. Since you implied there may be more possibilities that make sense, I'd love to hear them if you care to share them.

He is giving a much more complete understanding of what is involved in marriage to begin with. Jesus' disciples, when they heard Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce, responded that marriage wasn't such a good thing. Jesus replied that this teaching wasn't meant for everyone, and not everyone chooses to marry.

Not sure what you mean by "a more complete understanding of what is involved in marriage."

If Jesus was saying that any man on earth who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery, then every Israelite man during the previous hundreds of years committed adultery who, in complete compliance with the Law of Moses, married a divorced woman.

The Law recognized that divorce occurred, but the Law did not authorize divorce.

Even granting him his argument, Romans 5 teaches us that sin is not accounted when the Law is not given. If God hadn't told man that something is wrong, He doesn't account it against him when he does it. But once he's been told, that changes.

I know of a law against adultery and coveting a neighbors wife or goods. I see a regulation about the terms of divorce. Therefore David's statement appears correct to me since his is referring to Israelites during the time of the Law and afterwards. Furthermore, in defense of his same statement, since all Israelites knew the design of marriage in Genesis, every polygamous marriage was a sin of adultery.
In addition, in the improbable event they had forgotten about Genesis, Paul makes it clear that even apart from the law, even the gentiles conscience accuses or defends them. It's not illogical that one can't collect wives and not commit adultery.

In fact, every man in Jesus' audience that day who was presently married to a divorced woman in full compliance with the Mosaic Law suddenly become guilty of what he was not guilty just one minute before, and Jesus must have changed God's law at that moment. Moreover, every person in the future who married a divorced person, trusting Paul's words in his letter to the Corinthians that such was not a sin, was actually sinning, committing adultery.

Jesus said, from the beginning it was not so. We need to keep perspective. God's view of marriage was in the Scripture from the beginning.

From the beginning it was not intended to be the way it was from the beginning. Early in Genesis 4, Lamech took for himself 2 wives. And approx. 6,000 yrs. later, we still see the Pharisees trying to justify putting away their wives so they can marry another. That's the perspective we need. Multiple wives, adultery, and remarriage is rampant throughout the Bible. That's the perspective we need in interpreting the words of Jesus.

The entire spirit of the Bible would lead me to admire a man who married a divorced woman.

Considering that Jesus clearly, plainly stated that to do so was adultery, I hardly have any comment for this.

Once again, Jesus is clearly, plainly speaking to those who were trying to justify divorcing their wives for any reason in order to marry another. David's statement shows an understanding of God's justice and mercy throughout the Bible toward innocent victims of any crime.

In order to keep this post manageable, I will post a number of scriptures that show God's regulating man's sinfulness with the express purpose of alleviating and minimizing suffering and injustice at the hands of others.

If she had been a blameless victim of her former husband's selfishness, I would admire him as much as I admire a man who marries a widow, taking her under his care.

Would you likewise admire the man who takes an hundred under his care? This is the same sort of pragmatism. "Well, its good because it helps her." That's a pragmatic worldview that ignores God's Word. God instituted methods for their care, and we shouldn't try to justify our own wrongdoing that way.

Intentional wrongdoing or the lesser of two evils? Another topic, I know.

If she bore some blame for her previous divorce, I would admire him for his Christ-likeness in believing the best of her, and for his grace in offering to forget the past and take a risk.

Though he would be disobeying what Christ taught, and would be complicit in her being removed from being reconciled to her husband.

This just goes from bad to worse, yet Servant finds it commendable?

Jesus word's to the legalistic Pharisees:

"But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. Matt 12:7

Why would anyone who has read the Bible and who has the Holy Spirit living in him conclude that Jesus was forbidding everyone from marrying any divorced person?

Having read the simple, plain Scriptures that we all know, having been reading them lately, aside from the specific exception named, I can answer why. I understand God to mean what He says, and to say what He means. That's why.

Mark, we know by reading every forum on this discussion board, that we often read something into a "simple, plain" scripture that has been handed down to us for years that sometimes need to be revisited. David is not, I can assure you, the only Christian in the world who has re-examined these words and arrives at different conclusion than the "never under any circumstance" interpretation that many see. If it were that simple, we would not be discussing this.

How does such a view fit with God's justice, a justice that would never punish someone for being a victim, as is the case of the woman who is divorced through no fault of her own? How does such a view fit with the message of the gospel, which offers forgiveness and another chance to repentant sinners?

Where is the repentance possible when they've gone off and remarried? That's kind of closed the door on repentance, and reconciliation. And not being free to remarry isn't punishment, its protection, imo

This is getting way too long, but let me say that repentance happens after sin, does it not? I only know of two places that speak of reconciliation without an indepth study: one in Deut. 24:4 where there is a prohibition against reconciliation and in 1 Cor. 7 where Paul speaks to the church of Corinth which is fraught with immoralities.

Never in Scripture is "another chance" with a new spouse authorized, approved, condoned, or otherwise taught as something God wills for us.

That's only partially true. We know David got plenty of second chances in marriage, all the Israelites took captives of war which was an act of mercy to them, Abigail got a second chance at marriage, Bathsheba got a second chance at marriage, Jacob got more than once chance at marriage, widows get a second chance at marriage, etc., etc., etc.

The thief who steals can repent, and work, to be able to give. The liar can repent, and speak truth. And the adulterous can repent and reconcile to their spouse, that is, unless they've made a new covenant with someone else, which then doesn't permit reconciliation.

Perfect! Believers will never sin again; is that what you're saying? Or are you saying that the only sin they will never commit again is divorce? Because neither is true if history is any measure.

..........must finish some hurricane preparations....back later.

[aaron]

I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.
-Psalm 4:8

Abiding, praying for safety and protection for you during this storm.

[daffodyllady]

If we accept that God counts the wedding bond to be dissolved only on His terms, and not on our whims, then this is perfectly sensible that remarriage is adulterous when God has not dissolved the existing union.

AMEN

Where is the repentance possible when they've gone off and remarried? That's kind of closed the door on repentance, and reconciliation. And not being free to remarry isn't punishment, its protection, imo.

Never in Scripture is "another chance" with a new spouse authorized, approved, condoned, or otherwise taught as something God wills for us. The thief who steals can repent, and work, to be able to give. The liar can repent, and speak truth. And the adulterous can repent and reconcile to their spouse, that is, unless they've made a new covenant with someone else, which then doesn't permit reconciliation.

Which makes me ask the question...
Why would that remarriage hold any water?

Upon Marriage, one enters into a Divinely authored covenant with God and a third person. Man does not make the rules. God made those when He created the covenant in the Beginning. If a man exits the covenant, God holds him to the terms of that covenant, notwithstanding. Therefore, any contradicting covenant that man may attempt to enter into while the first covenant stands, is not authored by God, no matter how they may invoke His name upon it.

God recognizes marriages of the heathen just as much as He does those of Christians. Therefore, divorces and remarriages gotten before the new birth are equally invalid.

We need to remember that it is not only the divorce that people must repent from when they want forgiveness by God. They need to repent from remarriage.

The sin of remarriage is defined in Scripture. It is not the one-time act of entering a new marriage "covenant." The Greek verb tense used defines it as an ongoing sin of continuous adultery.

Therefore, true repentance from the sin of "remarriage", which Jesus calls plain adultery, would be the action of turning around and going the other way. Stopping the ongoing sin of continuous adultery. Which in the eyes of the world is another divorce. But in the eyes of God, is not a divorce at all. It's just splitting up an unlawful union.

What if there are children from the second "marriage?" That would be no different in God's eyes, than if the two people had simply moved in together, and had children. The first wife or husband is still the true marriage partner. Putting children into a sinful situation cannot sanctify it. Nor can you sanctify a sinful situation by having mercy on children.

[daffodyllady]

Abiding, I just want you to know I am praying for you and yours, too.

--Daff

[Abiding in His Word]

Thanks for the prayers, aaron and daffodyllady! Fay is whipping through this morning, but so far the only inconvenience is the cable is out. I don't think it's going to be a very damaging hurricane - here at least.

[Abiding in His Word]

Mark, my response to the rest of your post above:

Servant's argument boils down to this:

Jesus intended to show the Pharisees that when they divorced and remarried outside of reasons of sexual immorality it was, in reality, adultery. But Jesus didn't mean that when you divorce and remarry for reasons outside of sexual immorality it is, in reality, adultery.

Wouldn't this be a double standard? I think so.

No double standard imo. You don't give a discourse on child abuse or incest unless your audience needs to hear that particular message. This message from Jesus to the Pharisees was specifically tailor-made to fit the situation and it's tailor-made to anyone else today to whom it applies.

Footnote:

1. For example, consider the comments of one divorced pastor who found himself cut off from the body of Christ when he remarried. He said, "It would have been better if I had murdered my wife than divorced her. If I had murdered her, I could have repented, received forgiveness, lawfully remarried, and continued in my ministry."

I daresay this statement portrays a self-serving mindset, and a complete disregard for God. Better to have murdered??? Of course, his new ministry would be in prison . . .

I want my divorce!!! I want my new wife!!! I want my ministry!!! I want it all!!!

It would have been better if he had not divorced, or if, having divorced, he would have remained unmarried, or reconciled to his wife.

For Servant to use this sort of anecdote to support his view kinda blows my mind . . .

Have you never heard of irony? Irony is a statement in which the intended meaning is the opposite of the words expressed. I think this is an example of irony in scripture:

Luk 22:25 And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'

The point the divorced pastor is making is legitimate, well-taken, and very applicable imo. Believers have made divorce more evil than murder and attached a life-long penalty to those who may have been divorced through no fault of their own. We've made it the unforgivable sin.

You said:

It would have been better if he had not divorced, or if, having divorced, he would have remained unmarried, or reconciled to his wife.

Divorced is divorced in the eyes of the church, isn't it? Don't we look at divorced believers a tad differently when considering them for a ministry in the church? Do we ask them for the reason for their divorce as the qualifier? Do we ask them if, although their spouse may have remarried, if they're hoping for a reconciliation? Do we expect that spouse to leave the second marriage to return to the first? Wouldn't that violate the principle in Deut. 24 of returning to the first husband? Is it scriptural that two wrongs make a right? Just wondering.....

[mark s]

What is not understandable, reasonable, and scriptural is the interpretation of Luke 16:18 if it is interpretated that someone who marries the one who was put away (no reason given here for putting here away) commits adultery. That's the interpretation the author takes issue with. The verse implies that the one who was put away is penalized when no sin is laid to her account.

Luke 16:18 Everyone putting away his wife, and marrying another, commits adultery. And everyone marrying her who has been put away from a husband commits adultery.

Again, I have to ask, how much interpretation is needed? I don't think any of the words here are really difficult to understand, or the grammar overly complex.

And again, I don't see not being free to remarry as a penalty. I see it as a protection.

If we accept that God counts the wedding bond to be dissolved only on His terms, and not on our whims......

I don't think anyone is implying divorce is acceptable or permissable for "whims." That's what the Pharisees did.

I don't mean to sound flip here - but I say it that way to put a fine point on it. We're talking about divorce and remarriage for any reason. Either its "any reason", or its not. If it is "any reason", that need not be any more than a "whim".

Either there are limits on those reasons where we can, with God's approval, divorce and remarry, or there are not. If there are limits, then we have to define, from Scripture, what those limits are. And Jesus does that for us.

If there are not limits, then it can be whatever reason anyone might have, however whimsical.

then this is perfectly sensible that remarriage is adulterous when God has not dissolved the existing union.

Are you suggesting that God was consulted, blessed, and approved every marriage?

I'm saying that when a man and woman marry, God makes the two into one.

The emphasis is on the sin of the man doing the divorcing. Because of what he does, his wife will have no other choice but to remarry, which is no sin on her part as she was just the victim of her husband's selfishness. In God's eyes, however, because the man left his wife destitute with no other choice but to remarry, it was just as if he forced his wife into bed with another man. So the one who thinks he has not committed adultery is held guilty for a double adultery, his and his wife's.

This is an interesting statement to make considering that this author doesn't seem to believe that the wife's remarriage is adulterous.

Jesus could not have been saying that God held the victimized wife to be guilty of adultery, as that would be completely unfair, and in fact would be utterly meaningless if the victimized wife never remarried. How could God say she was an adulteress unless she remarried? It would make no sense whatsoever. Thus it is plain to see that God is holding the man guilty for his own adultery, and the "adultery" of his wife, which is really not adultery at all for her. It is lawful remarriage.

How is it that the man could be guilty of his wife's adultery if it wasn't actually adultery?

It really can't be both ways. Either her remarriage is adulterous, or it isn't. If it is, well, it is. If its not, then how can anyone, him or her, be guilty? No sin was committed, according to Servant. If its "lawful remarriage", its not adultery. If its adultery, its not "lawful remarriage".

The only way Servant can support this argument is with "doublespeak". He's guilty of the sin she didn't commit?

Please look at Luke 16:18 again, Mark, and allow me to put it in the context of Jesus' entire answer to the Pharisees who were listening to Him and scoffing at His words.

And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been reached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. "Everyone who divorces his wife (for any reason) and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery. Luke16:15-18

In this discourse, Jesus says nothing about a woman's sin of immorality or indecency or anything. In fact, if adultery was involved on the part of either, according to the law, they would have been stoned. Jesus knew that law. So..... in light of His knowledge of the law against adultery and it's penalty along with the Pharisees knowledge of the law against adultery and it's penalty.....I still maintain that this very pointed, direct statement was made specifically to the Pharisees. Jesus was forcefully making a powerful statement to refute their practice of divorcing their wives for the slightest reason thereby totally making a mockery of God's purpose for a husband and wife.

And what about Jesus' next statement that "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"?

Which, BTW, is a simple statement of principle. Not, "If you, a Pharisee, trying to circumvent your understanding of the Mosaic Law, can convince . . ." Jesus' statement was simple and precise.

Do you then not see the difficulty with this point?

Its like saying, the one who fires their employee without cause is guilty of that ex-employee's theft, when they have to steal from their family. But since it wasn't the ex-employee's fault, and he had to feed his family, he's not actually guilty of stealing.

He's guilty of her adultery, except that she didn't commit adultery. Either she commits adultery of she doesn't. If she doesn't, he can't be guilty of a sin she doesn't commit.

I agree with you that the Pharisees had been, not only trying, by in fact successfully circumventing the purpose of the Mosaic Law regarding marriage.

There are only two possibilities that make any sense. Either Jesus was now adding a third count of adultery against the man who thinks he has never committed adultery (for a similar reason as He added the second count), or Jesus was speaking of the man who encourages a woman to divorce her husband in order to marry her so as "not to commit adultery."

This is a logical fallacy. There are not only two possibilities that make any sense.

It may seem like a fallacy to you, but he is sure that a wife who was put away through no fault of her own does not have to pay the penalty for being put away. That's why he is trying to determine the other possibilities that may sense. Since you implied there may be more possibilities that make sense, I'd love to hear them if you care to share them.

She does not pay the penalty for divorce, which is sin - against God's standard. That penalty is separation from God, and the lake of fire, ultimately.

But we all have to live with certain consequences of actions taken not only by us, but by others as well.

So long as this is framed as the divorced person "paying the penalty, this will yield a false perspective.

I may get drunk and crash my car, injuring my wife. She doesn't pay the penalty of my sin, and is not guilty of my sin, however, she may find her life severely changed depending on the nature of her injuries, my inability to work, and so forth.

What we do affects our spouses. They don't bear the guilt of our actions when they are innocent, but they do have to live with some of the consequences.

He is giving a much more complete understanding of what is involved in marriage to begin with. Jesus' disciples, when they heard Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce, responded that marriage wasn't such a good thing. Jesus replied that this teaching wasn't meant for everyone, and not everyone chooses to marry.

Not sure what you mean by "a more complete understanding of what is involved in marriage."

The true depth of our "one-flesh" union, and that you can't just break it as easily as was thought.

If Jesus was saying that any man on earth who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery, then every Israelite man during the previous hundreds of years committed adultery who, in complete compliance with the Law of Moses, married a divorced woman.

The Law recognized that divorce occurred, but the Law did not authorize divorce.

Even granting him his argument, Romans 5 teaches us that sin is not accounted when the Law is not given. If God hadn't told man that something is wrong, He doesn't account it against him when he does it. But once he's been told, that changes.

I know of a law against adultery and coveting a neighbors wife or goods. I see a regulation about the terms of divorce. Therefore David's statement appears correct to me since his is referring to Israelites during the time of the Law and afterwards. Furthermore, in defense of his same statement, since all Israelites knew the design of marriage in Genesis, every polygamous marriage was a sin of adultery.
In addition, in the improbable event they had forgotten about Genesis, Paul makes it clear that even apart from the law, even the gentiles conscience accuses or defends them. It's not illogical that one can't collect wives and not commit adultery.

Where is there a regulation about the terms of divorce? I don't see that. I don't see any law regulating or authorizing divorce.

But as I said, even granting that argument - If the Law actually authorized divorce and remarriage for any cause - which it doesn't - those who had done so under that law would have been perfectly fine. But going forward, they could not continue to do so. Just as before Jesus, the Jew who ate pork was guilty, after Jesus, they were not.

In fact, every man in Jesus' audience that day who was presently married to a divorced woman in full compliance with the Mosaic Law suddenly become guilty of what he was not guilty just one minute before, and Jesus must have changed God's law at that moment. Moreover, every person in the future who married a divorced person, trusting Paul's words in his letter to the Corinthians that such was not a sin, was actually sinning, committing adultery.

Jesus said, from the beginning it was not so. We need to keep perspective. God's view of marriage was in the Scripture from the beginning.

From the beginning it was not intended to be the way it was from the beginning. Early in Genesis 4, Lamech took for himself 2 wives. And approx. 6,000 yrs. later, we still see the Pharisees trying to justify putting away their wives so they can marry another. That's the perspective we need. Multiple wives, adultery, and remarriage is rampant throughout the Bible. That's the perspective we need in interpreting the words of Jesus.

That Lamech took two wives does not render divorce and remarriage for any reason to be ok.

Lets say the new fad is to jump off of tall buildings. So someone comes up and says, you can't jump off of tall buildings, gravity will pull you to the ground and crush you.

There's an instruction, and a principle. The instruction is specific, the principle is general. This is the nature of Jesus' teaching on this. He gave specific instructions, backed up by general principles. We can't limit the principle to the target of the instruction.

The entire spirit of the Bible would lead me to admire a man who married a divorced woman.

Considering that Jesus clearly, plainly stated that to do so was adultery, I hardly have any comment for this.

Once again, Jesus is clearly, plainly speaking to those who were trying to justify divorcing their wives for any reason in order to marry another. David's statement shows an understanding of God's justice and mercy throughout the Bible toward innocent victims of any crime.

And yet He is giving universally applicable principles to back it up. This appears to be the point we disagree over.

If she had been a blameless victim of her former husband's selfishness, I would admire him as much as I admire a man who marries a widow, taking her under his care.

Would you likewise admire the man who takes an hundred under his care? This is the same sort of pragmatism. "Well, its good because it helps her." That's a pragmatic worldview that ignores God's Word. God instituted methods for their care, and we shouldn't try to justify our own wrongdoing that way.

[color=#0000FF]Intentional wrongdoing or the lesser of two evils? Another topic, I know.

An example of the same sort of pragmatism. What isn't seen in one example can sometimes be seen in another.

If she bore some blame for her previous divorce, I would admire him for his Christ-likeness in believing the best of her, and for his grace in offering to forget the past and take a risk.

Though he would be disobeying what Christ taught, and would be complicit in her being removed from being reconciled to her husband.

This just goes from bad to worse, yet Servant finds it commendable?

Jesus word's to the legalistic Pharisees:

"But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. Matt 12:7

But we can't use that reasoning to overturn Jesus' express teaching. Should we not have compassion on the shopkeepers' need to feed and cloth their families - though they sell in the temple?

Matthew 12:7 was directed to the Pharisees as they condemned Jesus' disciples for eating grain on the Sabbath. I don't know whether you will agree with me or not, but I think that the institution of marriage has few parallels in Scripture - if any, aside from our relationship with God Himself.

Why would anyone who has read the Bible and who has the Holy Spirit living in him conclude that Jesus was forbidding everyone from marrying any divorced person?

Having read the simple, plain Scriptures that we all know, having been reading them lately, aside from the specific exception named, I can answer why. I understand God to mean what He says, and to say what He means. That's why.

Mark, we know by reading every forum on this discussion board, that we often read something into a "simple, plain" scripture that has been handed down to us for years that sometimes need to be revisited. David is not, I can assure you, the only Christian in the world who has re-examined these words and arrives at different conclusion than the "never under any circumstance" interpretation that many see. If it were that simple, we would not be discussing this.

I was simply answering your question. Personally, I think the one "reading into" is the one who controverts the specific , yes, plain teaching of Jesus.

Servant takes the words that really don't have another meaning, and says that they mean something different that what they say. And I realize that he's not the only one with this view.

And it can actually be that simple, and still be vigorously debated.

And as much as I look at this debate, and Servant's arguments, his argument comes down to this:

Its true for the Pharisees, but its not true for you. The Pharisees committed adultery when they divorced and remarried, but you do not.

How does such a view fit with God's justice, a justice that would never punish someone for being a victim, as is the case of the woman who is divorced through no fault of her own? How does such a view fit with the message of the gospel, which offers forgiveness and another chance to repentant sinners?

Where is the repentance possible when they've gone off and remarried? That's kind of closed the door on repentance, and reconciliation. And not being free to remarry isn't punishment, its protection, imo

This is getting way too long, but let me say that repentance happens after sin, does it not? I only know of two places that speak of reconciliation without an indepth study: one in Deut. 24:4 where there is a prohibition against reconciliation and in 1 Cor. 7 where Paul speaks to the church of Corinth which is fraught with immoralities.

I Cor 7 likewise gives us numerous principles to guide us, including that the divorced should remain unmarried to be reconciled to their husband.

Again, the prohibition against remarriage is not punishment. Punishment for sin is separation from God, and the lake of fire.

Never in Scripture is "another chance" with a new spouse authorized, approved, condoned, or otherwise taught as something God wills for us.

That's only partially true. We know David got plenty of second chances in marriage, all the Israelites took captives of war which was an act of mercy to them, Abigail got a second chance at marriage, Bathsheba got a second chance at marriage, Jacob got more than once chance at marriage, widows get a second chance at marriage, etc., etc., etc.

Are you saying it was God's will for David to marry all those women? God wanted David to marry Bathsheba? Abigail? He already had a wife.

Just because its recorded that people did something in the Bible, we can't take that as an endorsement.

The thief who steals can repent, and work, to be able to give. The liar can repent, and speak truth. And the adulterous can repent and reconcile to their spouse, that is, unless they've made a new covenant with someone else, which then doesn't permit reconciliation.

Perfect! Believers will never sin again; is that what you're saying? Or are you saying that the only sin they will never commit again is divorce? Because neither is true if history is any measure.

No, I'm not saying that believers will never sin again in their lives. What I am saying is that remarriage only compounds the wrong of divorce for any cause.

The divorced can repent, and reconcile to their spouse. God doesn't want us to divorce, and if we do divorce, He wants us to reconcile, and return to our spouse.

..........must finish some hurricane preparations....back later.

Is everything OK?

[Abiding in His Word]

Luke 16:18 Everyone putting away his wife, and marrying another, commits adultery. And everyone marrying her who has been put away from a husband commits adultery.

Again, I have to ask, how much interpretation is needed? I don't think any of the words here are really difficult to understand, or the grammar overly complex.

If the interpretation of Jesus' words to the Pharisees about adultery and divorce were not difficult to understand, we would not be having this discussion. There are many who have questioned these several verses to the Pharisees in light of the rest of scripture. That's why we do in-depth studies to ascertain the true intent. A face-value, plain text reading of a verse doesn't always reveal the intent of the writer without further study. Several very simple examples are:

1) 2Kings 14:22 He built Elath and restored it to Judah after the king slept with his fathers.

Today slept obviously means something entirely different than the word used here. Furthermore, an initial glance at the Hebrew meaning to the word slept, reveals this definition:

H790

shaw-kab'
A primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose): - X at all, cast down, ([over-]) lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still, with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.

Not at all very clear initially when a verse is analyzed by face-value read apart from other scripture.

2) Hundreds of verses that seemingly endorse and support slavery. We know proponents relied heavily on plain-text and face value reading through the entire Bible and heavy, heated debates ensued for years between evangelicals during the civil war period.

I see the topic of marriage and divorce much the same with varying degrees of interpretation among believers. In the end, every person must be fully persuaded in their own mind imho. It helps, however, for those involved in the study to have no underlying agenda so as to do so without gain or loss as the motive. Slaveholders looked at scripture with very different eyes than did the abolitionists.

This is why I cringe a little when believers site "plain text" and "face value" as a simplistic evaluation of very complex issues.

And again, I don't see not being free to remarry as a penalty. I see it as a protection.

You are free to see it that way. Many do not.

If we accept that God counts the wedding bond to be dissolved only on His terms, and not on our whims......

I don't mean to sound flip here - but I say it that way to put a fine point on it. We're talking about divorce and remarriage for any reason. Either its "any reason", or its not. If it is "any reason", that need not be any more than a "whim".

Either there are limits on those reasons where we can, with God's approval, divorce and remarry, or there are not. If there are limits, then we have to define, from Scripture, what those limits are. And Jesus does that for us.

I may have misunderstood your reason behind use of the word "whim." I do understand the need of some believers to "define" from scripture what those limits to divorce are, and you must know that it is my desire also. I do not, however, see them quite as clear-cut and well-defined as you do and I'm reasonably certain that each of us represents a large percentage of believers.

If there are not limits, then it can be whatever reason anyone might have, however whimsical.

The question is, of course, whether scripture and/or the words of Jesus to the Pharisees determines those limits or whether the limits might be defined by one or both parties in a relationship. Look here:

1Co 7:20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
1Co 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.

Again, a rather simplistic example, but immediately after Paul suggests (commands?) each to remain in the condition in which he was called, he tells (encourasges?) a slave that if he is able to become free, to do that.

Not so clear and well defined.

I'm saying that when a man and woman marry, God makes the two into one.

I believe the scripture says "shall become one." It's a process of blending two individuals into one unit imho. If both or one is going in the opposite direction, they are not becoming one as intended. And when one is moving in the opposite direction away from his/her spouse and lusting toward others, it's a pretty clear indication that "becoming" one is not going to be achieved as God intended. Do you think he doesn't see that?

Limited time....must get ready for work. Hope to finish reply to the rest of your post this evening. :)

[Loop]

Abiding in His Word , Totally agree... Its just not cut and dried that simple...

[QuietLtlMe]

Ummm. Sorry but I just had to chime in here even though I am not divorced. Often people do not fully understand God and have caused much harm to innocent people through misunderstanding the scriptures.

1.) God divorced Israel so divorce is lawful under certain circumstances.
Keep in mind that Israel is different from Judah. (The kingdom was divided after Solomon's death. 10 tribes were considered Israel under 1 king and 2 tribes were considered Judah which was the tribe of Judah itself combined with the tribe of Benjamin. God did not divorce Judah because the messiah was to come from that tribe and God does not have illegitamate children. So God did not divorce Judah for that reason even though HE considered Israel more righteous than Judah in Jeremiah's day.
Jeremiah 3:6-10 "6 During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, "Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. 7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. 9 Because Israel's immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. 10 In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense," declares the LORD. "

2.) There are 2 kinds of "divorce" spoken of in scripture. But the words translated as "divorce" is not always correct. 1 type is a legal divorce which allows a man and woman to marry another because the marriage is legally dissolved as witnessed by the written certificate given to the woman by her husband. The 2nd type which has sometimes been translated incorrectly as "divorce" are the Hebrew word: shalach and the Greek word: apoluo both of which mean "putting away" or a "separation" but this is NOT legal. It does not meet with God on legal grounds because the "putting away" was done unlawfully by withholding the written Certificate of Divorce which allowed the woman to legally marry another and provided for her rights so that she would not be ostrisized or discrimiated against. Some men were "putting away" or SEPARATING from their legal wives in an unlawful manner for self-gratification and were leaving these women unprotected and in disgrace which is what God hates!

3.) Here is a very good teaching on the matter. I highly recommend it. http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/ ... cfm?PID=20 It gives scriptural proof of the 2 kinds of marriage contracts spoken of in the Bible. When you understand that, you can better understand the matter of divorce: legal and illegal and whether a person can remarry without being guilty of adultery.

Peace of Jesus to you all!

[dshemjo]

2) Hundreds of verses that seemingly endorse and support slavery. We know proponents relied heavily on plain-text and face value reading through the entire Bible and heavy, heated debates ensued for years between evangelicals during the civil war period.

Can the New Testaments verses about slavery be literally applied today? YES--but before you think we are racist or cruel, maybe you better take another look at those verses. First of all, slavery in the Bible was not necessarily the same as the slavery in American history. The Bible speaks of people selling themselves into slavery to avoid starvation. If I had the choice: starve to death or become a slave and be fed, I think I'd go with slavery. Now the NT says that slaves should submit to their masters. If I was a slave, I would try to do just that, and to work with all my heart, as working for the Lord, not men (Col 3:23) even if it meant enduring the pain of unjust suffering (1 Pet 2:18). If I could earn my freedom, I would (1 Cor 7:21) but until then, I would apply these verses about submission literally, since I see no scriptural reason not to. Now do these verses in any way endorse going to Africa, rounding up a bunch of people against their will and selling them as slaves? NO! This kind of slavery IS condemned by the NT: 1 Tim 1:10 lists "slave traders" right next to murderers in a list of things that are contrary sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel.

So basically what the NT says about slavery is: If your a slave, try to earn your freedom, but until you do submit and serve with all your heart and you will receive an inheritance from the Lord (Col 3). If you’re a slave trader, one who takes part in making people slaves, STOP--you are in the same scriptural classification as murderers. Now, what part of this cannot be taken literally?

[Abiding in His Word]

Can the New Testaments verses about slavery be literally applied today?

Hi dshemjo,

I think you may have missed the point I was making. I didn't say verses about slavery didn't apply today. What I did say is that during the civil war era (and previously throughout history obviously) evangelicals who were proponents of slavery used the plain-text, face value of scripture to justify owning slaves. It's no secret that slavery has existed throughout history, but today we know better than to read individual verses to prove a truth if they are not in harmony with the rest of scripture and without understanding those verses in context. That's why I contrasted the two verses about slavery. Paul says each must remain in the condition in which he was called and then in the very next verse seems to contradict himself.

1Co 7:20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
1Co 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.

In other words, it was a word of caution about interpreting scripture based on plain-text, face value solely without considering the cultural, historical, and contextual values.

YES--but before you think we are racist or cruel, maybe you better take another look at those verses.

Who is "we" if you don't mind my asking? You don't believe in slavery (owning another individual) of any sort under any circumstances today, do you?

[daffodyllady]

Quietlilme,
I was going to leave this thread alone, but I just had to chime in to refute your post!

Yes, I agree, the putting away was not exactly the divorce. And as you said, it is not always translated correctly.

And yes, God did go so far as to give Israel, the northern kingdom, a written divorce. You quoted from part of Jeremiah 3.

I would like to point out that God not only divorced Israel, He also went completely against the law given in Deuteronomy 24,

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write (the Hebrew actually says, "and he hath written") her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be (hath gone and been) another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 (HERE begins the command that is given:) Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Because in Jeremiah 3, He says thus:

1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce...
12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD,
14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you:
20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.
21 A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God.
22 Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings.

This abundantly shows that even though God wrote a bill of divorce to Israel, yet he considered himself STILL MARRIED TO HER. And also BEGGED HER TO RETURN after she was defiled!

So what does this tell us? Notice that it says "THEY say..." in Jeremiah 3:1 Is this perhaps a glimpse into the heart of God in the matter? Jesus said that MOSES wrote a precept for the hardhearted children of Israel. Yet God himself did not operate in the manner Moses prescribed.

These days, under the New Covenant, we no longer operate under the Old Law. Therefore, we should not be looking for the nitty-gritty of exactly what is written, so we can get by with as much a possible. Rather, we should be looking for what God Himself does, and what he tells us to do.

To take back a defiled wife, if she wants to return, is the theme of God's message through the prophets, after His peoples' fall into idolatry. Hosea was commanded to do it, as a picture message for the Israelites. And God never commands one of His people to sin, in order to illustrate righteousness.

Therefore, I maintain, that divorce never actually ends or dissolves a marriage. It was an invention of sinful man, which God worked around. But now, in the New Covenant, Jesus himself said Moses indeed... But from the beginning it was not (the Greek says "It hath not been") so.