RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

Restored_Heart -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 12:16:48 PM)

Using several translations, I will go through Mt 19:9 - one more time.

(NIV)
9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Man is in adultery, unless wife was unfaithful.

(NASB)
9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Man is in adultery, unless wife was unfaithful.

(ESV)
9And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

Man is in adultery, unless wife was unfaithful.

(KJV)
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In this case - if she has been appropriately put away - she was unfaithful. Otherwise, the man is in adultery because he divorced her frivolously.

(CEV)
9 I say that if your wife has not committed some terrible sexual sin, you must not divorce her to marry someone else. If you do, you are unfaithful."

In all cases, the divorced woman was divorced because she had been unfaithful - She was NOT an innocent spouse.



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 12:21:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SmileyTish

Sorry, Fritz...wasn't trying to get anyone hot...But I'd like them to understand that there are REAL people that they are dealing with here, not some idea that they are looking at.

That may be, but it extremely hinders the discussion.

If one were to reply honestly it may get them into trouble with TOS and all because you or someone else lead them down that path with the personal question.

If this is too close to someone personally then they would be wise to steer clear of these threads.

They aren't intended for discussing personal situations rather the topic in the broader scope.



neuronstatic -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 12:22:55 PM)

I knew what you were doing Tish. I think we all got the point, but Fritz has a point. This is an extremely personal issue for most of us and it could quickly degenerate. I am sure that the mods have seen it happen all too often. I may have even been a part of such a fiasco.

But you are right Tish, some of us live it. Others just think about it.



cadz -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 12:43:17 PM)

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”. [Matt: 19:9].

To fully appreciate the subject regarding “divorce and re-marriage” the above scripture must be studied and fully understood. There are a number of points we need to address. Most Christians, including theologians, agree that the book of Matthew was written “mainly” to/for the Jews. With this in mind we can expect to find some characteristics pertaining to Jewish customs. In studying this subject I am convinced the above scripture is one such example. Let us do some investigation.


In the gospel of Mark we read:

“And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”. [Mark: 10:10-12].



In the gospel of Luke we read.

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery”. [Luke: 16:18].



On reading these scriptures in Mark and Luke we have no other choice but to conclude that, should a husband or wife put away/divorce their spouse and marry another, Jesus calls this adultery: period end of discussion. There are no exception clauses in these precious passages of scripture, and we need to recall that you can only commit adultery if you are married. We know that there are no mistakes or contradictions in the word of God, so why the exception clause in Matthew, that for many seems to contradict the scriptures in Mark and Luke.



Every good bible teacher will admit that the clear passages of scripture must be used to understand the not so clear passages. We have clearly seen in both the book of Mark and Luke what our Lord has to say regarding “putting away” and re-marrying, and that is; anyone engaging in this behaviour is committing adultery. So to clear this issue up, we go back to the fact Matthew was written mainly for a Jewish audience and begin to study the subject in greater detail.



In scripture we have illustrations whereby when a Jewish couple were espoused/betrothed [that is engaged to be married] they were referred to as husband and wife. The perfect example of this is in the book of Matthew with the case of Joseph and Mary. We read:



“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily”. [Matthew 1: 19-20].



From these verses of scripture we learn how the “except it be for fornication” clause neatly fits into place. When we read of Mary being espoused, it speaks of Mary being bound or betrothed to Joseph, even though they were not yet actually married. In Jewish custom, when a couple were betrothed they were expected to continue that relationship resulting in Marriage. They were called husband and wife as seen by the above scripture referring to Joseph as Mary’s husband even thou they were not yet married.
We have many bible translations, and translators will occasionally use different words to interpret the Greek. Our passage of scripture in Matthew 19:9 is one such example. In reading from various bibles we have the following words being used for the Greek word porneia. [fornication, sexual immorality, adultery, illicit sex, marital unfaithfulness, unchastity]. However which best fits the context and situation, as porneia is both used in a narrow sense and a broad sense through out scripture. I am persuaded fornication is the best. Using the example of Joseph and Mary we understand that Joseph thought Mary had broken their espousal/betrothal contract. Hence he thought she had committed fornication [had sex while not married], giving Joseph the right to divorce/ put her away privily. If this had been the case, he could have divorced her and found himself another bride to be, as they were not yet married.

This is why we have the “exception” clause in Matthew. It applies to the betrothal/espousal period only. This is why the disciples answered: “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry”. They knew that Jesus was saying to them, that once married, you were married for life. It turned the focus back to the scriptures, these scriptures plainly stated that, Yahweh made man and woman, and a man was to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, whereby the “mystical” union of marriage took place making them one flesh in the eyes of Yahweh. No more two, but one flesh, and with this came a declaration: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”.

For the complete article visit
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/hammond2.htm



momfree -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 12:57:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1956Ford

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”. [Matt: 19:9].

To fully appreciate the subject regarding “divorce and re-marriage” the above scripture must be studied and fully understood. There are a number of points we need to address. Most Christians, including theologians, agree that the book of Matthew was written “mainly” to/for the Jews. With this in mind we can expect to find some characteristics pertaining to Jewish customs. In studying this subject I am convinced the above scripture is one such example. Let us do some investigation.


In the gospel of Mark we read:

“And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”. [Mark: 10:10-12].



In the gospel of Luke we read.

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery”. [Luke: 16:18].



On reading these scriptures in Mark and Luke we have no other choice but to conclude that, should a husband or wife put away/divorce their spouse and marry another, Jesus calls this adultery: period end of discussion. There are no exception clauses in these precious passages of scripture, and we need to recall that you can only commit adultery if you are married. We know that there are no mistakes or contradictions in the word of God, so why the exception clause in Matthew, that for many seems to contradict the scriptures in Mark and Luke.



Every good bible teacher will admit that the clear passages of scripture must be used to understand the not so clear passages. We have clearly seen in both the book of Mark and Luke what our Lord has to say regarding “putting away” and re-marrying, and that is; anyone engaging in this behaviour is committing adultery. So to clear this issue up, we go back to the fact Matthew was written mainly for a Jewish audience and begin to study the subject in greater detail.



In scripture we have illustrations whereby when a Jewish couple were espoused/betrothed [that is engaged to be married] they were referred to as husband and wife. The perfect example of this is in the book of Matthew with the case of Joseph and Mary. We read:



“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily”. [Matthew 1: 19-20].



From these verses of scripture we learn how the “except it be for fornication” clause neatly fits into place. When we read of Mary being espoused, it speaks of Mary being bound or betrothed to Joseph, even though they were not yet actually married. In Jewish custom, when a couple were betrothed they were expected to continue that relationship resulting in Marriage. They were called husband and wife as seen by the above scripture referring to Joseph as Mary’s husband even thou they were not yet married.
We have many bible translations, and translators will occasionally use different words to interpret the Greek. Our passage of scripture in Matthew 19:9 is one such example. In reading from various bibles we have the following words being used for the Greek word porneia. [fornication, sexual immorality, adultery, illicit sex, marital unfaithfulness, unchastity]. However which best fits the context and situation, as porneia is both used in a narrow sense and a broad sense through out scripture. I am persuaded fornication is the best. Using the example of Joseph and Mary we understand that Joseph thought Mary had broken their espousal/betrothal contract. Hence he thought she had committed fornication [had sex while not married], giving Joseph the right to divorce/ put her away privily. If this had been the case, he could have divorced her and found himself another bride to be, as they were not yet married.

This is why we have the “exception” clause in Matthew. It applies to the betrothal/espousal period only. This is why the disciples answered: “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry”. They knew that Jesus was saying to them, that once married, you were married for life. It turned the focus back to the scriptures, these scriptures plainly stated that, Yahweh made man and woman, and a man was to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, whereby the “mystical” union of marriage took place making them one flesh in the eyes of Yahweh. No more two, but one flesh, and with this came a declaration: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”.

For the complete article visit
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/hammond2.htm



LOL you can't be serious!!!!! You explain Matthew away as being for the Jews only? Couldnt' I say that Mark/Luke aren't clear so I compare to clear scripture in Matthew-or is it a majorit rules? God's word should not be confusing or contradictory...it's in there..why it's in one book and not the other doesn't matter...it's men repeating His words-who's to say Mark/Luke didn't include it all? I've never heard that straw argument before quite frankly.

Oh and the SECOND argument-that the passage in MATTHEW was meant only for betrothed couples? Again...are you being serious with this "form your own opinion to back your views?" It says husband and wife-not betrothed-
Also it says porneia (broad meaning) if you CHOOSE to use a narrow meaning that's up to you...it doesn't mean you are right or that it means fornication or the people (i'm sorry the jews) He was referring this to were just engaged....
If he meant fornication he would have SAID fornication-he used "porneia"

So maybe in Luke/Mark when he says husband/wife if you divorce you commit adultery he's referring to engaged couples going their seperate ways?

Why use the word "DIVORCE" if not married. With Joseph and mary it was used "thought about putting her away quitely" it doesn't say divorce-divorce was for those married-as well as husband and wife-Joseph and Mary aren't called husband/wife during their engagement-that is making up stories (good ones I admit lol) to back up man made laws.

I ask again, w/out accusing....are these the interpretations, opinions and arguments made from these ministers about the remarriage thing? If so, I can simply discount them as illogical and as strawman grasps because it has no basis whatsoever except for twisting, personal view and opinion. Nothing more but MAN MADE laws.


Edited to add:

So to summarize your view it goes like this

The book of Matthew is meant for the Jews
The clause is there in error since the other books don't have it
The clause "porneia" is wrong and the word fornication should have been instead though jesus used "porneia"
It doesn't matter if Matthew was for all because it was actually referring to ENGAGED couples only (just Matthew of course)
SO if you don't like one "explaining away" you can use 3-4 others?

But if the clause that is there by mistake is for the jewish, engaged couples only why would you commit "mocheia" if you "divorced" ...i guess it doesn't matter cause the clause is wrong anyway and doesn't mean what it says nor is it useful to us today.

I'm all mixed up now! LOL God is NOT the author of confusion people.



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:00:46 PM)

(
quote:

KJV)
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In this case - if she has been appropriately put away - she was unfaithful. Otherwise, the man is in adultery because he divorced her frivolously.



You still don't really address the divorced woman and the man who marries her. Jesus says that whosoever marries this divorced woman commits adultery (even though the husband is married to another). Are you saying that the guilty woman is still BOUND to her husband and unable to marry another?


quote:

In all cases, the divorced woman was divorced because she had been unfaithful - She was NOT an innocent spouse.


How so? If we go back to Mt. 5:32, we can see the woman put away is NOT the guilty, but the INNOCENT..........and whoever marries her is guilty of adultery, as is the woman and the 1st husband for CAUSING her to commit adultery by wrongly divorcing her.

Here are many more translations which contain the LAST part of Mt. 19:9 which you did not post (with the exception of KJV):

American Standard Version (ASV)
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

2. Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
9`And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'

3. Darby Translation (DARBY)
9But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery.

4. Amplified Bible (AMP)
9I say to you: whoever dismisses (repudiates, divorces) his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery, [a]and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


5. New Life Version (NLV)
9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.'

6. King James Version (KJV)
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

7. New King James Version (NKJV)
9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[a] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

8. 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
9And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery."

9. Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
9But I tell you this. No man may send his wife away unless she has committed adultery. If he does, and if he marries another woman, he commits adultery. And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away by her husband, he commits adultery.'


10. English: Douay-Rheims Version Matthew 19
9. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

11. English: Webster's Bible Matthew 19
9. And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.

12. Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible

9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery."

13. Wycliffe 1385 NT
9 And Y seie to you, that who euer leeueth his wijf, but for fornycacioun, and weddith another, doith letcherie; and he that weddith the forsakun wijf, doith letcherie.



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:07:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

quote:

ORIGINAL: lastblast

quote:

You will find it impossible to prove that second marriages are adultery for the innocent spouse. Why? Because they are not and Jesus said so.


Mt. 5:32...............Mt. 19:9
Matthew 5:32

    But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason causes her to commit adultery




neuronstatic -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:09:46 PM)

lastblast, please don't misquote the Bible.

And please get an English primer and understand the use of semicolons and compound sentences.

This is not a personal attack. This is an observation on all the quoting of scriptures where you have ignored the connection of the semicolon to join the compound sentence and that the woman in the first part was the woman in the second part.

Edited to be nicer.



Expos4ever -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:12:34 PM)

Hello NeuronStatic and others:

It recently occurred to me that the Matthew 5:32 could be used to justify divorce and remarriage even if the offending spouse had only committed adultery in their hearts. Just before the Matthew 5:32 statement, Jesus equates thoughts of adultery with adultery itself. Does this not mean that the "except for sexual immorality" exception also includes mental acts?

The rather obvious problem that this creates is that it basically opens use of the exception clause to everybody - who among us married types has not lusted in our hearts after someone other than our spouse? If we take Jesus seriously about lustful thoughts, and we also take the exception clause seriously, doesn't this give basically everyone the right to divore and remarry, since pretty much every spouse has lusted in their hearts?

This is an example of why I think that code-morality does not work - the admittedly vague principle of love must dominate.



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:16:07 PM)

quote:

This is why the disciples answered: “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry”. They knew that Jesus was saying to them, that once married, you were married for life.


You know what Cheryl? When my son (11) and I were talking about marriage one day and I shared with him what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage, his response was EXACTLY like the disciples..........I responded as Jesus did and as told him what Paul taught concerning "singlehood" vs. marriage and about those who do accept Jesus' words----staying celebate for the kingdom's sake.

Blessings in Jesus, Cindy



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:21:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

lastblast, please don't misquote the Bible.

And please get an English primer and understand the use of semicolons and compound sentences.

This is not a personal attack. This is an observation on all the quoting of scriptures where you have ignored the connection of the semicolon to join the compound sentence and that the woman in the first part was the woman in the second part.


I quoted 5:32 in that way to show that the woman Jesus is speaking about who is put away, is INNOCENT. The husband is charged with CAUSING her to commit adultery. If, as you believe, a woman is rightly discharged for adultery, and taking what you say in many other threads that the marriage is now dissolved, how then can she be charged with adultery (and the next husband) for marrying her?

If a man puts away his wife FOR Porneia, then he ISN'T guilty of causing her to commit adultery..............she is already guilty of that.

As to your problem with the semicolon and the verses I give, they are straight off of Crosswalk.com and other websites in which I found some of the other translations. They are correctly posted. In Him, Cindy



neuronstatic -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:22:23 PM)

Expos4ever, I concur. It is the "thou canst marry anew" group that is arguing the letter of the law. We do not attempt to stick to the letter of the law to prove the second marriage is possible. We are pointing to the problems of the "dead-letter" group.

In my case, hunter's, and others, we did not pursue divorce even when we had grounds for it. We allowed the adulterous spouse to do the leaving So I am consistent in what I am saying. It is not the Law, it is the Word and grace of God that grants us freedom to marry after divorce.

My favorite verse for this:

James 2:13
For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.



AfterGod -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:35:21 PM)

Hi everyone, is it ok to jump in?
I am divorced, and depending on the denomination of the Church, there are several ways to answer this..my argument is, according the the Word-As long as a man manages his family well, and is married to one women..(not a polygamist)he can serve. Women are treated a little different. 1 Tim 3:2



neuronstatic -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:38:19 PM)

Ok lastblast, I pulled one of your translations at random.

English: Webster's Bible Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.

Now what does this say?

It says that Jesus is doing the talking. He had just been asked if a man may divorce his wife for ANY REASON. He said no. In fact He said that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than lewdness (i.e. immorality/adultery) and then marries again, he then commits adultery.

So pull that apart. If he divorces his wife for immorality/adultery and marries again he does NOT commit adultery. This is a clear indication that divorce for immorality/adultery is not only allowed, but it indeed dissolves the covenant of marriage because there is the clear evidence that you can marry again without being in sin.

Does anyone disagree with that quite clear understanding of the first part of this compound thought?

Now in the second part of the verse, the closing part of the compound thought, Jesus identifies the woman as the one who was "put away" from the first part. The first part was a woman put away (i.e. divorced) for immorality/adultery. So if you marry this woman divorced for immorality, you too commit adultery.

In other words, the woman in question was guilty, not innocent.

Does anyone disagree with that quite clear understanding of the second part of this compound thought?

Pick any of the translations. They all have the same conclusion.

But now my friends, it does not stop there. Oh no. Anyone who has sinned, even adultery, can be forgiven. But it is not the divorce or the marriage they need to be forgiven for to clean them. They need to be forgiven for the sin that caused them to be put away (i.e. divorced) in the first place. And once forgiven by God (even if not forgiven by sinful man), they are clean. The memory of the offense is wiped away. And they are free to marry again.

Does anyone disagree that forgiven sins are no longer remembered by God?



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:42:11 PM)

quote:

It says husband and wife-not betrothed-
Also it says porneia (broad meaning) if you CHOOSE to use a narrow meaning that's up to you...it doesn't mean you are right or that it means fornication or the people (i'm sorry the jews) He was referring this to were just engaged....
If he meant fornication he would have SAID fornication-he used "porneia"


Mt. 1:18-24.........Mary and Joseph had not come together yet. They were betrothed. Joseph found Mary pregnant and was thinking of "putting her away"...........BEFORE Joseph had taken Mary to wife.........Just something to ponder. Blessings in Him, Cindy



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:45:52 PM)

quote:

So pull that apart. If he divorces his wife for immorality/adultery and marries again he does NOT commit adultery. This is a clear indication that divorce for immorality/adultery is not only allowed, but it indeed dissolves the covenant of marriage because there is the clear evidence that you can marry again without being in sin.

Now in the second part of the verse, the closing part of the compound thought, Jesus identifies the woman as the one who was "put away" from the first part. The first part was a woman put away (i.e. divorced) for immorality/adultery. So if you marry this woman divorced for immorality, you too commit adultery.


How can a marriage be dissolved, but the wife charged with adultery AGAIN and the man who marries her charged with ADULTERY???



neuronstatic -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:47:50 PM)

lastblast, according to all Jewish custom, once betrothed, a couple could be considered married in 30 days by doing nothing about it. And in all cases, it took a divorce to separate a betrothed couple.

Betrothal is NOT like a western engagement. Nor should it be.

That is why I consider myself betrothed and not just engaged. I entered a marriage covenant of betrothal already. And though I am not Jewish, I like the sound of it better than engaged.

Joseph and Mary were betrothed. Putting her away would have required divorce.



neuronstatic -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:50:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lastblast

quote:

So pull that apart. If he divorces his wife for immorality/adultery and marries again he does NOT commit adultery. This is a clear indication that divorce for immorality/adultery is not only allowed, but it indeed dissolves the covenant of marriage because there is the clear evidence that you can marry again without being in sin.

Now in the second part of the verse, the closing part of the compound thought, Jesus identifies the woman as the one who was "put away" from the first part. The first part was a woman put away (i.e. divorced) for immorality/adultery. So if you marry this woman divorced for immorality, you too commit adultery.


How can a marriage be dissolved, but the wife charged with adultery AGAIN and the man who marries her charged with ADULTERY???

The marriage can be dissolved legally for the immorality of the wife.

The wife, as unrepentant after the dissolution, causes a subsequent husband to be charged with immorality as well because she is in sin and he willingly binds himself to an unrepentant sinner.

Don't quibble over the word adultery or immorality or lewdness. Those differences are modern things. Jesus considered it immorality.



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:55:13 PM)

quote:

Joseph and Mary were betrothed. Putting her away would have required divorce.


Exactly. Joseph thought that Mary had committed "porneia"..........and he was going to put her away. Interesting that the only gospel directed at a Jewish audience contains the "exception clause"..........the other two gospel directed towards Gentiles that had no such betrothal custom (binding as a marriage) did not include ANY exceptions for divorce/another marriage. In Him, Cindy



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:57:52 PM)

quote:

The marriage can be dissolved legally for the immorality of the wife.

The wife, as unrepentant after the dissolution, causes a subsequent husband to be charged with immorality as well because she is in sin and he willingly binds himself to an unrepentant sinner.

Don't quibble over the word adultery or immorality or lewdness. Those differences are modern things. Jesus considered it immorality.


Your reasoning of the Word makes absolutely no sense. If a marriage IS DISSOLVED, it is dissolved. There are no more ties to the previous partner. You say that a woman who is "put away" for adultery has left the marriage covenant, therefore the divorce of her dissolves the union. Then in the same breath you say that this same woman commits adultery AFTER she is no longer joined to anyone?? I don't think that's handling God's Word in a consistant way..........



momfree -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:58:55 PM)

Oh and I have another question that seems to alwasy be discounted for some reason.

I hear the word "bound" to the original spouse for life until death, etc....

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.


I think the verses following that command are telling also SO if you are repentant or convicted when called on, you repent...you do NOT change the situation. Your REMAIN in the situation which you were in when God called you.

ALso does the part "if the unebeliever leaves (which means a lot) LET HIM NO LONGER UNDER BONDAGE...not under bondage-you are NO LONGER BOUND...becuase HE calls us to PEACE...you can say it doesn't say you can remarry-I can argue it doesn't say you CAN'T it ends with that. You are free to believe as you wish as well as I am also.

No longer under bondage in Greek (perfect passive-which refers to present state) Doolou--means no longer "enslaved" ...but you are free....what does free mean to you? It means I'm no longer enslaved to that marriage or that person.


Also in the verses prior Paul is telling the Christian that IF an unbelieving mate is
pleased to carry on the union in this manner of love, respect and responsibility, the Christian should not leave or separate; BUT IF NOT, the Christian is not under bondage to endure war - he has been called to peace.

Anything less than love, respect and responsibility is not being "PLEASED TO DWELL" and the Christian is not under bondage in such cases.



neuronstatic -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 1:59:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lastblast

quote:

The marriage can be dissolved legally for the immorality of the wife.

The wife, as unrepentant after the dissolution, causes a subsequent husband to be charged with immorality as well because she is in sin and he willingly binds himself to an unrepentant sinner.

Don't quibble over the word adultery or immorality or lewdness. Those differences are modern things. Jesus considered it immorality.


Your reasoning of the Word makes absolutely no sense. If a marriage IS DISSOLVED, it is dissolved. There are no more ties to the previous partner. You say that a woman who is "put away" for adultery has left the marriage covenant, therefore the divorce of her dissolves the union. Then in the same breath you say that this same woman commits adultery AFTER she is no longer joined to anyone?? I don't think that's handling God's Word in a consistant way..........

Right, some Gentile customs were that you could divorce for any reason AND some of the Gentiles DID have the betrothal custom. The Gospel of Matthew was directed to believers. Jesus was addressing a Jewish audience at the time and SPECIFICALLY the loose divorce application they had. Perhaps they were more messed up than the Gentiles?

However, I know that in Christ, there is "no Jew, no Gentile..."

Nice try, splitting hairs. It is typical of the legalists arguments.



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 2:02:32 PM)

quote:

Oh, you reject Matthew too like 1956ford?

By the way, I think there is something about "no Jew, no Gentile" somewhere in the NT.

Nice try. Does not fit here. Legalists arguments love to split hairs.


I don't reject any book of God's Word. You just don't like how I see it. None of us can deny that Joseph COULD put Mary away for "porneia" before the final wedding (during the betrothal). Since we see Jesus using both Porneia(fornication) AND Mocheia(adultery), it should cause us to wonder why He chose to use two different terms. It caused me to seek..............In Him, Cindy



lastblast -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 2:05:03 PM)

quote:

Your reasoning of the Word makes absolutely no sense. If a marriage IS DISSOLVED, it is dissolved. There are no more ties to the previous partner. You say that a woman who is "put away" for adultery has left the marriage covenant, therefore the divorce of her dissolves the union. Then in the same breath you say that this same woman commits adultery AFTER she is no longer joined to anyone?? I don't think that's handling God's Word in a consistant way..........


You quoted my question above, but didn't address it in your last post................



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (11/30/2005 2:10:09 PM)

ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

"Nice try, splitting hairs. It is typical of the legalists arguments."

Enough of those sort of statements. It is inflammatory rhetoric.

Keep it out of this thread please.

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI