Remarriage after Divorce

[Johnnz]

Jesus was addressing a specific issue, not making a universal statement, except that He did uphold God's intentions for marriage.

John
NZ

 

[ArohaB]

All I know is Jesus nailed the law to the cross, since He FULFILLED it once and for all because we CANNOT. That tells me, that whatever situation i find myself in, in life, His GRACE IS SUFFICIENT FOR ME. Another gift He gave me, since I cannot make myself perfect. And I please HIM because I live BY FAITH, and that is the only way that I can please my God, to BELIEVE IN JESUS. Amazing thing with this is that the BURDEN I CARRY, is MADE LIGHT by PUTTING ON HIS YOKE, of RIGHTEOUSNESS. Since He took ALL my sin with Him, when he said IT IS FINISHED

 

[p.progress]

***************************************
Note: Meant to be a shortened version of another long post. But I’m guessing this will be judged to be long too.

p.progress, how about the wife of a husband who committed adultery? All these Scriptures talk on and on ad nauseum about the unfaithful wife, but what about the other way around? I'm not trying to justify my position, I really do want to know what Scripture says specifically about it.

I’m sorry Million Pieces, what are you asking specifically about the wife whose husband “committed adultery”?

Not correcting you too harshly here; but the Scriptures, by no means ‘talk on and on ad nauseam about the unfaithful wife‘. If you mean to say that what I’ve written went on and on (ad nauseam), I can except that if you wish.

As for “the other way around”, again help me here by explaining just a bit what you specifically are driving at and I’d be happy to give you an answer from my perspective, with respect to what I understand the scriptures teach on these things.

Since I don’t know what your ‘position’ is, I can’t comment on whether or not you are attempting to justify yourself; but I believe you meant what you said, that you are not trying to justify whatever it is you mean by that. And it brings me joy to hear you express the desire that you “really do want to know what Scripture says specifically about it”.

Please, do feel free to ask me anything. But perhaps you wouldn’t mind if I ask you this: What specifically are you asking me here. Again, I’ll be glad to do my best in explaining what I see the scriptures teach about whatever it is you have questions about; or on anything you may wish to challenge me on (whether the following or any of my previous statements).

And just so you know, I have written you back; but since it appeared it was another long, even longer post, I held off till I have the time to edit it as much as I can.

Now, if it suits you better, I would be glad to email any longer posts if you wish, to keep it off the forum, so as not to ‘clog’ it up. If so, you’ll have to tell me how. I’m not too familiar with doing so on or via this forum. I do think though that I did check a box that says I’m open to receiving emails.

Continued on next post.

 

[p.progress]

**********************************************************

Continued from above:

But let me say this, to ‘touch’ on what I think you might be driving at in the above questions:

Though the ‘exception clause’ found in Matthew is only granted to the man/husband (this is more than clear by the context in which the Lord’s words are laid out before us in that section of the Scripture). It is just as clear that the Lord is not only declaring, but also warning husbands who divorce their wives for reasons other than the ‘exception clause’ provide; that not only do they do this in violation of the law of love; but if they “marry another”, their so-called ‘marriage’ are only acceptable in a ‘legal’ sense. Meaning acceptable to men, but not before God (they already have a wife...the one they discarded for selfish and unlawful reasons).


He says: “Whosoever shall put away his wife…and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” - which is to say also, that:

‘Any husband who "treacherously" puts away/divorces/discards (quote) "the wife of thy youth" and "covenant"; and afterwards vainly and foolishly thinks that by obtaining a 'legal' document [a certificate of marriage] to "marry another"; that their 'new' civilly recognized relationship is acceptable and sanctified by God: be advised - it is not, they are dead wrong. Also be warned, they are committing…engaging in nothing less than the sin of adultery. And neither adulteresses nor adulterers shall "inherit the Kingdom of God".

THE HUSBAND'S POSITION & POWER
The husband does potentially possess a great degree of latitude in his position and power as the husband, and the “head” of his wife, the one who was granted the position and power to “rule over” her (and his family and goods).

It is hard to accept, I realize, for so many in this generation now, that the power to rule over his wife and family is still in force and very extensive. And so in light of this, we can understand the potential for abuse can be - has been (and still is) enormous in some or perhaps many cases around the world (and down through time) to this day.

Continued on next post.

 

[p.progress]

**********************************************************

Continued from above:

Having said this, the following must be quickly and forcefully stated, which is this:
Though the above is true, nevertheless, these facts do not provide any justification for men to abuse their position and power granted to them by God. I am not saying that their abuse of their power and position are not to be patiently endured by those who are called to be under subjection to them. I am saying that every single time that they do abuse their power and position, they are heaping up judgment against themselves before the presence of God. Be sure their sins will find them out. If not in this life, then to be sure, on the Great and terrible Day of the LORD.

The thought of this fearful Day of Reckoning, ought to move one and all to sober reflection. It is a fearful thing to realize that One Day, they (all of us) will stand to give a full accounting of their thoughts, words and deeds to God, who knows all things. Unfortunately, not many of us fear God as we ought to. So the outcome of this lack of fear of God easily can translate into contemplating evil imaginations and then to evil behavior.

Continued on next post.

 

[p.progress]

**********************************************************

Continued from above:

For wives, though this places them in a very vulnerable position on a human level, when the case with their own husband, is one that he is neither “good and gentle” but rather forward and “churlish in his dealings” with her, his children and others as well.

So what recourse does she have?
It would depend upon whether she is willing and up to the challenge of doing the will of God or not. If she is, there is without doubt the blessing and rewards that God promises to those who obey his will (commandments) and endure until the end…which includes the fact that suffering is inescapable at times for those "who will live godly in Christ Jesus".

If a wife though, is not willing to “endure affliction” and “suffer wrongfully”, even sadly at the hands of the very one who ought to treat her with the goodness and gentleness and love God commands all men to exercise towards their wives; then she will no doubt, do as it 'seems right' in her own eyes.

The choice is left to each of us to either live after the Spirit or live according to the flesh. After that choice the consequences will automatically be set in motion.

THE FALL & SUFFERING
After the Fall, we all are subject to suffering in this world. And that includes suffering for things that ‘just happen’, things others have done to us, things we’ve done wrong, and things that we do right - not to fail to mention things that just take place in the aging process. And if someone doesn’t seem to ‘get theirs’, to ‘get what’s coming to them’ as yet. Do not fret - they will in time, as sure as you will ‘get yours’ for what you’ve done in violation of the Laws of God.


WE ARE NOT 'UNDER THE LAW' TO BE SURE; BUT NEITHER ARE WE WITHOUT LAW
"Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid..."

Note:
Hope no one is so naively ignorant or misinformed as to actually think that true Christians do not suffer the consequences of violating the Laws (the Will, Ways and commands) of God. As redeemed people, believers nevertheless are not immune from experiencing the consequences of say, jumping off a cliff, or suffocating if denied oxygen, or civil action against them if they were to either steal from someone, or bear false witness against an individual, and on and on. You may not have to suffer eternal judgment for these things perhaps; but you will suffer earthly judgment. And later, if you have not cleared yourself of these transgressions, you will have to give an account to God at the Beama Seat [the Judgment Seat of Christ], for what you have done in the flesh, whether good or evil. So what sort of materials are you using to build upon the Foundation you say you have (Christ)? Gold…silver…precious gems; or perhaps wood, or hay, or stubble? Probably a combination of all six materials. But realize the wood hay and stubble will be burnt.

Must close. If this has answered anything, please let me know. We are all here to - or ought to be here to help and comfort others with the same comfort we have been comforted of God. But some comfort may not seem so on the face of it, or at the first.

p.progress


**********************************************************

 

[Tom2]

I was married for 8 years, but my wife decided she wanted to party, do drugs and be wild so we divorced in 1985.
I have never remarried or dated anyone else and never will.

But that's just me.
I'm too old and ugly now anyway.

 

[JanniGirl]

Jesus, himself, recognized that people can be married many times (note his words to the woman at the well). Later, in scripture a "man of one wife" is listed as a qualification for an elder of the church (once again, scripture acknowledges that subsequent marriages are real and valid). And, for those gentlemen who want to live under the law -- Jesus' words are crystal clear regarding lust -- even lust in the heart; you don't get a pass on it and I would think that you'd hold yourself to just as high a standard as you would all those divorced souls who will "burn" at the judgement seat (in your estimation, at least).

I'd be glad that we have a gracious and forgiving God . . . .

 

[dorig59]

Me too, Janni, and that was very well stated. I agree with you totally.

 

[p.progress]

Jesus, himself, recognized that people can be married many times (note his words to the woman at the well). Later, in scripture a "man of one wife" is listed as a qualification for an elder of the church (once again, scripture acknowledges that subsequent marriages are real and valid). And, for those gentlemen who want to live under the law -- Jesus' words are crystal clear regarding lust -- even lust in the heart; you don't get a pass on it and I would think that you'd hold yourself to just as high a standard as you would all those divorced souls who will "burn" at the judgement seat (in your estimation, at least).

I'd be glad that we have a gracious and forgiving God . . . .

Jesus, himself, recognized that people can be married many times (note his words to the woman at the well). Later, in scripture a "man of one wife" is listed as a qualification for an elder of the church (once again, scripture acknowledges that subsequent marriages are real and valid). And, for those gentlemen who want to live under the law -- Jesus' words are crystal clear regarding lust -- even lust in the heart; you don't get a pass on it and I would think that you'd hold yourself to just as high a standard as you would all those divorced souls who will "burn" at the judgement seat (in your estimation, at least).

I'd be glad that we have a gracious and forgiving God . . . .

dorig59 Me too, Janni, and that was very well stated. I agree with you totally.

You say Christ:

...recognized that people can be married many times (note his words to the woman at the well)

You add as your example:

...(note his words to the woman at the well)

Indeed, the Lord 'recognized' - or acknowledged that people who are forbidden to marry, nevertheless, marry.

Where you (and many others) are grossly misinformed and misguided in your understanding - and certainly your claims, is in thinking and asserting that Christ was accepting these (so-called) 'marriages'.

Acknowledgement (or recognizing) is not synonymous with acceptance. He recognized them, yes; but that does not equate to an acceptance of such 'marriages' on his part.

Recognizing is not the same as accepting. You can recognize or acknowledge the fact that something is being claimed to be genuine and acceptable by others in mass (the masses); but that opinion...the 'fact' that such an opinion is widely held, does not mean that popular opinion is itself a 'fact'. Such is the case here.

While Christ obviously "recognized" (acknowledged) such relationships are called (and thought to be by men) 'marriages'; by referring to them as 'marriages', he is NOT proclaiming or pronouncing them as genuine-lawful-holy-and binding "one flesh" husband and wife relationships.

They are not genuine-lawful-holy-and binding "one flesh" husband and wife relationships; because they are NOT acceptable in his eyes. They are not acceptable in his eyes; because they are NOT sanctified by Him. They are not sanctified by Him; because they are NOT able to be sanctified by Him. They are not able to be sanctified by Him; because those involved and are attempting to establish a husband and wife ("one flesh") relationship via a ceremonial rite we call 'marriage' (wedding; nuptials), are attempting to do so in violation of the Divine order God established for such relationships to be created by his active hand.


It out of sheer ignorance and imaginative speculative thinking that causes a person to leap to the erroneous conclusion that Christ and God ACCEPT such an entity, or such relationships.

So while it is clear on the one hand, that Christ certainly 'recognized' men call such unlawful relationships as 'marriages'; it is even more abundantly clear he calls such a 'marriage' an adulterous relationship. Hence, the reason he says:

"Whoever puts away his wife and marries another committed adultery." You see then, while he agrees THEY [men] call such relationships as 'marriages'; he though warns them that such 'marriages' are nothing less than acting out in the lusts of the flesh...the deeds of the flesh, the sin and iniquity [lawlessness]; in particular the sin of adultery.


Are these relationships forged on the Alter of God, in accordance to His Divine order - NO! These so-called 'marriages' are rather concocted fantasies'. That is, what men have conjured up in order to delude themselves into thinking that they can force God's hand to accept and esteem to be genuine in nature.

Marriage means ceremony. It is not and does not translate into that which God alone can create: the "one flesh" husband and wife relationship.



And so we see that the 'marriages' of the woman at the well were recognized, yes; that was one way that the Lord was able to get her attention. He showed he was a prophet - the Prophet, who was to come, the Messiah. He was not accepting her marriages, merely recognizing them as ceremonies see went through that he then could use to bring her to conviction and her need of Him. Sin, being made aware of them and the Judgment for sin, is used to drive you to the One who can forgive and cleanse you of it, when it is confessed and repented of.

'Divorce is not the unpardonable sin', it has for sometime now been often heard and said. And no, it is not; divorce is not the unpardonable sin. But neither is murder, nor stealing, nor lying, nor sodomy, nor fornication, nor any other sin - including the sin of adultery committed by those who either commit it by (a) thought (as you brought up) or dos o (b) physically.

But none of these sins will ever be forgiven you, or will you ever be cleansed of, while and if you refuse to recognize and acknowledge them as sin before God; and then repent (forsake) your sin.

The marriage of two people who are unqualified to attempt to seek God's blessing and acceptance of their designs, cannot be justly or rightly expected
to receive this from God.

They may indeed go out apply for and obtain a legal (civil) document which is called a 'Marriage Licence' and 'Certificate'; and they may even find many so-called religious representatives (priests; preachers; pastors; etc.) to 'officiate' over their planned ceremony [ceremony = marriage; wedding; nuptials]; recite 'vows'; be pronounced husband a wife; they can have all the guests, cake, food, rice throwing, honeymoon, house, offspring, etc., etc., etc. they desire: but it is all in vain and will be burnt as wood hay and or straw or worse.

To strive unlawfully in a matter or for a thing desired, is to invest in futility and vanity. That applies to me and well as to you and all others. Sins of the mind are going to be made manifest as will sins of outward deeds.


Lastly. The qualifications...the character traits of an elder and overseer (episkopos) that state he must be "the husband of one wife", is not meaning one wife at a time - as if he is able to have a divorce in his past and now if married to another (which Christ condemns as adultery), he is free to be esteemed as an elder by an assembly. No. Such are called to repent of their deserting and divorcing their first wife for another, and reconcile with her - if possible.

The qualification restricts men who have two or more wives at a time. Such men were ineligible. Though they may be qualified in every other way, they were not to be considered, owing to the fact they had two or more wives at a time. This is one of the differences between Levitical priests under the Old Covenant, and "examples to the flock of God" in the Ekklesia of God (Church).

It is a very incredible stretch and leap to claim this passage is endorsing divorce and so-called 're-marriage'.

Side note: It is still to date, not unlawful (unscriptural) for me to take more than one wife at a time. That practice is not condemned in the new testament as some think. What is condemned in scripture is to practice what you are saying is acceptable. Christ condemned both women and men if they put away their spouse to marry another - whether they marry soon after or years later. That Christ recognizes these 'marriages', as said before, is obvious. What is not so obvious to too many today - but should be; is that he was not saying he accepted such 'marriages'. That is obvious because he quickly adds to: "Whoever puts away his/her wife/husband...and marries another" - the floowing words: "commits adultery." Period.

How one can extract a meaning that claims God is accepting these sorts of so-called 'marriages' is wishful thinking.

 

[dorig59]

What is also sheer ignorance and imaginative speculative thinking is the following statement by you. (Most of the rest is redundant rambling):

"Whoever puts away his wife and marries another committed adultery." You see then, while he agrees THEY [men] call such relationships as 'marriages'; he though warns them that such 'marriages' are nothing less than acting out in the lusts of the flesh...the deeds of the flesh, the sin and iniquity [lawlessness]; in particular the sin of adultery."

You need to understand the culture of the times. What was happening back then and applies specifically to the above statement is this:

At that time, when a man would marry, the father of the bride would PAY the groom what was called the bride price. It could be money, goods, animals. Whatever. The groom was allowed to keep the bride price as long as he did not divorce the bride. If he divorced his wife, he would have to PAY BACK the bride price to the woman's father. So to get around that, a practice that was becoming more & more prevalent was that the husband would not divorce his wife, but would literally "put her away" somewhere. He would not legally divorce her, thus being able to keep the bride price,and then he would marry a new woman. He was committing adultery because he was still married to the original woman. THAT is what is being spoken about in that particular passage. I've read articles by many scholars who explain this in detail.

So maybe you should get your facts straight before you go on a rant about other people. And I didn't see you answer Janni's statement about looking at a woman with lust in your heart. Can you say you've never, ever done that? I seriously doubt it.

That statement was made by Jesus to show the extent of sin as well as to point out how futile trying to live under the Law is. Grace, grace, God's grace, and I literally thank Him on bended knee for that grace for saving a wretched sinner such as I.

 

[dorig59]

Sorry, double post.

 

[JanniGirl]

Dorig

You are correct and aptly state the context of scripture. I, too, noted the absence of a response to the lust question from our fellow poster. Oh, how people want to twist and twist scripture and simply ignore those things that strike too close to home.

The whole, "Sure he acknowledged the marriages, but he wasn't really acknowledging the marriages" .... Hmm. As the Bible doesn't sate this or even loosely imply it, I'll choose not to believe one man's opinion over what Jesus, himself, said.

I, like you, am just extremely grateful that my God is a merciful God who, in the person of Jesus, came to fullfill the Law so that we no longer have to live under it.

 

[Johnnz]

"Husband of one wife" does not equal 'has only been married to one wife, ever'.

In Roman society marriage was promoted but not honoured. Many higher class marriages were arranged for status and possible social advantage, the bride being around 14 and the husband around 30. Marriage was to produce a son and heir. Men had their mistress(es) for pleasurable sex. Often a favourite mistress would live in the family house along with his wife. Paul wanted none of that. One legally married wife thank you. Other NT comments, such as not dishonouring the marriage bed, most likely were made to stop married men having a mistress, or visiting prostitues, as they once did.

John
NZ

 

[dorig59]

As I said, its always good to understand the culture of the times & the proper context.

 

[sdmsanjose]

In Matthew 19 Jesus was talking to MEN ONLY. These men were men trying to trick Jesus and the men Jesus referred to in the Old Testament were men with a “hardness of heart”. Jesus was not addressing women in marriages.

The men in the Old Testament were divorcing their wives for any reason and that was not according to God’s plan.

Jesus told these men that only sexual immorality is grounds for divorce.
Jesus was addressing only men that were divorcing their wives for any reason and were violating God’s original plan for marriage.

Did the Bible ever talk about women being able to be set free from marriage because of the treatment by men? Yes, take a look at Exodus 21 below

Exodus 21

New International Version (NIV)
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

The scripture above states that if a husband deprives his wife of certain things then the wife is to “…go free”. God did not grant that freedom for only adultry


Notice the word “MARTIAL RIGHTS”.
What did Jesus say about how a husband is to treat his wife? See below

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

If a husband is abusing his wife he is not loving her “…as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” The husband is NOT providing the wife "MARITAL RIGHTS”

Listed below is a very common vow that the man makes for his bride/wife
“I promise to be faithful to you. I promise to love, guide, and protect you as Christ does His Church, and as long as we both are alive.”

Now we can use our spiritual wisdom to present and answer the question below:

Do you think that God, who loves his daughters more than you love your children, is going to hold the position that a woman should be abused and devastated in body, mind, sprit, and emotionally by her husband, and say, you have to stay in the marriage even if it destroys you?

I do not claim to know all the answers to this much debated topic. However, I know that the overall view of God’s loving nature should also be considered. God's loving nature is not going to force His daughter to be destroyed by a husband that is not following God's plan and Jesus' teaching on how husbands should treat their wives. Besides, there is scripture (Exodus and Ephesians) that speaks to the women that are deprived or abused.


Stan

 

[p.progress]

pg.5, post #48

JanniGirl
Jesus, himself, recognized that people can be married many times (note his words to the woman at the well). Later, in scripture a "man of one wife" is listed as a qualification for an elder of the church (once again, scripture acknowledges that subsequent marriages are real and valid).

And, for those gentlemen who want to live under the law -- Jesus' words are crystal clear regarding lust -- even lust in the heart; you don't get a pass on it and I would think that you'd hold yourself to just as high a standard as you would all those divorced souls who will "burn" at the judgement seat (in your estimation, at least).

I'd be glad that we have a gracious and forgiving God . . . .

pg.6, post #51

Dorig
So maybe you should get your facts straight before you go on a rant about other people. And I didn't see you answer Janni's statement about looking at a woman with lust in your heart. Can you say you've never, ever done that? I seriously doubt it.

pg. 6, #53

Dorig
You are correct and aptly state the context of scripture. I, too, noted the absence of a response to the lust question from our fellow poster. Oh, how people want to twist and twist scripture and simply ignore those things that strike too close to home.

The whole, "Sure he acknowledged the marriages, but he wasn't really acknowledging the marriages" .... Hmm. As the Bible doesn't sate this or even loosely imply it, I'll choose not to believe one man's opinion over what Jesus, himself, said.

I, like you, am just extremely grateful that my God is a merciful God who, in the person of Jesus, came to fullfill the Law so that we no longer have to live under it.

It appears I'm being accused not only of 'failing' to answer 'the lust question'; but I've done so in an effort to avoid something. Avoid what? Something (in the minds of some) apparently too 'legalistic' to be honest with myself about. The reality is that I'm neither out of touch with, nor in some sort of 'denial' concerning my own humanity - my own fallen and flawed humanity; and actively practice self-reflection and self-examination. I even receive corrective-instructive criticism; not merely from those who have my best interest at heart, but even from those who are given to dishonorably mockery.

Since it appears I've been judged to be nothing more than a redundant rambler, I think I understand why you are unaware of what I have already expressed on the subject.

If you'd had been more diligent and careful in reading, you would have read elsewhere, where I addressed the Matthew 5 passage...the one that speaks to the fact that sin begins in the heart [it is restated later below].



As for the accusatory comment about noticing "the absence of a response to the lust question from our fellow poster". If the lack of commenting in my latter posts on that question, in your judgment, appears to betray a conscious avoidance in 'answering' the 'question' on my part - as it appears you seem to think. You ought to have realized that since the statement in question that I allegedly failed to comment on, was not framed as a question (neither directly or indirectly), but rather presented as a statement, and I quote:

"And, for those gentlemen who want to live under the law -- Jesus' words are crystal clear regarding lust -- even lust in the heart; you don't get a pass on it"

Then, you might have considered the possibility that I didn't have any reason from my perspective to 'answer' or address it in my next posts, as you imagine it should have been. If the person who made this statement in their post, had asked it as a question, and that directly to me; then I might understand you 'wondering' as to why I didn't 'answer' such a direct question.

You assume too, too much.



By the way, the door swings both ways.

I could accuse you and others of consciously avoiding numerous issues that I brought to the table in my 'ramblings'. How so? Simply because it appears to me that many of those, perhaps not unlike yourself, who defend what I understand to be legalized adultery (so-called 're-marriage'), fail (or ignore) continually to 'answer' very solid scriptural principles and commandments I and others have brought up. Solid...clear...and repeated scriptural principles and commandments that I have 'noticed' go un-commented upon...'unanswered'. Instead, such are very quick to automatically cast out accusations and judgments about 'legalism' and parrot the phrase "You need to understand the culture of the times" - as if the keys to the understanding of God's Word the Scripture of truth, is dependent upon being enlightened by extra-biblical documents.

Those who reject sound instruction, do so because much of what God reveals as his will in scripture, does not 'fit' within their "private interpretation" of what they want 'grace' to mean in their own vainly puffed up minds. Yes, I am aware you would say the very same thing about those like myself. But I think and speak from my vantage-point...which I after much study of course am satisfied fits what scripture reveals on these subjects.

While many wrench out of its contextual sockets what 'grace' - "the true grace of God" means and is actually defined as in scripture. The meaning of what Peter calls "the true grace of God..." [1Pet.5:12], is forever settled for any sincere and honest child of God to see and examine. Which expression is contextually defined by all that Peter wrote, instructed and warned his audience of throughout the whole of his letter(s).

And yes grace - "the true grace of God", can and does both call and empower believers to endure unjust and even cruel sufferings at times: This includes suffering wrongfully at the hands of either a cruel parent or a disobedient ungodly husband, or in the case of servant/slaves, a "froward", "churish" master.


Now a quote of mine found on page 4, in post #39 that did address the subject of lusting in the heart...perhaps not to your liking; but there it was to be read. It was in response to post#38, pg 4, by ArohaB:

ArohaB wrote:

Thank God we are no longer under law then huh... or no one would be forgiven ever! Considering "looking" at a woman to lust after her is considered adultery for a man. Is it any wonder we needed the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is the only one that can sacrifice for our sins once and for all.. especially when man cannot do that for himself.

My quotes have been edited here somewhat. The original unedited version is on page 4:

p.progress []:


DIVORCE: 'NOT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN'
...The sins associated and committed in the pursuing and obtaining of a divorce is separate and different from the sins associated and committed in the process of forming an emotional and physical relationship with another person other than your lawful spouse.

Before anyone marries another - other than their estranged spouse - they have to first meet, then choose to build an emotional bond with that other person.

Deciding to enter into a civilly recognized 'marriage' relationship with a woman whose lawful husband is still living, is the natural progressive outcome of entertaining thoughts that are themselves forbidden by God; forbidden by him to allow another man to take root within their mind. The sin(s) of adultery is committed way before the 'knot' is ever tied in these things.

So when you touch on the fact in your post that Christ revealed there is a deeper more subtle definition to the meaning of adultery, that previously escaped the notice of the teachers of the Law. It is here that we are exposed to the fact that adultery is not merely a sin that is easily identified by an obvious unlawful outward act. No, for it is first conceived/spawned in the darkness of the heart and mind. He said:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."


EXPANDED MEANING OF CHRIST'S WORDS & THE NATURE OF MAN
Side note:
Now in regards to Christ's words. I would argue that Christ is not saying that lusting after any and all women results in the sin of adultery. The context is pointing to the fact that it is the lusting after and/or coveting of married women...wives of other men: "thy neighbors wife" that is in view here. This, this constitutes adultery in the eyes of God, though 'merely' mental and emotional in nature.

Meaning, the sin of adultery is not/cannot be committed by a male (whether literally in a physical way or conceptually in his heart) by laying with or lusting after an unmarried woman. The command not to commit adultery is specifically addressing the prohibition against a man laying with not merely a female, but rather (specifically) a married woman...the wife of another man.."thy neighbor's wife".
So just as it is impossible for a man to commit adultery unless he lays with his neighbor's lawfully wedded wife; so it is no less impossible for that same man to commit mental adultery in his heart, unless he lusts after ("covets") his neighbor's wife in his heart - a married woman.


Quote continued:

That is not to say that if a grown man or teenage young man were lusting after an attractive mature or younger woman - and attractive unmarried woman that they are not in violation of the prohibition against fornication. Perhaps they are. For if mental adultery is committing adultery in the eyes of God and according to his definition; then you would think it would not be improper to apply that same principle to the sin of fornication. But I am not certain of this. It may depend upon the degree and intensity which the mind of the man is focused upon certain details that shall be left well enough alone.

What I am saying is that the way man has been 'hard-wired' with reference to his natural drive, desire, plus how and why he thinks the way he does about the female form and woman as a counterpart to himself, in contrast to how females think about men; it's not always 'a given' that for a man to look with desire on a woman...an unmarried non-wife woman, is automatically sinful.

To think, desire, lust or covet after another man's daughter (as all women are daughters of some man) is not the same as thinking, desiring, lusting or coveting after another man's wife.

Though to be sure to covet and desire another man's daughter can be sin, when it is done in an inappropriate way. But lets be honest. It requires desire on the part of a man for a woman, to cause him to take the first step in initiating a relationship with her. This is so, even in the most wholesome and pure pursuits to seek out a help meet for him. [Note: In seeking to initiate a relationship, the divine mandate and order is the man must seek and obtain the permission of the woman's father to "take her to wife". To ignore and violate this order is also a violation of the Law of God: The 8th, “Thou shalt not steal." The 10th, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's [including coveting his daughters]." And the 5th, "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." The daughter is bound to honor her father. So if she would think to marry against his will, she would be guilty of not only violating the fifth commandment; she would be violating a number of other commandments.

Have I ever violated this command not to commit adultery not only in act, but in thought? It is enough that God knows whether I have or not; and if I have, whether I've repented or not. It is clear that sin of every type begins in the heart.

Also I am not ignorant of the cultural backdrop when Christ was being engaged by the religious leaders of that time; nor of the argument surrounding the 'get' (divorce papers). I just do not wrest the clarity of scripture's revelation on these subjects, to fit what so many claim these extra-biblical 'facts' 'add' 'context' to these subjects and passages. Though I will continue to be accused of wresting them.

 

[gerardeflow]

The bible is clear, divorce and remarriage is adultery. Blessings
Matthew 5:31-32Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality

Mark 10:12

New King James Version (NKJV)
12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:9

New King James Version (NKJV)
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18

New King James Version (NKJV)
18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Scriptures about not to remarry
1 Corinthians 7:10-12

New King James Version (NKJV)
10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
When one is allowed to remarry
Romans 7:2-4

New King James Version (NKJV)
2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4
1 Corinthians 7:39

New King James Version (NKJV)
39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

 

[gerardeflow]

Stan,

If those scriptures only referred to men, and not women, then the promises that are shared with men won't belong to women?

 

[LinkH]

Can you only remarry IF your first spouse dies? What are you thoughts on what this scripture means:

Romans 7:2-3
For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Just some thoughts on this:

Jesus says that if a man divorces his wife, except it be for fornication, he commits adutlery. He does not state the 'except it be for fornication' part from women divorcing their husbands.

Jesus commented on the law of Moses. Adultery had a death penalty, but it seemed to be defined by a man sleeping with a married woman. Polygamy was allowed (tolerated-- it was not part of the original design in Genesis) for men, but polyandry was not allowed.