Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage

[ShermanN]

Quote:
Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).

While it is true this passage IS about our freedom in Christ, Paul uses, as an example, something his society is familiar with... namely, the original law that binds a couple until death. In so doing, validating God's original intent in marriage~ one man with one woman for a lifetime. Paul pointedly says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 7:39 ( where our liberty in Christ is not the context of the scripture ).​

TrueColors, thanks for your reply. And I agree fully and completely and have repeatedly stated that God's intent for marriage is a monogomous, life-long union of a man and woman in an interdependent, respectful, faithful, loving relationship as husband and wife. What both Jesus and Paul said verifies this. And both the Rom.7 and 1 Cor.7 passages confirm this pointing out that marriage should last until the death. The key word or principle under consideration is "should last until death." But this does not mean that marriage is indissoluble, unbreakable.

In fact, the command or law to not divorce implies that divorce is possible, not impossible. And the "law" for marriages to last until death implies that it's possible to break marriages, not impossible. Just like the law to not commit murder implies that murder is possible. Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble; this is both a bibilical and practical reality. Teaching that marriage is indissoluble is both unscriptural and illusionary.

For healthy marriages, a few of the principles that we need to recognize are that:
marriage is a human covenant, not a sacrament
marriage is breakable, even fragile, not indissoluble
marriage has specified and unspecified expectations
marriage is under civil authority
divorce is possible and should be guarded against

Another point that I would like to highlight is the importance of having healthy personal boundaries in marriage. I recommend Henry Cloud and John Townsend's books "Boundaries" and "Boundaries in Marriage" and their other books on boundaries. As Christians we are called to exibit unconditional love especially to our spouses, but unconditional love demands conditional relationships. If you truly love someone, you will not allow them to grow in disrespect and be unloving towards you and yet remain in relationship with you. It's not good for them, you, your marriage, or your family. Love demands boundaries!

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[SealedEternal]

Jesus said that everyone who remarries after a divorce is not in a legal marriage, but is actually engaging in an adulterous affair:

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."


Accoring to Encarta® World English Dictionary

a·dul·ter·y [ ə dúltəree ] extramarital sex: voluntary sexual relations between a married person and somebody other than his or her spouse

Therefore Jesus is actually saying that the divorce does not end the first marriage, and the second marriage is therefore nothing more than an adulterous affair. I notice that people often gloss right over this fact and don't seem to grasp the concept, so let's look at the verse again and what he is actually telling us:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another is having extramarital sex or sexual relations with someone who is not his spouse, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband is having extramarital sex or sexual relations with someone who is someone elses spouse ."


This is because God has said that the marriage covenant is joined by Him for life, and therefore cannot be ended except by death:


Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Mark 10:6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."


I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

Quote:

Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).​

While it is true this passage IS about our freedom in Christ, Paul uses, as an example, something his society is familiar with... namely, the original law that binds a couple until death. In so doing, validating God's original intent in marriage~ one man with one woman for a lifetime. Paul pointedly says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 7:39 ( where our liberty in Christ is not the context of the scripture ).​

You are correct. This passage is an analogy using marriage to illustrate a greater truth. For analogies to work it is absolutely necessary for the pretext to be true, otherwise the analogy fails to make its point. Therefore if marriage isn't for as long as both live and any remarriage isn't adultery, then either we are not released from the Law by the death of Christ or Paul doesn't know how to make a proper analogy. If however Paul knows how to make an analogy and we are free from the Law through the death of Christ, then marriage must be for life and any remarriage must be adultery. That's how analogies must work.


SealedEternal

 

[Servant222]

Jesus said that everyone who remarries after a divorce is not in a legal marriage, but is actually engaging in an adulterous affair:

Not true; here is one very important exception:

Matthew 19:

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

I think what Sherman is so eloquently pointing out in his many posts is that divorce, like so many other sinful things that human beings do, will still be forgiven through the grace that can only come through repentence and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

The Holy Spirit certainly convinces me that we need to forgive- that it would be a tragedy if a family, living together in harmony and Christian love, were suddenly wrenched apart because one of the parents felt convicted by guilt and ended the marriage because he/she thought that they were continuing to live in sin because of a previous marital relationship.

 

[ShermanN]

Servant222, thanks for your encouraging reply.

SealedEternally, I see that you're new to this thread and forum, WELCOME!!!! We're glad to have you. And I hope that this thread and the fellowship and interaction you have on this forum will be a blessing to you. You probably haven't taken time to review all of the posts on this thread, so I'll gladly list the topical posts that I've made, for your consideration. As I mentioned on my first post in this thread, the doctrine of MDR is an elephant, and the only way to digest it properly and get as much good out of it as possible is to eat it one bite at a time.

Sadly, because of the First Great Divide in the church, the Jewish branch almost died (but thankfully there is a move of God in our generation of its restoration). And unfortunately, the Gentile Greco-Roman branch, though experiencing exponential growth, was completely seperated from the Jewish branch and almost seperated from The Root. It rejected almost all of the Revelation that God had worked in and through the Jewish people for 1500 years; and in it's place subconciously incorporated, mixed the truths of God's Word with their roots, their Roman pagan religious beliefs and practices and especially their Greek philosophies.

Anyhow, because of this first, greatest, and most tragic and devastating division in the church, what Jesus said in a Jewish context, was torn from that context, misunderstood, misinterpreted, and resulted in the the traditional doctrine of MDR. And what Paul said to a pagan Greco-Roman culture is also misunderstood and misinterpreted based upon misunderstanding and misinterpreting what Jesus said.

If you've studied the Bible very long, you've likely heard the saying, "A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an Assumed interpretation that most likely misses the authors intended meaning!" Sadly, that's what has happened to Jesus' words concerning MDR. They were and are torn from their cultural, historical, literary, and authorial context and interpreted to mean something that the Lord never intended. People will often errantly select a few of Jesus' words, rip them from their context, post them in bold letters, and declare emphatically that if anyone disagrees with them as they are "plainly" understood, that they are just trying to justify divorce or some other wicked lifestyle of sexual immorality. But if one seeks to understand these same passages under an increasingly bright light of contextual research, then one can see that the "plain" meaning is not what Jesus meant or intended at all.

Jesus' words (in the Gospels and when quoted by Paul) should be understood through a Jewish cultural (blue) lens. Paul interprets Jesus words and applies them to the 1st Century Greco-Roman pagan culture - requiring a (yellow) lens to understand them. Unfortunately we Christians read both authors using our (red) christianized lenses, without adjusting for either the blue or yellow cultural contextual lenses. This results in everything being a (muddy brown), virtually obscuring all of the light of what Jesus said.

What I've attempted to do through this series of posts is to share some of the cultural, historical, literary, and authorial factors that shed light upon the various biblical texts in question and help me to understand and interpret them as I have shared. If you're open to information that you've likely never heard before, please read the posts and I'll gladly discuss the various points with you. If your mind is made up on this matter and you're not open to reading and considering what I've shared, that's ok, but I'm not going to just repost everything repeatedly. If you do read what I've posted (and I hope you do), and you have other information that I'm not apparently aware of or if you note some element of my analysis that is skewed please do share it, because I certainly don't assume that I've got perfect knowledge, much less a pure heart. But I can say that I'm seeking more of the Truth and The Pure Heart - Jesus!

I pray that the Lord will increasingly fill you with His peace, joy, and love!

your brother in Christ,
Sherman

P.S. I've also written a book on this subject, "God is a Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness." If interested one can get a copy through any online or local bookstore; though I've shared most of the important points in an abreviated fashion in this thread.

Previous Topical Posts on MDR thread:

1, Thread Introduction
2, Personal Introduction, why this topic is important to me
7, Traditional Doctrine of MDR defined
26, MDR is under Civil Authority, not the Church’s
35, Marriage Defined
38, Fornication, sex outside of marriage
40, Mt.19.1-3 Any Matter Divorce
49, Mt.19.1-3 Any Matter Divorce B
50, Divorce – a type of lingering death
51, The Pharisees
58, The Pharisees, a little more
59, Marriage, Indissoluble or Breakable
106, Mt.19.1-3 Review Key Points
114, Mt.19.4-6 Jesus’ desire for us – heaven on earth
148, Mt.4-6 One Flesh
153, One Flesh, brokenness to wholeness
159, True Love vs. Romantic Love
172, “two” – Jesus Affirmed Monogamy
176, Authorial Context, Jesus and Moses, Jesus’ Attitude towards the Mosaic Law
178, Authorial Context – Jesus and Civil Authority
195, Sexual intimacy, does it create an unbreakable bond?
207, Mt.19.7 Why did Moses legislate the bill of divorce?
217, Mt.19.9 Multiple variations in early Greek texts
218, Mt.19.8-9 Meanings of apoluo, de, and porniah
220, Mt.19.8-9 Interpreted
229, The Bottom Line, Principles of MDR that I believe are Biblical
236, Jesus Radically Challenges the Jewish Embedded theology that All should Procreate.
237, Mt.19.4-6 The Vision
239, Mt.5.31-32 The Sermon on the Mount
240, The House (a little humor)
244, Lk.16.18 Divorce in the Context of the Parental Love of God
257, Mk10.1-12 Jesus calls for a radical purity of heart
258, 1 Cor.7.1 Is it best to not be sexually intimate?
259, 1 Cor.7.11-12 Paul quotes Jesus on divorce.
260, 1 Cor.7.15 Meaning of “under bondage”
261, 1 Cor.7.27-28a If you are divorced and you marry, you do NOT sin!

 

[angelmom01]

No it's not. The first term used "ἀπολύων" means to set free (ie: remove from the marriage... divorce) and the second term used "ἀπολελυμένην" means to leave behind or "forsake"... ie: divorce... leavening your wife.

Two different words (which was my point).

If apoluo meant "divorce" then why was a bill of divorcement (apostasion) required?

G630
ἀπολύω
apoluō
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

G647
ἀποστάσιον
apostasion
ap-os-tas'-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: - (writing of) divorcement.

My point was that apoluō is translated "put away" and then it is translated "divorced".

Again, you can "put away" (or leave or thow out) your wife without giving her a divorce, in which case she is still married to you and would be guilty of adultery if she married another.

 

[ShermanN]

Angelmom01, yes apoluo can be interpreted as either "divorce" or "seperation without divorce" depending on the context. I find it interesting that when Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor.7.10-11 he uses two different words, one implying separation without divorce (chorizo), and the other implying divorce (aphiemi). Note the following NRSV translation.

10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. NRSV

And just today as I was reviewing this scripture I noticed something that I've never seen before! In 7.10-11, the word chorizo (separate) is in the passive voice in the Greek in both places it's used. Thus the wife, the subject of the scentence/verb is NOT the one doing the separating, but she is being separated from her husband (not of her own accord). The active agent in both sentences is the man! So the man is directed to both not divorce his wife, and not to dump (expell without divorcing) his wife.

The woman who is dumped (but not divorced) should remain unmarried or seek to be reconciled to her husband, considering that according to Jewish civil law women did not have the perogative of divorce, only men did. So this verse strongly confirms my interpretation of Jesus' words in Mt.5, 19, and Lk.16.

Paul was not only a theologian, but he was also an ex-Pharisee. The Pharisee's were very legalistic straigning over every word, so it is extremely unlikely that Paul would have used two different words in two different voices though he meant the same thing by both words.

Furthermore, in the following verses Paul interprets Jesus' words and applies them to the Greco-Roman culture of Corinth, telling both men and women not to divorce (aphiemi) their spouses. Why not use chorizo for the woman there? Because as noted in previous posts, in that culture women could legally divorce their husbands as easily as the men could their wives, simply by leaving them. No bill of divorce was required.

Anyhow, thanks for your observation.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[SealedEternal]

Not true; here is one very important exception:

Matthew 19:

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

You're using a poor translation there. The word Jesus uses is the Greek word "porneia" that means fornication. Secondly, it was stated in regard to the Old Covenant Law of Moses and has no application to those who are in Christ. Thirdly the Law He was referring to was Deuteronomy 24 which states that the man found sexual indecency in a woman "WHEN HE MARRIED HER." This is referring therefore to fornication committed sometime prior to their marriage which she apparantly tried to conceal from Him.


None of this is applicable to anyone in this discussion, and if it were then Jesus would be directly contradicting His own statements in two other gospels which state that there are no exceptions:


Mark 10:11And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

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."


These statements are all consistent with the other verses on the topic when you put them in their proper context. You are causing Jesus to seem to contradict Himself.

I think what Sherman is so eloquently pointing out in his many posts is that divorce, like so many other sinful things that human beings do, will still be forgiven through the grace that can only come through repentence and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Jude 1:4For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

When one advocates doing what Christ calls adultery, they have denied Him as their Lord.

1 John 2:3-4 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him

If He says that everyone who divorces and remarries is having an extramarital adulterous affair, then anyone who does so or encourages others to is demonstrating that they have not come to know Him.

The Holy Spirit certainly convinces me that we need to forgive- that it would be a tragedy if a family, living together in harmony and Christian love, were suddenly wrenched apart because one of the parents felt convicted by guilt and ended the marriage because he/she thought that they were continuing to live in sin because of a previous marital relationship.

What about all of the first marriages that are being "wrenched apart" because of people turning God's grace into licentiousness and telling people it is alright.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

Two different words (which was my point).

If apoluo meant "divorce" then why was a bill of divorcement (apostasion) required?

G630
ἀπολύω
apoluō
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

G647
ἀποστάσιον
apostasion
ap-os-tas'-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: - (writing of) divorcement.

My point was that apoluō is translated "put away" and then it is translated "divorced".

Again, you can "put away" (or leave or thow out) your wife without giving her a divorce, in which case she is still married to you and would be guilty of adultery if she married another.

Matthew 19:3-8 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE (biblion apostasion) AND SEND her AWAY (apoluo&#772?" He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce (apoluo&#772 your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.


You'll notice that Jesus says that Moses permitted "apoluo" or "putting away" of a wife, while the Pharisees were the ones advocating the bill of divorcement. Therefore according to you the Pharisees understood the Law correctly while Jesus was falsely claiming it was lawful to "put away" without mention of the bill.


The fact is that these terms are being used synonymously here. The "bill of divorcement" was simply the legal document that signified that the woman had been put away. This was a reference to Deuteronomy 24 which stated that a woman could be put away if she was discovered to have not been a virgin when the man married her. That's why Jesus went on to say:


Matthew 19:9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."


He was referring to Deuteronomy 24 and condemning the Pharisees as adulterers for divorcing their wives for reasons other than premarital fornication which the Old Covenant Law allowed for. It amazes me that many "Christians" try to turn this conversation completely on its head and suggest that Jesus was offering a loophole to the Pharisees to divorce and remarry when in fact He was calling them adulterers because their "divorces" were illegitimate. The reality was that under the law of Moses they were to be stoned to death for committing adultery which was the point Jesus was making there. The bill of divorcement however was not at all the point of the conversation, which is why Jesus didn't bother to mention it.


SealedEternal

 

[TrueColors]

I think what Sherman is so eloquently pointing out in his many posts is that divorce, like so many other sinful things that human beings do, will still be forgiven through the grace that can only come through repentence and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Repentence would be the crucial word in what's stated here. Jesus defined 'repentence' when He spoke to the woman caught in adultery saying, 'Go and sin no more.'
______________________________________
*Edited to welcome SealedEternal: God bless you brother!

 

[SealedEternal]

Repentence would be the crucial word in what's stated here. Jesus defined 'repentence' when He spoke to the woman caught in adultery saying, 'Go and sin no more.'

You are correct. Repentance literally means to turn around, reconsider, or change your mind. In other words you stop doing whatever you were doing wrong and do the opposite.


Some people mistakenly confuse regret with repentance. Regret however does not become repentance until it is implemented in ones life causing them to change.

If a person is in a relationship which Jesus defines as an adulterous affair, then repentance must involve ending the adultery. It is not enough to say "oops sorry" and then continue with the adulterous relationship. You must "Go and sin no more."


SealedEternal

 

[ShermanN]

SealedEternal,

I'll gladly correspond with you about specific scriptures or principles. But prooftexting is about useless for discussion. Also by quoting Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. and thus implying (you didn't state such but clearly implied) that I am such a person shows a lack of character and maturity on your part. Personal attacks like that also reveals the weakness of your position.

I'm glad that you're passionate about your beliefs, but I do encourage you to be more open minded and respectful of others who believe differently than you do. Paul commended the Bereans because they were both open minded (receptive of new information that radically challenged their traditional understanding of scripture) and diligent to study the scripture to verify what is true.

As I said, I'll gladly discuss individual scriptures or specific principles, but prooftexting is useless and I'm certainly not going to get into swapping personal attacks. I hope better of you too, and hope that we can study together the scripture.

For example, a good place to start would be Mark 10.11-12. As pointed out in previous posts, the words divorce (apoluo) and marries (gameo) are in the subjunctive mood in the Greek text. And thus a viable and sensible translation is "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery." (The Message)

So Jesus was speaking prophetically concerning the motive behind divorces, pointing out that if one divorces for selfish reasons, he/she is committing adultery. Well, that makes sence and sounds like other similar statements of Jesus. And of course, you're welcome to check with any Greek scholar concerning the viability of this translation.

But of course, if you're not open to this scripture being interpreted this way, then there is not much for us to discuss. I've come to understand that some people understand things a certain way regardless of the evidence to the contrary. One brother and I came to an empass because he believed that only the KJV was "Authorized" and thus would not consider any other translations. He also did not value studying any extra-biblical texts that might help one understand the biblical text. Anyhow, that was him but I hope better of you.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[ShermanN]

Repentence would be the crucial word in what's stated here. Jesus defined 'repentence' when He spoke to the woman caught in adultery saying, 'Go and sin no more.'

TrueColors, I agree that repentance is key to the Christian life. I don't think anything I've said contradicts this principle. If you have any questions or you disagree with any specific scripture, principle, or post, let me know and I'll gladly reconsider. And especially if you have any information regarding the cultural, historical, or authorial context that I've not considered, I'd be very greatful for you to share it.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[GwynApNudd]

I just discovered this thread over the weekend. I'm still not fully decided how much of your thesis I can eventually find myself in agreement with, but it is truly a fascinating read.

Everyone knows that the marriage relationship is very fragile and needs both partners prayerfully committed to its preservation, and yet when it breaks has the marriage bond broken?

Or even so, can forcing the bond without prayer, without love and without hope ever repair the relationship?

Is your book still in print? I belive it would be helpful to a lot of people, even some who may disagree with its basic premise.

 

[SealedEternal]

SealedEternal,

I'll gladly correspond with you about specific scriptures or principles. But prooftexting is about useless for discussion.

If I can't offer scripture as my proof, then what would you have me quote? I have offered you several scriptures to refute what you claim, and they were not out of context, nor was I leaving out anything that contradicted them. If you don't agree with what they say I can't help you.

Also by quoting Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. and thus implying (you didn't state such but clearly implied) that I am such a person shows a lack of character and maturity on your part. Personal attacks like that also reveals the weakness of your position.

That is God's Word and was very applicable to the point that the poster was trying to make. When one denies the commandments of Jesus Christ, then by definition he or she has denied Him as his or her Lord. Also when someone tries to claim that God's grace gives them a license to practice what He condemns, then they have turned His grace into licentiousness by definition.

I'm glad that you're passionate about your beliefs, but I do encourage you to be more open minded and respectful of others who believe differently than you do. Paul commended the Bereans because they were both open minded (receptive of new information that radically challenged their traditional understanding of scripture) and diligent to study the scripture to verify what is true.

I would be open minded to your position if it fit with with what God's Word said, but it is blatantly contradicting Him.

As I said, I'll gladly discuss individual scriptures or specific principles, but prooftexting is useless and I'm certainly not going to get into swapping personal attacks. I hope better of you too, and hope that we can study together the scripture.

If you believe that one can practice what Jesus condemns and still know Him, then that verse should attack you, because that is what God wrote it for. If you don't, then it isn't referring to you and shouldn't bother you.

For example, a good place to start would be Mark 10.11-12. As pointed out in previous posts, the words divorce (apoluo) and marries (gameo) are in the subjunctive mood in the Greek text. And thus a viable and sensible translation is "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery." (The Message)

The Message is not the Bible. Even the author of it acknowledges that it is his own words based on the Bible, but is not a literal translation. You're just Bible shopping. The NASB on the other hand is a literal word for word translation of the Greek:


Mark 10:11And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."


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.


God has said in His Word, that everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery. Everyone means everyone. You can't just rewrite the verses to fit your doctrine or cherry pick poor translations of the Bible.

So Jesus was speaking prophetically concerning the motive behind divorces, pointing out that if one divorces for selfish reasons, he/she is committing adultery. Well, that makes sence and sounds like other similar statements of Jesus.

You made that up and is not to be found anywhere in the text of the Bible. All Jesus said was that "Everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery" which anyone can understand without some person explaining away by giving a long explanation saying that Jesus didn't really mean what He obviously said.

And of course, you're welcome to check with any Greek scholar concerning the viability of this translation.

Whether it's viable or not is irrelevant. The most literal translation of the verse is "And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery. You don't get to decide what may be an alternate interpretation of the verse and then choose the one you like.

But of course, if you're not open to this scripture being interpreted this way, then there is not much for us to discuss.

Not unless you can offer something from scripture to prove your unique interpretation of an otherwise very clear and straightforward verse that virtually no one except you seems to think should be interpreted that way.

I've come to understand that some people understand things a certain way regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

That sounds a lot like you. God says "Everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery" and you say He didn't really mean that. If you don't accept His clear words, how could I possibly convince you.

One brother and I came to an empass because he believed that only the KJV was "Authorized" and thus would not consider any other translations. He also did not value studying any extra-biblical texts that might help one understand the biblical text. Anyhow, that was him but I hope better of you.

I could care less about translations or the opinions of people. I am only concerned with what God has said, and you are denying His clear Word without any viable evidence. Therefore I see no reason to accept your unique interpretations.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

For example, a good place to start would be Mark 10.11-12. As pointed out in previous posts, the words divorce (apoluo) and marries (gameo) are in the subjunctive mood in the Greek text. And thus a viable and sensible translation is "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery." (The Message)

So Jesus was speaking prophetically concerning the motive behind divorces, pointing out that if one divorces for selfish reasons, he/she is committing adultery. Well, that makes sence and sounds like other similar statements of Jesus.

I have to comment on this some more because it is so absurd. It doesn't say anything about motives in the text. It is speaking about divorce and remarriage, and the fact that it is adultery.

Remarriage after a divorce is called adultery by Jesus because divorce obviously does not end the marriage. If it did, then adultery could no longer be an issue since both would then be single. God however says that only death can end the marriage covenant:

I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

This of course explains why Jesus says remarriage after divorce is adultery. If only death ends the marriage covenant then divorced people are still married, and are committing adultery if they join to another while their spouse lives. We even have an example of this from scripture:


Malachi 2:13"This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14"Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15"But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." 17You have wearied the LORD with your words Yet you say, "How have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them," or, "Where is the God of justice?"

You'll notice that God calls the woman his companion and wife by covenant even after he divorced her. This proves that divorce doesn't separate what God had joined:

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Mark 10:6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."


The entire Bible harmonizes together when you put scripture in its proper context instead of trying to make scripture fit your own preconceived doctrines. I know you don't like when I post scripture on the subject because it refutes what you're trying to claim, but it is from scripture that I build my doctrines rather than the other way around.




SealedEternal

 

[ShermanN]

I just discovered this thread over the weekend. I'm still not fully decided how much of your thesis I can eventually find myself in agreement with, but it is truly a fascinating read.

Everyone knows that the marriage relationship is very fragile and needs both partners prayerfully committed to its preservation, and yet when it breaks has the marriage bond broken?

Or even so, can forcing the bond without prayer, without love and without hope ever repair the relationship?

Is your book still in print? I belive it would be helpful to a lot of people, even some who may disagree with its basic premise.

Gwyn, Welcome!!! Thanks for your open attitude. And thanks for your interest in my book; it's available online and through your local bookstores. One can preview much of it on amazon. Title, "God is a Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness."

We all have what's called embedded theology, gut-level, subconscious beliefs. The traditional doctrine of MDR is just that for most people, embedded theology, subconscious. It's very difficult to get people to bring these beliefs to a conscious level and really consider them, rationally deliberate over them. Many just respond with meaningless prooftexts and personal attacks. Let's kill the messenger so that we don't have to wrestle with the message.

Anyhow, thanks for your openess and I look forward to discussing whatever issues or concerns you might bring to light. I enjoy wrestling over the Word. The greatest looser is the greatest winner! How can that be? When debating over principles and beliefs concerning the Word of God, the person who wins the debate gains assurance and is strengthened in his beliefs - a good thing, yes! But the one who looses the debate and is shown to be in error gains far more. He is delievered from errant religious beliefs, and thus gains a greater illumination of the Truth; and thus grows tremendously in faith - an awesome and wonderful thing, Hallelujah!!!!! I thoroughly enjoy studying the Word with those that believe very differently that I do.

Anyhow thanks again for your openness. One of the most facinating scriptures to me is where Paul says that it is not sinful for a divorce' to remarry, 1 Cor.7.27-28a.

"Are you married (bound to a wife)? Do not seek divorce (to be loosed). Are you divorced (loosed from a wife)? Do not seek a wife; but even if you do marry, you have not sinned."

Of course this is very difficult for many to accept because it goes against their embedded (errant) theology that divorce's may not remarry. And that's based upon misunderstanding both Jesus and Paul's words concerning MDR.

Anyhow, thanks again for your interest and I look forward to corresponding with you.

Blessings,
Sherman

P.S. Please don't misunderstand me, the divine ideal for marriage is a monogomous, faithful, lifelong union of a man and woman in an interdependent loving relationship. And we should do all we can to help make this a reality in people's lives.

 

[ShermanN]

SealedEternal,

Please, I know it's difficult, but let's (you and I) discuss one scripture at a time. Prooftexting, yanking scripture from their context, posting them in bold letters, and implying an interpretation that is not contextually based is just foolish. Please, let's discuss one scripture at a time. If you don't like Mk.10, you pick another and I'll gladly discuss it with you. How about Mal.2.16?

Also, if you haven't already done so, please take time to read my previous posts.

Blessings,
Sherman

P.S. Concerning Mk.10.11-12, I realize that what I shared does not make any sense to you, because it's against your embedded theology. But I do ask that you research the validity of the following translation, "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery." (The Message)

If a man or woman divorces his/her spouse in order to, or so that he/she can marry someone else, well of course that's adultery. Jesus spoke propheticaly concerning the issues/motives of the heart; and He certainly did not get wrapped up in arguing with the Pharisees over civil legislation of divorce. But, oops, that's referencing the Mt.19 passage, sorry. One passage at a time please. Thanks

 

[ShermanN]

SealedEternal,

You said, "The entire Bible harmonizes together when you put scripture in its proper context instead of trying to make scripture fit your own preconceived doctrines. I know you don't like when I post scripture on the subject because it refutes what you're trying to claim, but it is from scripture that I build my doctrines rather than the other way around."

I don't know how you arrived at all of that, I'll gladly discuss whichever scripture you want to look at. Just one at a time please. I agree that the Bible harmonizes, it's just I disagree with your assumed interpretations of individual scriptures. And thus the only way for us to really study the Word together is to do it one scripture at a time. But if you don't want to settle down and deliberate over individual scriptures or principles, then please back off and stop making such negative comments about me. Such action betrays a lack of Christian maturity.

 

[TrueColors]

You'll notice that God calls the woman his companion and wife by covenant even after he divorced her. This proves that divorce doesn't separate what God had joined:

This quote was regarding Malachi 2:13-17. We find that God (called a 'divorcee' by some) remains faithful to Israel , using 'divorcement' as a means of compelling Israel to return to Him. God's heart of faithful love is seen in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 3
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; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
11 And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
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, and I will not keep anger for ever.
13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.
14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

Again, divorce did NOT break God's covenant with Israel... it merely served to help bring 'her' back into right relationship.