No Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery (L)

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have heard that a very conservative interpretation of Christ's words on divorce is to say that He allowed for divorce in the case where a bride is found not to be a virgin, and that otherwise, He did not allow for it. The reason is Christ said, "except it be for fornication".

It seems that John Piper holds to a similar view. He doesn't say anything about divorce in the case where a man marries a woman and finds out she is not a virgin. He gives the example of Joseph and Mary, where Joseph at first had in mind to put her away privately, thinking she had given away her virginity to someone else while being betrothed to him. This is a short video. Any comments?

Does the Bible allow for divorce in the case of adultery? - YouTube
 
Last edited:

Athene

Grammatically incorrect
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
14,036
1,319
✟42,546.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
I've just told DH that he has Biblical grounds to divorce me. He responded with ''yes dear''. Oldest daughter said ''wasn't that written like, 500 years ago, like Shakespearean times?'' I don't know which annoys me more, excessive use of the word 'like', or the fact she thinks the Bible authors were peers of Shakespeare.
 
Upvote 0

Created2Write

His Pink Princess
Mar 12, 2010
4,679
290
Oregon
✟13,703.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
According to Piper, divorce is only acceptable if a woman is not a virgin when she gets married. Why is female virginity upon marriage, so important?

I don't agree with Piper at all. I was not a virgin when I married either. I think the importance, though, comes from the fact that fornication is indeed a sin. God did not intend for sex to occur outside of marriage in anyway. I don't think that a lack of virginity means that a divorce should occur, though. I think adultery is a far more justifiable reason than finding out your spouse wasn't a virgin. That's nonsense, imo.
 
Upvote 0

Created2Write

His Pink Princess
Mar 12, 2010
4,679
290
Oregon
✟13,703.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've just told DH that he has Biblical grounds to divorce me. He responded with ''yes dear''. Oldest daughter said ''wasn't that written like, 500 years ago, like Shakespearean times?'' I don't know which annoys me more, excessive use of the word 'like', or the fact she thinks the Bible authors were peers of Shakespeare.

ROFLOL.
 
Upvote 0

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
According to Piper, divorce is only acceptable if a woman is not a virgin when she gets married. Why is female virginity upon marriage, so important?

Just to clarify, Piper did not go into detail and explicitly say it was about whether a woman was a virgin at marriage. I mentioned that because I inferred from what he said that that was what he was referring to.

Piper gave the example of Joseph and Mary, where Joseph wanted to put Mary away, thinking she had lost her virginity. He may not even have in mind going through with consumating the marriage. I will edit my original post.

The passage about stoning a woman who was not a virgin at marriage is a specific case. The man has paid the bride price for virgins to the father of the bride. Then he finds her not a maid.

Here, there was some deception involved. The young woman apparently does not speak up and say that she had lost her virginity.

Priests were not allowed to marry widows from other tribes or 'defiled women'--as one translation puts it. I suppose a 'defiled woman' could marry, but without the bride price for virgins.

So I don't think if one takes this teaching of Christ to refer to situations where a man pays a bride price and finds out that his wife is not a virgin as a reason for the man to hold a 'divorce card' for the rest of the marriage. In the Old Testament case, apparently the groom has the issue settled right away.

Something important to note about these passages is how much God values virginity.
 
Upvote 0

AmberNikki80

Newbie
Nov 14, 2011
14
2
✟155.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't agree with Piper at all. I was not a virgin when I married either. I think the importance, though, comes from the fact that fornication is indeed a sin. God did not intend for sex to occur outside of marriage in anyway. I don't think that a lack of virginity means that a divorce should occur, though. I think adultery is a far more justifiable reason than finding out your spouse wasn't a virgin. That's nonsense, imo.

I agree 100% :clap: If my husband wanted to divorce me because I wasn't a virgin I would help him pack his bags.
 
Upvote 0

Athene

Grammatically incorrect
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
14,036
1,319
✟42,546.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Just to clarify, Piper did not go into detail and explicitly say it was about whether a woman was a virgin at marriage. I mentioned that because I inferred from what he said that that was what he was referring to.

Piper gave the example of Joseph and Mary, where Joseph wanted to put Mary away, thinking she had lost her virginity. He may not even have in mind going through with consumating the marriage. I will edit my original post.

The passage about stoning a woman who was not a virgin at marriage is a specific case. The man has paid the bride price for virgins to the father of the bride. Then he finds her not a maid.

Here, there was some deception involved. The young woman apparently does not speak up and say that she had lost her virginity.

Priests were not allowed to marry widows from other tribes or 'defiled women'--as one translation puts it. I suppose a 'defiled woman' could marry, but without the bride price for virgins.

So I don't think if one takes this teaching of Christ to refer to situations where a man pays a bride price and finds out that his wife is not a virgin as a reason for the man to hold a 'divorce card' for the rest of the marriage. In the Old Testament case, apparently the groom has the issue settled right away.

Something important to note about these passages is how much God values virginity.

Well, female virginity anyway. It's seems silly to me that God would be so squeamish about women who lost their virginity before marriage.
 
Upvote 0

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, female virginity anyway. It's seems silly to me that God would be so squeamish about women who lost their virginity before marriage.

Perhaps your values are not the same as God's on this issue. God values sexual purity, which is not popular in our culture.


Wherefore the law is holy, just, and good.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Created2Write

His Pink Princess
Mar 12, 2010
4,679
290
Oregon
✟13,703.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was asking LinkH.

I wasn't responding to your question, which is why I didn't quote you. A few people in the thread had asked, generally, if sexual purity is only required of females. I was giving my opinion.

Sheesh.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Perhaps your values are not the same as God's on this issue. God values sexual purity, which is not popular in our culture.
Wherefore the law is holy, just, and good.

He does, but it's not in the "You broke my rules" framework. God's ways are true life for us. When we do something outside of how its meant to be, we diminish ourselves. That's what sin does.

In contrast Jesus gives us life, whereas the thief takes away. We must see holiness apart from not doing wrong. Rather, we should be telling what God's life is.

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

Created2Write

His Pink Princess
Mar 12, 2010
4,679
290
Oregon
✟13,703.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He does, but it's not in the "You broke my rules" framework. God's ways are true life for us. When we do something outside of how its meant to be, we diminish ourselves. That's what sin does.

In contrast Jesus gives us life, whereas the thief takes away. We must see holiness apart from not doing wrong. Rather, we should be telling what God's life is.

John
NZ

Great post. :)
 
Upvote 0

iambren

Newbie
Mar 2, 2008
3,224
163
newark, ohio
✟12,121.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
There's nothing that could negate the meaning of:

Joseph was warned not to put Mary away, even though he had a right to if he presumed their engagement was null and void in her supposed lack of vrginity.

AND

That Jesus meant that during marriage, one commits adultery, the offended spouse leaves and marries that it is ok.

One does not rule out the other.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
There's nothing that could negate the meaning of:

Joseph was warned not to put Mary away, even though he had a right to if he presumed their engagement was null and void in her supposed lack of vrginity.

AND

That Jesus meant that during marriage, one commits adultery, the offended spouse leaves and marries that it is ok.

One does not rule out the other.

That's not accurate. God spoke to Joseph as the one responsible for Mary's pregnancy. That's quite a difference. Plus back, then betrothal was considered as tantamount to marriage and intercourse required marriage to take place.

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0