The Bible's Laws on Divorce and Remarriage.

[YeshuaFan]

I really do wish things were different. I really do. But unfortunately, I did not write the Word of God. God did. God's Word says is still ongoing practice of sin because they are not free from the law of marriage unless the other spouse dies.

"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." (Romans 7:2).

So that sin would be greater then the shed blood of God to be able to cleanse and forgive, correct?
My bible states God can ONLY not forgive the sin of unbelief in the Son of God!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Well, the one that I can think of is that men and women had no intention of taking an oath of celibacy for the rest of their lives when they got married, and then found themselves in abusive relationships.

Considering that masturbation is as deadly a sin as adultery (it's ALL inappropriate contenteia - masturbation, fornication, adultery, gay sodomy), it doesn't make any practical difference from the perspective of sin if people remarry and thereby commit adultery, or stay unmarried and touch. But it sure makes a GREAT DEAL of difference when it comes to human suffering.

The Church has taken the stance that Jesus has taken the stance that people who have to escape abusive marriage have to be chaste and celibate for the rest of their lives because they, unfortunately, married a beastly person.

No.

No people will not do that. Historically, they masturbated alone and sad for the rest of their lives, and thus committed mortal sin in that way. In more modern days, people decided that's ridiculous and chose to remarry in pursuit of their own happiness. The Church chose to stand in the way, and so the Church has been kicked to the curb on this matter and is almost universally ignored, and rightly so.

Perhaps Jesus really did set up an impossible rule that magnifies human misery, in which case we sinners will sin, and hope he forgives us. Adulterous remarriage is the same sin as masturbation, but it is much more comforting and much less miserable to have human companionship.

Maybe the Church is right and Jesus intended to compel the unfortunate in marriage to endure the lifelong misfortune of celibacy thereafter. People have freewill and they are not going to obey him on this, any more than there is any normal teenager who ever abstained completely from masturbation until marriage.

"Be perfect" he is said to have said. Human beings are completely incapable of that degree of sexual perfection. Show me a normal male who says he never has masturbated, and I'll show you a mortal sinner - for lying is the same degree of sin as adultery and fornication and masturbation and homosexual sodomy: mortal. At least according to Jesus.

People are not going to abstain from sex for the rest of their lives because they were abused by their spouses. It doesn't matter what Jesus said: people are not going to obey that, just as teenagers are not going to abstain from masturbation.

The question, then, is what the Church is going to do. Eastern Orthodoxy permits remarriage after divorce, as an allowance to human weakness. The Protestants permit remarriage. The Catholics do not, but have tried to create a lax loophole for "nullification" that makes it "Catholic divorce-lite" in some cases, in some countries.

The Orthodox and Protestant solutions seem to disregard Christ. The Catholic solution seems to disregard reality and compassion to rigidly adhere to what Christ is said to have meant by what he said.

What's the right answer? Everybody has an opinion. And people are going to act on their own judgment, so it almost doesn't matter. When it comes to this subject, people are going to make their own decisions, and words are wind.

So the person who was divorced by her husband, who decided to remarry a godly man, will be in risk of hell at Judgment day by some posting here?

 

[YeshuaFan]

Ok. Then God will have to decide whether to forgive them or cast them into the Lake of Fire at final judgment, as he must similarly decide regarding all masturbators, all liars and all hypocrites.

Nothing much more to be said.

And God will have to say that the death of Jesus was not sufficient to cover that sin!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Only if repented of.

So the remarried, who were really once saved, will forfeit and lose their eternal life then?

 

[Kaon]

Again, you don't understand Jewish law. They had to have written physical proof of a marriage ceremony by witnesses to show that they entered a marriage covenant. It is the same reason why they needed to have a written bill of divorce. They did not take each other's word on if they were divorced or not. This was important to understand that they had to be married on paper otherwise the story of Ruth would be non-sensical. Boaz actually purchased Ruth to be his wife. So there had to be physical proof of this (like in written form with witnesses). Why do you think there was a wedding ceremony in John chapter 2? Jesus attended this wedding ceremony and he did not say it was a tradition of man. He condoned the ceremony by participating in it.

I am not concerned with Jewish Law if it wasn't from the Most High God, or the Word of God Himself. Those are tradition of men, and the Word of God Himself had as part of his ministry to stop following traditions of men, doctrinal hegemony, and to test the spirit of all men.

Did the Most High God ever say that a written contract would substantiate marriage under Him - or did He say we would cleave to one another, and be one under Him? It becomes very dangerous when we follow traditions and men, no matter how canonical or official.

 

[Kaon]

Another reason we know that God does not equate sexual intercourse with marriage based on the fact that the Old Testament often distinguishes a wife from a concubine. For example, 2 Chronicles 11:21 describes one king’s family life: “Rehoboam loved Maakah daughter of Absalom more than any of his other wives and concubines. In all, he had eighteen wives and sixty concubines.” In this verse, concubines who had sexual intercourse with King Rehoboam are not considered wives and are mentioned as a separate category.

Source:
What constitutes marriage according to the Bible?

Do you think the Most High God distinguishes from a concubine or an adulterer when He told us not to commit adultery, and that fornication would break the marriage?

Some thing the Most High God is silent on - allowing us to go to the absolute maximum of our corruption before He handles things. This happened with all of the Kings of Israel; they were wholly judged for their iniquities.


Just because the patriarchs had concubines doesn't it was allowed by the Most High God. People divorce, and the Word of God Himself said that is for our hardened hearts - not for the Most High God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you think the Most High God distinguishes from a concubine or an adulterer when He told us not to commit adultery, and that fornication would break the marriage?

Some thing the Most High God is silent on - allowing us to go to the absolute maximum of our corruption before He handles things. This happened with all of the Kings of Israel; they were wholly judged for their iniquities.


Just because the patriarchs had concubines doesn't it was allowed by the Most High God. People divorce, and the Word of God Himself said that is for our hardened hearts - not for the Most High God.

Really? You are going to take it this far?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So that sin would be greater then the shed blood of God to be able to cleanse and forgive, correct?
My bible states God can ONLY not forgive the sin of unbelief in the Son of God!

So this means an axe murderer can still continue to be an axe murderer and be saved by the blood of Jesus?

 

[Dave L]

So the remarried, who were really once saved, will forfeit and lose their eternal life then?

They probably were never saved.

 

[Dave L]

Do you think that you have repented totally of all sin before God then?

There is no forgiveness otherwise.

 

[RDKirk]

No. Divorce is not a New Covenant provision. People are married for life even if the unbeliever departs.

The unbeliever is not in the New Covenant.

 

[Dave L]

The unbeliever is not in the New Covenant.

Still married.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Bible makes no mention of divorcing except for sexual unfaithfulness (fornication).

What I'm saying is that I don't think the Bible allows divorce, even for marital unfaithfulness.
The people who heard Jesus say this would have heard that divorce is wrong except for marital unfaithfulness - but their law did not allow adultery (1 of the 10 commandments) and punished it by stoning. So the words "except for marital unfaithfulness" or adultery, wouldn't have registered - as I said before, people who committed adultery were not around long enough to be cited in a divorce case.
It would be like someone saying "this is wrong, except when there is an X in the month" - we know that, in English, no month contains the letter X; therefore we would read that as "this is wrong all the time."
So God is against divorce and has given us the ideal - that we are to be joined together and become as one flesh.

But God also knows how frail we are and how we cannot always live up to his ideal.
I'm sure he is also against people who break their vows, turn violent, become alcoholics, get their family into debt, treat their wives with indifference etc etc. The Bible doesn't mention any of these things either; does that make them right?
If you have a couple who live in the same house and share a name but little else, and don't even get along that well, they are not joined together and living as one flesh. So as they have already fallen short of God's ideal, why would divorce be any more sinful than living the lie that they are living?
If you have a couple where one of the two is caught up in alcoholism, gets violent and sleeps with other people, the vows to love and cherish have already been broken. So why is divorce any more sinful that what they are putting their spouse through?

 

[Kaon]

Really? You are going to take it this far?

That is merely a kernel of the distance.

 

[RDKirk]

Again, you don't understand Jewish law. They had to have written physical proof of a marriage ceremony by witnesses to show that they entered a marriage covenant. It is the same reason why they needed to have a written bill of divorce. They did not take each other's word on if they were divorced or not. This was important to understand that they had to be married on paper otherwise the story of Ruth would be non-sensical. Boaz actually purchased Ruth to be his wife. So there had to be physical proof of this (like in written form with witnesses). Why do you think there was a wedding ceremony in John chapter 2? Jesus attended this wedding ceremony and he did not say it was a tradition of man. He condoned the ceremony by participating in it.

Are you relying on Jewish law or aren't you?

Under the Torah, "divorce" meant "able to remarry." In fact, the man who had legally divorced his wife was not even permitted to take her back if she had remarried--reconciliation was prohibited.

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord:

Remarriage was the whole point of the "bill of divorcement."

"Divorce" absolutely meant "able to remarry" under the Old Covenant.

Under the New Covenant:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord [because Jesus spoke of believers married to believers in Matthew 19]): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

This is instruction only for believers, not to unbelievers and specifically to believers married to believers.

Neither Jesus nor Paul provided any instructions to unbelievers. Matthew 19 is for believers, 1 Corinthians 7 is for believers. Unbelievers cannot obey Christ (Romans 8). Unbelievers are dead in their sin of unbelief. Nothing in the New Covenant applies to unbelievers, neither its requirements nor its promises.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord [because Jesus never spoke of the case of a believer married to an unbeliever]): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

This is to believers married to unbelievers. All of this applies to the believer, not the unbeliever. The unbeliever is a random factor. To the believer it says the same thing as the previous section.

The difference is that the unbeliever cannot be instructed in Christ. The unbeliever is dead.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are you relying on Jewish law or aren't you?

Under the Torah, "divorce" meant "able to remarry." In fact, the man who had legally divorced his wife was not even permitted to take her back if she had remarried--reconciliation was prohibited.

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord:

Remarriage was the whole point of the "bill of divorcement."

"Divorce" absolutely meant "able to remarry" under the Old Covenant.

Under the New Covenant:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord [because Jesus spoke of believers married to believers in Matthew 19]): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

This is instruction only for believers, not to unbelievers and specifically to believers married to believers.

Neither Jesus nor Paul provided any instructions to unbelievers. Matthew 19 is for believers, 1 Corinthians 7 is for believers. Unbelievers cannot obey Christ (Romans 8). Unbelievers are dead in their sin of unbelief. Nothing in the New Covenant applies to unbelievers, neither its requirements nor its promises.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord [because Jesus never spoke of the case of a believer married to an unbeliever]): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

This is to believers married to unbelievers. All of this applies to the believer, not the unbeliever. The unbeliever is a random factor. To the believer it says the same thing as the previous section.

The difference is that the unbeliever cannot be instructed in Christ. The unbeliever is dead.

Paul says the Law is good if one uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8). I was not suggesting that we are to go back and obey the whole of the 613 laws within the Old Contract or the Old Covenant. You are assuming too much by what I said. There are things that have not changed since the Old, but that does not mean that I don't believe Hebrews 7:12 when it says the Law has changed. I most certainly believe that. We are under a New Covenant with New Commands. But that does not mean certain laws or truths have not been repeated. Obviously stealing, and or idolatry, etc. is still wrong. So I don't believe we can divorce according to the OT. I believe Jesus's commands on divorce supersedes the OT.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What I'm saying is that I don't think the Bible allows divorce, even for marital unfaithfulness.
The people who heard Jesus say this would have heard that divorce is wrong except for marital unfaithfulness - but their law did not allow adultery (1 of the 10 commandments) and punished it by stoning. So the words "except for marital unfaithfulness" or adultery, wouldn't have registered - as I said before, people who committed adultery were not around long enough to be cited in a divorce case.
It would be like someone saying "this is wrong, except when there is an X in the month" - we know that, in English, no month contains the letter X; therefore we would read that as "this is wrong all the time."
So God is against divorce and has given us the ideal - that we are to be joined together and become as one flesh.

But God also knows how frail we are and how we cannot always live up to his ideal.
I'm sure he is also against people who break their vows, turn violent, become alcoholics, get their family into debt, treat their wives with indifference etc etc. The Bible doesn't mention any of these things either; does that make them right?
If you have a couple who live in the same house and share a name but little else, and don't even get along that well, they are not joined together and living as one flesh. So as they have already fallen short of God's ideal, why would divorce be any more sinful than living the lie that they are living?
If you have a couple where one of the two is caught up in alcoholism, gets violent and sleeps with other people, the vows to love and cherish have already been broken. So why is divorce any more sinful that what they are putting their spouse through?

Jesus says clearly that the rule of exception for divorce is unfaithfulness (fornication).

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32).​

Jesus would not say that and then not really mean that. It would be misleading. He meant what he said. A person who reads this text above cannot in good conscience change what it says plainly.

Also, a marriage is not dissolved lawfully in God's eyes until the other spouse dies (See Romans 7:2). A person cannot remarry unless the other spouse is dead. Paul says that even in matters of unfaithfulness or divorce, they are to remain single or they are to reconcile with their spouse.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are you relying on Jewish law or aren't you?

Under the Torah, "divorce" meant "able to remarry." In fact, the man who had legally divorced his wife was not even permitted to take her back if she had remarried--reconciliation was prohibited.

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord:

Remarriage was the whole point of the "bill of divorcement."

"Divorce" absolutely meant "able to remarry" under the Old Covenant.

Under the New Covenant:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord [because Jesus spoke of believers married to believers in Matthew 19]): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

This is instruction only for believers, not to unbelievers and specifically to believers married to believers.

Neither Jesus nor Paul provided any instructions to unbelievers. Matthew 19 is for believers, 1 Corinthians 7 is for believers. Unbelievers cannot obey Christ (Romans 8). Unbelievers are dead in their sin of unbelief. Nothing in the New Covenant applies to unbelievers, neither its requirements nor its promises.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord [because Jesus never spoke of the case of a believer married to an unbeliever]): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

This is to believers married to unbelievers. All of this applies to the believer, not the unbeliever. The unbeliever is a random factor. To the believer it says the same thing as the previous section.

The difference is that the unbeliever cannot be instructed in Christ. The unbeliever is dead.

In 1 Corinthians 7: Paul is addressing marriage between both two believers (1 Corinthians 7:2-5, 1 Corinthians 7:9-11), and a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:12-16).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are you relying on Jewish law or aren't you?

Under the Torah, "divorce" meant "able to remarry." In fact, the man who had legally divorced his wife was not even permitted to take her back if she had remarried--reconciliation was prohibited.

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord:

Remarriage was the whole point of the "bill of divorcement."

"Divorce" absolutely meant "able to remarry" under the Old Covenant.

Under the New Covenant:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord [because Jesus spoke of believers married to believers in Matthew 19]): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

This is instruction only for believers, not to unbelievers and specifically to believers married to believers.

Neither Jesus nor Paul provided any instructions to unbelievers. Matthew 19 is for believers, 1 Corinthians 7 is for believers. Unbelievers cannot obey Christ (Romans 8). Unbelievers are dead in their sin of unbelief. Nothing in the New Covenant applies to unbelievers, neither its requirements nor its promises.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord [because Jesus never spoke of the case of a believer married to an unbeliever]): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

This is to believers married to unbelievers. All of this applies to the believer, not the unbeliever. The unbeliever is a random factor. To the believer it says the same thing as the previous section.

The difference is that the unbeliever cannot be instructed in Christ. The unbeliever is dead.

The only release from the Law of marriage in order for a spouse to remarry (marriage only to a believer) is the death of her previous spouse (See 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2).

 

[YeshuaFan]

There is no forgiveness otherwise.

My Bible states that the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin, and once saved and sealed, God Himself will make sure that we will NEVER lose eternal life, so how can you say this?