Can you marry a divorced woman?

[RDKirk]

You're dead wrong on a number of things. 1 Cor 7:10-11 is not a blanket ban on divorce and remarriage any more than Luke 18:22 is a ban on having money. The general rule is that you don't terminate a marriage absent some compelling reason - that is a material violation of the terms of the marital covenant. If you truly believe God expects us to stay married to someone who is vile, abusive, dissipated, or a cheater - then you seriously need to rethink your doctrine. Is that truly what you think of God!? Mere separation would not be an adequate remedy in many cases of serious sin.

Okay, here is a thought. So we have a married couple in 1st century Jerusalem or Corinth or Ephesus who are both Christians and members of our congregation...the only congregation in the city. And remember, families seldom moved in those days (unless forced out by Imperial edict or the like).

So in the case of this couple, Christians both, the man horribly abuses his wife. In accordance with Matthew 18, she voices the matter first with her husband, but he refuses to acknowledge and repent. Several other members of the congregation have been eyewitnesses to his abuse, so they go with her to confront him again...and again, he refuses to acknowledge and repent. Finally, they take the matter to the congregation as a whole, as prescribed by Jesus.

Now, we can switch for a moment to 1 Corinthians 5 for explicit instruction that the congregation is not allowed to let the matter go unresolved. They must deal with it.

Both Jesus and Paul make the same pronouncement: The abusing husband is not allowed to remain a member of the congregation. He's to be treated like a pagan and ejected from the congregation.

This is no not the case of a Christian married to a Christian who are at odds for reasons not involving Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthian 5 offenses that call for ejection from the congregation and treatment like pagans.

And now we have a young woman. Paul said this about young widows:

"But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. "

What part of that would not apply to this young woman whose husband has been cast out of the Church?

 

[trophy33]

In short, the marriage permanence heresy is just that: heresy.

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Mk 10:11-12

If divorce really divorced people in the meaning that they are single again, the adultery would not be technically possible. It can be adultery only because the first marriage is still valid.

There is not even one verse in the New Testament saying we can ever divorce somebody. And not even one verse saying we can remarry, while our "former" spouse is still alive.

If you do not like it, stay single. People are flying into marriages like birds into traps, en masse. They do not realize its a serious thing, caring more about dress or wedding day than about consequences.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

If divorce really divorced people in the meaning that they are single again, the adultery would not be technically possible. It can be adultery only because the first marriage is still valid.

Wrong again. At Matthew 5:28, Jesus used the word "adultery" to describe a man looking upon a woman with lustful intent. Neither the man not the woman in this scenario need to be married to anyone for this offense to occur. So the use of that word does not in any way prove the marriage continues to exist after divorce.

There is not even one verse in the New Testament saying we can ever divorce somebody. And not even one verse saying we can remarry, while our "former" spouse is still alive.

Actually, there is. See Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17. You can also see verses in 1 Corinthians 5 that say to not associate with certain people (drunkards, swindlers, immoral, etc). If the Church of not put up with these worthless bums, why should their spouses?

If you do not like it, stay single. People are flying into marriages like birds into traps, en masse. They do not realize its a serious thing, caring more about dress or wedding day than about consequences.

Of course marriage is a serious thing. That's part of why we have divorce in the first place: so that people can be rid of their toxic lowlife spouses who refuse to take their marital vows seriously.

You seem to think marriage is some kind of a suicide pact. You should consider the Heart of God in light of His concern for justice and the vulnerable. Your assertions are wildly inconsistent with what we know about His character.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Okay, here is a thought. So we have a married couple in 1st century Jerusalem or Corinth or Ephesus who are both Christians and members of our congregation...the only congregation in the city. And remember, families seldom moved in those days (unless forced out by Imperial edict or the like).

So in the case of this couple, Christians both, the man horribly abuses his wife. In accordance with Matthew 18, she voices the matter first with her husband, but he refuses to acknowledge and repent. Several other members of the congregation have been eyewitnesses to his abuse, so they go with her to confront him again...and again, he refuses to acknowledge and repent. Finally, they take the matter to the congregation as a whole, as prescribed by Jesus.

Now, we can switch for a moment to 1 Corinthians 5 for explicit instruction that the congregation is not allowed to let the matter go unresolved. They must deal with it.

Both Jesus and Paul make the same pronouncement: The abusing husband is not allowed to remain a member of the congregation. He's to be treated like a pagan and ejected from the congregation.

This is no not the case of a Christian married to a Christian who are at odds for reasons not involving Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthian 5 offenses that call for ejection from the congregation and treatment like pagans.

And now we have a young woman. Paul said this about young widows:

"But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. "

What part of that would not apply to this young woman whose husband has been cast out of the Church?

That woman has a clear and compelling cause to divorce the worthless bum she has the misfortune of being married to. After her divorce, it would make perfect sense for her to be like a younger widow. I also see no reason why she should not remarry. Denying the freedom to remarry in this case serves no worthwhile purpose.

There is so much horrendously bad teachings in our churches these days concerning divorce and remarriage. There's much more to being a faithful spouse than merely refraining from sleeping with other people.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

In forums like this one, I have spoken out against what I call the Marriage Permanence Heresy. This doctrine states that divorce is no longer allowed, even in cases most of us would consider compelling. It also states that any and all remarriage after divorce is presumed adultery. Some variations allow for divorce under very narrow circumstances, but might disallow remarriage as if the marriage continues to exist after divorce.

Incredibly, some versions of this doctrine hold that if you are divorced and remarried, then you are living in a perpetual state of adultery and will lose your salvation as a result, unless you divorce again! I wonder what would happen if such a person gets in a fatal auto accident on their way to the courthouse.

Don't get me wrong: the Marriage Permanence Heresy is NOT the belief that marriages should not be terminated without some compelling cause. In fact, if divorce was legit for any reason or no reason at all, then marriage might as well not even exist.

At times I would ask a series of mostly rhetorical questions to counter this dangerous heresy. Here's a longer version:

(1) Was adultery lawful under the Mosaic Law?
(2) If not, then what explanation have you for Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
(3) If remarriage after divorce was adultery back in those days, why was it ever lawful?
(4) If remarriage after divorce was not adultery in those days, when did it become adultery?
(5) Was Esther condemned as an adulteress for her marriage to King Xerxes after he divorced Queen Vashti?
(6) Where in Scripture are people who are remarried following divorce instructed to get another divorce from their so-called "adulterous marriage"?
(7) If Jesus changed the Law to restrict divorce - or to alter the definition of adultery - when did Heaven and Earth disappear? (Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17)
(8) If Heaven and Earth have disappeared, why wasn't I informed?

The central theme to all this is that the tenets of basic morality did not change from the Old Testament to the New. (I'm referring to basic ethics, not the civil and ceremonial regulations that were specific to the Jews in those days).

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. And pi is 3.14159... It has never been any other number. These things don't change. God isn't known for being fickle.

I could find no passage in Scripture where Jesus rewrote the tenets of basic morality. Was it when Jesus and the disciples sailed to Morocco with Popeye the Sailorman?

 

[RDKirk]

In forums like this one, I have spoken out against what I call the Marriage Permanence Heresy. This doctrine states that divorce is no longer allowed, even in cases most of us would consider compelling. It also states that any and all remarriage after divorce is presumed adultery. Some variations allow for divorce under very narrow circumstances, but might disallow remarriage as if the marriage continues to exist after divorce.

Incredibly, some versions of this doctrine hold that if you are divorced and remarried, then you are living in a perpetual state of adultery and will lose your salvation as a result, unless you divorce again! I wonder what would happen if such a person gets in a fatal auto accident on their way to the courthouse.

Don't get me wrong: the Marriage Permanence Heresy is NOT the belief that marriages should not be terminated without some compelling cause. In fact, if divorce was legit for any reason or no reason at all, then marriage might as well not even exist.

At times I would ask a series of mostly rhetorical questions to counter this dangerous heresy. Here's a longer version:

(1) Was adultery lawful under the Mosaic Law?
(2) If not, then what explanation have you for Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
(3) If remarriage after divorce was adultery back in those days, why was it ever lawful?
(4) If remarriage after divorce was not adultery in those days, when did it become adultery?
(5) Was Esther condemned as an adulteress for her marriage to King Xerxes after he divorced Queen Vashti?
(6) Where in Scripture are people who are remarried following divorce instructed to get another divorce from their so-called "adulterous marriage"?
(7) If Jesus changed the Law to restrict divorce - or to alter the definition of adultery - when did Heaven and Earth disappear? (Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17)
(8) If Heaven and Earth have disappeared, why wasn't I informed?

The central theme to all this is that the tenets of basic morality did not change from the Old Testament to the New. (I'm referring to basic ethics, not the civil and ceremonial regulations that were specific to the Jews in those days).

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. And pi is 3.14159... It has never been any other number. These things don't change. God isn't known for being fickle.

I could find no passage in Scripture where Jesus rewrote the tenets of basic morality. Was it when Jesus and the disciples sailed to Morocco with Popeye the Sailorman?

God's intention is that marriage is until death. Anything that varies from His intention is sin.

So, in terms of God's absolute righteousness, all divorce and remarriage is, indeed, enveloped by a cloud of sin.

However:

But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

Along with:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.

God is neither an idiot nor a martinet. God knows who generated that cloud of sin. Although both are, indeed, enveloped by the cloud of sin (which will have its own material consequences both must bear), God knows who generated it, and knows who bears the blame and spiritual accountability.

 

[trophy33]

Wrong again. At Matthew 5:28, Jesus used the word "adultery" to describe a man looking upon a woman with lustful intent. Neither the man not the woman in this scenario need to be married to anyone for this offense to occur. So the use of that word does not in any way prove the marriage continues to exist after divorce.



Actually, there is. See Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17. You can also see verses in 1 Corinthians 5 that say to not associate with certain people (drunkards, swindlers, immoral, etc). If the Church of not put up with these worthless bums, why should their spouses?



Of course marriage is a serious thing. That's part of why we have divorce in the first place: so that people can be rid of their toxic lowlife spouses who refuse to take their marital vows seriously.

You seem to think marriage is some kind of a suicide pact. You should consider the Heart of God in light of His concern for justice and the vulnerable. Your assertions are wildly inconsistent with what we know about His character.

Your arguments seem very weak to me. But there is probably no point in me repeating the verses again, if you simply do not accept them.

Regarding your verses, I see no reason to deal with the Mosaic Law 2,000 years later after it was put away, not even being a Jew.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Your arguments seem very weak to me. But there is probably no point in me repeating the verses again, if you simply do not accept them.

Regarding your verses, I see no reason to deal with the Mosaic Law 2,000 years later after it was put away, not even being a Jew.

You seem to have a lot invested in the Marriage Permanence Doctrine. Might I ask why? Better yet, what makes you think someone who is divorced needs some special permission to get married again? Do we need some special permission in Scriptures to watch Game of Thrones or listen to secular music?

I accept the Word of God in its entirety. 2 Timothy 3:16 said all Scripture is useful for various spiritual applications. Last I checked, "All Scriptures" include the first 4 verses of Deuteronomy 24. I also hold that Jesus meant what He said at Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17. He did not change or alter the Law of the Prophets in any way. If you wish to make a case to the contrary, feel free to answer the questions I posed in the previous post.

You cited some verses all right. No need to repeat them as they do not support the marriage permanence doctrine as you claim they do.

In Mark 10, Jesus condemned as adultery the act of divorcing a faithful spouse just to get with another person. Nowhere did Jesus condemn someone for divorcing someone for serious reasons - nor did He condemn any subsequent remarriage after a divorce for some serious cause.

It also doesn't fly to treat 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 as some universal command regardless of context. Would you treat Luke 18:22 that way? How about Luke 14:26? What then, makes you think it is appropriate to read 1 Cor 7:10-11 that way? Anybody can rip verses out of context to say just about anything. Even the Devil can do that (Matthew 4). But we need to respect the Word of God taken as a whole, and that includes keeping the context intact.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul was advancing the general principle that you don't terminate a marriage without some compelling reason to do so. Believers in Corinth were ending marriages under the misguided notion that celibacy is somehow more spiritual than married life. He also went on to say that a believer should not divorce an unbeliever simply because they are an unbeliever. To treat this as a universal ban on any and all divorce is brain-dead, especially in light of context and other areas of Scripture that would clearly allow for divorce when the need to do so is compelling.

One man dumped his wife just to run off with some OnlyFans girlie. Another man divorced his wife after her third arrest for shoplifting to fuel a drug habit, then married a better woman five years later. Come on, Myst! Even pagans understand the moral difference here! And you expect us to believe God doesn't!?

I'm going to take a different turn on this discussion in my next post...

 

[ZephBonkerer]

... Regarding the Marriage Permanence Heresy. It is indeed heresy and can be proven as such fairly easily based on what we know about God and His Word. But I'm taking a different turn here.

I believe this legalistic teaching appeals to some who were done dirty by some ex and want to see them pay for what they did to them. Or it could also appeal to the self-righteousness of some people who don't have much of a sex drive and want to fancy themselves as holier and molier than those filthy cretins who are divorced and remarried. Many believers seem to think that false teachings that tickle the ears are usually libertine or loose in their morals, but the truth is that heresies are oftentimes legalistic. They appeal to the self-righteousness of the hearer and give the illusion of some formulaic path to righteousness. They are also harder to see through than other heresies because they often use language like "holiness" or "self-sacrifice" to make them appear biblical.

I could elaborate on why I find the Marriage Permanence Heresy so odious and appalling. All you have to do is consider the real-life ramifications of someone who has the misfortune of being married to some worthless bum who refuses to honor their vows. This doctrine has implications regarding the very nature and character of God Himself. I really believe this doctrine slanders God as it implies that God cares more about the Institution of Marriage than He does about His own children.

Full disclosure: this is personal to me. Two years ago my own marriage was in jeopardy. My wife of 14 years was little more than a roommate to me for a significant part of the marriage. While she was just fine with this, I was not. I made it known to her that this had to change or the marriage had to end. I also made it known to the elders that while divorce and eventual remarriage was not the direction I wished to pursue, that would be a necessity if I am given no other option.

I wasn't seeking permission or some justification to get a divorce. In fact, I already had all the justification I needed to get one. Instead, I pursued counseling with an intent to find out what could be done (if anything) to make divorce unnecessary. While I tried to make it work, in the end the marriage proved too far gone. She wanted out, and I had no choice but to let her walk.

I sought to save the marriage in good faith. I did not deal treacherously with my ex, nor did I make unreasonable demands of her. Despite this, I was STILL condemned by the leadership of my then-church assembly and by some other believers. They rejected me, and I have repaid in kind. I remain adamant that I committed no crime that I should be condemned to celibacy for the rest of my life. Anyone who would insist otherwise shall be deemed unworthy of my presence.

 

[trophy33]

You seem to have a lot invested in the Marriage Permanence Doctrine. Might I ask why?

Not sure what you mean by that. I am simply participating in this discussion as others and as you. I am personally single (never married), so no personal agenda I am aware of behind that.

Better yet, what makes you think someone who is divorced needs some special permission to get married again? Do we need some special permission in Scriptures to watch Game of Thrones or listen to secular music?

Strawman. I am saying that both Jesus and Paul taught that you must not divorce. And if somebody else divorces you, you must stay unmarried. At least, it seems so from the verses I quoted. I see no verse in the New Testament allowing or implying remarriage.

I accept the Word of God in its entirety. 2 Timothy 3:16 said all Scripture is useful for various spiritual applications. Last I checked, "All Scriptures" include the first 4 verses of Deuteronomy 24.

Why the Mosaic Law is neither for Gentiles nor for today is not a topic of this thread, so I will not argue it here, there are tons of discussion threads about this.

You cited some verses all right. No need to repeat them as they do not support the marriage permanence doctrine as you claim they do.

In Mark 10, Jesus condemned as adultery the act of divorcing a faithful spouse just to get with another person. Nowhere did Jesus condemn someone for divorcing someone for serious reasons - nor did He condemn any subsequent remarriage after a divorce for some serious cause.

It also doesn't fly to treat 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 as some universal command regardless of context. Would you treat Luke 18:22 that way? How about Luke 14:26? What then, makes you think it is appropriate to read 1 Cor 7:10-11 that way? Anybody can rip verses out of context to say just about anything. Even the Devil can do that (Matthew 4). But we need to respect the Word of God taken as a whole, and that includes keeping the context intact.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul was advancing the general principle that you don't terminate a marriage without some compelling reason to do so. Believers in Corinth were ending marriages under the misguided notion that celibacy is somehow more spiritual than married life. He also went on to say that a believer should not divorce an unbeliever simply because they are an unbeliever. To treat this as a universal ban on any and all divorce is brain-dead, especially in light of context and other areas of Scripture that would clearly allow for divorce when the need to do so is compelling.

One man dumped his wife just to run off with some OnlyFans girlie. Another man divorced his wife after her third arrest for shoplifting to fuel a drug habit, then married a better woman five years later. Come on, Myst! Even pagans understand the moral difference here! And you expect us to believe God doesn't!?

I'm going to take a different turn on this discussion in my next post...

I simply do not think your arguments are strong, as I already said. Yes, some marriages are bad. Yes, some people run from it so their spouse remained alone. Yes, some verses are not to be taken literally or universally.

However, I do not think it changes the verses I quoted and I do not think your explanation of them is solid enough, though it may be motivated by your good intentions.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

I simply do not think your arguments are strong, as I already said. Yes, some marriages are bad. Yes, some people run from it so their spouse remained alone. Yes, some verses are not to be taken literally or universally.

However, I do not think it changes the verses I quoted and I do not think your explanation of them is solid enough, though it may be motivated by your good intentions.

I would be interested in hearing which of my arguments you find unpersuasive and why. You said my explanation is not solid enough, so I ask you: where are the holes in my assertions?

The Marriage Permanence Doctrine rests on the premise that Jesus abolished any and all divorce (or divorce and remarriage) at Mark 10 and similar verses in Matthew 19 and Luke 16. This teaching also uses Paul's words at 1 Cor 7:10-11 and Romans 7:2-3 to argue that divorce is no longer allowed, even for serious reasons. It is this premise that I steadfastly reject. My refusal to accept this premise does not by any means constitute a rejection of the Word of God taken as a whole. I have seen legalists support their false teachings by claiming those who reject them are willfully disregarding the Word of God. This is slander.

There are other ways to attack this doctrine. To make my case against it, I appealed to God's unchanging nature, the timeless nature of ethics and morality, and the words of Jesus at Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 to show that none of the verses cited above can reasonably infer a blanket ban on divorce and remarriage.

When people say things like "nowhere in the New Testament does it allow for remarriage," this is an argument from silence. That there is no explicit permission to do something in the NT does not mean it is prohibited. I cited watching Game of Thrones and listening to secular music as counter examples to show the flaws in that assertion.

 

[trophy33]

I would be interested in hearing which of my arguments you find unpersuasive and why. You said my explanation is not solid enough, so I ask you: where are the holes in my assertions?

The Marriage Permanence Doctrine rests on the premise that Jesus abolished any and all divorce (or divorce and remarriage) at Mark 10 and similar verses in Matthew 19 and Luke 16. This teaching also uses Paul's words at 1 Cor 7:10-11 and Romans 7:2-3 to argue that divorce is no longer allowed, even for serious reasons. It is this premise that I steadfastly reject. My refusal to accept this premise does not by any means constitute a rejection of the Word of God taken as a whole. I have seen legalists support their false teachings by claiming those who reject them are willfully disregarding the Word of God. This is slander.

There are other ways to attack this doctrine. To make my case against it, I appealed to God's unchanging nature, the timeless nature of ethics and morality, and the words of Jesus at Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 to show that none of the verses cited above can reasonably infer a blanket ban on divorce and remarriage.

When people say things like "nowhere in the New Testament does it allow for remarriage," this is an argument from silence. That there is no explicit permission to do something in the NT does not mean it is prohibited. I cited watching Game of Thrones and listening to secular music as counter examples to show the flaws in that assertion.

Well, you summarized it quite well.

On one side we have 5 explicit places in the New Testament. Against that, your argument is based upon the obsolete Mosaic Law's divorce rules.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Here are two scenarios to consider:

Scenario I: an Israelite man living in - say 900 BC - finds some indecency in his wife. Suppose this is a real indecency (immorality, drug use, or whatever) and not some lame pretext. He comes to the conclusion that divorce is the only viable course of action. So he pursues a divorce according to the laws in place at the time, and includes all the necessary financial provisions as required by law. Then he marries a better woman (who also happens to have been divorced) three years later.

Scenario II: same facts and circumstances as above, only this time we are dealing with a man living in the United States of America in AD 2023.

My questions: do the actions of the man in the first scenario constitute adultery? How about the actions in the second scenario? If one is adultery and the other is not adultery, then what explanation is there for the apparent double standard?

 

[trophy33]

My questions: do the actions of the man in the first scenario constitute adultery? How about the actions in the second scenario? If one is adultery and the other is not adultery, then what explanation is there for the apparent double standard?

According to the New Testament, yes, both are adultery.

The explanation is quite easy - people do not want to keep their marriage vows, so both Moses and current USA made divorce a part of their legal system. Christian standards are higher/tougher than the Mosaic laws, not just regarding marriage.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

According to the New Testament, yes, both are adultery.

The explanation is quite easy - people do not want to keep their marriage vows, so both Moses and current USA made divorce a part of their legal system. Christian standards are higher/tougher than the Mosaic laws, not just regarding marriage.

So the only reason divorce exists is because "people do not want to keep their marriage vows"? You got to be kidding me!

 

[RDKirk]

So the only reason divorce exists is because "people do not want to keep their marriage vows"? You got to be kidding me!

Yes, that's true. People do not keep their marriage vows.

But "...til death do ye part" is not the only vow. Many people leave the marriage without leaving the house.

The one who ended the marriage is not necessarily the person who filed for divorce...and Jesus knows who actually ended the marriage.

 

[trophy33]

So the only reason divorce exists is because "people do not want to keep their marriage vows"? You got to be kidding me!

It seems you forgot your own question.

Your question was "what explanation is there for the apparent double standard?"

I was not answering any question like "what is the only reason divorce exists?"

 

[ZephBonkerer]

It seems you forgot your own question.

Your question was "what explanation is there for the apparent double standard?"

I was not answering any question like "what is the only reason divorce exists?"

And I found your explanation woefully inadequate. I posed two scenarios. I suppose you would have us believe the following:

The man in the first scenario is guilty of adultery even before the New Testament had been written, at a time when no reasonable person would have recognized his actions as adultery. If remarriage after divorce was adultery then, why didn't the Old Testament say so? If remarriage after divorce was not adultery back then, when did it become adultery? Did you even consider this before giving your answer?

You seem to believe Moses acted outside his divine authority when he allowed for divorce. Moses got in enough trouble with God for striking the rock (Num 20:10), so what makes you think it is reasonable that he would have allowed for divorce without the full endorsement of God?

You also seem to advocate for moral relativism - that is the belief that basic right and wrong can change. One man does something circa 900 BC and is not guilty of anything. Another man does the exact same thing in AD 2023 and not only is he guilty of adultery, he has jeopardized his eternal soul! If this isn't blatant heresy, pray tell what is!? Did you not give any thought to this absurdity?

I'm going to be frank with you: your posts led me to believe you aren't really giving much thought to your own words. You have carelessly dismissed major portions of God's word to prop up your narrative. 2 Tim 3:16 reads that "All Scripture is God-Breathed". Last I checked, "all scripture" includes the Old Testament. You also carelessly dismissed the words of Jesus at Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 - the words in those verses are devastating to your assertions. Perhaps that is why you have been ignoring them whenever I cite them.

If Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 are not compelling evidence that Jesus did NOT abolish divorce, then what are they?

 

[trophy33]

If remarriage after divorce was adultery then, why didn't the Old Testament say so? If remarriage after divorce was not adultery back then, when did it become adultery? Did you even consider this before giving your answer?

I thought you know the NT verses we are talking about, so I did not know its needed to say it in my response.

They answered, “Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Mk 10

You seem to believe Moses acted outside his divine authority when he allowed for divorce. Moses got in enough trouble with God for striking the rock (Num 20:10), so what makes you think it is reasonable that he would have allowed for divorce without the full endorsement of God?

See above.

You also seem to advocate for moral relativism - that is the belief that basic right and wrong can change. One man does something circa 900 BC and is not guilty of anything. Another man does the exact same thing in AD 2023 and not only is he guilty of adultery, he has jeopardized his eternal soul! If this isn't blatant heresy, pray tell what is!? Did you not give any thought to this absurdity?

You are still repeating the same thing in many (emotional) ways. Yes, the divorce laws in the Old Testament were not from God, they were from Moses.

I'm going to be frank with you: your posts led me to believe you aren't really giving much thought to your own words. You have carelessly dismissed major portions of God's word to prop up your narrative. 2 Tim 3:16 reads that "All Scripture is God-Breathed". Last I checked, "all scripture" includes the Old Testament. You also carelessly dismissed the words of Jesus at Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 - the words in those verses are devastating to your assertions. Perhaps that is why you have been ignoring them whenever I cite them.

If Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 are not compelling evidence that Jesus did NOT abolish divorce, then what are they?

We do not live under the Old Testament, its such a known thing that I see no need to defend it, here.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Yes, that's true. People do not keep their marriage vows.

But "...til death do ye part" is not the only vow. Many people leave the marriage without leaving the house.

The one who ended the marriage is not necessarily the person who filed for divorce...and Jesus knows who actually ended the marriage.

I've never been one for the disposable spouses ethic. I would offer no defense to someone who would terminate a marriage for trivial or selfish reasons. I would especially give no slack to a man who dumps his wife just so he can get with some OnlyFans girlie. Such actions are dishonorable, disgusting, and cruel.

However, there are people who seek a divorce for far more serious reasons (abuse, neglect, drug use, refusing sex, attempted murder, etc). Some of them marry again later, and they have every right to do so, both ethically and biblically. Any teaching that claims otherwise is heresy.

Oftentimes, I've seen church people treat them no different than those who cast away their wife to hook up with the OnlyFans girlie. This irritates me greatly. It is brain-dead to refuse to recognize such a profound moral difference - one that even children can understand. People who condemn divorcees in this way are engaging in conduct discreditable to the Faith.

It is idolatry to claim that God values the institution of marriage more than those in it. It is also idolatry and heresy to claim those who do pursue a divorce even for serious reasons are somehow condemned to celibacy for the rest of their lives. Those who claim this do not speak for God.