Divorce?

[Gregory Thompson]

While excusing the sin of divorce is bad and all too frequent; one does not see an active promotion of divorce by Christian churches. Again, one does not see "Divorce Parades" or divorced people forcing others to accept their choice as good using the Government to shut down debate. There are Churches that refuse to appoint divorced elders and they have never faced persecution for this.

Homosexuality is worse than divorce in at least this way. There are other reasons why it is worse than divorce that I've chosen not to bring up; but the refusal to see how it is worse to persecute those who will not call evil good than merely to ignore an evil is indicative of the OP's moral equivalence confusion.

JR

in any case . from the beginning it was not so . Jesus said it . but what does it mean to you?

 

[dhh712]

The gospels seems to have a rabbinical discourse about divorce, because elsewhere Jesus said "from the beginning it was not so"

Yes, he said it wasn't so in the beginning because under the law they were allowed to divorce their wives. Yet he reiterates that he still considers there to be an exception if fornication is committed.

so you cannot say "it's adam and eve not adam and steve" then say on the other hand . it is okay to divorce according to there being adultery . choose one premise to interpret from, either the beginning or the law . or the law of liberty .

I never said what you said I cannot say. To me there is clear direction concerning divorce in the Bible. I don't know that it is as clear on homosexuality yet I haven't looked into it. If the homosexuality hype in the church is just based on mosaic law, then I think they're going to need more than that to back it up. The divorce laws are not from mosaic law according to my understanding of the Bible because of those verses from Christ who says that it is only permissible in instances of fornication. I suppose it can be up to interpretation what fornication is; if someone wants to take fornication to be lusting after another in their heart (which is from the Bible) then I think that would be acceptable to me, I think they would have a case for it. Nonetheless I don't think there is any biblical grounds for making the claim that God's word does not allow for divorce for any reason because Christ himself who is the word of God said that divorce is permissible in instances of fornication. There is no room to interpret that to mean the exact opposite, that divorce is not permissible under any circumstances.

in any case . from the beginning it was not so . Jesus said it . but what does it mean to you?

Yes, in the beginning they were not to divorce: in the beginning in which there was no sin, there would be no reason to divorce. Divorce is still not permitted according to God's word except for instances of fornication because Christ clearly states that in that verse that was quoted. That is the only permissible reason to get a divorce. If it were still considered a sin, then he wouldn't have permitted it. It doesn't logically follow for God to permit some sins but condemn others. He condemns all sins. Therefore, that which he allows is not a sin.

so you cannot say "it's adam and eve not adam and steve" then say on the other hand . it is okay to divorce according to there being adultery . choose one premise to interpret from, either the beginning or the law . or the law of liberty .

I can say that it is okay to divorce according to there being fornication because those are Christ's words. He didn't leave a small part of the mosaic law left over, he fulfilled the entire law so that we are no more bound by those things (though a lot of them are still real good to follow in order to live a peaceful life). The whole Bible is the word of God and all parts are to be considered. Christ is the full revelation of God (the fullest we can perceive in this life) so in any matter of question we are always to turn to Christ for the clearest understanding of God and his will toward us. There is hardly any thing more clear than what Christ has to say concerning divorce: that it is acceptable in cases of fornication. It may have not been so in the beginning, but like I said in the beginning there was no reason to get divorces since there was no sin.

My speculation as to why God allows for divorce in cases of fornication is that he hates the sin that much--therefore, if the one party commits it, it is as though they are dead to the other party (now that speculation isn't based completely on biblical understanding, but I think you would find some support in the prophets for how much God hates the sin of fornication).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, he said it wasn't so in the beginning because under the law they were allowed to divorce their wives. Yet he reiterates that he still considers there to be an exception if fornication is committed.




I never said what you said I cannot say. To me there is clear direction concerning divorce in the Bible. I don't know that it is as clear on homosexuality yet I haven't looked into it. If the homosexuality hype in the church is just based on mosaic law, then I think they're going to need more than that to back it up. The divorce laws are not from mosaic law according to my understanding of the Bible because of those verses from Christ who says that it is only permissible in instances of fornication. I suppose it can be up to interpretation what fornication is; if someone wants to take fornication to be lusting after another in their heart (which is from the Bible) then I think that would be acceptable to me, I think they would have a case for it. Nonetheless I don't think there is any biblical grounds for making the claim that God's word does not allow for divorce for any reason because Christ himself who is the word of God said that divorce is permissible in instances of fornication. There is no room to interpret that to mean the exact opposite, that divorce is not permissible under any circumstances.





Yes, in the beginning they were not to divorce: in the beginning in which there was no sin, there would be no reason to divorce. Divorce is still not permitted according to God's word except for instances of fornication because Christ clearly states that in that verse that was quoted. That is the only permissible reason to get a divorce. If it were still considered a sin, then he wouldn't have permitted it. It doesn't logically follow for God to permit some sins but condemn others. He condemns all sins. Therefore, that which he allows is not a sin.






I can say that it is okay to divorce according to there being fornication because those are Christ's words. He didn't leave a small part of the mosaic law left over, he fulfilled the entire law so that we are no more bound by those things (though a lot of them are still real good to follow in order to live a peaceful life). The whole Bible is the word of God and all parts are to be considered. Christ is the full revelation of God (the fullest we can perceive in this life) so in any matter of question we are always to turn to Christ for the clearest understanding of God and his will toward us. There is hardly any thing more clear than what Christ has to say concerning divorce: that it is acceptable in cases of fornication. It may have not been so in the beginning, but like I said in the beginning there was no reason to get divorces since there was no sin.

My speculation as to why God allows for divorce in cases of fornication is that he hates the sin that much--therefore, if the one party commits it, it is as though they are dead to the other party (now that speculation isn't based completely on biblical understanding, but I think you would find some support in the prophets for how much God hates the sin of fornication).

I think the point of these passages is so we think about them clearly . and i think we've accomplished that . thoughts that came to me in my absence from the forum was . yes the experience of divorce . and the experience of homosexuality as sins are different . but to God they are no different . perhaps a good question to ask is .. why that is?

another thought about this i had is .. that the rule to allow divorce under the case of adultery (side thought: does this count Matthew 5:28 adultery?) was written because our hearts are still hardened .. but from the beginning it was still not so .. and if our hearts are hardened .. how does this affect our potential relationship with God?

 

[Jack Koons]

What is worse than sin?

Aproving of sin.

Unbelief (in Christ as Saviour); but I get your point.

The problem with homosexuals now in not just that they sin, but that they are forcing others to CELEBRATE their sin as a good thing. Businesses are being closed for the refusal to photograph and bake cakes for homosexual "weddings." Adoption agencies are being driven out of states because they refuse to place children with same sex couples.

When was the last divorcing couple that demanded the Church approve their divorce? Oh yeah, King Henry VIII, and the shameful start of the Anglican "church".

When I sought a divorce at mine, I was a SUPPLICANT, and had my elders refused to grant me the right to divorce I would have NEVER thought of suing or even speaking ill of them.

There is a HUGE difference between those who divorce and today's homosexuals and it relates to pride and intolerance.

JR

I agree with your assessment on homosexuals celebrating their sin.

I suppose it is time to speak up on this issue. Let me begin by saying that marriage was the first 'institution' founded by God in the Bible. The husband/wife relationship is a 'type' of the relationship found between Christ, and His bride. Since the relationship of Christ and His bride is anchored in the everlasting aspect of salvation, so the relationship of the husband and wife, as instituted in the Garden of Eden by God; must be, till death do us part (as the vow is stated).

There is no doubt that many attempts have been made to 'explain away' the conditions of this vow, although I personally have never heard vows that state, "Till death do us part, unless one of the following occurs ... "

Even so, we must remember the words of Jesus, which clearly define His stand on the matter:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19)

1) The man an woman (so much for gay marriage), are no longer two: they become one flesh. This aligns with the teaching that when we are saved, we become "one in Christ".

2) God is the one joining us together in marriage; just as salvation is the work of Christ; it is He who joins us, not the other way around.

3) Because of the "hardness of your hearts". This is the result of Jeremiah 17: 9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

When our hearts become hard because of our sin, we care not what man, or God says about the matter. Only our self will matters. One of the greatest witnesses to this is the prophet Balaam.

20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. 21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. Numbers 22

For a long time I could not understand why God became a grey; after all, He did tell Balaam to go. What I failed to understand, was why God told him to go. Because Balaam's heart was hard. Balaam wanted the money. While he would not curse the Israelites, he could still make money if he went with them.

The problem with this however, is that God had ALREADY instructed him on this matter.

Numbers 22:12 And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed.

Once God gives His instructions; He need not repeat Himself. Jesus told the Pharisees His position on the matter.

4) From the beginning it was not so.

Irregardless of the opinion, or statute of man; the council of God remains the same.

5) Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be fornication

We must here define "fornication".

"Fornication noun : consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other — compare adultery"

This absolutely must be understood: fornication is sexual intercourse, among people who are NOT married.

Deuteronomy 22: 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Notice verse 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

What has happened in the text above, is that a woman (who is supposed to be a virgin), is found NOT to be a virgin after all; in other words, she is guilty of fornication. Because she is not a virgin, the groom is not bound to the oath he just made during the previous ceremony, in which he and his bride were declared husband and wife.

6) Whosoever shall put away his wife ... and shall marry another, committeth adultery:

If he puts away his wife, it is because he has a hard heart. (Remember what Jesus just said?)

“adul·tery noun
: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery

He found out that his wife had committed adultery.
She accused her husband of adultery.”

Adultery is only committed by married people. (Single people commit fornication; while it is the same act, there must be this clarification in order to understand this properly.)

7) and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Why? Because according to God; she's still married.

Just for the record: the Bible is very clear, as to the qualifications of a Bishop (Pastor), and Deacon. They must be the husband of ONE wife. Hence, they cannot be divorced and remarried.

That, is my perspective.

Jack

 

[WeakSaint]

Yes it is a disgrace, but the Church have to also adopt or die. If you build huge temples dedicated to God you have to bring people in to pay the bills.

The solution here is of course to break away and start a more hardline church that can live up to the expectations of our Father, and to not build fancy buildings so the low costs enables you to say "Thanks but no yet, do X and Y and come back when you are ready." to people who are not ready to receive God.

 

[cubanito]

Yes it is a disgrace, but the Church have to also adopt or die. If you build huge temples dedicated to God you have to bring people in to pay the bills.

The solution here is of course to break away and start a more hardline church that can live up to the expectations of our Father, and to not build fancy buildings so the low costs enables you to say "Thanks but no yet, do X and Y and come back when you are ready." to people who are not ready to receive God.

Actually, the assemblies that take a hard line against sin tend to flourish much more than those that compromise in the long run. Most of the mainline churches are in steep decline, and are kept going by endowments left to them from long ago when they were more faithful.

JR

 

[cubanito]

There is no doubt that many attempts have been made to 'explain away' the conditions of this vow, although I personally have never heard vows that state, "Till death do us part, unless one of the following occurs ... "

....

Just for the record: the Bible is very clear, as to the qualifications of a Bishop (Pastor), and Deacon. They must be the husband of ONE wife. Hence, they cannot be divorced and remarried.

That, is my perspective.

Jack

It is dangerous when I try to defend a position which excuses my own failure to meet the ideal. As a divorced man my motives for disagreeing that an elder can be a divorced man ought be suspect. My heart is as desperately wicked as anyone else's here, and so perhaps I am not objective when I post that a divorced man CAN be appointed deacon or elder (I've never been nor wish to be either).

Disclaimer aside, a good reason for not adding anything to "death do us part" is that adultery breaks the covenant. Thus no covenant exists to break once adultery occurs. It may be recovered, renewed, whatever, but adultery has already caused a separation and , separation=death.

If one reads that being the husband of one wife disqualifies the divorced, then it also disqualifies the widower! This statement given in the context of a culture where polygamy was acceptable (even commanded in the levirate marriages) does not demand that a divorce disqualifies a man for Church office. It is in fact ambigous. Does this mean at least one wife, so as to prohibit celibate officers such as the RC?

Clearly the ideal is one man, one woman. Up until Jacob was tricked into polygamy it is clear the Patriarchs held to monogamy. The first instance of polygamy occurs in the setting of a man boasting about being 7 times more violent than Cain. Nonetheless the Scriptures never actually forbid polygamy and, in the Mosaic Law, actually commands it!

While Moses never commands divorce, he did permit it, for "hardness of heart." Yet whose hard heart allowed for it? Consider further that God states that He divorced Israel for adultery. So, given that JC explicitly allows for divorce in case of adultery, and Paul extends it to abandonment, it seems clear that while in a divorce one party clearly sins, it may be that not both are guilty.

There is no questions that most churches and Christians today are too lax about divorce. Yet we ought not adopt the theoretical position of the Roman church that all divorce is forbidden (in practice, they substitute the word anulment for divorce and are as lax about it as anyone). If a divorce then can for at least one party be not a sin (remember, God divorced Israel so that seems a fair conclusion) then why would remarriage be a sin?

No Jack, I do not think you are correct in your interpretation. Then again, I could be fooling myself as I first stated.

JR

 

[lismore]

Has divorce become more "accepted" in Christian communities these days?

IMO the first and most important step is to teach people the biblical view on marriage before they are married.

I have seen many Christians marry wrongly, unequally yoked etc and the marriage falls apart because they never knew step one. Who to marry.

God Bless

 

[Gravy0558]

A true divorce cannot exist in God's eyes, save for the cause of fornication (pre consummation sex with someone else, which is why Mary mother of Jesus was thought by Joseph to be a fornicator and not an adulterer) see: Matthew 5:32. Remember that we are also admonished to remain unmarried in this New Testament day and age, see 1 Corinthians 7.