No Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery (L)

[Athene]

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.

Tbh this particular interpretation of God's values puts them very much on a par with today's culture and in fact cultures of days gone by i.e they reflect the double standard where women face negative social consequences for sex outside of marriage, whereas with men there are no such consequences.

 

[Athene]

It's not just females. God desires sexual purity from all of us.

I agree with you, but we're looking at a specific piece of scripture which states that the only reason for divorce is if a man discovers his new wife isn't a virgin. This indicates a double standard. LinkH keeps dodging this though. Rather annoying.

 

[iambren]

I've always looked at that scripture as generically and never presumed a sexist element to it. Maybe it could be taken more easily the other way if a woman is reading it.

 

[Powerkitejunkie]

Yeah - any men out there to advise?

I'm not a virgin, but was converted later in life...lots of boyfriends before i became a Christian I'm afraid....do we think that I am doomed? Or would a non-virgin man be interested in me? I'm not looking for anyone, but I wonder if I am a dead loss? My latest bloke was a virgin and we split up due to my past, partially....

 

[Powerkitejunkie]

any examples of sinful women with bad pasts getting married in the Bible?

 

[AmberNikki80]

Yeah - any men out there to advise?

I'm not a virgin, but was converted later in life...lots of boyfriends before i became a Christian I'm afraid....do we think that I am doomed? Or would a non-virgin man be interested in me? I'm not looking for anyone, but I wonder if I am a dead loss? My latest bloke was a virgin and we split up due to my past, partially....

You've given your life over to God and you should be so proud! To me you've cleaned your slate from you past. Move forward and know that there is a wonderful, caring and understandable man out there for you.

 

[Luther073082]

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.

No *some* protestants value sexual purity.

God values obedience. Part of obedience is avoiding sexual contact outside of the setting of marriage.

That is not the same as sexual purity.

God values the person who commits fornication, repents and does not repeat the sin. Purity cultists do not because that person lacks their God of virginity.

God does not value the purity cultists who have made virginity into their God and have like the pharisee's made God's commands about sexuality into a legalistic list of can and can't do's that are found no where in scripture.

As for me, I have no value to sexual purity. I have value for God's commands. If you have had more partners then you can count, then pray hard for you are quite a sinner. If you are a virgin in every way. . . then pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

 

[Created2Write]

I agree with you, but we're looking at a specific piece of scripture which states that the only reason for divorce is if a man discovers his new wife isn't a virgin. This indicates a double standard. LinkH keeps dodging this though. Rather annoying.

I see what you're saying. I don't God meant it that way, being that He favored men above women. But I do see that, left alone, it is a double standard. And it's interesting too that Jesus goes on, at a later time, to say that even if a man looks at a woman with lust he has committed adultery with her in his heart.

-What about a woman who lusts after a man? Is it adultery for her as well?

-What about the husband who commits adultery on his wife? Is she allowed to divorce him?

Lots of unanswered questions.

 

[Johnnz]

Well said Luther. Bravo.

John
NZ

 

[Johnnz]

I see what you're saying. I don't God meant it that way, being that He favored men above women. But I do see that, left alone, it is a double standard. And it's interesting too that Jesus goes on, at a later time, to say that even if a man looks at a woman with lust he has committed adultery with her in his heart.

-What about a woman who lusts after a man? Is it adultery for her as well?

-What about the husband who commits adultery on his wife? Is she allowed to divorce him?

Lots of unanswered questions.

It's those questions that indicate quite clearly to me that some common teachings about divorce are less biblical than some believe. There is a context to the 'no divorce' scriptures which must be properly understood before coming to any conclusion about NT teaching on divorce.

John
NZ

 

[LinkH]

I agree with you, but we're looking at a specific piece of scripture which states that the only reason for divorce is if a man discovers his new wife isn't a virgin. This indicates a double standard. LinkH keeps dodging this though. Rather annoying.

Hmmm. I didn't say I endorsed the point of view. I showed a clip of John Piper's view for discussion.

As far as double standards go, if God has a 'double standard' that is His right. God is not required to live by American or western values related to equality or justice. God is the source of all justice and we are to learn from Him, not presume that we can teach Him.

I know of no death penalty in the Old Testament for a man losing his virginity, for example with a prostitute. I don't believe the prostitutes were under a death penalty either if they didn't try to pass themselves off as virgins or commit some other offense. The Old Testament has some negative things to say about prostitution.

God allowed or at least regulated polygamy in the Old Testament. A married woman having sexual relations with multiple men was forbidden-- a death penalty crime for the woman and her fellow adulterer. Is this a double standard?

Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 5

31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."


We see a similar teaching in Matthew 19
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.


He doesn't give the exception clause 'saving for the cause of fornication' in the case of a woman putting away her husband (an oddity in that culture; I have read that Herodias had done it, but I don't know of any other cases.) The text deals with a husband putting away his wife. If I am not mistaken, Mark and Luke present the teaching without the exception clause.



The Bible teaches wives to submit to husbands. It tells all believers to be subject one to another, but doesn't specify that husbands submit to their wives. Is that a double standard? Does it matter if it is a double standard? God has the right to make the laws. God is the source of righteousness and we should learn from Him. If He communicates to us about righteousness, and it doesn't fit with our way of thinking, we should change our way of thinking. He should not change His. By the law comes the knowledge of sin. Thank God for His mercy. God sent Christ to reconcile sinners, and we all sure needed that.



We are to gain knowledge of righteousness from the word of God. What can we teach God?



Some things in the Bible are difficult for us to understand.

 

[LinkH]

any examples of sinful women with bad pasts getting married in the Bible?

God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. She is not a good example of how to be a wife, but they were married nonetheless.

In the Old Testament, the case I was talking about was where a man paid a bride price for virgins for a girl who wasn't a virgin. Not only did the girl fornicate while in her father's house. There was deception. She was being married off as if she were a virgin when she wasn't. If she had said she wasn't, and no bride price for virgins was paid for her wedding, then I don't suppose there would have been a death penalty.


I Corinthians 6 lists a long list of sinners including fornicators, adulterers, and both participants in homosexual acts. He writes, 'And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.' Then he warns against sleeping with prostitutes. Then continuing on into the next chapter, he writes these Corinthians, many of whom no doubt had 'a past', that to prevent fornication, it was good for every man to have his own wife and every woman to have her own husband. (He also talks about the value of not marrying if one can handle celibacy in this chapter.)

There is no reason to think that someone who has sinned by having sex outside of marriage can never marry.

 

[LinkH]

No *some* protestants value sexual purity.

God values obedience. Part of obedience is avoiding sexual contact outside of the setting of marriage.

That is not the same as sexual purity.

God values the person who commits fornication, repents and does not repeat the sin.

Sure, God values the sinner who repents. That is a good thing for all of us. There is none righteous, no not one.

Do you think the Laws God gave teach nothing about what God values and appreciates? Can you honestly say that God did not intend for Israel to have a cultural value of appreciating virginity among the unmarried (in this case unmarried women)?

Purity cultists do not because that person lacks their God of virginity.

God does not value the purity cultists who have made virginity into their God and have like the pharisee's made God's commands about sexuality into a legalistic list of can and can't do's that are found no where in scripture.

I am not sure who you are referring to as purity cultists? Are they people like Methodius or Jerome who thought God loved virgins more than others? Are you talking about the people who get teenagers to pledge to remain virgins until marriage? Is that a barb directed at me?

As Christians, we need to be able to call sin, sin. If the Lord has revealed that it is sinful for the unmarried to fornicate and lose their virginity, we need to teach that. It is hard to understand forgiveness of sin if one does not know what sin is.

Btw, can you really say that Pharisees have no value in God's sight? Why did God save Paul if that is the case?

As for me, I have no value to sexual purity. I have value for God's commands.

Can you value God's commands if you don't value what the commands actually say?

 

[Luther073082]

Sure, God values the sinner who repents. That is a good thing for all of us. There is none righteous, no not one.

Do you think the Laws God gave teach nothing about what God values and appreciates? Can you honestly say that God did not intend for Israel to have a cultural value of appreciating virginity among the unmarried (in this case unmarried women)?

That is due to the OT being before Christ and part of the old covenant. That same old covenant advocating stoning those who disrespect their parents.

The cultural value God apprechiated was not having sex outside of marriage.

I am not sure who you are referring to as purity cultists? Are they people like Methodius or Jerome who thought God loved virgins more than others? Are you talking about the people who get teenagers to pledge to remain virgins until marriage? Is that a barb directed at me?

The Purity cultists that encourage teenagers who are too young to make such decisions for themselves to take virginity pledges under extreme pressure from family, church and friends. . . They don't work, mostly because you sell them on a false God, Virginity, and not obedience to the one true God. But they also fail because the pledges are taken under pressure, a pressure which is completly absent when said people have to make a real decision as to have sex or not.

The pharisee's I speak of are those who constantly try to extend this idea out to levels of intimacy that are scripturally not forbidden, such as kissing, holding hands, praying together, going on a date without chaperones, etc.

As Christians, we need to be able to call sin, sin. If the Lord has revealed that it is sinful for the unmarried to fornicate and lose their virginity, we need to teach that. It is hard to understand forgiveness of sin if one does not know what sin is.

It is sin to fornicate . . . not sin to lose your virginity. This is the problem. . . the emphasis has been on the virginity, the virginity, keep your virginity, your so called "purity". . . Its not been on obedience to God.

The difference is that virginity is a earthly thing, once lost can not be regained. You try to convince people to obey God by telling them to keep an earthly thing. Why? There is a difference between not fornicating and keeping your virginity.

One places value on the obedience to God. . . the other places value on virginity and earthly idea and concept.

Btw, can you really say that Pharisees have no value in God's sight? Why did God save Paul if that is the case?

My apologies. . . God has no value for their teachings.

Can you value God's commands if you don't value what the commands actually say?

I do value those commands as heavenly commands, I don't relate them to earthly concepts of virginity and so called "purity".

Unlike the purity cultists I know that my purity comes entirely from Christ alone, no matter what my sexual behavior is. That doesn't mean that Christ condones sin of any kind including sexual sin. But it does mean that I'm not pure from my own work.

Purity cultists teach that avoiding sexual contact makes one pure and that therefore ones own purity can be acheived through their own works. This has led many to trust in their virginity and not in God.

 

[LinkH]

That is due to the OT being before Christ and part of the old covenant. That same old covenant advocating stoning those who disrespect their parents.

The cultural value God apprechiated was not having sex outside of marriage.

There is still plenty of talk of virginity in the Old Testament. The girl in the law in question was given away in marriage under the pretense of being a virgin. The passage doesn't say she wasn't fornicating anymore.

I agree that we should seek to obey God by not fornicating. If someone has lost their virginity, they shouldn't think that whether they fornicate doesn't matter anymore.

The Purity cultists that encourage teenagers who are too young to make such decisions for themselves to take virginity pledges under extreme pressure from family, church and friends. . . They don't work, mostly because you sell them on a false God, Virginity, and not obedience to the one true God. But they also fail because the pledges are taken under pressure, a pressure which is completly absent when said people have to make a real decision as to have sex or not.

I don't see what the benefit is of making pledges to do what we are commanded to do anyway. So I would agree with you that an emphasis on obedience is more important. Whether a Christian child makes a virginity pledge or not, he or she should not fornicate.

I don't know what specific group of people you have in mind and I haven't spent a lot of time around that movement. But I would be careful if I were you about all this talk about 'false God, Virginity.' Idolatry is a heinous crime, and it is God who can see into someone's heart on an issue like this and see if they are adulterous. If someone makes a virginity pledge or tries to get kids to make a virginity pledge, you have no grounds, based on that alone, to accuse the person of being idolatrous. The stereotype of the Pharisee we hear about was judgmental, pointing at other people's sins, or trying to find sins where there are none. Slander is also a sin.

As far as social pressure is concerned, I think it is good if we have some social pressure to do what is right. Exhorting one another and church discipline rely a bit on 'social pressure'. If it is sanctified, it can be a good thing.

I read a post from a young female seminary student on a forum once. She was upset that she had waited to have sex until she was married because sex was supposed to be better if she waited, according to some people who had talked her into remaining a virgin all her life-- probably one of these types of programs. I was surprised reading that. As a seminary student, you think she'd know she was supposed to abstain from fornication for the sake of the Lord, not for better married sex. Fortunately, someone on the forum pointed that out.

The pharisee's I speak of are those who constantly try to extend this idea out to levels of intimacy that are scripturally not forbidden, such as kissing, holding hands, praying together, going on a date without chaperones, etc.

I've heard that some groups of Jewish men don't touch women. Perhaps they take that approach to "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

I wouldn't condemn people for discouraging kissing or other forms of close physical contact while dating, certainly not parents setting rules to protect their children.

I'm thinking if I do let my little girls date when they get to be teens or in their 20's, I might just ride shotgun. Not in the front seat. I can be in the back seat with a shot gun. Where can I get one of them.

It is sin to fornicate . . . not sin to lose your virginity. This is the problem. . . the emphasis has been on the virginity, the virginity, keep your virginity, your so called "purity". . . Its not been on obedience to God.

Again, I am not familiar with the people saying this.

The difference is that virginity is a earthly thing, once lost can not be regained. You try to convince people to obey God by telling them to keep an earthly thing. Why? There is a difference between not fornicating and keeping your virginity.

Virginity is in the Bible. If someone is a virgin, I see no problem with telling that person to keep his or her virginity until marriage (or forever if the individual is so gifted.) Teaching against fornication has broader application since virgins seem to be increasingly rare.




My apologies. . . God has no value for their teachings.

I do value those commands as heavenly commands, I don't relate them to earthly concepts of virginity and so called "purity".

Unlike the purity cultists I know that my purity comes entirely from Christ alone, no matter what my sexual behavior is. That doesn't mean that Christ condones sin of any kind including sexual sin. But it does mean that I'm not pure from my own work.

Purity cultists teach that avoiding sexual contact makes one pure and that therefore ones own purity can be acheived through their own works. This has led many to trust in their virginity and not in God.

I did not have the same set of ideas in mind that you did when I talked about sexual purity. What I meant by it was abstaining from fornication, adultery, and various other sexual acts outside of marriage. Unmarried virgins keeping their virginity (until the proper time if applicable) would be including that. Not refraining from sex for the married could potentially also be a part of that concept as I use it.

 

[Johnnz]

I wrote this some time ago. It may be worth considering as part of this debate.

The issue of divorce is a big one today. Once quite rare, society’s attitudes have changed and the rate of divorce in Christian marriages is getting closer to that of the general population. The ‘failure rate’ of divorce has led to an increasing scepticism of marriage itself. Many people just don’t bother, and simply chose to move in with each other. For many younger people, the undermining of marriage has contributed to more accepting attitudes towards pre marital sex.

There is still much guilt attached to divorce. Christians struggle with biblical teaching that severely limits the grounds for divorce. Then there is the issue of remarriage, which for many people faced with traditional teaching, feel they are left with little choice, and drop out from their churches. There are real issues facing marriages where there is harmful abuse, yet scripture does not seem to cover such situations.

Many Christians in bad marriages struggle with verses that seemingly limit divorce to death or adultery. Others, who have divorced and remarried, live under a cloud of ongoing ‘adultery’. Was Jesus really restricting divorce even more so that Moses?

Here I have amended a previous post so that it is more relevant to the discussions that have been taking place recently on this troubled matter. I trust that it will be helpful. This information is presented within the framework that any divorce is a deviation from God’s intention. However, it is just one deviation – all sin comes under that description, and we must not elevate divorce into “celebrity status” amongst other sins.

There is Jesus’ teaching about divorce. This passage in the Sermon on the Mount is an example. Matt 5:31-32 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

It starts with Jesus quoting a common saying “It has been said”. In Jesus’ day there were two schools of thought amongst the religious leaders. One group were quite strict about divorce. The other was very liberal. For that group a man could divorce his wife for something as petty as burning the toast (modern example). Jesus firmly corrects that liberal view by restating the old principle that marital unfaithfulness was the only biblically sanctioned ground for divorce. This recognises the special nature of sexual relationships between people – a far cry from many modern attitudes.

Today, that statement has now become the basis for opposing divorce on any other ground. We must note that it occurs within the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Here, Jesus constantly compares the outwardly pious beliefs of the religious leaders with the true demands of inner righteousness that would characterise those who become part of His new kingdom. Jesus constantly affirms God’s true principles, which in those verses is marriage.

Elsewhere Jesus again dealt with divorce and remarriage. Matt 19:3-9 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, '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. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Again, we see in the words expressed “for any reason” the liberal view. Jesus rebuts that position by referring to the creation story- back to first principles. Then Jesus refutes their belief that, because Moses allowed for a certificate of divorce they were justified in doing the same. Jesus was pointing out to them that it was never God’s intention for marriage that it be prematurely ended.

Having said that, we must see that Jesus was not imposing a new and stricter law. Many have taken this scripture and taught that Jesus was “tightening up” on custom, and that only death or adultery are now grounds for divorce. That is unfortunate, as Jesus was just challenging their laxity towards marriage that was commonly held by some in his day. His emphasis still hold true today. We must always see marriage within a framework of a lifelong bond between two people. Anything less does not fulfil God’s intention for marriage.

Death and adultery are valid grounds for divorce. That is clear. Having made that point we must now look at how we are to treat situations such as abusive relationships.

That Jesus was not stating a new law with even greater restrictions than under the Mosaic covenant can be inferred from the scriptures.

Paul’s mission was to the Gentiles, whereas Jesus spoke within and to Jewish society. Jesus addressed the Jewish beliefs dominant in His day. Paul had a new and wider audience into which he proclaimed the Gospel. One such teaching on divorce has Paul giving another reason, where an unbelieving partner may call the marriage off. Paul states that he received such approval from Christ, but it is interesting that Jesus did not reveal this new condition until after Pentecost, when a practical issue was confronting the Christian community as it began the task if infiltrating non Jewish societies with the Gospel.

Can we then add other reasons, based on practical considerations, provided that we are not inconsistent with biblical principles?

I believe we can. The destruction of a person, as occurs in an abusive relationship would qualify under what Jesus taught in John 10:10 “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” The destruction of another personality by an abusive partner and parent is the work of evil. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to submit ourselves to evil.

Then, there are the children to consider. Then, we must never forget children in any violent and abusive relationship. When you have counselled adults who had such childhood experiences you see what devastation those environments produce. Did Jesus really teach that children are to have their lives distorted by an insoluble marriage?

Also, if a relationship does not exhibit the loving, the intimacy (“knowing&#8221 and the gentleness of mutual submission, is it a marriage at all? Has it become so unlike what God intended that it can no loner qualify as a God ordained marriage? God loves “the world” but He cannot share intimacy with unrepentant evil doers. Should we do less in a very unhealthy and destructive relationship? Separation happens because the marriage no longer exists, except as a legal entity. God divorced Israel as the nation had consistently failed to live up to the requirements of their relationship with him. Jesus never denied the “hardness of heart” referred to earlier as the reason for some marriages ending in divorce. He just challenged the assumption that we should accept human failure as a reason to undermine the divine intention for marriage, especially as the more liberal religious rules had done so.

John
NZ

 

[LinkH]

Many Christians in bad marriages struggle with verses that seemingly limit divorce to death or adultery.

You may want to edit this. Do people really need to divorce their spouses if they die? You said this twice in the article.

Others, who have divorced and remarried, live under a cloud of ongoing ‘adultery’. Was Jesus really restricting divorce even more so that Moses?

Being more restrictive than Moses is not inconsistent with the other 'Ye have heard that it hath been said' verses in Matthew 5. Jesus took a verse on murder and taught that whoever said "Thou fool" would be in danger of hell fire. He took "Thou shalt not forswear thyself" and said "Swear not at all." He took "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and said that whoever looked at a woman in order to lust after her had committed adultery with her already in his heart. He took "'Love thy neighbor' ... but hate thine enemy" and a said to love your enemies (the 'Love thy neighbor' part was Old Testament.)

Why wouldn't his teaching on divorce be more restrictive? Just look at the words in Matthew 5 and look at the debate in Judaism. Clearly Jesus was more restrictive. In Matthew 19, he shows us that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, pointing back to the original "two shall be one flesh" of creation.

So yes, more restrictive. A higher standard from the Messiah. Not the same old stuff everyone else was saying.

There is Jesus’ teaching about divorce. This passage in the Sermon on the Mount is an example. Matt 5:31-32 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

That's pretty restrictive.

Today, that statement has now become the basis for opposing divorce on any other ground. We must note that it occurs within the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Here, Jesus constantly compares the outwardly pious beliefs of the religious leaders with the true demands of inner righteousness that would characterise those who become part of His new kingdom.

Here, John Piper talks about his own restrictive view of marriage and divorce. I am not sure I completely agree with him, but it is compelling. It is also a very compassionate way of what might otherwise be a 'hard line' on divorce.

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



Jesus constantly affirms God’s true principles, which in those verses is marriage.

Elsewhere Jesus again dealt with divorce and remarriage. Matt 19:3-9 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, '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. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Pretty restrictive. The apostles took it that way. They said if this be the case with a man and his wife, it is better for a man not to marry. Apparently, they had been affected by the liberal views of their day.


Again, we see in the words expressed “for any reason” the liberal view. Jesus rebuts that position by referring to the creation story- back to first principles. Then Jesus refutes their belief that, because Moses allowed for a certificate of divorce they were justified in doing the same. Jesus was pointing out to them that it was never God’s intention for marriage that it be prematurely ended.

Paul’s mission was to the Gentiles, whereas Jesus spoke within and to Jewish society. Jesus addressed the Jewish beliefs dominant in His day. Paul had a new and wider audience into which he proclaimed the Gospel. One such teaching on divorce has Paul giving another reason, where an unbelieving partner may call the marriage off. Paul states that he received such approval from Christ, but it is interesting that Jesus did not reveal this new condition until after Pentecost, when a practical issue was confronting the Christian community as it began the task if infiltrating non Jewish societies with the Gospel.

You are mistaken. Paul did not say that he had received this from Christ. To the contrary, he said that he had not received this as a commandment from the Lord.

Let us look at the Lord's commands versus the part where Paul said he was speaking and not the Lord.

10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

It seems this abandonment part, the part that Paul said was from him and not the Lord, is the part that gets a lot of attention on this topic. Not only is it applied to abandonment from unbelievers. But also to someone who 'departs' emotionally, even a believer. I've heard this passage stretched and applied numerous ways.

I believe we can. The destruction of a person, as occurs in an abusive relationship would qualify under what Jesus taught in John 10:10 “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” The destruction of another personality by an abusive partner and parent is the work of evil. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to submit ourselves to evil.

Let's put the abusive spouse issue aside for a moment. There are a lot of other issues at stake about preserving life in some of the more extreme cases. We can talk about how 'abuse' has gotten watered down in meaning to.

I want to focus on that last part. I just don't see this as a strong line of reasoning. "Nowhere in Scripture are we told to submit ourselves to evil."

Wasn't it evil for wicked men to crucify an innocent Man on the cross? Isn't it evil for a harsh master to beat a Christian slave for doing well?

I Peter 2
19For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Then, there are the children to consider. Then, we must never forget children in any violent and abusive relationship.

Children's safety is certain an important consideration.

When you have counselled adults who had such childhood experiences you see what devastation those environments produce. Did Jesus really teach that children are to have their lives distorted by an insoluble marriage?

Let's say there are some serious problems in a relationship. If things get bad and the couple does separate, does the couple need to divorce, with the possibility of remarrying? What is this verse in there for?

11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Has it become so unlike what God intended that it can no loner qualify as a God ordained marriage? God loves “the world” but He cannot share intimacy with unrepentant evil doers. Should we do less in a very unhealthy and destructive relationship? Separation happens because the marriage no longer exists, except as a legal entity.

Can you show me anyone in the Bible who had this kind of thinking? This comes off to me as mushy relativistic thinking. Where did anyone have a marriage in the Bible that was so bad it wasn't a marriage? Where does anyone think or talk like that in the Bible?

This sounds like a bad marriage, but a bad marriage is still a marriage. The writing of divorcement law was given through Moses. The reason for the divorce was to legally dissolve the marriage. If the marriage wasn't a marriage anymore, then it wouldn't be a marriage. Then Christ came, pointing to marriage at the creation, and calling us to a higher standard.

God divorced Israel as the nation had consistently failed to live up to the requirements of their relationship with him.

John Piper points out the God took Israel back, even after this.

Jesus never denied the “hardness of heart” referred to earlier as the reason for some marriages ending in divorce.

What about, "But from the beginning it was not so." ?

 

[Chaplain David]

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

What is the scripture where Jesus Christ says or hints at that a bride must be a virgin or that sex prior to marriage is reason for divorce?

 

[Conservativation]

You may want to edit this. Do people really need to divorce their spouses if they die? You said this twice in the article.



Being more restrictive than Moses is not inconsistent with the other 'Ye have heard that it hath been said' verses in Matthew 5. Jesus took a verse on murder and taught that whoever said "Thou fool" would be in danger of hell fire. He took "Thou shalt not forswear thyself" and said "Swear not at all." He took "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and said that whoever looked at a woman in order to lust after her had committed adultery with her already in his heart. He took "'Love thy neighbor' ... but hate thine enemy" and a said to love your enemies (the 'Love thy neighbor' part was Old Testament.)

Why wouldn't his teaching on divorce be more restrictive? Just look at the words in Matthew 5 and look at the debate in Judaism. Clearly Jesus was more restrictive. In Matthew 19, he shows us that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, pointing back to the original "two shall be one flesh" of creation.

So yes, more restrictive. A higher standard from the Messiah. Not the same old stuff everyone else was saying.



That's pretty restrictive.



Here, John Piper talks about his own restrictive view of marriage and divorce. I am not sure I completely agree with him, but it is compelling. It is also a very compassionate way of what might otherwise be a 'hard line' on divorce.

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



Jesus constantly affirms God’s true principles, which in those verses is marriage.




Pretty restrictive. The apostles took it that way. They said if this be the case with a man and his wife, it is better for a man not to marry. Apparently, they had been affected by the liberal views of their day.


Again, we see in the words expressed “for any reason” the liberal view. Jesus rebuts that position by referring to the creation story- back to first principles. Then Jesus refutes their belief that, because Moses allowed for a certificate of divorce they were justified in doing the same. Jesus was pointing out to them that it was never God’s intention for marriage that it be prematurely ended.




You are mistaken. Paul did not say that he had received this from Christ. To the contrary, he said that he had not received this as a commandment from the Lord.

Let us look at the Lord's commands versus the part where Paul said he was speaking and not the Lord.



It seems this abandonment part, the part that Paul said was from him and not the Lord, is the part that gets a lot of attention on this topic. Not only is it applied to abandonment from unbelievers. But also to someone who 'departs' emotionally, even a believer. I've heard this passage stretched and applied numerous ways.



Let's put the abusive spouse issue aside for a moment. There are a lot of other issues at stake about preserving life in some of the more extreme cases. We can talk about how 'abuse' has gotten watered down in meaning to.

I want to focus on that last part. I just don't see this as a strong line of reasoning. "Nowhere in Scripture are we told to submit ourselves to evil."

Wasn't it evil for wicked men to crucify an innocent Man on the cross? Isn't it evil for a harsh master to beat a Christian slave for doing well?





Children's safety is certain an important consideration.



Let's say there are some serious problems in a relationship. If things get bad and the couple does separate, does the couple need to divorce, with the possibility of remarrying? What is this verse in there for?

11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.




Can you show me anyone in the Bible who had this kind of thinking? This comes off to me as mushy relativistic thinking. Where did anyone have a marriage in the Bible that was so bad it wasn't a marriage? Where does anyone think or talk like that in the Bible?

This sounds like a bad marriage, but a bad marriage is still a marriage. The writing of divorcement law was given through Moses. The reason for the divorce was to legally dissolve the marriage. If the marriage wasn't a marriage anymore, then it wouldn't be a marriage. Then Christ came, pointing to marriage at the creation, and calling us to a higher standard.



John Piper points out the God took Israel back, even after this.



What about, "But from the beginning it was not so." ?

This comes off to me as mushy relativistic thinking. Where did anyone have a marriage in the Bible that was so bad it wasn't a marriage? Where does anyone think or talk like that in the Bible?


This is a great point. This is but one of many relativistic modern constructs that seek to elevate personal comfort and happiness above other things. I have said many times if someone wants to divorce, go on ahead, but please stop with the painful to read rationalizations for it. Picking general scriptures out, for example about the thief. and applying it here, is shaky indeed. How about applying that to any and all things where we might have to choose obedience over comfort and happiness. No where in the Bible is our happiness (joy is different) put above solemn choices. And for the most part we acknowledge that, except in the realm of divorce.

That these views be adopted neednt stop one from divorcing, its not going to be illegal or something, it just cuts the self rationalization off at the bub

 

[Luther073082]

There is still plenty of talk of virginity in the Old Testament. The girl in the law in question was given away in marriage under the pretense of being a virgin. The passage doesn't say she wasn't fornicating anymore.

Of course anyone marrying at the time would want to be sure that a child delivered was their own. The only way of being sure of that was that the woman was a virgin because it would be impossible to know how recently she had intercourse.

I agree that we should seek to obey God by not fornicating. If someone has lost their virginity, they shouldn't think that whether they fornicate doesn't matter anymore.

Then why the emphasis on "virginity" instead of "not fornicating". Virginity is an earthly concept.

I don't see what the benefit is of making pledges to do what we are commanded to do anyway. So I would agree with you that an emphasis on obedience is more important. Whether a Christian child makes a virginity pledge or not, he or she should not fornicate.

Because you are using social pressure to get someone to pledge to do something that they are too young to decide for themselves. If they are too young to have sex, they are too young to decide their future sexual behavior. . . and that includes the lack of sexual behavior.

You are asking a child to make a committment that could last them from 10 to 15 years if not longer. . . How silly is this? Most 14 year olds that I know of are lucky if they can keep a week to week committment. . . much less one that lasts 10 to 15 years. . .

I don't know what specific group of people you have in mind and I haven't spent a lot of time around that movement. But I would be careful if I were you about all this talk about 'false God, Virginity.' Idolatry is a heinous crime, and it is God who can see into someone's heart on an issue like this and see if they are adulterous. If someone makes a virginity pledge or tries to get kids to make a virginity pledge, you have no grounds, based on that alone, to accuse the person of being idolatrous. The stereotype of the Pharisee we hear about was judgmental, pointing at other people's sins, or trying to find sins where there are none. Slander is also a sin.

I was talking about their legalism and their pushing of people to trust in their own works and lack of sexual behavior. The very use of the term "purity" reflects this. They teach LITERALLY that a person is made pure by their own works. . . that is their own lack of sexual behavior. They teach literally speaking that this makes a person pure. This encourages their followers to trust in their lack of sexual behavior and not in Christ.

Besides why should we not judge what is easily the most unsuccessful ministries in all protestant churchs. The 90%ish failure rate sends a very clear message. And that is that there is very little left that the purity cultists could do wrong.

As far as social pressure is concerned, I think it is good if we have some social pressure to do what is right. Exhorting one another and church discipline rely a bit on 'social pressure'. If it is sanctified, it can be a good thing.

See this is where you mess it up royally. . . You accomplish getting the pledge through social pressure. . . And then you wonder why they don't keep their pledges. . .

Gee because that same social pressure you used to get the pledge is in about 5 years going to be reversed and used to pressure them into actually having sex.

Virginity pledges teach teenagers nothing but to bend to social pressure. . . Sign the virginity pledge so they don't disappoint their parents and get looked down on by their friends. . . and then have sex so that they can fit in and arn't looked down on as the virgin by their friends in 5 years.

The decision to sign the virginity pledge is never really their own decision, its their parent's decision. . . What are mom and dad going to say to their kid when they find out their kid didn't sign the virginity pledge?

What you completly fail to do is to prepare them to reject social pressure of any sort. You fail to make them completly aware that, this virginity thing will not be cool in 5 years, that things are going to change. Instead of exhorting them to be their own person and obey God and not concern themselves with what others think, you teach them to follow social pressure. . . They follow the pressure to sign the pledge, and then follow the pressure to break the pledge 5 years later.

I read a post from a young female seminary student on a forum once. She was upset that she had waited to have sex until she was married because sex was supposed to be better if she waited, according to some people who had talked her into remaining a virgin all her life-- probably one of these types of programs. I was surprised reading that. As a seminary student, you think she'd know she was supposed to abstain from fornication for the sake of the Lord, not for better married sex. Fortunately, someone on the forum pointed that out.

You would be surprised at how common that is. The problem is that the purity cultists love to invent earthly reasons not to have sex. Many are outright lies and the others are wildly overstated. When you are lying or overstating things to someone and they find out, what do you expect them to think about your teachings??

I've heard that some groups of Jewish men don't touch women. Perhaps they take that approach to "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

I've heard about groups of Christians that like beat themselves with whips to dicipline them for their sins. There is another group that likes to recreate the crucifixion, on good friday by acutually crucifying someone with nails and all.

Doesn't mean any of its a good idea.

I wouldn't condemn people for discouraging kissing or other forms of close physical contact while dating, certainly not parents setting rules to protect their children.

I wouldn't condemn PARENTS for doing that. Not at all. . . But when people are teaching "no kissing til marriage" as some sort of command from God or worse. . . some way to be more pure then others. . . I do condemn that heresy. All it does is create silly and unnecessary "purity competitions" where one person tries to one up the next person on being less physically affectionate or intimate then someone else.

I'm thinking if I do let my little girls date when they get to be teens or in their 20's, I might just ride shotgun. Not in the front seat. I can be in the back seat with a shot gun. Where can I get one of them.

In their 20's? Seriously?

Again, I am not familiar with the people saying this.

Have you ever heard the pride a young Christian, especially a young female puts into her own virginity? I've seen it and its scary, instead of boasting of Christ they boast of virginity.

Virginity is in the Bible. If someone is a virgin, I see no problem with telling that person to keep his or her virginity until marriage (or forever if the individual is so gifted.) Teaching against fornication has broader application since virgins seem to be increasingly rare.

Who cares how rare virgins are? Again you are concentrating on this earthly construct called virginity.

Again you've made an earlthly construct like virginity into something that makes a person to be better or superior to others especially other Christians.

I did not have the same set of ideas in mind that you did when I talked about sexual purity. What I meant by it was abstaining from fornication, adultery, and various other sexual acts outside of marriage. Unmarried virgins keeping their virginity (until the proper time if applicable) would be including that. Not refraining from sex for the married could potentially also be a part of that concept as I use it.

But you don't understand.

No one has purity in their virginity. Really there is no purity in virginity. You are not pure if you are a virgin or because you've only had sex with your spouse.

You are pure because of Christ and ONLY ABSOLUTLY 100% BECAUSE OF CHRIST.

YOU DON'T GET .000001% OF PURITY BECAUSE YOU ARE A VIRGIN. WITHOUT CHRIST YOU ARE MORE DISGUSTING RAW SEWAGE.

With Christ, you are 100% pure. . . BECAUSE of Christ. No virginity part of it. Pure because of Christ, not because of virginity. Impure because of sin, not just sexual sin. . . ANY sin makes you 100% impure. You receive no points, no purity, no value because you are a virgin.

Every virgin without Christ still deserves hell, worse then hell even. By comparison, the smell and look of raw sewage is quite sweet and pleasent compared to the sins of the most sexually inexperienced virgin without Christ.

With Christ, it doesn't matter how many people you slept with and one's purity is beyond all measure and comprehension.

The term Purity in and of itself is heresy because Christ is the only possible source of ANY purity. Not one ioda of purity is confired on anyone because of their sexual in experience.

But far too many people belive they are pure because they are sexually inexperienced. Leading them to trust in their own works and not in Christ.