Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thewatchman]

Why was I not cut to pieces because of what I said in my post in this thread?

Oatmeal

Don't worry Oatmeal...we aren't ignoring you. No-one takes the opinions of 'porridge' seriously....   

[Oatmeal]

Even though J f K has said that I was wrong in my conclusions in my post regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage, it has not been explained to me from the Scriptures the specific of my error.

Jesus said that if someone from an original first and legitimate marriage divorced their partner and then remarried when the original partner from the first marriage was still alive, then the remarried person, and their new partner at least as far as a divorced woman is concerned, would be committing adultery.

This act of divorce, remarriage and adultery therefore does not make the first marriage invalid.  Ray says that adultery, and not only adultery, but also a "whole host of sins", can make the first marriage invalid.  Would someone please provide an explanation for the difference in teaching, or the apparent difference?

Thanks for your help

Oatmeal

[Dave in Tenn]

Could you provide a quote where Ray says this?

[Kat]

Here are a few places Ray spoke on divorce.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,5675.msg45931.html#msg45931 -------

Mat 5:31  It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
v. 32  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.

So Jesus did not even contradict the aspect of divorce, you know when they came to Him and said, can a man divorce for any reason. He said that if you put away your wife or divorced her, except it be for a cause of fornication or immorality - ‘porneia’ is the word, then you cause that person, if they go out and find another mate, then you cause them to commit adultery. You had no right to divorce that person. 

Now He doesn’t say it specifically, but you can deduce, you know you can lawfully, legally and rightly deduce from what is said, something that isn’t said. If you shouldn’t divorce for that, “except for fornication,” that means for fornication, you can divorce. So if Jesus Christ is putting His approval on a certain aspect of immorality where divorce can be involved, than He is also backing up the fact, that it was a legal marriage until the divorce came about. 

Jesus does not contradict divorcement. If adultery is involved, Jesus okays the marriage of a divorced person.


http://bible-truths.com/lake16-D3.htm -----------------------------------

[3] "It has been said [yes, and it is in the Old Testament too] Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. Jesus did not contradict this law. Jesus did not do away with this law; it is still in effect. But Jesus does expound upon it. "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery..." That is not in the Old Testament Law. Jesus did not say that there no longer is divorce, and contradict or do away with this law, but He did enlarge it.

Jesus did not say: "But I say unto you, you can never get a divorce," did He? No, He didn't, but He did bring out the spirit in this law. It was there all along, it's just that the carnal-minded Israelites didn't see it or get it. Yes, you can still get a divorce for "any reason" in most countries of the world. But you can't be Jesus' disciple if you don't obey the spiritual intent of the law which was there from the beginning. Jesus taught that it was always God's intent for a husband and wife to stay together and never part (Matt. 19:4-6). Even "...EXCEPT it be for fornication..." people should not divorce. They can divorce, and they won't be "causing her to commit adultery," but that doesn't mean that they should divorce. Try to forgive and work it out, but if not, then on these grounds, one can divorce.


http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2774.0.html ---

Divorce:  The only way that Jesus said one can leave a marriage and/or marry another is if there is "pornia" present (called 'fornication') in the King James.  Pornia means "prostitution," but it can also mean a host of sexual immorality.  Also, Paul tells us that if a man will not provide for his own family, he is "WORSE than an infidel" (1Tim 5:. The same is true of a man who deserts his family, or abuses his wife or children. In such cases of "immorality" a mate should not be considered bound.
     
    God be with you,
    Ray

[Dave in Tenn]

The whole exchange, for perspective:

Mat 19:3 And the Pharisees came to Him, trying Him, and saying, "Is it allowed one to dismiss his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 Now He, answering, said, "Did you not read that the Maker from the beginning makes them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and He said, 'On this account a man shall be leaving father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So that no longer are they two, but one flesh. What God, then, yokes together, let not man be separating."
Mat 19:7 They are saying to Him, "Why, then, does Moses direct to give a scroll of divorce and to dismiss her?
Mat 19:8 Jesus is saying to them, that "Moses, in view of your hardheartedness, permits you to dismiss your wives. Yet from the beginning it has not come to be thus."
Mat 19:9 Now I am saying to you that whoever should be dismissing his wife (not for prostitution) and should be marrying another, is committing adultery, and he who marries her who has been dismissed, is committing adultery."
Mat 19:10 The disciples are saying to Him, "If the cause of a man with a woman is thus, it is not expedient to marry."
Mat 19:11 Yet He said to them, "Not all are containing this saying, but those to whom it has been given."
Mat 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus out of their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who are emasculated by men, and there are eunuchs who emasculate themselves because of the kingdom of the heavens. The one able to contain it, let him contain it."


And, as much as we like to "cut" the scripture into doctrinal bullet points, then this happened.

Mat 19:13 Then little children were brought to Him, that He may be placing His hands on them and should be praying. Yet the disciples rebuke them."
Mat 19:14 Yet Jesus said to them, "Let the little children be coming to Me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of the heavens."
Mat 19:15 And, placing His hands on them, He went thence."

And then this:

Mat 19:16 And lo! one coming to Him said, "Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?
Mat 19:17 Yet He said to him, "Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts."
Mat 19:18 He is saying to Him, "Which?Now Jesus said, "These: 'You shall not be murdering.' 'You shall not be committing adultery.' 'You shall not be stealing.' 'You shall not be testifying falsely.'"
Mat 19:19 Be honoring father and mother,' and 'You shall be loving your associate as yourself.'"
Mat 19:20 The youth is saying to Him, "These all I maintain. In what am I still deficient?
Mat 19:21 Jesus averred to him, "If you are wanting to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and be giving to the poor, and you will be having treasure in the heavens. And hither! Follow Me."
Mat 19:22 Now, hearing this word, the youth came away sorrowing, for he had many acquisitions."
Mat 19:23 Now Jesus said to His disciples, "Verily, I am saying to you that the rich squeamishly will be entering into the kingdom of the heavens."
Mat 19:24 Yet again, I am saying to you that it is easier for a camel to be entering through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be entering into the kingdom of God."
Mat 19:25 Now, hearing it, the disciples were tremendously astonished, saying, "Who, consequently, can be saved?
Mat 19:26 Now, looking at them, Jesus said to them, "With men this is impossible, yet with God all is possible."

And then this, after all of that.

Mat 19:23 Now Jesus said to His disciples, "Verily, I am saying to you that the rich squeamishly will be entering into the kingdom of the heavens."
Mat 19:24 Yet again, I am saying to you that it is easier for a camel to be entering through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be entering into the kingdom of God."
Mat 19:25 Now, hearing it, the disciples were tremendously astonished, saying, "Who, consequently, can be saved?
Mat 19:26 Now, looking at them, Jesus said to them, "With men this is impossible, yet with God all is possible."
Mat 19:27 Then, answering, Peter said to Him, "Lo! we leave all and follow Thee. What, consequently, will it be to us?
Mat 19:28 Yet Jesus said to them, "Verily, I am saying to you, that you who follow Me, in the renascence whenever the Son of Mankind should be seated on the throne of His glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Mat 19:29 And everyone who leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, on account of My name, a hundred-fold shall be getting, and shall be enjoying the allotment of life eonian."
Mat 19:30 Yet many of the first shall be last, and the last first."

And He didn't stop there, either.

[Oatmeal]

Hi

Kat provided a quote from Makeup/Divorce? where Ray used the expression "a host of sexual immorality".  In Esther - The Destiny of Women Ray uses the expression "a whole host of sins".

Here is another quote from Ray, which Kat referred to earlier in this thread: MATT 5:32 & MATT 19:9 a Study.

I cannot harmonise Ray's definition of the word "fornication" used in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 with these very same Scriptures in which the word is used, when in the actual and very same Scripture, and in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 where fornication is not mentioned, Jesus gave examples of persons that are committing adultery.  That a present and continuously occurring act of adultery is in existence can only be true if the original marriage is still in a continuous present existence.  The divorce, remarriage, and adultery that Jesus refers to has not nullified the first marriage (otherwise the re-marriage would not be adultery) and therefore the word "fornication" that Jesus used, which fornication can nullify a marriage, is not and cannot be referring to adultery.  Is that not just simple logic?  If such logic is flawed, then it is just a matter of the flaw being explained.

In reference to Deuteronomy 22:13-14, Deuteronomy 24:1, Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, an espoused woman or a new wife found not to be a virgin, can be divorced.  Besides this, I cannot find confirmation in the New Testament that adultery can nullify a marriage.  Perhaps someone can point a confirming Scripture out.  I am definitely receptive to being wrong.  It would or could be very useful to me as my divorced brother is planning to marry a divorced woman in less than one week’s time, and at this stage I am unwilling to go to the wedding.  So I could possibly go.  And then I could get remarried.  Wow.

Jesus said (Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9), in the very same passages of Scripture that people now use as an excuse to get divorced: "What God has joined together, let not man separate", and in Romans 7:1-4 the permanency of a wife being bound to her husband until the death of her husband is used as an example.

If the word "fornication" used in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 does include adultery, and can be applied to a man, then is a married man who looks at a woman with lust (even a little tiny bit of lust?) (Matthew 5:27-28) divorce eligible?

As I said in my post immediately previous, even though I have been told that I was wrong in my conclusions in my [earlier] post regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage, it has not been explained to me from the Scriptures the specific of my error.

Oatmeal

[G. Driggs]

Another good option is forgiveness. Love covers a multitude of sins.

I haven't really been following this thread so forgive me if i get something big wrong.

[Dave in Tenn]

You said, "Ray says that adultery, and not only adultery, but also a "whole host of sins", can make the first marriage invalid." 

This is the "quote" I am looking for.

[Kat]

Hi Dave here is that comment.

http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2774.0.html ---

Divorce:  The only way that Jesus said one can leave a marriage and/or marry another is if there is "pornia" present (called 'fornication') in the King James.  Pornia means "prostitution," but it can also mean a host of sexual immorality.  Also, Paul tells us that if a man will not provide for his own family, he is "WORSE than an infidel." The same is true of a man or deserts his family, or abuses his wife or children. In such cases of "immorality" a mate should not be considered bound.
     
    God be with you,
    Ray



Oatmeal, it is okay if your studies bring you to a different understanding than what Ray taught, nobody can be 100% right on every thing they teach. But Ray is no longer with us to discuss all that brought him to what he believed and explain in more detail how he came to his understanding. There is no doubt much more study behind what he actually taught.

It is not the purpose of this forum to disprove what Ray has taught or find supports of what you may believe differently either. So we must leave this as it is, hope you understand.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[theophilus]

Adultery is the act of sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife, or sexual intercourse between a married woman and someone other than her husband. Adultery violates the bond of the marriage union. Fornication is a more general term usually referring to any kind of sexual misconduct or sexual impurity outside of the bounds of marriage. It is often used symbolically in Scripture to mean a following after idols or an abandoning of God.

Matthew 19:9

Names of God Bible (NOG)

9 I can guarantee that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than HER UNFAITHFULNESS is committing adultery if he marries another woman.”

Matthew 19:9

Expanded Bible (EXB)

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman ·is guilty of [commits] adultery.[a] ·The only reason for a man to divorce his wife is IF HIS WIFE HAS SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH ANOTHER MAN [L. …except in the case of sexual immorality].”

Matthew 19:9

New Living Translation (NLT)

9 And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—UNLESS HIS WIFE HAS BEEN UNFAITHFUL.[a]”

Footnotes:

    19:9 Some manuscripts add And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Compare Matt 5:32.

Footnotes:

    Matthew 19:9 adultery Some Greek copies continue, “And anyone who marries a divorced woman is guilty of adultery.” Compare Matthew 5:32.

1 Corinthians 5:1

It is reported commonly that there is FORNICATION among you, and SUCH FORNICATION as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, THAT ONE SHOULD HAVE HIS FATHER'S WIFE. (KJV)

Such fornication was that somebody was having sexual relations with his father's wife--probably his stepmother (Lev. 18:7–8; 20:11).

Leviticus 18:7-8

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

7 You are not to shame your father by having sex with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual intercourse with her. 8 You are not to have sex with your father’s wife; it will shame your father.

Leviticus 20:11

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

11 If a man sleeps with his father’s wife, he has shamed his father. Both of them must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.[a]

Footnotes:

    Leviticus 20:11 Lit on them

Jude 7

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to FORNICATION, and going after strange flesh (that of angels), are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (KJV)

We know what the term fornication refers to in Jude 7.

God gave Israel a certificate of divorce and sent her away for her unfaithfulness! That is God divorced Israel because she had fornicated. Can't we do the same?

Jeremiah 3:8

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

8 I observed that it was because unfaithful Israel had committed adultery that I had sent her away and had given her a certificate of divorce. Nevertheless, her treacherous sister Judah was not afraid but also went and prostituted herself.

Jeremiah 3:8

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

8 I saw that even though backsliding Isra’el had committed adultery, so that I had sent her away and given her a divorce document, unfaithful Y’hudah her sister was not moved to fear — instead she too went and prostituted herself.

[Ian 155]

Another good option is forgiveness. Love covers a multitude of sins.

Amen - and bottom line - husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, giving himself up as....

[onelovedread]

Sooooo, my first wife remarried soome years ago.
Should I tell her she's still married to me? Not sure her Colombian husband would take kindly to that.
It would be good though, to tell wifey number 2 that we're not really married
Sure would make things easier  (I cracked myself up)

[Ian 155]

I would agree you cannot un ring a bell but now that you/we know, I don't believe you/we would do it again, like we agree all is of God even a marital split - as for the woman with 5 husbands @ the well Jesus said go and sin no more....

17 “I have no husband,” she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

[Joel]

Mark 10:9-What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I have heard some lively discussions in my day as to which husband/wife was the one God joined them together with.

Joel

[Abednego]

Hi Connie.  I don't really have any original thoughts to add on your original question, but  indianabob would get my vote for most helpful response.  I would have pretty much suggested the same thing.

With that being said, and seeing this has branched off slightly, I'd like to add something that i've been chewing on lately.  It centers around:

Mark 10:9-What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And

Can someone define marriage scripturally? Who performed the first marriage? How do men get authority to perform the marriage ceremony?

I'm not totally sold on what marriage really is anymore.  Now before everyone tries to burn me at the stake, I am not saying our marriages are invalid.  We all know the scriptures that talk about God and what's in our hearts.

But there are a few things that bother me.

A.    Although God did speak against David for taking someones wife, during the time multiple wifes were not the issue. 

1 Timothy 3:2  King James Version (KJV)
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

2nd witness

Titus 1:6  King James Version (KJV)
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

The scriptures tell us that there was a reason to have only one wife, can it be understood that it was not sin to have multiple wives?

I understand that many use the Genesis account to prove that marriage is between one man and one woman.  But there were many in the bible that had multiple wives and I don't see where that was ever addressed as sin.  Although Deuteronomy 17:17 does tell us it isn't the best idea.  If it is wrong in the sight of God why do not the two above scriptures state they are unfit because they have multiple wives?

B.     If man passes a law of the land saying we can only have one wife then yes, we are to observe that. But that does not mean that having more than one wife is a sin.  Having more than one wife under those circumstances would indeed be a sin.  Luke 16:18 and others tell us you can not divorce and marry another.  But it doesn't say you can't just marry another.

OK, bear with me, as this is only a thought process and I'm still trying to figure this all out.

There was no JOP in the garden so who married Adam and Eve?  Today I can be an atheist and still get married by a JOP as long as I give them that envelope when it's over.

So the big question I am dealing with right now; is there a difference between being married in the eyes of man and being married in the eyes of God?  Getting a marriage license is the law and God expects us to follow it. But I still view it as an institution of man. (A much needed one at least at this time) Scripture tells us that a man joins to a woman, but we know that is spiritual, not something that is done with a piece of paper.  Heck in some places that piece of paper can now join two women or two men.

So going back to Mark 10:9 how does God join us?  Is a piece of paper really required, or is that just a way to lower your tax bracket?

When you get married "by someone", in my mind that someone performs the ceremony. ie I was married by a Catholic priest or a JOP.  So how do you get married by God?

I'm glad I'm married now, because as these new truths have opened to me how could I possibly find someone to marry me?  A minister will say you're married out one side of his mouth and then preach fire and a burning hell of torment out the other.

I would not suggest a new teaching on this nor should one be entertained on this forum.  That is not the purpose here.  I do believe, that the Scriptures can open up a lot more to us on marriage that is purposefully being hidden from us at this time.  So until that time we do the best with what we have, and try to live the best we can as we feel directed. How I hate that word feel.

[adiamondintheson]

These are all valid points.... to me it is all so complicated.  I was raised in a ministers home and was brought up very legalistic.  No make up.. no slacks.. no jewelry.. no movies... no TV.. etc.  When you married, it was till "DEATH" do you part.  Nobody talked to me about the gut feelings inside that let me know, I was not making the right choice.. he (my fiance) was of the same denomination I was in... had a good job... finished his time in the service... etc.  (all good reasons to marry) (right).  To make a long story short.. the legalistic church we were from taught it was a sin to get angry, so always to be kind, etc.  Well... in just a short time after the marriage, I realized I was not loved and cared for like my dear mother had been, by my daddy who tried to live Godly.  I became the beating post for angry outbursts.  Because I had 'Married'... I didn't feel I could just walk away.  After 16 years, 4 sons, and a miscarriage due to the abuse... I left one day after being choked out of a sleep in the middle of the night.  Three days later, I got a call from my Mom.. (whom I loved with all my heart) telling me that I would go to hell for leaving him.  I was sick in heart when I asked her how she could say that, as she could very well be sitting in a funeral home that very day!  Never DID understand all these things.  I can only say... that after 4 different marriages... God has brought my (now) husband and I to Bible Truths to learns that there IS no hell to be going to where we'll burn forever and forever.  We have also learned that God has directed each and every step we took... and I now know a God that is totally different than the One I thought to be as a child growing up.  I'm so thankful... and as for the reason for my posting this topic in the first place... was because... I don't care how many PEOPLE... I can get to agree with me... or not... but to truly know what it is that God would have ME to do.  I would not want to find myself EVER telling my daughter, God doesn't want you to do this.. or God will do that... and cause her to turn away from HIM. 

You are all so good to try to help... and I hope this gives you a little insight into where I'm actually coming from.  Learning more every day of His awesome Grace & Mercy!!  Thanks to you all...

Connie

[theophilus]

With that being said, and seeing this has branched off slightly, I'd like to add something that i've been chewing on lately.  It centers around:

Quote from: Joel on November 14, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Mark 10:9-What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And

Quote from: theophilus on September 21, 2013, 04:33:48 AM
Can someone define marriage scripturally? Who performed the first marriage? How do men get authority to perform the marriage ceremony?

I'm not totally sold on what marriage really is anymore.  Now before everyone tries to burn me at the stake, I am not saying our marriages are invalid.  We all know the scriptures that talk about God and what's in our hearts.

With that being said, and seeing this has branched off slightly, I'd like to add something that i've been chewing on lately.  It centers around:

Quote from: Joel on November 14, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Mark 10:9-What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And

Quote from: theophilus on September 21, 2013, 04:33:48 AM
Can someone define marriage scripturally? Who performed the first marriage? How do men get authority to perform the marriage ceremony?

I'm not totally sold on what marriage really is anymore.  Now before everyone tries to burn me at the stake, I am not saying our marriages are invalid.  We all know the scriptures that talk about God and what's in our hearts.

The "no man" in Mark 10:9 are the marriage partners, not a third party. So, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not 'the marriage partners' put asunder [apart]."

When a couple no longer has a great relationship, their marriage is no longer great. When they care more about their marriage than their marriage partner, they have misplaced the emphasis of their relationship. Being married does not create a great relationship. But having a great relationship creates a great marriage.

Which is greater in God’s eyes, the marriage or the people of the marriage?

If push comes to shove, who do we save, the institution or the people of the institution? And if we face the decision of either saving a marriage or the people of the marriage, which one do we choose? The people no doubt!

One thing that is not being discussed here is the soul ties that remain after such a breakup. If the ONENESS spoken of in scripture (Ephesians 5:31) was achieved between a couple, when they separate and remarry they can't possibly give themselves 100% to their new spouses. These soul ties must be broken first in order to enjoy their new relationship to the fullest.

Even though I refer to marriage as an "institution" in this post, I have unanswered questions as to how it became an institution and who instituted it. If someone replies that God did it, I can retort that God did the same with divorce. Like I asked before, who possesses the authority to marry, a JOP, a mormon bishop, a catholic priest, an evangelical or protestant pastor/minister? Apparently, ANYONE can perform the marriage ceremony; even a minister of the Church of Satan! If a couple marries in the Church of Satan, or in a Wiccan setting by a Wicca practitioner, is this marriage acceptable in the eyes of God?   

[loretta]

The "no man" in Mark 10:9 are the marriage partners, not a third party. So, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not 'the marriage partners' put asunder [apart]."

When a couple no longer has a great relationship, their marriage is no longer great. When they care more about their marriage than their marriage partner, they have misplaced the emphasis of their relationship. Being married does not create a great relationship. But having a great relationship creates a great marriage.

Which is greater in God’s eyes, the marriage or the people of the marriage?

If push comes to shove, who do we save, the institution or the people of the institution? And if we face the decision of either saving a marriage or the people of the marriage, which one do we choose? The people no doubt!

Interesting line of thinking, Theophilus.  But, are you suggesting that divorce is justified in some cases, that is why God allows divorce?  Is the emphasis on great rather than on marriage? I believe Ray said that there was nothing spiritual about marriage, so I guess it matters not who marries us, just as long as it is valid under the law of the land.  But there is a spiritual purpose for marriage, in that God uses both the great and the not so great marriages to purge us of all that is not holy and acceptable to Him.  Marriage and divorce, both of God, serve a purpose in his divine plan for the redemption of humanity.

One thing that is not being discussed here is the soul ties that remain after such a breakup. If the ONENESS spoken of in scripture (Ephesians 5:31) was achieved between a couple, when they separate and remarry they can't possibly give themselves 100% to their new spouses. These soul ties must be broken first in order to enjoy their new relationship to the fullest.

I don't believe that soul ties can be broken or at least the way they attempt to do so in Babylon.  How we do live with them, good and bad, is part of the lof and ALL of God.

[theophilus]

The "no man" in Mark 10:9 are the marriage partners, not a third party. So, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not 'the marriage partners' put asunder [apart]."

When a couple no longer has a great relationship, their marriage is no longer great. When they care more about their marriage than their marriage partner, they have misplaced the emphasis of their relationship. Being married does not create a great relationship. But having a great relationship creates a great marriage.

Which is greater in God’s eyes, the marriage or the people of the marriage?

If push comes to shove, who do we save, the institution or the people of the institution? And if we face the decision of either saving a marriage or the people of the marriage, which one do we choose? The people no doubt!

Interesting line of thinking, Theophilus.  But, are you suggesting that divorce is justified in some cases, that is why God allows divorce?  Is the emphasis on great rather than on marriage? I believe Ray said that there was nothing spiritual about marriage, so I guess it matters not who marries us, just as long as it is valid under the law of the land.  But there is a spiritual purpose for marriage, in that God uses both the great and the not so great marriages to purge us of all that is not holy and acceptable to Him.  Marriage and divorce, both of God, serve a purpose in his divine plan for the redemption of humanity.

One thing that is not being discussed here is the soul ties that remain after such a breakup. If the ONENESS spoken of in scripture (Ephesians 5:31) was achieved between a couple, when they separate and remarry they can't possibly give themselves 100% to their new spouses. These soul ties must be broken first in order to enjoy their new relationship to the fullest.

I don't believe that soul ties can be broken or at least the way they attempt to do so in Babylon.  How we do live with them, good and bad, is part of the lof and ALL of God.

I am of the opinion that it is justified.

God angrily said that He “…hated putting away [a separation]” “...Because you have not kept My ways [concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage] but have SHOWN PARTIALITY IN THE LAW” (Malachi 2:9). The Law specifically stated that when a man got a divorce from his wife that he was to write “...her a CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE, put it in her hand, AND [shalach] send her out [put her away]…” (Deuteronomy 24:1). God also commanded them not to marry anyone who did not serve Him but who served a foreign god (See Nehemiah 13:25-30).

Deutoronomy 24.1: When a man has taken a wife and married her, and it comes to pass that she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her; then let him write her a bill of divorce and give it in her hand and send (shalach) her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

The Hebrew word "shalach" means “putting away”, a separation. However, the King James and a number of newer versions have incorrectly translated shalach as to mean 'divorce'. It never meant divorce and it doesn’t mean divorce. The word was most likely translated as “divorce” to fit what was taught in the church.

Instead, men frivolously separated from their wives without ever giving them a Certificate of Divorce and then illegally married someone else. This is why the Lord said that they were still “their wife by covenant.” (Malachi 2.14) The marriage covenant had never been dissolved by the Divorce Certificate.

Because these men had remarried illegally (separated from their wives without giving them a Certificate of Divorce), they were in adultery as Jesus stated: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever PUTS AWAY [separates from {apoluo}] his wife, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE. But I say to you that whoever PUTS AWAY [separates and remarries without being divorced from] his wife for any reason EXCEPT SEXUAL IMMORALITY causes her to commit adultery: and whoever marries a woman who is PUT AWAY [separated without being divorced {apoluo}] commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32).

The Old Testament Hebrew word shalach and the New Testament Greek word apoluo are equivalent.

These men were putting away their wives FOR ANY REASON. On top of that, they were not giving the women certificates of divorce. The Lord Jesus expanded on His law by saying that men were not to put away their wives FOR ANY REASON, except ONE: sexual immorality.

Matthew 5.31-32

31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a get.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her an adulteress; and that anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery.

I believe Ray said that there was nothing spiritual about marriage, so I guess it matters not who marries us

1 Cor. 6:

15 Don’t you know that your bodies are parts of the Messiah? So, am I to take parts of the Messiah and make them parts of a prostitute? Heaven forbid! 16 Don’t you know that a man who joins himself to a prostitute becomes physically one with her? For the Tanakh says, “The two will become one flesh” (Genesis 2.24); 17 but the person who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. 18 Run from sexual immorality! Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the fornicator sins against his own body. 19 Or don’t you know that your body is a temple for the Ruach HaKodesh who lives inside you, whom you received from God? The fact is, you don’t belong to yourselves; 20 for you were bought at a price. So use your bodies to glorify God.

Theophilus

[Oatmeal]

Theophilus

I do not understand how you conclude that these people in Malachi were separating from their wives without a certificate of divorce.

Your conclusion seems to be based on interpretation of the word shalach, which you said means a separation, but does not mean a divorce, and never meant divorce.

You said:

The Hebrew word "shalach" means “putting away”, a separation. However, the King James and a number of newer versions have incorrectly translated shalach as to mean 'divorce'. It never meant divorce and it doesn’t mean divorce. The word was most likely translated as “divorce” to fit what was taught in the church.

You thus concluded that these men had separated from their wives, but had not given them a certificate of divorce, and so had not divorced them, but just separated.

You quoted from Deuteronomy 24:1,2:

When a man has taken a wife and married her, and it comes to pass that she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her; then let him write her a bill of divorce and give it in her hand and send (shalach) her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

The above Scripture says that shalach means that the woman was free to go and be another man’s wife.  Doesn’t that mean therefore that shalach in that culture is the equivalent of divorce in our culture, as close as the differences in culture will allow, otherwise how could the woman be free to go and be another man’s wife?

In the Scripture above that you quoted, the Law states that it was a requirement of the Law that for a woman to be shalach she must receive a certificate of divorce.  So therefore how can you and on what basis do you claim that shalach means that these women had not received a certificate of divorce?

Has difference in culture caused you confusion?  In our culture there is often or usually a period of separation, where the couple is known as separated, before an application is made and a piece of paper is received that pronounces the couple as divorced.  Correct me if I am incorrect, but there appears to be no separation period in the Israelite culture, and no requirement for such in the Law.  The woman was given the bill/certificate of divorce and the deed was done.

Also, the Scripture in Malachi does not say that these women had not received a certificate of divorce, and on that basis also there appears to be no foundation on which to claim that a certificate of divorce had not been given.
 
Look at the detail given in Malachi 2:14-16 of the effects of the divorcing of the covenant wife.  Yet you say that the divorcing of the covenant wife was actually not the problem, and God does not hate such a divorce at all, it is separation without divorce papers that God hates, and you wrested that into being by defining shalach as not having a certificate of divorce when in the very Scripture that you quoted the Law says that a woman must be given a certificate of divorce to be shalach.

However your observation that these women had been unjustifiably (and selfishly) put away seems to be valid.  That was the nature of the treachery, I think, not a lack of a certificate of divorce.

It should also be noted that when a shalach woman lay with a second husband, she became defiled (read on in Deuteronomy 24).

Deuteronomy 22:13-19 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 each detail one of two separate occasions, both occasions where a man had taken a woman’s virginity, when the man was not allowed to shalach the woman all his days.

Oatmeal