bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: adiamondintheson on September 17, 2013, 01:10:57 AM
-
My daughter has been separated from her first marriage for over a year now, but is not legally divorced as of yet. She and another man are wanting to marry and do not want to wait till her divorce can become legal. They want to share vows with each other, and she wants to take his last name... of course none of it would be legal... they want myself and my husband to witness. There was a post a while back that kind of dealt with this sort of thing... I've looked and looked and am not finding it. If you can think of what it might have been or anything pertaining to it... I'd be so grateful. :(
Connie
-
Hi Connie,
I could only find one email that pertained to this, but maybe it will help.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,7413.0.html --------
There are a hundred good reasons why I don't get involved in counseling people in divorce and remarriage situations and other legal matters. One ends up in the same situation as Paul called "endless genealogies." I assume you may be referring to your own marriage with this question? Okay, so you marry a woman who was not legally divorced based on her husband committing adultery. They just divorced for whatever reasons. Now then, are you legally married to her and is she legally married to you? Well........has her husband remarried? Cause if he did, then he IS committing adultery, seeing that your divorce was apparently not legal in God's eyes. So now that he is married (legal or not) to another and having sex (adultery) with another woman, she could not legally divorce him on grounds of adultery. But you are already divorced, he is now married, and she now married. Okay, suppose her husband is not remarried and is not committing adultery, then what? Should she legally divorce you according to the laws of the law, and remarry her old husband if he will have her? What if he really does WANT HER? And what if she really decides that she did love him and wants to divorce you now and remarry her old husband? Can they do that? (In "God's" eyes?)
What if you die, and your present wife who is not legally divorced because there was no adultery in her first marriage, wants to remarry a third man, and the third man is legally divorced because his wife did commit adultery, can she marry him if her first husband will not take her back, even though he never did commit adultery on her when they were married? But what if your wife really did commit adultery in her first marriage, but her first husband forgave her and didn't want to divorce her, but she wanted to divorce him, because she felt guilty for betraying him? Can she divorce him if it was her who committed the adultery, and then marry you? I could go on like this for hours and hours.
It's just more "endless genealogy," and I won't get involved in it. Furthermore, NO ONE will divorce their mate if they love them, no matter WHAT I would say, so this whole conversation is pretty close to pointless. Furthermore, I don't believe that I have ever had anyone tell me the absolute truth when asking me to "settle" such convoluted marital situations.
Listen: You cannot UN-ring a bell. Sometimes it is not possible to go back and straighten out all of the convoluted mistakes we made in life and such things as marriage and remarriage. Repent for what you have done and for what you are and GO ON with you life. If a husband BEATS his wife, or ABUSES the children, or does NOT PROVIDE food and shelter for his family, or is totally IMMORAL, or DESERTS his wife, or DIES, then the wife is not expected to remained married to such a man if she does not desire, and the same is true she the wife commit these crimes. Almost all other things are just excuses to have one's cake and eat it too. I hope this has been a little helpful to you.
God be with you,
Ray
-
There is an obvious distinction between being legally divorced under the law of the land and being legally divorced under the law of God. As Ray so clearly articulated, as the elect of God, we are subject to the latter. No compromise on that. I can't believe it is so simple as that. For years, I have researched the subject of divorce and remarriage in the church and have found opinions ranging from the bizarre ( divorced people who remarry should return to their former spouses and bear the consequences ) to the outright immoral sanction of divorce and remarriage.
-
Jesus was pretty clear on the subject as recorded in Matthew 19. And as he said in verse 11, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
19:3- 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?
19:8- 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.
19:9- 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.
Joel
-
Adultery and fornication happens spiritually in the mind and heart first, before the physical act. A person can be married and never divorce, but they can still be an adulterer. Likewise a person who has never had sex can be a fornicator.
Mat 23:26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and of the plate, so that the outside may be clean also.
What good does it do to do the right thing when inside I'am so dirty? I'm not pointing my finger at anyone. This is something I've asked myself and God a lot. I know it doesn't hurt to do the right thing, but if it's just for show God will know.
Like Scriptures say "REPENT" to which Ray agreed with from Kat's post.
Rev 2:20 But I have this against you: that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess [claiming to be inspired], and who is teaching and leading astray my servants and beguiling them into practicing sexual vice and eating food sacrificed to idols.
Rev 2:21 I gave her time to repent, but she has no desire to repent of her immorality [symbolic of idolatry] and refuses to do so.
Rev 2:22 Take note: I will throw her on a bed [of anguish], and those who commit adultery with her [her paramours] I will bring down to pressing distress and severe affliction, unless they turn away their minds from conduct [such as] hers and repent of their doings.
Rev 2:23 And I will strike her children (her proper followers) dead [thoroughly exterminating them]. And all the assemblies (churches) shall recognize and understand that I am He Who searches minds (the thoughts, feelings, and purposes) and the [inmost] hearts, and I will give to each of you [the reward for what you have done] as your work deserves.
Jesus only taught in parables, (as did the Apostle's) but the high priests of Christianity teaches us to interpret Scriptures literally. Spiritual adultery, fornication, drunkenness and idolatry runs rampant in the Church. God will judge and save all eventually. And from what I understand the teachers will have a stricter judgment.
Maybe this is for another topic, but what i want to know is, which is worse? The spiritual sins committed by the thoughts and the heart, or the act? Or are they equally bad? Seems like a silly question to be asking, but I'm truly confused. ???
-
Hi George,
Maybe this is for another topic, but what i want to know is, which is worse? The spiritual sins committed by the thoughts and the heart, or the act? Or are they equally bad?
It is what is in a person's HEART, which is what leads a person to sin eventually.
James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
His "own desires" are what is in his heart...
v. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
The heart holds our innermost thoughts/desires/lust and we know that the carnal human nature leans towards our lusts, and it is by what is in our heart by which we are judged.
Pro 23:7 For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.
Jer 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?
Pro 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,
But the LORD weighs the hearts.
Jer 17:10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.
Luke 16:15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Yes the heart is the crux of the matter, it is where our thoughts develop and it is where our character is stored up. So whatever is there good or wicked, God judges us by that.
Rom 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent (unrepentant) heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
v. 6 He will render to each one according to his works:
v. 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
v. 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
1Cor 3:13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
v. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
v. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
I think that the truth of this matter is a lot harder than many people want to acknowledge. When the disciples understood the matter regarding marriage and divorce, their reaction was: “it is not good to marry”. It is definitely a good idea to consider carefully before entering into the marriage covenant. The Scriptures are clear that it is death only that ends this covenant, and that any other marriage that occurs following the original marriage, when one of the original marriage partners is still alive, is a continuous act of adultery. I guess at this stage it may be considered by some members that this is only my opinion, but in honesty Scripture does appear to back this up. And it is not that I have always been personally happy with the situation.
It has been claimed that there is an “escape clause” in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 – the “except for fornication”. This, as far as I can see, cannot be referring to sexual unfaithfulness occurring in the marriage proper, that is, occurring after the marriage ceremony. If it were referring to sexual unfaithfulness in the marriage proper, then Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-12 would be logically inconsistent, and the claim would also not tie up with other Scripture, which would add more inconsistency.
In partial explanation:
Many people believe and are taught that if their marriage partner divorces them and remarries, then they are free to remarry as their partner is committing adultery. However, If God treats the second marriage as adultery then that means that the first marriage is still valid and remains current in God’s eyes. If it were true that the second marriage frees up the partner of the first marriage to remarry then the second marriage just mentioned can no longer be adultery as the very act of committing this adulterous second marriage means that the first marriage is no longer valid and so immediately that makes the second marriage no longer adultery and also valid. Am I being logically consistent?
I think logic is telling us that the reference to fornication in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 is not referring to sexual unfaithfulness by one of the marriage partners that has taken place after the completion of the marriage ceremony. In this situation also the “except for fornication” refers to something that the woman has done, not the man.
In Kat’s first post in this thread Ray has made very clear the confusion that is caused when the “except for fornication” is used to mean sexual unfaithfulness occurring after the marriage ceremony has taken place.
Here is a previous post in regard to the matter. The post remains as originally posted except for removal of one continuous section of a part and full paragraph.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,12882.msg113359.html#msg113359 (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,12882.msg113359.html#msg113359)
Thus in this current post I have not continued much beyond what has already been posted.
In summary, and in direct regard to your post, I make the point that, according to Scripture, a person can remarry only if their spouse has physically died. I believe that Scripture, including and beyond that quoted above, clearly backs this up. Of course I am open to correction.
Oatmeal
-
Was any of this any help to your daughter?
-
I really appreciate very much all the replies about this. It's a tough situation, my daughter hasn't believed in God for many years... was married to an atheist also... who cheated on her in many ways, many times. It was not a good marriage and lasted 11 years. It's not her choice that they can't be divorced right away.
My husband and I have shared many things we've learned here at BT's with her, and it seems that her heart is softening.
I struggle, as I so want her to be happy for once in her life, and yet I know what the Bible says about things regarding marriage, divorce, remarriage... etc. As a child myself I was brought up with very rigid, legalistic teaching. I know that it's NOT what you DO or DON'T do that brings salvation. It's just very hard letting go of things you've been taught for so many years. We are just thankful that it's really coming together for us.. the understanding that all will be saved... and to just trust God to do His work.
Thanks you'all...
Connie
-
Dave... I'm not so sure it was so much for my daughter that I posted... but for my husband and I. We struggle with the fact they are not married, they come to visit us (from out of town).. do we stand a ground and say, you cannot sleep together here at our home.. Knowing that they cannot be legally married until her divorce is even final. Then they feel so strongly about being together, they want to have their own little private vows thinking somehow that it will help somehow.
Sounds so really mixed up... but I have to trust and believe that God is working in their lives to draw them to Himself. It's just hard to know where we need to stand... or what we need to say or do.
Thanks again everyone.
Connie
-
Hi Connie,
I offer the following without judgment of any kind. My wife and I have had a similar situation with our children.
If you and your husband are of the same mind about your personal beliefs then you have a firm foundation from which to proceed. You set the example together and allow your daughter and her friend to observe your life and the conduct of it.
You set the parameters of how they or anyone for that matter are expected to conduct themselves within the walls of your house. Example: sleeping separately for a night or two will not harm their relationship I'm sure, so if possible, if it is not already too late to take a stand with them, request respectfully that they respect your sincerely held beliefs and then kindly prepare separate quarters for them during their visit. If they are truly loving and seeking acceptance this will not cause any difficult feelings and it should, we hope, actually cement relationships between you and the new young man. e.g. you accept him with conditions, conditions that you would apply to anyone and everyone.
Please take these thoughts with a spoonful of sugar to sweeten them and know that I have dealt with a similar situation and do understand. Also understand that it is not your place to judge your daughter in this matter. She has to live her life as she chooses. You and your husband then have the understandable right to live your life as you choose and she should be able to handle any differences with a mature attitude. Being your daughter, I'm sure that there can be a meeting of the minds.
Love and hugs from a parent of four beloved, mistake prone children who are struggling to deal with what life has handed them. Indiana Bob ::)
-
Can someone define marriage scripturally? Who performed the first marriage? How do men get authority to perform the marriage ceremony?
-
just wanted to jump in here to say to I-bob that your post reply to connie was a joy to read. one parent who has walked the same path, helping other parents who finds themselves standing in the same footprints. common experience is such a helpful tool as we come together to try and figure out how to get through the realities of our physical lives. i personally have learned much from your posts indianabob, and thank God you are my brother in Christ.
claudia
-
Sincere thanks Connie, much appreciated.
We are ONE in Christ. Bob
just wanted to jump in here to say to I-bob that your post reply to connie was a joy to read. one parent who has walked the same path, helping other parents who finds themselves standing in the same footprints. common experience is such a helpful tool as we come together to try and figure out how to get through the realities of our physical lives. i personally have learned much from your posts indianabob, and thank God you are my brother in Christ.
claudia
-
just wanted to jump in here to say to I-bob that your post reply to connie was a joy to read. one parent who has walked the same path, helping other parents who finds themselves standing in the same footprints. common experience is such a helpful tool as we come together to try and figure out how to get through the realities of our physical lives. i personally have learned much from your posts indianabob, and thank God you are my brother in Christ.
claudia
Yes, I too learnt much about this rocky road called parenting. tks Indianabob. :)
-
tks for the link, JfK.
I had been pondering the matter for some time now. Most of us on the forum are lone rangers, our kids are unchurched. So who will marry (preside over) them? What about the singles in our club? Will they have to fly out the minister ? :)
I'm guessing though that the state marriage licence is valid in God's eyes. We could follow it up with a wedding party though its not the custom in my part of the world. The church wedding/nuptial is, both among the catholics and evangelicals. But we're (the Elect) left out in the cold. Infact it is this fear that keeps people towing the church line, even though they're convinced otherwise.
-
I want to say a special thanks to everyone who has posted about this topic. The link to Feb. 2007 Bible Study ... WHAT IS MARRIAGE?....My husband and I read the whole article, and feel more confident about this topic. How He would have us to operate with our grown children... is still the part we will need to work out. He's better at enforcing 'rules' than I am... it's very hard for me,especially when you've already gone along with the program. Just keep praying that God will continue to work His will in all our hearts and lives. I appreciate the personal testimonies too of those who struggle with similar situations. LU ALL so much!!!
-
What I'm saying is that the ways of the true God are not a problem. The biblical standards of marriage are not difficult to comply with.
Tks for that lovely post JfK. It just set me free in my heart to enjoy the broad, sunlit uplands of life .:)
I was baptised and confirmed in the catholic church, and dreamed of that "fairytale wedding" as every young lady does, but it never happened :(. So I guess my daughters will have the kind of wedding that God wills for them.
-
Why was I not cut to pieces because of what I said in my post (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,15279.msg136214.html#msg136214) in this thread?
Oatmeal
-
I asked because what I said goes against what Ray said about the subject.
Oatmeal
-
Why was I not cut to pieces because of what I said in my post (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,15279.msg136214.html#msg136214) in this thread?
Oatmeal
Don't worry Oatmeal...we aren't ignoring you. No-one takes the opinions of 'porridge' seriously.... :D ;D :P
-
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
-
Could you provide a quote where Ray says this?
-
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 5:8). 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
-
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.
-
Hi
Kat provided a quote from Makeup/Divorce? (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2774.msg20560.html#msg20560) where Ray used the expression "a host of sexual immorality". In Esther - The Destiny of Women (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,5506.msg44074.html#msg44074) 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 (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,7413.msg58866.html#msg58866).
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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A27-28&version=NKJV)) 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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....
-
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 ;D
Sure would make things easier :D (I cracked myself up)
-
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.”
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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? ???
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%202:14-16&version=NKJV) 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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2024:1-4&version=NKJV)).
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-19&version=NKJV) and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&version=NKJV) 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
-
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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%202:14-16&version=NKJV) 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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2024:1-4&version=NKJV)).
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-19&version=NKJV) and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&version=NKJV) 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
Dear Oatmeal,
The reason I said that is found in Malachi 2.14: Yet ye say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast DEALT TREACHEROUSLY [by being "partial in the law." Malachi 2.9]; yet she IS [still] thy companion and the wife of thy covenant [because she hasn't done anything wrong].
and
Malachi 2.15: And did he not make one, having in himself abundance of the Spirit? And why one? That he might seek offspring of God. Therefore take heed to your spirit and let no one DEAL TREACHEROUSLY against the wife of his youth.
And since Deuteronomy 24.1-2 Deuteronomy 24:1 (MKJV)
"When a man has taken a wife and married her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some UNCLEANNESS in her, then let him write her a bill of divorce (keriythuwth H3748), and put it in her hand, and send her out (shalach H7971) of his house.
2 And when she has departed from his house, she goes and becomes another man's"
The above verse stipulated the rightful way for a husband to divorce his wife. To do it any other way was to deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. Since God was entreating Israelite males to NOT BE TREACHEROUS (Mal. 2.16) I must conclude that these Israelite husbands were not following God's law regarding divorce. Probably the reason for the husbands wanting to get rid of their wives was other than NUDITY (Deut. 24.1. The base meaning of the Hebrew word translated uncleanness ('ervah) means nudity. In this case the woman has uncovered herself from her headship, her husband.) This is why they couldn't write a divorce document and give it to their wives. All they could safely do was to send them away (Shalach).
For other valid reasons for divorce, we should look at the Code of Hammurabi. This might not be considered kosher by some, but let's not forget the similarities between Jehovah's law and the Code of Hammurabi. I personally believe the former predates the latter, not the other way around, as modern critics of the Bible proclaim. The Code specifies cruelty, slander, waste of family assets, and running up needless debts as being grounds for a man to divorce his wife. This is in addition to any other violation which may have been written into the marriage contract. The wife, too, could divorce her husband for those same offenses, but in addition to them, she could divorce him for lack of support (i.e., food, clothing, and conjugal relations; compare with Exodus 21:10,11).
Continuing...Consider the following verses:
Deuteronomy 22:19 (NKJV)
"and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot put her away (shalach H7971) all his days."
Deuteronomy 22:29 (NKJV)
"then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to put her away (shalach H7971) all his days."
It wouldn't make sense if the scripture read "he shall not be permitted to DIVORCE her ALL HIS DAYS", right? Likewise, it wouldn't make sense for scripture to read "he cannot DIVORCE her ALL HIS DAYS".
"Divorce" and "Put or send away" are not the same thing. Also consider that if a man found that his wife had been unfaithful to him, he did not write her a bill of divorcement, AS SHE AND THE OTHER MAN WERE STONED TO DEATH.
God hates the putting away (without divorce) because it always involves sin (Not keeping His ways/laws is a sin). In one case the sin of the wife for being unfaithful and in the other the sin of the husband for putting his wife away without a just cause or a bill of divorcement. The act of putting away a wife without a bill of divorcement is equivalent to separation only. The man and woman are still married if she was not guilty of adultery.
Take a look at the following verses:
Isaiah 50:1 (MKJV)
"So says Yahweh, "Where is your mother's bill of divorce (keriythuwth H3748), whom I have put away (shalach H7971)? Or to which of My creditors have I sold you? Behold, you were sold for your iniquities, and your mother is put away (shalach H7971) for your sins.""
Jeremiah 3:1 (MKJV)
"They say, If a man put away (shalach H7971) and she goes from him and will be for another man, will he return to her again? Would not that land be greatly defiled? But you play the harlot with many lovers; yet come back to Me, says Yahweh."
Jeremiah 3:8 (NKJV)
"Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away (shalach H7971) and given her a certificate of divorce (keriythuwth H3748); yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also."
In the following verses the Pharisees test the Lord in a matter of Law. Notice how they begin by talking about putting away a wife and then switch to divorce.
(Mat 19:3 NKJV)
"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluo G630)his wife for just any reason?""
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'
5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
Christ correctly answered their question based on the Law. A put away wife without a bill of divorcement was merely separated from her husband. They were still married. Now the Pharisees change the subject to divorce. In verse 8 he answers their question. In verse 9 he teaches more about the "putting away".
(Mat 19:7 KJV)
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion G647), << AND >> to put her away (apoluo G630)?
(Mat 19:8 NKJV)
He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away (apoluo G630)your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
(Mat 19:9 NKJV)
And I say to you, whoever puts away (apoluo G630)his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away (apoluo G630)commits adultery."
As you can see in Matthew 19:8 Christ said that from the beginning it was not so. What was not so? "Divorce for any reason" was not from the beginning because the Law says that a man must find some uncleanness in her, Deuteronomy 24:1. It is permitted to divorce a woman in whom is found an uncleanness. Adultery is a lawful reason for putting away without a writ of divorce.
Definitions (Strong):
Hebrew 1644. garash, gaw-rash'; a prim. root; to drive out from a possession; espec. to expatriate
Hebrew 3748. keriythuwth, ker-ee-thooth'; from H3772; a cutting (of the matrimonial bond), i.e. divorce.
Hebrew 7971. shalach, shaw-lakh'; a prim. root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of applications).
Greek 630. apoluo, ap-ol-oo'-o; from G575 and G3089; to free fully, i.e. (lit.) relieve, release, dismiss (reflex. depart), or (fig.) let die, pardon, or (spec.) divorce.
Greek 647. apostasion, ap-os-tas'-ee-on; neut. of a (presumed) adj. from a der. of G868; prop. something separative, i.e. (spec.) divorce.
-
Please note that the writings in blue are clickable links.
Hi Theophilus
If I have correctly understood the things that you have been saying, you have presented the argument that in a remarriage situation adultery only occurs if you separate from a marriage partner without divorcing that partner and then remarry, but if you divorce your marriage partner no adultery will occur in any subsequent remarriage.
This argument is based on the premise that in regard to a marriage situation the Hebrew word shalach in the Old Testament and the Greek word apoluo in the New Testament do not refer to "divorce", but mean "separation", with "separation" meaning "non-divorced separation".
Matthew 19:9 (KJV) 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.
The argument says that the word translated as "put away" (apoluo) in the Scripture above, and as mentioned by Jesus in the above Scripture and in other Scriptures Matthew 5:31-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:31-32&version=KJV), Matthew 19:3-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3-12&version=KJV), Mark 10:2-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:2-12&version=KJV), Luke 16:15-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:15-18&version=KJV) actually means: "separate without divorce". The argument also says that "fornication" mentioned in the above Scripture (Matthew 19:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:9&version=KJV)) and in Matthew 5:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:32&version=KJV) is adultery or includes adultery in its definition, even though adultery is referred to as "adultery" in those very Scriptures.
Here is the version of Matthew 5:31-32 presented by you and according to your argument:
…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).
With the word "put away" apoluo meaning "separate without divorce", and porneia (translated above as "sexual immorality") meaning something that occurs after the wedding ceremony, this means that if your wife has committed adultery (or sexual immorality, definition of which includes adultery), you are allowed to separate from that partner and remarry without divorcing that partner. That that is a logical result of interpreting "put away" as being "to separate without divorce" is confirmed and accepted by you:
Adultery is a lawful reason for putting away without a writ of divorce.
If sexual immorality/adultery of the wife results in the instant dissolving of the marriage, though perhaps that’s not exactly what you are saying, such that a divorce is not required, and remembering that your argument says it is remarriage without divorce that results in adultery, not remarriage after divorce, then why does not the adultery caused by remarriage without divorce result in the instant dissolving of the previous marriage? For an argument to remain valid, should it not remain logical throughout?
Mark 10:12 states that if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. How can she be committing adultery if her adultery has instantly dissolved the previous marriage?
Some now say that it is only the guilty partner who is committing adultery, and that the innocent partner is free to remarry. This is illogical nonsense as the previous marriage must exist for both not just for one, otherwise how could the previous marriage be an existing marriage? - besides the fact that the Scriptures say that the one who puts away his wife (wife = the innocent partner) causes her to commit adultery and the one that marries her commits adultery.
In regard to the meaning of "fornication" (KJV) porneia mentioned in Matthew 5:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:32&version=KJV) and Matthew 19:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:9&version=KJV), how can it have the meaning of sexual sin inclusive of adultery occurring in the period of time after the wedding ceremony and as such be grounds for invalidating the marriage, when in those very Scriptures themselves Jesus gave example of divorce, remarriage and adultery where the adultery does not make the original marriage invalid? I only mention this again because even after I raised this question in a previous post you went ahead and posted (November 12, 2013) references from three translations that purport that porneia is a sexual sin that occurs at a time after the marriage ceremony, but you ignored or did not notice the relevant and valid question that I asked and you did not supply any explanation as to how your definition of porneia could possibly be true. I feel that that was somewhat amiss on your behalf.
Have you presented your argument in an attempt to give an OK to divorce and remarriage?
Here are some of your thoughts on divorce:
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!
Jesus told us to deny ourselves and to take up our cross, and to follow Him. Does Scripture put the emphasis on the "great", or on the marriage?
The summary so far (of your argument) seems to be that if your wife commits adultery you are allowed to separate without divorcing her and remarry, and if your wife does not commit adultery you are not allowed to separate without divorcing her and remarry because the remarriage would be adultery but you are allowed (if the relationship is not great) to divorce her and remarry in which case the remarriage would not be adultery.
Deuteronomy 24:1-2 (KJV)
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send [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.
Your argument says that shalach means "separated, but not divorced", even though the woman who was shalach in the above Scripture was allowed to go and be another man's wife, and even though under the Law it was a requirement of the Law that for a woman to be shalach she must first be given a bill/certificate of divorce.
According to e-Sword, shalach is used 848 times in the Old Testament. Let's not confuse shalach as used in the separation from a marriage situation, with other uses of shalach, such as in Genesis 3:22 (…lest he put forth [shalach] his hand, and take also of the tree of life…). The instructions for the shalach of a wife are given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and which shalach is preceded by a cepher kriythuwth - a bill/certificate of divorce.
cepher kriythuwth: bill/certificate of divorce - cepher:writing, letter, scroll; kriythuwth: a cutting.
In Deuteronomy 24:1 & 3 the cepher kriythuwth comes before (both in word order and in process) the shalach.
In Western culture separation is followed by divorce, but in the Israelite culture, and under the Law, divorce is followed by separation, and under that criteria therefore a woman who has been shalach is a divorced woman.
Your argument seems to be somewhat largely based on an interpretation of a passage in Malachi, Malachi 2:13-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%202:13-16&version=KJV), concerning which your argument says that because these women are called "thy companion and the wife of thy covenant", and because shalach means separation, these woman have never been divorced, that is, they have never received a bill/certificate of divorce.
And the argument says that it is not divorce that God hates, but separation without a divorce.
Malachi 2:15 NKJV
But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
"Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
It seems very clear that the problem is the breaking of the marriage covenant, a covenant to which God was a witness. How would divorce papers or the lack thereof change the effects resulting from the non-fulfillment and breaking of the marriage covenant? Is the "she is your companion and your wife by covenant" truly a revelation about a lack of a certificate of divorce, or is it an emphasis on the relevance and importance of the covenant?
(The Rotherham says: "was thy consort, and thy covenant wife" and the Brenton says: "was thy partner, and the wife of thy covenant" (they use the past tense). In the King James the word "is" is in italics, which signifies a word not in the original language but which has been added to assist the reader to understand the interpretation of the translator).
Notice how they [the Pharisees] begin by talking about putting away a wife and then switch to divorce.
Matthew 19:7 KJV
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mark 10:2-4 KJV
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
In the above two references, the Pharisees mention in one breath the certificate of divorcement and the putting away. Where therefore is the switching?
In defense of your argument, you say that the conversation in Matthew 19:3-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3-12&version=KJV) goes from non-divorced separation to divorced separation to non-divorced separation.
When the Pharisees mention the putting away is it not in reference to the certificate of divorcement that initiated the putting away, and when the Pharisees mention the certificate of divorcement is it not in reference to the putting away that resulted from the certificate of divorcement?
Reading Matthew 19:3-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3-12&version=KJV) and Mark 10:2-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:2-12&version=KJV) together it can be seen that the words of Jesus in reply to the Pharisees "put away his wife" of Matthew 19:3 and to the Pharisees "write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away" of Mark 10:4 are much the same. Therefore the "putting away" and the "writing a bill of divorcement, and putting her away" are the same thing, not two different things. I think an honest reading of the text, and even more so when comparing the account in Mark with the account in Matthew, will show that there is no switching from non-divorced to divorced separation and back to non-divorced separation in the conversation.
Also, as strict followers of the Law, or their interpretation of the Law, it seems unlikely that the Pharisees would neglect the paperwork when divorcing their wives.
At least in some respect, your argument has reduced the words of Jesus to: "Don't forget the paperwork when you are divorcing, fellas."
Also you referred "the beginning" back to the Law, instead of truly back to the beginning.
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?
To start with, I think Israel was an espoused wife when God divorced her, not an "after the wedding ceremony" wife. Nevertheless, by "the same", are you referring to the same faithfulness that God displayed to Israel after He divorced her?
In regard to What is Marriage, please refer to: (link) WHAT IS MARRIAGE (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,5675.msg45931.html), written by L. Ray Smith. Even though I do not agree with statements in the last couple of paragraphs I direct you to the rest of the article in regard to the significance, importance, and relevance of the wedding ceremony and of the marriage covenant.
Oatmeal
-
Let's try this approach.
When you as a man find that you are not receiving the loving benefits from your spouse that you had previously been accustomed to and you discuss it with her and she informs you that she no longer wishes to be obligated to as much of those benefits as you would prefer, BUT that she does wish to remain your wife in all other things. what do you do?
Well, you promised, before God and men, in the presence of God's spirit in your heart, to love, honor and cherish her for as long as you both shall live, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, RIGHT.
So you have therefore an obligation toward her before men and before God according to your vow.
The only decision you need to be concerned about is whether you keep your vow toward God!
The sacrifice, the emotional pain you feel, the lack of tender feelings you once received from your wife are of lesser importance. Your love for God and His Christ supersedes all of that.
Your wife has changed, her mental emotional state is not the same; is it intentional, was deception involved, can one be sure? Can you pray to God for her to be restored to full health. Are you willing to wait for God's answer?
Assume that it was a situation where she had her legs amputated and was distraught about her condition and could not think about your needs or desires. Would you separate from her, abandon her, divorce her OR would you rather suffer the loss of her service and find other things with which to occupy yourself and to serve in your family and community.
Perhaps we need to cease thinking of this situation along the lines of those under the law and look forward as those no longer under the law but under grace; those called and elect who were promised suffering of the type our Lord Jesus endured.
James 1:2
James 1:2-8 (New King James Version)
Page Options
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on email
<<
<
=
=
>
>>
James 1:2-8
2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.
Just my view, Bob
-
We have wandered far away from the original question into long-winded 'teaching'. Let's call it quits on this thread.