Featured Adultery

Bub I do not care what you believe. Your posts are nothing but accusatory and inflammatory. This is a common trait of those who want only to create discord and I am calling you out.

 

thanks for the reminder further evidence of your inflammatory posts.

 

And yet one more example of what I have been saying.

 

Shoot, you hadn't said much, just avoided the question. Are you divorced?

JoeT

 

Jesus is teaching that it is ok to divorce in an already adulterous relationship.

Let's say you are the 5th husband of a woman. You become convicted that she is originally married before God to her original spouse (which fits the other descriptions of what he was teaching). Therefore it is ok for you to divorce so she can be reconciled to her actual husband, the original husband she took vows to God.

This is consistent with other passages of the Bible. Once married the original marriage is what God ordained, and it is "till death do you part" and "for better or for worse".

 

This thread is going no where, but playing games.

So, let's get back to the topic.

It is so very unfortunate that Gentiles attempt to put their way of doing things in the way of the Jewish folks.

Here is what Christ is promoting in the four gospels.
First there is a cause for divorce, but it is NOT what was being allowed by Moses and those following.

So, exactly what was the tradition and that will state WHEN a divorce could be granted.

The traditional wedding ceremony (UNLIKE the Gentiles) did NOT have immediate consumption - honeymoon.

Rather, there was a period of time in which the bride returned to the fathers house with the brides maids to await the arrival and removal by the groom. This is seen, for example, in the parable of the virgins.

During this period of time the groom would prepare a place for the bride. When the place was sufficiently prepared and approved by the father of the groom (or the designee) the groom would then return to the brides house and without asking remove the bride and they would become one flesh in the prepared place.

Therefore, it was BETWEEN the ceremony and the consummation that the Lord is stating is the time when a person could get a divorce for adultery and it was Godly. The offended party was still a virgin, they had remained unviolated and therefore free from the constrictions of the union.

What the Gentile folks did was make some blanket anytime get out of commitment free card. Not so.

The marriage vows are made to God - not each other. The vow is a statement of not promise but commitment.

This is important. It is NOT a contractual relationship. There is no If Then statement, and no Only IF you don't break your side.

As such, even if the partner breaks their agreement, the other has no claim or right of freedom.

Christ states this principle in about as super glued fashion as can be.

Upon consumption, the two are one. At THAT point Christ states, what GOD joined no person can put separate.


Personal word for the readers:
We all know the sad stories of unfaithfulness and betrayal. Those of us who have ministered to the assembly have more often set with the mourners than the rejoicers. It is part of life.

Even some on this board have lived through such, and these words were not and are not meant to used to lay any portion or grievance upon you. Life is hard, at best, and at best sometime the best mess things up.

Dear friends. Christ established the high calling of God. Man by virtue of their own agenda driven sin (as Henry the VIII) will make all manner of trying to get out by excuse.

Here is what a believer should do should they find themselves in this situation.

1. Commit to God and remain faithful to His calling and your vows. The betrayal by another should not impact your own commitment to either God or that person.
2. Rest assured that God knows all and is totally aware of the desperate pain. He has allowed this for purpose and reason. More often for others to see Christ magnified in the depth of sorrows and anger.
3. Do not presume to interfere with that betrayer's life. They made their own decisions, such decisions impacted your life, but you have the authority on how you will respond to such. "..the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."
4. Live your life with purpose and determination to serve "Him who loved you to the uttermost."​

 

Can a Christian divorce his or her spouse? Yes, if the spouse committed adultery. Even if it was only in one's mind or heart? No, but an affair even if it was never consummated in bed, is grounds for divorce by the non-adulterer.

A Christian is not obligated to divorce an unfaithful spouse.

Adultery is always sinful, and never appropriate.

Bill Clinton committed adultery with "that woman."

 

SPOUSE - yes. Just as Joseph was will to put Mary aside privately - give her a non-public shaming divorce.

WIFE - no. What God has joined in the consumption of one flesh, NO person is cable of separating.

EVEN if for adultery following consumption. Unless the one seeking divorce is the adulterer, then as Paul says, let them go. The bonds of commitment as a bed partner is severed, but the commitment of the vows are to God and not revocable.

That is the high standard of Scriptures.

Of course there are few who actually teach that standard, for it is too uncomfortable for the typical pew sitter.

 

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. What your teaching, putting away at engagement is a kind of gimmie, if you will excuse the pun.

Jesus is teaching exclusively in the context of an already married couple. "I tell you whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,...." We know the rest.

He is teaching in the context of after a bonified ceremony and consummation has occured. Therefor his clause of sexual immorality is made for the wife or husband of the serial polygamist.

 

You missed the importance of what Christ was teaching. He wasn't teaching a get out of commitment free statement or making some offhand remark. He was putting specific and limited time constrains upon just how and when divorce would be allowed.

Because Gentiles do not consider the Jewish wedding of that time in other then the context of what they have experienced, your argument is often offered.

However, when Joseph was "exposed" to Mary, they had a public wedding, the ceremony was complete. She was not merely engaged waiting to take vows, but had actually taken vows before witnesses just as in any modern marriage.

What WAS NOT the same was that space of time between the public marriage and the consumption. It wasn't typical found in the Gentile of just a matter of hours, but the matter extended to days, weeks and sometimes longer.

For example, remember Sampson and the foxes? The time between the public wedding ceremony and him gaining the rites of physical union was a matter of him fulfilling a family request. That his "betrothed" violated the marriage bed allowed Sampson to be free from all obligations. He (at that time) was still considered a virgin.

See this is the point.

All this is a picture of Christ and the Church. Does Christ "divorce" the church because of sin and failure? No, He is faithful - even when and in the face of us being unfaithful.

 

Let's keep conversation in the realm of the current age. It's difficult to make judgements about those who lived in a completely different era - especially if we judge them by today's standards. However, you must admit Henry VIII was an easy call. I think you're a little to quick to judge.

It may appear to you that Catholics are hypocritical on one hand, but on another they are interacting in a society that is primarily Protestant, morals are subjective and vary from Protestant faith to faith. Protestants have no problems with interfaith marriages, after all to the Protestant, one Christian faith is as good as another, the only loyalties are to themselves, the only vow kept is to make no commitment. Vows are practically meaningless and are to be avoided, furthermore there is no stigma once broken. Hence, in a mixed marriage with a Catholic the non-Catholic is not bound by the same faith. Consequently, I view the situation equally the fault of Protestantism.

 

Yes.
Romans 7:1-3.

 

Many do not understand that divorce is not part of the New Covenant. Also in Matthew 19:9, the innocent wife divorced from an adulterous husband also commits adultery along with her new husband by marrying. So the "except clause" does not mean what most think it does. It means the State executed adulterers making remarriage of the innocent possible.

 

The way you state your question, there is no right answer. Jesus set forth a condition in which a remarriage is NOT adultery.