Does God ever permit divorce?

Wow...I miss a few hours due to my son's baseball game and I've missed out on rebuking......
Good remarks on a bad take by Mr. Anderson (in my humble opinion...rebuke me if you wish). I learn more every day I read on this board. I wish I had discovered it a long time ago.

 

God had permitted divorce, Mat.18. It was not His will! God also premitted the Children of Israel to have a king. That to was not His will. Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, Eph.5. It is not God's will that there be a separation. It seems to me tat some of the same Baptist that believe in eternal security believe in divorce..... Maybe it's because they are divorced or one of their children? As far as Pastor Anderson... There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. He might have done the TV thing the wrong way in your thinking, but he had the guts to tell his people what he thinks of the filthly thing. I know some smug acting preachers that preach around sin just to keep their people. Anderson isn't like that! You think he just posts something here and doesn't check back I bet he does. Just to get a good laugh when he sees the libs going bezerk.

 

what'd I tell ya, sanderson ? see ? five pages of mostly vitriol. And ya ain't got the divorcees on this board in there yet, I think.
sanderson ? sanderson ? hellllloooooo, you still there ?

 

I am divorced and the Pastor of a small church here in town. My life before Christ was not a good one. I think the book of Romans covers the issue of newness of life quite nice oh, and theres the Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9 that gives exception to divorce. As for 1 Tim. 3, I meet all the standards mind you not all the time but then again I am not perfect. I wonder if Pastor sanderson ever looked on a woman and lusted by his standards he would be unfit to pastor.

 

Technology is not filthy. It is what you do with that technology. I would be willing to bet that more Christians are glued to pornography on the internet than what they see on TV yet that pastor utilizes the internet. Isn't it amazing how he supports one technology and not another. There was a time when people spoke against cars because of the back seat issue.

What would you call him if he buys gas for his car? The bulk of that gas is coming from Muslim countries. He is in effect buying theri gas and giving them money for it so they can build mosques and pay their religious leaders. The corruption began in those countries when oil production increased. So in effect he is also supporting corruption.

It is one thing to have an opinion, but quite another to spend an entire sermon on saying TV is wrong. I heard very little scripture in that sermon on the TV. Even less exposition. Lots of opinion and very little exposition. That entire sermon could have been said in less than one minute. If I only had a few minutes each week to tell people the most important things they should hear, it would not be about TV but about Christ.

Billy Graham does not watch TV but he utilizes the air waves regularly to broadcast his meetings and share Christ.

I sit in front of a TV (monitor) screen as I type on my computer.

 

Should that make us wonder why so many of his kind of churches have shut down.

 

When Amy Grant divorced her husband, to go marry her producer, her defence was that her and her then husband no longer loved one another and that it did not seem to her that God would want to people to go on in that situation as that did not show alot of love from God.

What is interesting is that she has scince released another album and her music is still sold in Christian stores, so maybe that indicates that a number of people in the Christian community no longer really care about whether people get divorced or not?

 

Yes, but there is a world of difference between preaching contrary to the Word of God and preaching contrary to your interpretation of the Word of God. It is not a clear-cut case of going directly against the Word of God; it is a matter of disagreeing with your own particular interpretation of the Word. If you know anything at all about the divorce question and have studied this issue, you would know there has been ongoing debate extending back into antiquity (e.g. Hillel and Shammai). Even today, good Bible-believing men are divided over this issue. Real truth-seekers approach this matter with much humility and solemnity. On both sides of the debate, only the know-it-alls, who really know very little, rigidly pontificate their dogmatic biases. It is a hard thing to know, apply and rightly divide the Word in this matter. Anyone saying otherwise knows nothing.

BTW, do you really know Mr. Sanderson’s explanation of the Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 passages? He explains it in his sermon. Have you listened to it? Although I do not necessarily agree, I must allow him his opinion (I do hold that Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are addressing different aspects of divorce). Can you expound Mr. Sanderson’s position on these passages? What is your position? You have never cogently stated your view. Why don’t you put your erudite analysis on display for public scrutiny and let us poke holes in it?

 

So, are you a paragon unto yourself? This is consistent with the modern mindset. Modern psychological man is unable to take rebuke or constructive criticism even if it is the truth.

 

Well, somehow Pastor seems more humble than Reverend. Also, it's not very hard to find Baptist preachers who list themselves as Dr. P. R. Ide, Th.D., Ph.D., D.D. with all mail-order doctorates.

 

Paiddagogos;
I understand Matt; 5:32 and Matt; 19:9 to be the same except Matt; 19:9 includes the one who is doing the putting away which I really think Jesus probably meant the same in Matt; 5:32 but I am glad He went on and included it for our learning even though I will until I die never really know completely God's will on this matter. I have to go on what I feel He has given me to understand and pray that I have it right.

 

Unfortunately, your observation hits the bull's eye. No one can find Biblical justification for this at all.

 

Paidagogos;
Now that we went this far what about those that are in these situations, what are they supposed to do. This will bring on the responses.

 

Matthew 5:32 is dealing with the practice in Deuteronomy 24:1 which was designed to keep the divorced wife from being stoned as an adulteress whereas Matthew 19:9 is addressing the cause or grounds for divorce as debated by the schools of Hillel and Shammai. We tie the two together because of the similarity in the sentence structure although two different aspects of the divorce question are being discussed. In other words, one is from the male perspective and the other is from the female. I had arrived at the conclusion, long before I ever heard of Sanderson, that Matthew 5:32 is playing on the idea that the woman who is divorced for adultery is already an adulteress—she cannot be made an adulteress by her husband divorcing her and her subsequent remarriage. Also, it can be argued grammatically that the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 does not refer to the one who marries her.

On the other hand, the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 is an entirely different matter and it is more problematic. The best argument against it permitting divorce for adultery is the use of πορνεια in the exception clause and the subsequent use of μοιχαται for committing adultery in the same breath. If a married woman commits fornication, then it is called adultery. It is interesting that Jesus would use two different words, πορνεια and μοιχαται, to mean the same thing in the same sentence and same context. If so, then we need to rethink all the hoopla that we make over the specificity of words in Greek. Otherwise, πορνεια may mean something other than fornication. The word simply means uncleanness, which can allude to a wide spectrum of things.

Some think πορνεια may refer to some specific extreme perversion or abomination such as mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:4. It is plausible and possible. I don’t know but I do know that it is not a simple matter to understand and reconcile with all other points of Scripture. I am with you, Brother. I cannot blast others for something that is less than certain for me. Yet, I argue for the most conservative interpretation and approach.

Of course, I Corinthians 7 opens another whole can of worms. How do you interpret I Corinthians 7:27-28 (“Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed (λελυσαι) from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”)? I am not certain that this is referring to widowers. It is passing strange to speak of your wife’s death as being loosed (i.e. released) from her. Notice that being loosed (i.e. released) is in juxtaposition to being bound (i.e. married). Furthermore, when Paul does speak of widowhood, he uses ελευθερα rather than λελυσαι. Widowhood just completes the lists of possible states of matrimony under discussion in the passage. Although he does discuss the state of separation by death, it does not necessarily follow that this is what he means in 7:27 where the idea of seeking to be loosed is definitely connected with divorce (I don’t think he is referring to killing your wife) in the first part of the verse. In 7:28, Paul immediately follows with the statement that one who is loosed does not sin by marrying. IMHO, this is a problem when I try to dogmatically lock down the divorce and remarriage issue. How do we deal with divorced and remarried Christians who sincerely believe differently from us?

On the other hand, I can be clear and dogmatic that God’s original plan, intent, purpose and will were that marriage should be one man and one woman for life (Matthew 19:9). Yet, He has obviously put up with polygamy and divorce in the OT. IMHO, this falls within God’s mercy, not His endorsement, approval or anything else that would violate His holiness. Your thoughts, please.

 

Well, when you use the Greek words I have to suppose but think I got the picture. I think Paul was referring to when he said he would that they all be as him and not married but if they marry then they do not sin. Also, if you be loosed or divorced then it would be better not to seek another wife but if the divorce was because of adultery then he also would be free to marry.
To answer the remarried question I ask you is a hard one for that is the problem. How do we deal with it. We struggle with that all the time among all of our churches in the Association which gave us the right to "hold our own key" but that don't answer the question at all but puts it right back where we started from and that is understanding of the Scriptures. I have to admit that I am one of the very strict ones and wish I could justify by the Scriptures the taking of those that are in that situation. I think to do so you have to turn a blind eye to some of the Scriptures and that is a hard thing for me to do. Hope you understand what I have said.

 

This is where we must show mercy, love, kindness, compassion and forgiveness. In some instances where there are no plausible Biblical grounds (i.e. adultery, abandonment by unbelieving spouse, physical abuse, etc.), church discipline is appropriate. In others, we must give the benefit of doubt where there is no clear Scriptural direction. The collective wisdom, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, of the elders and the church is important here. However, each case is different and unique. They may be disqualified from serving in certain positions such as pastor or deacon. Yet, we must not try to make them second-rate Christians. It depends on the situation. We must be true and faithful to the Word, yet we must be loving, compassionate, forgiving and discerning in our applications. It’s not easy!

 

If a divorced and remarried person confessed and repented, would you accept them into the church? Of course, I assume that they could not serve as deacon or pastor (elder).

 

I agree in having mercy and love but when the Scripture says "he that putteth away his wife, saving the cause of fornication, committeth adultery" it is hard to see where love and mercy makes it right or ok.

 

Permit me to play a little "hardball" here. If someone is in that condition then if they repent and come to the church then their condition is ok? What if instead of adultery they are stealing, killing or lying could they repent and come to the church and continue in the same life style? Just asking the hard questions now.

 

Sin is never made right. However, it can be forgiven and cleansed through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is where forgiveness comes into play upon confession and repentance. Christ has already paid the penalty for this sin and it is forgiven based upon His finished work on the cross. Once forgiven, they are released from that sin debt. Writing to believers in 1 John 1:5-10, the Apostle John under inspiration of the Holy Spirit penned these words: “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”