1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by SpiritWalker, Jan 3, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 7
  1. Mommyperson

    Mommyperson New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps I should have been a bit more specific when i threw my question out into cyber space.
    Please allow me to do so now.

    My husband, who I did divorce was VERY violent. I grew up in the church. I got married young and after the the birth of my first child, he began using drugs and became abusive to me.Toward the end of our marriage he became even more outraged. Pick a reason...He broke my child's foot because she was "getting into everything."
    Ok, what good did police do since he could make bail and come back to the house and begin the violence again? His name was on the lease and there were NO protective shelters to go to in my
    area. The police couldn't stop him from entering into a house he was paying for,so the violence went on til he was angry with me one evening for something petty and punched my child, who was one at the time, causing her eye to bleed from the impact. My choice?
    I ran and tried to go FAR FAR away. He found me and protective orders DON'T really protect if you have never had one, you can only assume they work. Ask me I know! My only help was to file for divorce, so the courts could issue a protective order on behalf of my child.

    Now I ask again with ALL The information shared, what you think.

    I have since remarried to a wonderful man who recently passed away.
     
    #61 Mommyperson, Jan 8, 2005
  2. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mommyperson,

    So sorry for all your pain and suffering. Yet as much as my heart aches for you, we cannot determine right and wrong based on how bad we hurt or the only way to get way from the abuse. We must rely totally on the Word of God. Just found this thread and have a sermon to finish getting ready for tomorrow, so I will be back on Monday, if I have much influence over my schedule (really does happen sometimes!)

    In the mean time, GOOD NEWS! God’s grace is sufficient and I believe I can demonstrate Biblical grounds for your divorce and remarriage! Have not even read all this thread yet, but this is another one of those subjects that has gotten hundreds of hours of research from this pastor who wants to be guided by the Word of God, not his own heart (Jer 17:9).
     
    #62 rjprince, Jan 8, 2005
  3. delly

    delly New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mommyperson, it seems that those who have never been in our situation seem to know exactly what they would do if it happened to them.
    I grew up in the church, married a man who said he was a Christian and settled in to being a good wife, but, it seems that some of us never really know the person we are married to. Almost immediately he was going out to the beer joints and staying half the night. Many nights he was so drunk he didn't remember driving home. He was extremely jealous and accused me of all kinds of things when he was gone. I was completely innocent but he would never listen. He was constantly in my face screaming obsentities and threatening to kill me and my parents. A month after I had our son, he pushed me and the child across a bed. I hit my head on the wall but held on to my baby.
    Back in the 70's there were no domestic violence laws in Tennessee and no shelters in my area. I was very shy and could not stand up to him. Everyone in my family was afraid and could do nothing to help. The police were called by neighbors a couple of times but didn't do anything but talk to him.
    It got to the point where I had to fight to go to church and finally got so weary of fighting I gave in an stayed at home. From time to time, I would try to go, but he was so jealous he would accuse me of having sex with the pastor. I can't imagine when he thought this could happen. This went on for 22 years until my son was 19 and bigger than his father. My husband was in my face threating to kill me when our son stepped between us. My husband then threated to kill his son or have him put in jail if he didn't leave the house. My son and I both left and never looked back. We had to hide for several years but we made it without any help from the law.
    I wonder how some here would feel if they were in that situation and had absolutely no way to escape it.
     
    #63 delly, Jan 9, 2005
  4. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    delly,

    I think you both had grounds for divorce based on Scripture. Will show you next week. Again, no matter how much sorrow I may feel for your suffering, we cannot ignore Scripture just because we are hurting. Of course, I think your actions were justified, Biblically of course!
     
    #64 rjprince, Jan 9, 2005
  5. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not a simple issue, simply because it is difficult if not impossible to respond to the great intensity of emotion surrounding this subject. I am going to start in 1Cor 7 and look at other passages from that perspective.

    The whole chapter of 1Cor 7 is crucial to understanding Paul’s additional regulations and concessions concerning marriage. His teaching is the last word on the issue and he adds to what we have from the OT and to what the Lord has said as recorded in the Gospels. Any teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage that fails to consider 1Cor 7 is incomplete.

    That Paul is answering questions regarding singleness, marriage, divorce, and remarriage is clear from the context. Paul starts off with, “concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1Cor 7:1). This seems to be a response to the question “Is it a good idea to remain single?” Paul responds, “If avoiding sexual sin requires one to marry, get married. And after getting married meet each others physical needs, except for mutually agreed on seasons of prayer and fasting. At the end of the time consecrated to the Lord, resume marital relations, lest you fall prey to Satan’s snares”.

    Then Paul states his preference that those who can handle singleness, stay single, but this is not a command (v. 6-7, see also Matt 19:10-12).

    Verse 8 introduces a word that appears nowhere else in Scripture but here in this chapter. The word “unmarried” (Greek - agamos) appears four times, in verses 8, 11, 32, 34. It is distinguished from “widows” “wives” and “virgins” (v. 8, 34). It is defined in verse 11 as one who has “depart[ed]” from her husband – “Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” The word “depart”, Greek word - cho(w)idzo(w) means divorce. Jesus uses this word to refer to divorce in Matt 19:6 – “What therefore God had joined together, let not man put asunder.” I believe it is wrong to understand the departing as anything less than full divorce. Some have argued that Paul allows for separation, but not divorce in this chapter. Such an interpretation fails to take into account the Lord’s use of the word and that cho(w)ridzo(w) is used in other Greek literature to clearly indicate divorce. The idea of a “Biblical Separation” that is less than divorce is a modern explanation that has no support from either the Greek or ancient custom. Paul defines “unmarried” as a wife who has departed from her husband or a husband who has “put away” his wife.

    This is important to understand that Paul tells us that he is adding to the teaching of the Lord Jesus from verse 12 and on. – “to the rest, speak I not the Lord”. Just as in verse 10, Paul told us that the command to remain married is from the Lord.

    Jesus has given some clear instruction and in my judgment Matthew 19 allows divorce and remarriage for “fornication”, or more broadly, almost any “sexual sin” (Greek - porneia). No doubt many will disagree with me here. But I will explain more fully after looking at the OT.

    The original passage that the Pharisees quoted in attempting to force Jesus to side with the conservative Rabbi Shammai, or the liberal Hillel, was from Deut 24:1-4. Shammai allowed for divorce only for adultery and Hillel allowed for divorce for almost any reason. Hillel’s view was certainly the most popular but if they could force Jesus to choose one over the other, then the other crowd would be against Him.

    The Jews understood the Deut 24:1-4 passage as a “command to give a writing of divorcement” (Matt 19:7). The AV wording can also be so understood – “then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (v. 1). Jesus replies, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (emphasis added) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:8). Jesus corrects the perception that Moses commanded divorce.

    The actual Hebrew sense of the Deut 24 passage is as follows: “When a man takes a wife, marries her, AND IF he finds some uncleanness in her, writes her a bill of divorce and sends her out of his house; AND IF she goes and marries another man; AND IF the latter husband divorces her, OR IF the latter husband dies, THEN she may not return to her first husband.” The passage regulates the divorces that were already being practiced by the Jews as learned from either the Egyptians or the other nations. ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTICE HERE: God does not regulate that which he forbids! God regulates the practice of divorce, He does not forbid it. Of course, neither did He condone it.

    Three other important points to notice here. 1) There is no thought of a betrothal period in Deut 24. 2) The divorce did break the marriage, and 3) the second marriage is recognized as valid since the man who takes her next is called “husband”. The argument that “divorce does not break a marriage” (Gothard and others) and that ANY future marriage is therefore adultery fails to stand from the very first mention of the practice of divorce and remarriage. AGAIN, God’s regulation is not prohibition, it is tacit permission. God tolerated the practice, even though it was against His original plan. Why? Because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). His original plan was one man, one woman, one lifetime, period. Then sin entered the picture and God finally grants this concession regarding the practice – after a divorce and another marriage, a woman may not go back to her first husband.

    Why is the Deut 24 passage significant? BECAUSE it is impossible to understand the NT correctly without a correct foundational understanding of the OT. The OT is the foundation upon which the NT stands. Jesus words must always be understood, interpreted, and reconciled in light of what we find in the OT.

    Many have suggested that the Jesus’ use of the word “fornication” indicates that the divorce occurs during the betrothal period. Joseph was prepared to divorce Mary upon learning that she was pregnant. It is true that divorce was required to break the betrothal even before the marriage had been consummated. The question remains, is that what is in view here in Matthew 19?

    The original passage that was used to introduce the passage has no thought of a betrothal period anywhere in the text. The fact that a return to the first husband would be “defile[ment]... abomination... [and] sin” seems to clearly rule out any idea that the marriages had not been consummated. Some have argued that the use of porneia rather than moichea suggests that sexual relations prior to marriage are in view. This understanding of the word “fornication” is naive and not in line with its use in either the NT or other ancient Greek literature. The word porneia is much broader than moichea and would encompass any kind of sexual sin, including adultery. The argument that adultery could not have been meant in Matthew 19 since the Mosaic Law provided for stoning in that case fails to take into account that the Jews were no longer allowed to carry out that sentence because of the Roman occupation.

    The question by the Pharisees was an attempt to force Jesus into one of the two camps, either that of Shammai or Hillel. It would seem that Jesus chose middle ground after reminding them that God’s original plan and current desire was one man, one woman, for one lifetime. The concession to divorce was God’s concession because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). Then Jesus says, “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.” Again, this must be understood on the basis of the foundation laid in Deut 24.

    In Jesus’ day, the whole debate revolved around what was meant by “some uncleanness” (Deut 24:1). The only other place the same two words are used in Scripture is in Deut 23:14 – “And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.” (Vss 13-14). The word “uncleanness” (Heb. ervah) is used 54 times and is translated as nakedness (51), shame, unclean, and uncleanness (once each). In the Deut 24 passage it seems apparent that something less than adultery or premarital sexual activity is indicated since the Mosaic Law generally required stoning in both of those cases.

    In my judgement, Jesus’ choice of the word “porneia” is broader than the “adultery only” position of Shammai but much narrower than the “almost anything” position of Hillel. The strong reaction of the disciples, “If that is the case it is better to never get married” has been taken by some to mean that Jesus’ words were more restrictive than either Shammai or Hillel. It is also possible to understand their reaction as an indication that they may have leaned more toward Hillel’s position on the issue and Jesus’ words placed greater restriction on divorce and remarriage.

    We should also note that the exception clause is applied to both the matter of the legitimacy of the divorce and the possibility of remarriage. Again, in the Deut 24 passage, the fact of a divorce allowed for remarriage. God regulated this, but did not forbid it. In Jesus words, “if you divorce, except for sexual sin, and remarry, you have committed adultery.” The exception applies to both the divorce and the remarriage according to the grammatical structure of the sentence. The other passages in the Gospels that do not discuss the issue in as much detail must be understood and interpreted in light of the Matt 19 passage.

    When Paul says, “Do not divorce your spouse, and if you already have, seek reconciliation” he is quoting the divine standard given in Genesis and reiterated by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 19. The fact that Paul does not mention the exception clause does not lessen the validity of the exception given by Jesus. Paul simply chose not to repeat what was already well understood.

    As Paul moves onto new ground in verse 12, as an apostle, he adds to the teaching of the Lord Jesus as he does in many other areas as well. This is not a disclaimer that makes the following instruction optional as being simply his opinion. Not at all, it is still the law and the testimony, it is just that this was something new that had not been addressed yet.

    Again, bear in mind that Paul is addressing the questions that they had sent to him (v. 1). It is likely they had asked, “What about those of us, who by virtue of our new faith in Christ, now find ourselves married to unbelievers?” Paul answers, “do not divorce them simply because they are unbelievers!” “One believer in the home is a sanctifying influence upon the unbelieving spouse and the children.” “If the unbeliever wants a divorce, let them go. You are not bound to continue in such a relationship. Do you think you should stay married in hopes of seeing them come to Christ? You do not know if they will ever become a believer! If they want out, let them go, you are free in such a case as this.” (My own paraphrase)

    So, Moses did not limit the reasons for divorce too narrowly. God only forbade a return to the first husband. Jesus allows for divorce only in the case of sexual sin, some would argue persistent sexual sin. Paul now allows divorce if an unbeliever wants to be divorced from a believer. It seems clear that it is the unbeliever who must initiate the request for a divorce. The believer is not free to seek a divorce, but must remain in the marriage so long as the unbeliever is willing to stay married. I would further suggest that the believer has a much greater obligation to demonstrate the love of Christ in such a situation.

    This leads to the question of whether or not the believer can then be remarried. I understand the words “not under bondage” and “called to peace” as being equal to the words “at liberty to be married” (vss. 15, 39). If the unbeliever requests the divorce, the believer is free to grant the divorce and to seek remarriage, but again, “only in the Lord”, or to another believer (v. 39).

    What about people who have come from a mixed up, scrambled, broken past and then accepted the Lord Jesus? I believe the context indicates that they should seek reconciliation with their former spouse if possible, but if not they may be free to remarry as well. Why? I refer back to verses 8 and 9 – “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” Remember that the word “unmarried” (agamos) refers to those who are divorced. Why would Paul grant this concession? In order to avoid “fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (v. 2). Jesus clearly recognizes that most men cannot handle singleness (Matt 19:11-12).

    NOW. To specifically address the abuse issue. AND I do realize that some may feel I am stretching a bit here. The matter of applying principles to specific issues that are beyond the scope of the NT is never a simple task, but I will give my best shot.

    In an instance where serious abuse is continuing, the unbeliever may not say he wants a divorce with his mouth, but he is SCREAMING it with his actions! For a believer to initiate and complete the divorce is not a violation of the principles of the Word of God IMHO. And as specifically addressed above, if the divorce is allowed, I understand the Scripture to teach that remarriage is allowed as well.
     
    #65 rjprince, Jan 10, 2005
  6. Bro. Billy

    Bro. Billy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    rjprince,

    Excellent work! You have done a great deal of study and obviously know the subject. Thanks for an interesting post on this subject.

    I would ask for your opinion regarding 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. There are two words that Paul uses as "loosed". The first is "lusis" meaning divorce. The second is "luo" followed by "apo". In Matthew 5:32 Jesus uses the word "apoluo" that is translated in the KJV as both "put away" and "divorced". The word "apoluo" appears to be a combination of the words "apo" + "luo" = apoluo. The same words are used in 1 Corinthians 7:27b but reversed, does it refer to divorce? "luo" + "apo" = "apoluo"?

    If so, then what does verse 28 mean?

    Thanks, Billy
     
    #66 Bro. Billy, Jan 10, 2005
  7. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    10
    1. SaggyWoman is single. By choice.

    2. No man is going to hit her. Particularly more than once.

    3. If SaggyWoman happened to get married to a man who eventually chose to abuse her in such a fashion, Katie bar the door. Ever seen the Color Purple? Remember the role Oprah played? That would be me.

    4. Marriage on paper is what I meant, not marriage in reality. But I am having flashbacks. Ain't no man gonna beat this chick.
     
    #67 SaggyWoman, Jan 10, 2005
  8. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Billy,

    The two words used in 1Cor 7:27 are virtually the same – luw is the verb and lusis is the noun (I use “w” to indicate omega as distinguished from omicron). There is no distinction in meaning, to the best of my knowledge (I am a Greek student, not a scholar, maybe someone else will weigh in on this) between apoluw and luw apo. Luw is a general word meaning “to lose” or “to set free”.

    Let me express my understanding of 1Cor 7:27-28 with my own paraphrase – Are you married? Stay married. Are you divorced. Stay divorced (if you can and still avoid sexual sin, 7:9). If you do get married (according to the earlier restrictions) it is not sin! If someone who has never been married, gets married, it is not sin (per their question, v. 25). However, if you get married, do not expect it to be problem free. My (Paul) leanings toward singleness are intended to spare you these complications.

    Hope this helps. Oh, since you mentioned Matt 5:32, keep in mind that it must be understood in light of the more detailed teaching in 19 and also in light of the Deut passage as well.
     
    #68 rjprince, Jan 10, 2005
  9. Amity

    Amity Guest

    rjprince THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU THANK YOU for this commentary......it's gonna get printed, and studied over....just to make sure I get what you're sayin and make sure I understand the scriptures in that manner as well.

    Oh, did I say, THANK YOU. [​IMG] [​IMG]


    love in Christ,
    Amity
     
    #69 Amity, Jan 10, 2005
  10. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amity,

    If you have any questions, contact me with a PM! Or just post, I'll probably find it! Always glad to help.
     
    #70 rjprince, Jan 10, 2005
  11. Amity

    Amity Guest

    THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! I have so many things going through my mind right now I just don't know what to do. Here I am, 28 years old, doing everything I can to be the loving, submissive, faithful Christian wife that the Lord expects and wants me to be. (guess when ya marry an athiest you reap what you sow)......Now he tells me he's leaving me because (his words) "religion pisses him off to no end" and he "can't stand being under the same roof with a bible thumper". OH!!! It's so frustrating. I have NEVER shoved my faith down his throat or treated him as if he's "lesser" of a person!! He has asked that I not pray in front of him with the children at meals! I have honored that! He has asked that I do not read my Bible in his presence! I have honored that! What else does he want??? He wants me to pick "him or Jesus" NO!!!! It's not an option!!! So he's leaving me now!! He "hates what i've become!"(his words) I'm just thinking of course, how am I going to reconcile my marriage.....ESPECIALLY for my children's sake??? BUT, what if he never returns??? It was his choice. I'm thinkin....28 years old and i'm gonna be alone for the rest of my life because I made one bad decision to marry an unbeliever during my backslidden days???

    I'm sorry for venting like this. I just have a lot of things going through my mind right now. It's been a rough week.

    love in Christ.
    Amity
     
    #71 Amity, Jan 10, 2005
  12. Amity

    Amity Guest

    thanks...i think i just went overboard with my last post before seeing your response.
     
    #72 Amity, Jan 10, 2005
  13. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh dear sister. So sorry for what you are dealing with. God's grace is sufficient. Have never been quite there myself, but have walked the path with many many dear friends. Have even sat through court with some of them. Very difficult days and very tough times. But "it came to pass". It did not come to stay. Would suggest that you be sure you have done all you can to love your husband without shoving the Bible down his throat. But if you have full peace before God that you have done that, and if he still wants out. Paul says, let him go. You are not under bondage.

    I would caution you not to use this “freedom” as on occasion to the flesh. It may seem easier to get out for now, but it may be possible to continue. I cannot answer that for you. Would suggest you seek counsel from your pastor, unless he is one who holds that all divorce and remarriage is SIN, no matter what the circumstances.

    Here is one other thought, sometimes unbelieving spouses make life difficult for the believer to test the reality of their faith. I do not know in your situation.

    Check for a PM. Will send in a few minutes.
     
    #73 rjprince, Jan 10, 2005
  14. Amity

    Amity Guest

    Yeah, I have done/am doing everything I can do. I'll check my messages. Thanks.
     
    #74 Amity, Jan 10, 2005
  15. Amity

    Amity Guest

    oops ...double post
     
    #75 Amity, Jan 10, 2005
  16. Mommyperson

    Mommyperson New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks TONS rjprince.
    I appreciate your thorough breakdown.
    I've always wondered if my leaving/divorce had utterly messed up my life and made worse my accountability, because I had violated God's laws concerning marriage.


    Amity,
    Believe me, you will find a man who will love you as a part of himself. I was a frightened young one myself. starting over is never easy, but with God ANYTHING is possible.
    I know more about abuse, having experienced it first hand and what to look for. I also know the love of a good man. I had both.

    I'm single again...And if God intends for me to remain that way at least I did experience a good marriage.

    I'm praying for you Amity.
    You'll make it and continue to THUMP that Bible!
     
    #76 Mommyperson, Jan 11, 2005
  17. Amity

    Amity Guest

    Thanks Mommyperson. [​IMG] You are absolutely right, with God, anything is possible!!

    love in Christ.
    Amity
     
    #77 Amity, Jan 11, 2005
  18. SpiritWalker

    SpiritWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am dismayed how jrprince could build a theological construct based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the Law of Moses and the law of Christ in the new covenant.

    Quote from jrprince, January 10, 10:13am:

    “Why is the Deut 24 passage significant? ….Jesus words must always be understood, interpreted, and reconciled in light of what we find in the OT.”.. Paragraph 12

    This is simply not true. We must NOT modify Jesus’ teachings to fit into the Old Testament theological construct, but the other way around. It is Jesus Himself who interpreted, modified, explained, abrogated and fulfilled the written codes of Deuteronomy and the rest of the laws of Israel and Moses.

    In Matthew 5:21 Jesus refers to Deuteronomy 5:17 and 16:18, Exodus 20:13 and 1 Chr. 19:5 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." In the next verses He then alters by means of expansion its simple meaning to include the heart conditions that lead to murder, thereby broadening the command and its application: “ But I say unto you , That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Matthew 5:22-24

    Again in verse 27, Jesus picks does the same in regard to Deuteronomy 5:18 and Exodus 20:14, quoting it and radically altering the simple understanding of the written code: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you , That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. In verses 29 to 30 He adds weight to His alteration by declaring that to disobey His expansion of the meaning would result in being cast into hell: “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”

    Bearing directly on the main topic in this thread, Jesus next pulled out Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and abrogated the code, declaring that a woman who is not guilty of fornication, whatever that means, who is divorced cannot remarry, for if she does, she becomes an adulteress as does her new husband. Verses 31 and 32 read as follows: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you , That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” He condemns the first husband as well if he initiated the chain of events.

    Next, in verses 33-37 Jesus brings up Deuteronomy 23:21, Leviticus 19:12 and Numbers 30:2 for the same treatment: “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: , But I say unto you Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

    He continues listing the moral codes by invalidating entirely Deuteronomy 19:21 when He declared in verses 38 to 42: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you , That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

    Another abrogation quickly follows in verses 43-47, this time dismissing Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 23:3-6: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you , Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    Quoted from jrprince, posting, January 10, 10:13am:

    “ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTICE HERE: God does not regulate that which he forbids! God regulates the practice of divorce, He does not forbid it. Of course, neither did He condone it…. “Paragraph 10

    The above statement is nonsense. Jesus Christ is God and He condemned it repeatedly. Jesus abrogated the Deuteronomy code in each of His marriage and divorce teachings:

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

    “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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. Matthew 19:8-9

    “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Mark 10:5-12

    “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16:18

    Quoted from jrprince, January 10, 10:13am:

    ”AGAIN, God’s regulation is not prohibition, it is tacit permission. God tolerated the practice, even though it was against His original plan.”
    Paragraph 11

    The above statement is absolutely false. Regulations given to the infant tribal nation of Israel by Moses as recorded in the Torah do not have any case precedent over the direct teachings of God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ given to us.The presence of regulations does not mean that God allows, licenses, or gives any form of tacit permission whatsoever to the evil represented. Any belief to the contrary must encompass other regulations found within the same context with equal weight. The following passages have equal authority as Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

    Kidnapping and rape

    “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

    Rebellious children

    “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Deuteronomy 21:18-23

    Betrothal fornication discovered after marriage

    “If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    Betrothal fornication discovered before marriage

    “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.” Deuteronomy 22:23-27

    Premarital fornication

    “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; “Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29

    Castration, mutilation and illegitimate children

    “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD” Deuteronomy 23:1-2

    Widows, brothers-in-law and sexual relations

    “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” Deuteronomy 25:5-10

    Quote from jrprince, January 10, 10:13am

    “ “Then Jesus says, “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.” Again, this must be understood on the basis of the foundation laid in Deut 24.” Paragraph 15

    jrprince is wrong, dead wrong.

    Spiritwalker

    [ January 11, 2005, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: SpiritWalker ]
     
    #78 SpiritWalker, Jan 11, 2005
  19. SpiritWalker

    SpiritWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the same subject, this is what link #7 from the "Letter to the Pastor" has to say on the subject of using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a foundation for New Testament doctrine on divorce and remarriage:

    Deuteronomy 24:1-4

    Blessings,

    SpiritWalker
     
    #79 SpiritWalker, Jan 11, 2005
  20. SpiritWalker

    SpiritWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello everyone,

    This took me a lot longer than I intended to write, and what is written is a lot longer than I intended. [​IMG] So much for good intentions! Here is my two cents after due consideration on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage:


    It seems to me that the case for divorce and remarriage being Biblically lawful hinges primarily on using Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, with their exception clauses, as the levers to pry different meanings out of other New Testament teachings than what was intended. However, upon close examination these two verses fail as a secure and certain citadel for divorce and remarriage theology. In fact, they both underline what the New Testament actually teaches. They prove that divorce and remarriage is strictly forbidden under all circumstances.

    Did you ever notice how if there is a blinking light in your field of vision, it is the first thing you stare at, and even though you may glance at everything else, your eyes will keep darting back to focus on it? So it is with the exception clause found only in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:9. Do we really see what is in front of us, or are we staring at the exception clauses and not paying attention to the surroundings? According to sound principles of hermeneutics, it is necessary to interpret teachings that have possible variant meanings by those which have clear meanings. We have to sort out what is clearly taught in Scripture and what is not. I will begin with Matthew 5:31-32:

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

    It is as important to understand what is not taught here, as well as what is. Otherwise it would be too easy to take untaught lessons and try to apply them elsewhere. We can agree, I trust, that whatever the exception clause “saving for the cause of fornication” means, it has little active, or direct bearing on either the husband, or the wife or the third party so narrowly described here.

    Jesus referred directly to a man who divorced an innocent (of fornication) wife. Jesus did not refer to a man who divorced his wife for fornication. Jesus referred directly to an innocent woman (of fornication) who remarried. Jesus did not refer to a guilty woman that remarried.

    Jesus, in Matthew 5:31-32, prohibits an innocent woman, who has been divorced by her husband, from remarrying. If she does remarry, according to Jesus, she is guilty of adultery. Jesus did not put any kind of qualifier on His statement, nor is any implied. He did not say that she would not be an adulteress if her husband sinned, or remarried, or for any other reason. He said that if she marries after being divorced she would become an adulteress. This innocent woman, legally divorced from her husband, can not remarry. Jesus went on to say that any man that marries this woman is guilty of the sin of adultery as well. He has in this passage of Scripture, abrogated the Moses allowance for divorce and remarriage, which allowed the woman to remarry after divorce if she wished to do so (Deut. 24:1-4).

    Anything directly taught within context can be treated as proven “Gospel ” In my opinion, the following facts pass the rules of evidence, from Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:31-32, becoming doctrine to be applied to other scriptures:

    1. A man must not divorce his wife, if she is not guilty of “fornication”. If she marries again, he will have helped cause her to become an adulteress.
    2. Any divorced woman not guilty of “fornication” can not remarry without becoming an adulteress.
    3. Any man that marries a divorced woman who has not committed “fornication” becomes an adulterer.
    4. Jesus abrogated the Moses allowance for remarriage of an innocent woman with a third party found in Deut. 24:1-4.

    Scripture can not be broken. If understood in its proper context, insofar as it is properly translated, it will always agree with itself, without contradiction. If these understandings of Matthew 5:31-32 are accurate to a reasonable degree, as outlined above, they must be compared and applied to the other direct teachings of the New Covenant to shed light on these crucial issues.

    Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12

    There are two individual accounts of two separate meetings which are uniquely recorded in both Matthew and Mark. The first meeting is public, between Jesus and the Pharisees. The second meeting takes place shortly thereafter, in private, between Jesus and His disciples. Both authors pick out the relevant details of each meeting most suitable for their intended readers.

    Biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was a presentation of the Gospel to the gentiles, whereas Matthew wrote his gospel to religious Jews. Overall, both gospels emphasize different aspects of the same truth of Jesus Christ. Mark concentrates on pragmatic teaching, recording how to live for, and serve God. Matthew painstakingly outlines how Jesus fulfills both prophecy and the law of the New Covenant. There is of course much common content where there is common teaching for both groups being addressed. This very commonality serves to underline even greater the obvious differences between each gospel’s intended recipients when departures do occur within parallel accounts.

    Each account is 100% accurate as described in the original autographs, but whether or not we have the complete conversations recorded in both accounts of the two meetings is unknown, but seems unlikely. However both authors made certain the intended readers understood exactly what Jesus said about marriage, divorce and remarriage from their own cultural viewpoints. Together, they give a much broader, more complete understanding of what Jesus taught, and why He taught it.

    Conversation between Jesus and Pharisees

    Matthew's Account: Matt. 19:1-9

    ” And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 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?

    And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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. 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.”

    Mark’s account: Mark 10:1-9

    “And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Brief Overview of Public Meeting

    What is apparent from the two separate accounts is that they are essentially the same. They agree in general terms as to the nature of the conversation, and teach the same root theology of the permanence of marriage. Together with Matthew’s earlier account in Matt. 5:31-32, Jesus shatters the Deuteronomy 24, 1-4 divorce allowance, leaving the Jews in attendance in a state of dismay. To the Jews He completely drained the authority from the allowance code by referring directly back to God’s opinion on the permanency of marriage. Jesus goes so far as to declare that a marriage is some kind of spiritual and physical melding into a one-flesh union that is actively created by God Himself.

    Matthew then recorded a teaching directly applicable for the Jews that Mark left out of his gospel. Jesus said emphatically that any man that divorces his wife, except it be for fornication, commits adultery if he marries another woman. He swept away the last remaining right to divorce and remarriage by declaring that any man who married a divorced woman was committing adultery as well. This fornication exception clause was a uniquely Jewish rite, where an espoused couple were married, but not yet husband and wife. If it was discovered before the marriage became final that the woman was not a virgin, the husband could immediately put her away. In the interest of clarity, Mark entirely left out Jesus’ teaching on the special Jewish tradition.

    Conversation between Jesus and Disciples

    Matthew’s Account: Matthew 19:10-12

    ”His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

    Mark’s Account: Mark 10:10-12

    ”And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

    Overview of Private meeting.

    Mark tells us that this conversation takes place in a house, where the disciples are obviously in a certain amount of shock from the teaching they just heard Jesus give the Pharisees. Just to be sure of what they heard, they ask Jesus what He meant. Jesus gave them the bottom line: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and he be married to another, she committeth adultery.” They reply, “If that is the case of the man to be with his wife, then it would be good not to marry.” In addressing whether it was good to marry, Jesus went on to explain that there are some that can not marry for various physical reasons, and perhaps for spiritual reasons as well. But to all who can marry under these conditions (receive it) let him do so.

    Main points of departure become main points of understanding

    The primary points I would like to draw attention to is this:

    The Matthew 19:9 verse with its exception clause addresses the command of Jesus that marriage is a lifelong commitment. This is in direct context with His abrogation of the Deuteronomy marriage allowance, its replacement with a recapture of the original marriage will of God, the mystical union He Himself creates, and the forbidding of men to separate what God has put together. Jesus declares that if a Jewish man divorces his wife and marries another he is living in adultery.

    The only reason for divorce is fornication on behalf of the female, which makes it a near certain reference to the Jewish betrothal custom requiring proof of virginity before the marriage is considered final. Because all the other reasons are locked out by virtue of the context, it could hardly be anything else.

    In Matthew 5:31-32 we found that the divorced woman, innocent of fornication would be living in adultery if she remarries, as with the man that remarries her. It does not directly address what would happen if the woman was guilty of fornication, but implies that the Jewish man might remarry after putting her away for that condition.

    The private meeting in Mark shows the strongest universal declaration Jesus would ever make up on the subject. He said that a man who divorces his wife and marries another continues to cheat on his wife, committing adultery against her. This shows in absolute terms, when taught in the context of this setting, that marriage is permanent, and divorce does not break a marriage. Here Jesus makes it equal for both sexes. If a woman did the same thing, she is living in adultery too. There are no contradictions in the Word of God. The Scriptures can not be Broken. May God be praised!

    Let’s look at some of the “clear teachings” and let them be a straight ruler to draw straight lines. When we use a verse that may have possible multiple meanings to explain away clear verses, it is like trying to draw straight lines with a wobbly ruler. When we do that we can mistakenly twist anything, deceiving ourselves into believing almost anything. God forbid that we do that, and He does. Marriage is too central to the entire gospel of Jesus Christ for us to do that, no matter what the personal cost to us personally.

    Matthew 5:31-32 – Clear direct teaching
    It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

    Mark 10:11-12 – Clear direct teaching
    And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

    Romans 7:2-3 – Clear indirect reference.
    For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

    1 Corinthians 7:10-11 – Clear direct teaching
    And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

    1 Corinthians 7:39 – Clear direct teaching
    The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

    Reconciliation of unclear Scriptures

    We must now apply the hard facts learned from clear teachings to the ones that are not so direct in order to understand their true meanings.

    1 Cor. 7:12-16:

    “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And a woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O Wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife”

    In understanding what Paul is teaching here we must bear in mind that He will not contradict the clear teaching of Scripture on this subject. In fact, Paul’s detailed instructions are in complete conformity to the direct command of Jesus referred to in verses 10 and 11:

    “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”

    He says that Christian husbands and wives must treat their unbelieving mates in the same way they would if he or she were a Christian. He instructs Christians to act like Christians regardless of the actions of their spouses. Paul promises that God will compensate for the ungodly influence of the unsaved mate by direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon them and the children.

    The Christian must bear in mind that by his or her conduct the unsaved husband or wife might be led to Christ by their example and behavior. If the unchristian wants to leave, then let them go in peace. Nowhere in this passage is there an allowance for divorce and remarriage, but to the contrary it teaches principles in agreement to the clear Scriptures forbidding such.

    In “The Message” Peterson renders 1 Cor. 7:15-17 as follows in paraphrase:

    “On the other hand if the unbelieving spouse walks out, you’ve got to let him or her go. You don’t have to hold on desperately. God has called us to make the best of it, as peacefully as we can. You never know wife; the way you handle this might bring your husband not only back to you, but also to God. You never know husband: The way you handle this might bring your wife not only back to you, but also to God.”

    1 Cor. 7:25-28:

    “Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But 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.”

    Paul is simply saying that if a man is married, stay married, if not, then stay single. But is you do get married it is not sinful to do so. He says that virgins can marry if they wish, though he gives reasons why staying single would be better. The word rendered “young woman” in some translations, or virgin, in the King James Version applies to the masculine gender equally. The presence of the word “lusis,” rendered loosed, does not imply those who were previously married and divorced can remarry as it is out of context to the qualifications he gave beforehand and the clear teaching found within the same passage. Paul is not teaching new or contradictory doctrine to either the direct commands of Jesus, the strong preliminary statement he made in versus 10 and 11, or the summation statement in verse 39:

    “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

    Blessings in Christ,

    SpiritWalker [​IMG]
     
    #80 SpiritWalker, Jan 25, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 7
Loading...