The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce

[DHK]

I agree 100% I think also what gets often overlooked in this subject is that marriage is a covenant. Once the covenant is broken, then those involved are no longer bound to it.

Once the covenant is broken a vow before man and God has been broken.
People need to repent, as in any other sin and get right with God.
As with other sins, there is a consequence with sin. The consequence of divorce is never to remarry. If they do they shall be called an adulterer or adulteress, as the case may be.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Do we then rationalize the Bible to make it suitable for others.
Do you put your stamp orf approval on pedophiles so they won't be made to feel guilty and ashamed. You don't want them to darken the doors of a church. Sin is sin, whether in your eyes it is great or small. Why condone some and not others. You are inconsistent. You want to welcome some sinners and not others. Right?

Demonstrate how that poster rationalized the Scripture. Better yet, actually deal with the words of Jesus--all of them. Not just the ones of your choosing on this subject.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Once the covenant is broken a vow before man and God has been broken.
People need to repent, as in any other sin and get right with God.
As with other sins, there is a consequence with sin. The consequence of divorce is never to remarry. If they do they shall be called an adulterer or adulteress, as the case may be.

You are quite mistaken. If a woman divorces her husband because he has broken the covenant of marriage, she is no longer bound to that man. She is free.

 

[DHK]

I will not argue with Jesus Christ, but I will take issue with you misrepresenting the Scripture by leaving out the full context of Jesus' teaching to suit your tradition. Nor will I sit idle while you try to stonewall another with useless rhetoric. How about in the next post you try to deal with ALL of Jesus words, pariculary with the exception He allowed for divorce.

The very fact that you now admit the Bible teaches about divorce and remarriage shows your agreement that there is a biblcial doctrine of divorce and by your own words, you have refuted yourself.

Jesus never taught any exception. In the same passage in in Mark he clearly says:

Mark 10:5-6 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.

It was because of the hardness of their heart that he allowed Moses to give them a writing of divorce, but from the beginning it was not so.

 

[DHK]

You are quite mistaken. If a woman divorces her husband because he has broken the covenant of marriage, she is no longer bound to that man. She is free.

Your philosopy. Where is the Scripture?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Is it possible to be married in the sight of man and not be married in the sight of the Lord?

Good question.
Now, what do you think of the muslim marriages.
are they marriages in the sight of the Lord ?

 

[DHK]

Demonstrate how that poster rationalized the Scripture. Better yet, actually deal with the words of Jesus--all of them. Not just the ones of your choosing on this subject.

It seems that I am the only one that has quoted Scripture here. What have I said, according to Scripture, that is wrong?

 

[LadyEagle]

Do we then rationalize the Bible to make it suitable for others.
Do you put your stamp orf approval on pedophiles so they won't be made to feel guilty and ashamed. You don't want them to darken the doors of a church. Sin is sin, whether in your eyes it is great or small. Why condone some and not others. You are inconsistent. You want to welcome some sinners and not others. Right?

I have no idea what you are talking about. No one is condoning anything, except maybe you, by denying what Scripture says (including Jesus) about divorcing for sexual impurity.

How many extra-marital affairs is an innocent spouse supposed to put up with until the marriage covenant is broken in your eyes? 5, 10, 25? How about every night of the week with a different partner? Would that work? How many cases of venereal disease or even worse, AIDS? How about a man who comes home from work and finds his wife having an orgie? Is that Biblical grounds in your eyes? Or how about the man who molests his teenage daughter - is that good enough to break the marriage covenant in your eyes? Sorry, DHK, you are off Biblical base on this one.

 

[pinoybaptist]

With all due respect brother, your statement here is contrary to the Word of God. It is also rather queer that you would scoff at a biblical doctrine of divorce. The Bible contains teaching on marriage and divorce, and therefore there IS a biblical doctrine of divorce.

My dear Brother RB:

You and I agree in many, many things, but this is not one of them.
I think to better understand what Jesus means we have to look at His words from the perspective of Jewish ways.
From what I understand, when a woman is betrothed to a man, they are as good as husband and wife, pending the official wedding when they publicly are pronounced man and wife.
Remember the good old days, when a man presented a woman with an engagement ring, and the woman presents the future husband to her family, and the engagement is announced to one and all ?
The principle, I think, is the same.
Now, if in the course of the engagement, before the actual marriage and the sexual consummation of the marriage, one of the party gets betrothed or has relations with another, then the issue is fornication and not adultery.
It is then that the husband (to be) is given the right to divorce the woman, equivalent to our breaking off the engagement.
That is exactly what Joseph's situation was, and why he was pondering to put Mary away (divorce her or break off the engagement).
But once the marriage is consummated, there is no more divorce.
For adultery (married individuals committing the act with other married, or unmarried individual) The old testament required death.
"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV).

FWIW.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It seems that I am the only one that has quoted Scripture here. What have I said, according to Scripture, that is wrong?

Did you even read the OP? lol

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

Jesus said it. I believe it. That settles it. :wavey:

 

[Brother Shane]

Sorry to break up the "peace" Ann and Donna, but pinoybaptist and DHK have brought truth to this thread once and for all. raying:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

My dear Brother RB:

You and I agree in many, many things, but this is not one of them.
I think to better understand what Jesus means we have to look at His words from the perspective of Jewish ways.
From what I understand, when a woman is betrothed to a man, they are as good as husband and wife, pending the official wedding when they publicly are pronounced man and wife.
Remember the good old days, when a man presented a woman with an engagement ring, and the woman presents the future husband to her family, and the engagement is announced to one and all ?
The principle, I think, is the same.
Now, if in the course of the engagement, before the actual marriage and the sexual consummation of the marriage, one of the party gets betrothed or has relations with another, then the issue is fornication and not adultery.
It is then that the husband (to be) is given the right to divorce the woman, equivalent to our breaking off the engagement.
That is exactly what Joseph's situation was, and why he was pondering to put Mary away (divorce her or break off the engagement).
But once the marriage is consummated, there is no more divorce.
For adultery (married individuals committing the act with other married, or unmarried individual) The old testament required death.
"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV).

FWIW.

I bet there are some women who would like to kill their husbands for their adultery. :laugh:

 

[DHK]

I have no idea what you are talking about. No one is condoning anything, except maybe you, by denying what Scripture says (including Jesus) about divorcing for sexual impurity.

How many extra-marital affairs is an innocent spouse supposed to put up with until the marriage covenant is broken in your eyes? 5, 10, 25? How about every night of the week with a different partner? Would that work? How many cases of venereal disease or even worse, AIDS? How about a man who comes home from work and finds his wife having an orgie? Is that Biblical grounds in your eyes? Or how about the man who molests his teenage daughter - is that good enough to break the marriage covenant in your eyes? Sorry, DHK, you are off Biblical base on this one.

How many lies does a wife put up with?
How many burts of anger? (temper tantrums)
How many profanities? etc.
How many of anything.
Sin is sin in God's sight, and none of it is justified. No sin is greater than any other sin. There is no such thing as an "innocent party" in any marriage. That is not a Biblical concept. That is your philosophy and it is not found in the Bible. It is self-pity, a form of pride.
You say that I am off base. You have presented a case based on pity and pride. You have presented no Scripture. Who is off base. It is not me.

"What therefore God has put together let no man put asunder."
What you have said before God and man, a vow, "till death do us part."
Do you break vows?

 

[Brother Shane]

You know, this is similar to Matthew 5. You take "judge not" and "saving for the cause of fornication" and go absolutely haywire.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Your philosopy. Where is the Scripture?

I responded to your philosophy with philosophy. Double standard?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Sin is sin in God's sight, and none of it is justified. No sin is greater than any other sin. There is no such thing as an "innocent party" in any marriage. That is not a Biblical concept. That is your philosophy and it is not found in the Bible. It is self-pity, a form of pride.
You say that I am off base. You have presented a case based on pity and pride. You have presented no Scripture. Who is off base. It is not me.

Sin is sin, but not all sin is the same. Do I need to show that biblically? I assume you already know this.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You know, this is similar to Matthew 5. You take "judge not" and "saving for the cause of fornication" and go absolutely haywire.

Afraid to deal with me directly? Jesus made an exception. Period. End of story.

 

[DHK]

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.

Jesus said it. I believe it. That settles it. :wavey:

Believe it then. The definition of fornication is "illicit sex before marriage," as was the case when Joseph was going to put away Mary. He thought that Mary had committed "fornication" while they were still betthrothed. This was the case for fornication. They had not come together yet as man and wife in an official wedding ceremony. They were betrothed. "Exvept for fornication," can only be applied before marriage. It was a Jewish custom to be betrothed for about a year before marriage. If during that time the wife was found unfaithful the marriage contract was anulled. Divorce was permitted. That was before they were married. Fornication was illicit sex before marriage. That is what Christ was talking about.
He does not use the word adultery--illicit sex after marriage.

 

[Brother Shane]

I promise you sir -- you will hear the truth one day and Jesus Christ will be the one to end the story. If you only knew what it looks like for you to take a scripture intended for the Jews and claim it to be valid for your customs.

Afraid? :laugh: