Comment/question
The scriptures clearly point out that for the estranged spouses to
re-unite, they would have to marry again, but this is prohibited in OT
scripture if one spouse has been defiled (i.e. married to another and I
would posit, had sexual relations with another is sufficient for the
defilement).
Response
I think we have a good picture of what God expects in the Book of Hosea.
Gomer "left" the marriage and went after other men. Was their "bond"
dissolved in God's sight? No, it was not. Hosea went after his wife and
brought her home. She was surely "unclean/defiled"..............yet
their marriage was restored.
If
the "vow" of a second marriage is what you are thinking is the binding
factor here, it appears that Jesus doesn't even recognize the vow as
binding. Otherwise He would never have called a second marriage a sin
(adultery). The bond of the first marriage is what makes the second
union, adultery.
Comment/question
I find it interesting that you claim that Jesus was teaching anything
radically different from the OT. In fact, everything Jesus taught was to
clarify the meaning and the application of the principles that were
contained in the OT Law. In other words, He came to fulfill the Law, not
throw it out.
Response
I never said Jesus came to "throw out the law". Scripture teaches the
"law" is good. Notice what He says immediately before He speaks of
divorce/marriage as adultery in Lk. 16:16-18............Don't you find
it interesting that the divorce/remarriage prohibition is placed just in
that spot? I think it's significant.
You
never addressed Deut. 24. Those who say it is applicable to us
today-----the church and the teachings of the NT, need to compare apples
to apples. This passage does not apply to us, nor does it line up with
what Jesus taught on divorce/remarriage. Jesus DID clarify and at the
same time brought back what had been perverted by man. Even the
disciples were astounded at His Words-------and they knew the "law"---so
something WAS different and some things did change. When Jesus came to
the earth----no longer is it an "eye for an eye", but now it is "bless
those who curse you", give more to those who take from you, "forgive and
give the opportunity to repent----don't stone to
death"....................many things did indeed "change"...........but
the changes were to bring us in line with God's very heart and mind. Do
you think the divorce/remarriage rate is reflective of people having the
heart and mind of Christ..........
Comment/question
Are you suggesting that parts of the Law as written by Moses are
contrary to the express will of God?............
.....Then it was permitted and tolerated by Jesus Himself as it was the
Lord who gave the Law through Moses............
....I think it is very safe to say that Moses didn't get it wrong and
didn't permit something that was contrary to the heart of God.
Response
Yes. Jesus addressed that point. He said that divorce was only
PERMITTED/TOLERATED due to men's HARD HEARTS. Surely you don't believe
"hard hearts" are the will of God?
I was
addressing your first point above in which you were speaking of the
express WILL of God. I think you are confusing the permissive Will of
God with the perfect Will of God. Yes, God did allow Moses(permissive
will) to enact a law contrary to His Perfect Will------until Jesus came
and the light entered the world. Jesus brought the standards of marriage
back to His PERFECT WILL by bringing us back to the creation intent of
marriage. Hardheartedness had perverted God's perfect Will for
marriage..........hardheartedness and disobedience led to not only
divorce and remarriage, but to polygamy and many other practices against
the intent for marriage.
Does
He allow for that any longer, is the question? Many say He does and that
the allowance does away with His definition of adultery in the
NT----because people are STILL hardhearted they can break His law
against adultery and their new relationship will be honored by Him as a
legitimate "one flesh" relationship. The problem with this viewpoint is
where can we see this shown to be the case in NT scripture? The "law",
meaning God's moral laws made for mankind are said to be GOOD. Where do
we see the breaking of the marriage covenant and continuance of
relationships defined as adultery as "good" in the sight of God? Will we
make the same concessions for those who believe because God allowed
polygamy in the OT, today it is still permissible to God?
I
also wanted to address Deut. 24:1-4's content, since every time it comes
up people fail to notice that the woman spoken of in that passage is
never charged with adultery by remarrying. Using this passage to say
remarriage after a divorce is ok with God is not apples to apples. When
Jesus speaks of remarriage, He DOES say a remarriage is adultery (Mt.
5:32, 19:9, Mk. 10:12, Lk. 16:16-18) . If this be the case, why do we
always end back up in Deut. 24:1-4 trying to justify remarriages that in
the NT Jesus has called adultery?
Comment/question
There is absolutely no way that Jesus would disallow his own Word. Moses
wrote the Law by direct revelation from God. They met "face to face".
Jesus affirmed and upheld every jot and tittle of the Law. Jesus would
not and could not be correcting Moses in regards to what the Law says
about divorce. Therefore, Jesus must be correcting only an
interpretation of the Law.
Response
That's certainly not what I see Jesus saying: "Moses because of the
hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from
the beginning it was not so" Mt. 19:8
"because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept, but
from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and
female...........................what God has joined together, let not
man separate" Mk. 10:5-9
Moses
"permitted/allowed/tolerated" divorce and wrote a PRECEPT. This was NOT
God's law. Here is God's law on the use of marriage:
"it
is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the
law to fail.
Whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and
whosoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits
adultery." Lk. 16:16-17
Comment/question
So, the question is, if a man has remarried, (and also under Old
Covenant law it was an abomination for him to go back to his first wife
after divorcing a second wife), how can either he or his ex (first) wife
return to their 'marriage'
Response
Yes, it was an abomination, because he put her away for uncleanness and
then to want her back after she had been with another man? What a
horrific handling of the marriage covenant. As for NT teachings on this,
Jesus said to remarry is to commit adultery. To commit adultery means to
take to yourself what does not belong to you. Does being really sorry
about stealing something, then make it mine?
If we
want to keep it in the terms of adultery, do you believe if someone
commits adultery (extramarital), then they can never reunite with their
marriage partner? Isn't adultery able to be forsaken and the covenant
marriage partners reconciled? NT teachings on remarriage after divorce
speak of such as adultery. We do not find that in the OT. There was no
forsaking of adultery---there was DEATH---which freed the "innocent"
parties to get married again. Also, in the OT, if there was a divorce,
the divorced (both parties) WERE free to remarry. None were considered
adulterers for contracting second marriages. Not so in the NT. Jesus
said AFTER a divorce, adultery takes place should someone marry again.
So we see that the divorce does NOT dissolve the marriage. If divorce
does not dissolve, then the parties are still married to each other and
whatever vows they make to others are null and void to the Lord because
their previous vows are still in force (unless one believes polygamy ok,
which I still believe conflicts with NT teachings on marriage). Hope I
answered your questions. Blessings in Jesus.
Comment/question
There is absolutely no way that Jesus would disallow his own Word. Moses
wrote the Law by direct revelation from God. They met "face to face".
Jesus affirmed and upheld every jot and tittle of the Law. Jesus would
not and could not be correcting Moses in regards to what the Law says
about divorce. Therefore, Jesus must be correcting only an
interpretation of the Law.
Response
That's certainly not what I see Jesus saying: "Moses because of the
hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but
from the beginning it was not so" Mt. 19:8
"because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept, but from the beginning of the creation, God made
them male and female...........................what God has joined
together, let not man separate" Mk. 10:5-9
Moses "permitted/allowed/tolerated" divorce and wrote a PRECEPT. This
was NOT God's law. Here is God's law on the use of marriage:
"it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of
the law to fail. Whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery; and whosoever marries her who is divorced from her husband
commits adultery." Lk. 16:16-17
Comment/question
Deut 4:1-5 Commands that a spouse cannot take back their spouse who has
left and been with or married someone else (even if the second spouse
dies) .... so I am not sure I see your point that they should leave
their 2nd spouse and repent and go back to their former spouse. Old
Testament
Response
Read Jer. 3 and then go back to Deut. 24 and see WHY it was said the
wife could not go back. Also, consider that when Jesus address those who
remarry, He said they were in ADULTERY. Adultery CAN be repented of, so
unless you believe the second vow supersedes a first vow (which it sure
doesn't appear to be the case in NT scripture on divorce/remarriage). In
NT passages on divorce, God does not see the divorce as dissolving the
marriage, freeing the divorced to join others. He sees the joining of
others as sin against the original covenant.
Comment/question
No you are reading into what I have said. I said if she was never
married (no sexual sin) and then repents she needs to be reconciled to
her husband if she can be. However in this scenario it has been ten
years ... what has he been doing with his life? Has he been remarried or
had sex with another woman?
Response
So you believe if a divorced person has sex with another, they can not
be rejoined with their covenant spouse?
Comment/question
Yes, the original covenant couple would be the recognized marriage in
God's eyes. Can they come back together again to each other? They are
still married in His eyes. With repentance can they be reconciled to Him
and each other? Some say both have defiled each other, but can
repentance and the blood of Jesus cover that since Jesus also took
divorce to the cross.
Response
I think the answer to that lies on Jer. 3, Jesus' response to the woman
caught in adultery, and the story of Hosea and Gomer.............
Comment/question
Deuteronomy 24 clearly indicates that divorce ends marriage
Response
In Deut. 24, women WERE allowed to remarry. They were NOT called
adulteresses for doing so. This has clearly changed in Jesus' teachings
on the matter which Paul reaffirms in his teachings on marriage and the
marriage bond. Divorce does not dissolve the "bond" of marriage. If it
did, there would be no adultery in a remarriage.
Comment/question
In the OT, the law stated if a man divorced his wife, he was to give her
a writ of divorce. What do you think the spirit of this law is? God
didn't have to give this concession to man at all (much like what we try
do with one another today). What do you think God doing by allowing
this?
Response
Actually the Lord through Moses was allowing for man to reveal his
hardheartedness----- towards the marriage covenant which GOD made and
his partner in life(whom the Lord allowed him to have)......
Many
things changed as far as "allowances" when the Lord Jesus came upon the
earth..Acts 17:26-31.
Comment/question
God does not change; if he allowed it then, he certainly allows it now.
Divorce is not his first choice, never has been, but it is not sin to
remarry after a divorce has dissolved the bonds of the first marriage.
Just
my $.02 worth, but I think it is certainly Scriptural.
Response
I disagree. In the OT you are correct that when a woman was put away she
was ALLOWED to remarry---without sin. You say Jesus does not change, yet
in His very Words He does indeed change what was once tolerated due to
hard heartedness. Where a woman was NOT guilty of adultery through
remarriage in the OT, in His Words in the NT we find that such a woman
is now GUILTY of adultery should she remarry----as would her husband who
remarries. God does not recognize a divorce as dissolving the marriage
bond, hence to join in another relationship is adultery to the Lord.
This is very plain to see in Rom. 7:2-3.
Comment/question
The Pharisee asking Jesus the question was clearly trying to pull Jesus
into this debate between the 2 houses of Pharisees.
BTW,
it does NOT mean adultery, as an adulterer was killed under the Law so
there was no need of divorce.
Response
And Jesus didn't appear to take either side, did He? You are right also
that the penalty for adultery was death...........and we even have such
an example in the NT of that almost occurring (the woman caught in
adultery).............in that case, mercy and forgiveness was extended
to the guilty woman with the admonishment to go and sin "no
more".........
Comment/question
Except that situation was still under the Mosaic covenant, as the NT had
not been effected yet by His death and resurrection.
Response
The Mosaic covenant called for STONING. It was not an option, but
required by God. Yet, in this instance, God(Jesus) extended mercy and
gave admonishment not to continue the sin...........so yes, something
DID change when Jesus spoke.
Comment/question
#1 - Jesus NEVER broke the Law or told any one else to break the Law. If
he had, he could not have been the sinless sacrifice, spotless lamb to
atone for our sins.
#2 -
The Law required 2 or 3 eye witnesses to testify and they had to be the
first to throw the stones. It also required BOTH the man and woman to be
stoned. Since He said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"
and the "witnesses" were guilty of trying to trap Jesus, they could not
throw. Since the man was not there, they were also guilty of covering up
his identity. The whole thing was a scam and everyone knew it (with the
possible exception of the woman).
#3 -
there is mercy in the Law as well. Don't buy into the Pharisees' lie
that there isn't.
Response
Luke 16:16
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time
the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is
forcing his way into it.
16:17
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke
of a letter of the Law to fail.
16:18
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,
and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
This
is God's law concerning the use of marriage, (name deleted). The law of
permanency never changed. Jesus brought man BACK to God's laws, because
they had transgressed. Paul reaffirmed what Jesus taught in
Comment/question
Everyone must look at the concept of jurisdiction here. There is much
written about what the Law said. I have as well. It is important to know
what God desires and you can find out a lot from the Mosaic covenant.
However, unless you were born Jewish, you are not under the jurisdiction
of the Law. It was never given to gentiles, saved or otherwise. (ref
Acts 15). The same would go for much of what Jesus said, as it was
directed to Jews who were obligated to the Law. As far as I remember,
all of Jesus' teachings on marriage had to do with Jews and the Law.
While instructive, it is not binding on Gentile believers.
Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 7 are more germane to the discussion since
it was directed at a congregation that was majority believing gentiles.
Response
Paul, while addressing Roman Christians (believers) spoke about the
"law" of marriage and spoke of marriage as binding until death----EVEN
in the instance of adultery.....
Comment/question
Please note: the scripture in Deuteronomy states that if the woman has
MARRIED A SECOND PERSON AFTER SHE HAS BEEN DIVORCED; NOT IF SHE REMAINS
UNMARRIED..... Because the scripture says that she is defiled. So.....if
the woman is unmarried, the man can go back and remarry her. She has not
been defiled. Some people interpret this scripture to say that if the
man divorces his wife and she remains unmarried, he cannot go back and
marry her. It is only if she has married someone else and has been
divorced again a second time. God bless.
Response
Here's something to ponder: David did not divorce Michal. Saul took her
away from David and gave to her another man. She then became another
man's wife. David, later on after marrying a couple of other women,
retrieved Michal from her 2nd husband and took her back to himself. Was
he sinning? Was she "defiled"?
What
in Deut. 24 is the defilement? Is it having relations with another man?
Is it taking vows with another? Is it that the husband puts his wife
away for "uncleanness" and wants her back again after she's been with
another man?
Comment/question
In the Old Testament Law, the punishment for adultery was death
(Leviticus 20:10). At the same time, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mentions
remarriage after a divorce, does not call it adultery, and does not
demand the death penalty for the remarried spouse. The Bible explicitly
says that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), but nowhere explicitly
states that God hates remarriage.
Response
In Mal. 2 we see that what God hates is the putting away of a COVENANT
spouse---the wife of one's youth, the treacherous dealings against the
wife.........as He says "she IS (not was) the wife of the covenant"
Notice also in that passage that the Lord rejects the man's offerings,
though he comes to the altar in tears. Does it appear that the Lord is
pleased with the man's current marriage?
Also,
it is correct that in the OT law spoken of in Deut. 24, there is no
mention of the woman who marries again committing adultery. However, we
DO see that label used by Jesus in the NT concerning remarriages.
Comment/question
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not describe the
remarriage as invalid. Ending a remarriage through divorce would be just
as sinful as ending a first marriage through divorce. Both would include
the breaking of vows before God, between the couple, and in front of
witnesses.
Response
Does God honor those vows when one is not free
to make vows to another? What about the previous vows? Why is it that
people demand others keep vows they are not free to make, but they do
not have to keep the vows in the marriage God joined together?
Comment/question
No matter the circumstances, once a couple is remarried, they should
strive to live out their married lives in fidelity,
Response
Is that not an odd view considering Jesus Himself has called such a
union adultery? How does one live in fidelity when they are committing
infidelity in the Lord's eyes?
Comment/question
Where does the Torah bind a woman to her ex-husband as long as he lives?
It does not. Those who know the law know that the law does not bind a
woman to her former husband. On the contrary, the law frees the woman
from her ex-husband; it does not bind her to him
Response
Where does OT law teach that a woman who is divorced commits adultery
when she marries again? Adultery was a stonable offense
remember...........
The
only so-called OT law that bound a woman to her husband til death was
the creation law of marriage----one man/one woman for life. This is the
law that the Roman Christians understood........the same law Jesus spoke
of ........"in the beginning"
Comment/question
First off, in properly executing the law and applying it to serve the
People and not Hurt the People, its important to look in the Past to see
how the various Laws were applied.
Before Moses, in the Time of Abram and Sarah, when Hagar had a child
with Abram (at Sarah's request, out of the Will of God) after Sarah sent
her away the first time (Gen16:1-7) and the Angel of God sent Hagar back
to Sarah and Abram. God was concerned about the Pregnant woman raising a
Child WITHOUT A FATHER.
Later
on when the Child was much older, "for PEACE", God told Abram to hearken
to Sarah and send away the Bondwoman and the Child (Gen 21:8-14). At
this time Ishmael was much older.
Look at the Heart of God to correctly apply the Law of God.
Response
Are you trying to say that God allowed this because of Ishmael's age?
You believe because a child is older that it then gives the dad
freedom----in God's sight----to pursue what makes him happy, no matter
what it does to his family?
Your
situation is not apples to apples anyways because Abraham did NOT leave
his covenant wife and child......... he sent the OTHER woman and child
away.......because THEY were threatening the well-being of his COVENANT
family.
Comment/question
FORGIVENESS DOES NOT EQUAL RECONCILIATION!!!
Response
In His Word, our relationship with the Lord is likened to that of a
husband and wife(Eph. 5). If you believe that within a marriage
forgiveness does NOT open the door to reconciliation (or only does if
one "feels" like they want to), then your understanding of the Lord's
relationship with His Church is out of balance. It is ALWAYS His heart
to have reconciliation with those whom He forgives. He does not forgive,
then slam the door shut on a future relationship, neither should
we..............
Comment/question
As I said before you don't accept all of God. Every aspect of His
nature. This false MDR doctrine prevents that. You are expecting man to
be like God in every sense and that is not possible when living in a
sinful world. This is why we were provided laws of concession and we are
shown an abundance of mercy and compassion by God. Thank God!!! We are
but flesh, remember that? God says this about us! He says this about
YOU!!!
Response
Nowhere in God's Word will you see that divorce was granted for anything
OTHER than hardheartedness.......and that allowance we see Jesus saying
as coming from MOSES, not the Lord God. ("Moses tolerated", as Jesus
said).
Also,
this concept that we all are just sinners, so God gives us allowances
for that, is hogwash. You'll never see any such teaching in the NT, by
Paul or any others. We are called FROM sin, not given a license for the
flesh due to offenses that come against us. Paul taught that we are to
DIE so that Christ may live in us. If we are resting on our "flesh" to
justify doing anything other than what Jesus Himself would do, then we
are living for SELF, not for Christ. If we say we do not have the power
to do as God calls us to do, then we need to question ourselves to see
if we are in the faith to begin with. Whom He calls, He empowers----no
matter how bad the situation looks.
Comment/question
No... the abomination does not occur until the 1st marriage covenant has
been replaced with the second....
The
abomination is not the 2nd marriage, but rather the return to the 1st
covenant.
That
is what is shown in Deutt.
Response
Jesus very clearly states that a second marriage is ADULTERY. If it is
adultery, then it is not a marriage HE joined together. It can't
possibly be both. It is an illicit relationship. Scripture also clearly
shows that illicit relationships CAN be forsaken and the covenant
spouses reunited.
Concerning Jer. 3, God addresses Deut 24..........."THEY
say".....................but I say unto you, "return unto me"
Comment/question
I do not see what you are saying with Jeremiah 3. It actually (verse 1)
supports Deut 24.
Jer
3:1 “They say, ‘If a man puts away his wife, and she goes from him, and
become another man’s, will he return to her again?’ Wouldn’t that land
be greatly polluted?
Response
We must not take that passage alone...........the next verse GOD says,
"YET RETURN TO ME"
Comment/question
Please understand. ONLY a husband can give a certificate of divorce. Not
the wife. Had God divorced his people at this point? No. Later He does
divorce the northern kingdom (but not
Response
Jesus addressed divorce in both cases---the husband doing it and the
wife doing it. He knew the cultures of the world. He focused on DIVORCE,
not just Jewish divorce. Both women and men were told if they divorce
and take another spouse, they would be guilty of committing adultery.
As
for becoming "covenanted" with another-----that can not happen until the
death of one of the original covenant makers........DEATH nullifies the
marriage covenant. (
Comment/question
Was
Not the same...
Response
She was not able to because she was already covenanted to God. The same
goes for marriage. We cannot covenant ourselves to others when there is
already and existing covenant. God defined the terms of that covenant,
we make the decision to enter into it.........and then we are bound by
the terms of that covenant. God has stated that every marriage HE
joins(not what man joins himself/herself to), will remain intact until
the death of one of the spouses. Death is the vehicle the Lord has
chosen to loose us from each other when in covenant.
Comment/question
Debate all you want any interpretation of the Law but the foundation of
any debate, argument, interpretation must be that the Law as written by
Moses at the face-to-face direction of God is perfect.
Response
Law as given to Moses: "Thou shalt not commit adultery".............OT
punishment: death to both parties
Law
as spoken by Jesus: "Whosoever puts away his/her spouse and marries
another commits adultery, and whosoever marries one put away commits
adultery".........................remedy for this sin: not death, but
the ability to repent (forsake the adultery and be forgiven). Grace
reigns.........and not Grace used to STAY in the sin, but Grace to allow
one to forsake their sin (Go and sin no more).
Jesus
was very clear in regards to the original laws given to Moses (ie; 10
commandments)........Lk. 16:16-18.
Comment/question
"Let none suppose that Christ allows his people to trifle with any
commands of God's holy law. The law is the Christian's rule of duty, and
he delights therein."
Romans 3:31
Are we abolishing Moses' Teachings by this faith? That's unthinkable!
Rather, we are supporting Moses' Teachings, we make it clear that the
law is important, we establish the law.
Response
Not to go tit for tat, but we must be clear about JESUS' WORDS
concerning Moses and the divorce allowances:
Here
are Jesus' own words on the matter:
"it
has been said, Whosoever
shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
BUT I SAY UNTO YOU....................." Mt. 5:32
Who
is Jesus talking about in the first part of the passage?
Then:
Jesus
says, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered
(allowed) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not
so"........Mt. 19:8
So,
again, is Jesus affirming what some are saying here that HE commanded
this "allowance" which was NOT a law of God? Does He not make it
VERY clear that this was something MOSES brought forth due to the
hardness of men's hearts? Does He also not make it very clear that from
the beginning (When God created mankind and marriage), divorce was not a
part of marriage?
And:
Jesus
says, "For the hardness of your heart he(Moses) wrote you this
precept, BUT from the beginning of the creation God made them male
and female..................What therefore GOD hath joined together, let
not man put asunder (Mk. 10:5-9)......
Seems
pretty clear that Jesus was setting the standard right again. That is
why the disciples responded in shock to this "new" teaching and that is
why in Luke 16:16 we find that His CREATION laws are in effect even in
this day--------they were never superseded by what God allowed through
MOSE'S precepts given due to HARDHEARTEDNESS. His laws will not fade
away...............and as has been noted before, this verse was just not
thrown in that exact position without reason..............Interestingly,
right after Jesus spoke about the laws not failing, He speaks on those
who divorce and remarry and those who take to themselves divorcees.
Comment/question
In the word of God under the Law of Moses, which Jesus did not come to
destroy, the guilty spouse was as good as dead; as it was given to Moses
understanding; both persons involved were taken and killed.
The
innocent one was released from the marriage at that “point” by the
guilty spouses’ death.
Therefore no adultery and or free to marry again. ..................
In today’s world the exception works through the guilty spouse who is
still living, as fulfilled by Christ, they are already dead…or condemned
but not killed as in the days of the Law of Moses.
Even though the guilty spouse remains alive, the sad part is this person
is already dead according to the Law; but it is for a purpose; it is in
the hope that they will become saved. Eph 2:1
Response
That is flawed reasoning. If the "law" you speak of concerning adultery
within marriage is for one, it is for all, yet, many who claim to right
to marry another after their spouse has committed adultery, believe it
quite ok FOR OTHERS to remain with a person who has been
unfaithful-----if they so desire. So those who believe such a thing,
believe in fact, that adultery does NOT result in the death of the
guilty, but instead GRACE can be applied to some. To others-----those
who DON'T want to extend forgiveness/Grace, they are entitled to walk
away from the covenant they entered into with another AND GOD---and then
enter into another covenant with another person----until they do them
wrong too. Is God a respecter of persons? Those who will not extend
forgiveness/Grace towards the offender/spouse, are they just as much in
the will of God as those who DO forgive/extend Grace towards their
sinning spouse? Are those who believe the covenant remains intact in
spite of sin, in the Will of God by waiting, praying, loving those
spouses who are wayward?
Another thought is this: did Jesus, when He came upon the woman caught
in adultery pronounce her "DEAD"? No, He did not. He extended Grace,
telling her to go and sin no more---He in fact offered her LIFE. In the
same way, He is calling all who are sinning, to GO and sin NO more. He
is still in the business of offering LIFE. The same grace that is
extended to us (the Church---His Body) is the same Grace we are expected
to extend to our spouses(Our Body/One Flesh).
Comment/question
There is not a soul in this thread that would support the marriage
between a son and his stepmother, a brother and sister, an uncle/niece,
or a gay marriage. The problem is that you have taken this and gone
beyond what scripture calls illicit. You're adding to the Word. The
Bible defines illicit relationships for us in Leviticus 18.
Never...with a neighbors wife (adultery) - Before you want to claim this
as proof, just remember Israel lived according to the whole law and they
understood upon divorce a woman was free to marry again (it was
explicitly stated in the writ), so this is regarding a married woman,
not a divorced one. Moses' hearers would have understood this command
was not referring to a put away woman with a writ of divorcement.
Response
Jesus said, "WHOSOEVER (some translations say "EVERYONE
who") divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery and
whosoever marries one divorced commits adultery." Here Jesus addresses
those who ARE divorced..........and He charges them with adultery if
they join with their "neighbor's" spouse. We are further admonished by
Paul, "for this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should
abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to
possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of
lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God: that no one should take
advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is
the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. (I
Thess. 4:3-6).
Comment/question
Nowhere in this list is a 2nd marriage contracted after a divorce listed
as an illicit, adulterous marriage. Nowhere in the OT is a marriage
contracted after divorce called "adultery". Once we get into the NT,
Jesus straightens them out letting them know that if they were not
divorced for biblical reasons, they were not really divorced and a 2nd
marriage would be committing adultery
Response
You are correct. Nowhere in the OT was a marriage after a divorce spoken
of as "adultery". We also see in the OT that polygamy was not spoken
against either, but we now according to Jesus, marriage is between one
man/one woman for LIFE. What was once "tolerated" in regards to marital
practices are NO MORE tolerated by the Lord. To go against the teachings
of Jesus is to enter into sin.
Comment/question
So now Paul is abolishing/break the Law of God thru Moses!!!??? You're
taking Paul totally out of context.
Response
16"(A)The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John;
since that time (B)the gospel of the
17"(C)But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one
stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
18"(D)Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits
adultery.
Comment/question
You just made the word of God in Deuteronomy as lie!!!
Response
Why do you keep going back to Deut. when Jesus already addressed the
practice of divorce?
Are
we under the law of Moses or are we to follow what Jesus said? Did He
not say EVERYONE who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery? Does He not say that EVERYONE who marries a divorced person
commits adultery? Did not Paul say that marriage endures til death? Why
do you keep going back to the evil, hardhearted practices of the
Pharisees who were looking for a way "out" to fulfill the evil desires
of their hearts---all the while trying to look "legal" while doing so?
Comment/question
The so-called "Moses" law is what is/was used to govern the folks Jesus
was speaking to. He used a hyperbole to and answered the "motives of
their heart". Divorce, protected the innocent by freeing her to become
another man's wife. This is not NT vs OT. Christ and the folks he was
responding to see the scriptures as a whole... The Church of the new
covenant is still allowed to use the moral law as principle where
applicable, and the spirit of the law prevails...
I See the scriptures as one continuum, but with different stages of
spirituality (kinda like going from kindergarten, thru to college) some
things do not change they get further developed, but principles and
circumstances dictate the proper application.
Response
Mk. 10:7-8...........the Lord says that what He joins, are no longer
two, but one. JOINED AS ONE ENTITY, not two separate individuals any
longer----each part of the other----impossible to be again
separated----until death. It is the mysterious work of God..............
a work man can not undo.
Eph.
5:25.........husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church (not
only if she deserves it)......washing her for sanctification (she NEEDS
him), He is called to LOVE her as Christ loves the church...........not
to forsake her when the going gets tough and find another "wife" more to
his liking. As he loves his own body, so should a man love his own wife.
I
Cor. 13:4-8..............Love (real love, agape) NEVER
fails...........If we truly LOVE as Jesus loves, we will not forsake
those that the Lord has joined us with----in marriage or as concerning
those who are members of the Body of Christ. The idea of CHRISTIANS
divorcing and remarrying in light of what we are called to in regards to
LOVE, is appalling. How can one claim to be ONE as referenced in Jn.
17:20-24 with a Christian brother or sister when they have either
forsaken their covenant marriage/children OR they have joined themselves
with another person's spouse? Are they walking in unity with those
brethren/sisters in the Lord? I don't believe so. Such are at odds with
the Body of Christ.
The
truth is that many ARE defrauding their brothers and sisters----by
taking other people's spouses as well as causing a brother/sister to
stumble by committing adultery/fornication with them. Paul speaks about
this: I Thess. 4:3-7.
If we
are defrauding our brothers and sister by either taking a spouse for
ourselves who does not belong to us and causing THEM to be adulterers
because of our own self-seeking, we will be under the judgment of the
Lord as Paul speaks in verse 6.
John
teaches in I Jn. 4:20: "if a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother
(or sister), he is a liar; for he htat loveth not his brother or sister
who he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this
commandment have we from Him, that he who loveth God love his brother
also."
If we
think we are LOVING God AND our brother/sister (our spouses, someone
else's spouse, etc) by divorcing them, having affairs with them,
etc..........we are deceiving ourselves. We are not "loving", we are
feeding our flesh---- which is at enmity with God.
See,
(name deleted), I too see Spiritual progression -----------and I do not
think some have a handle beyond the elementary concerning what the TRUE
love of Christ is. They think it's for them, but they cannot see the
application of Christ's love towards OTHERS. That is why they look for
and make excuses for not LOVING others as Christ
loves...........justifications continue to fly today just as they did
with the Pharisees Jesus rebuked. They wanted to look "legal", but their
hearts were wicked. Nothing has changed to this day. The Pharisees did
not want to LOVE as Christ loved, but wanted love on their own fleshly
terms.........and that is ok. The Lord will allow those who choose that
path to continue on it...........but there will be a very heavy price to
pay, not only for them, but for those whom they hurt along the way.
I
think if we really cared about what the Lord wants, we would say, LORD,
what is YOUR way. I guarantee if most of us did that and then obeyed the
voice of the Lord, we would not even be having this discussion now.
Comment/question
I see major inconsistencies in your argument here.
First you were quick to point to my reference to Deuteronomy 24: 1-5 and
discredit it because it's NT, then I see you constantly referring to
Hosea and Gomer, and Malachi.
Response
You know why you see inconsistencies? Because you look for an "out".
See, the thing is, God LOVES and you will find His heart of LOVE in both
Hosea and Gomer. What you will NOT find in your often argued Deut. 24 is
LOVE. Jesus continually goes back to the Truth that Divorce was NEVER
created for marriage............it only came about due to man's
HARDHEARTEDNESS. You over and over focus on what Jesus calls
hardheartedness to support your position that remarriage is AOK with the
Lord, even sanctioned by Him. You are wrong.
The
reason I speak on Jesus and Paul's teachings so much is that they are
focused on GRACE and LOVE. You are stuck in looking for "outs" and
trying to use/misuse the Law to do so. LOVE NEVER FAILS, brother. If one
is looking for an "out" and then an "in" into another relationship,
using God's Word to justify such a thing, there is something very
important missing.............LOVE. Think about it with a heart that
desires to know AND walk in the Lord's heart.
Comment/question
Yes, the intent of marriage is a permanent situation. But there is sin
in the world. That is why God wrote the Law of Divorce through Moses. It
completes the "permanent" covenant of marriage in dissolution.
Response
Why do you keep saying that God wrote the law
of divorce? Every time Jesus was asked about divorce He said that Moses
"tolerated" it..........and then Jesus said, but from the beginning it
was not so........."whatsoever God joins together, let not (a command)
man put asunder"........and then He brings what Moses "tolerated" (due
to HARDHEARTEDNESS) back to the original creation intent. I can't seem
to find anywhere that Jesus said "because you are sinners, divorce is
understandable, therefore whoever YOU decide to join with, I will agree
to and I will then make you into ONE"..............can you show me such
a passage?
I see Paul saying something very different..........there was a time
that the Lord "winked" at sin due to ignorance, but now, since the LIGHT
has come into the world, ignorance is no longer an excuse for sin. The
Lord will not "wink" any longer.
Comment/question
I doubt that God 'winked" at sin because we
didn't know any better. The law was set forth to show people "better"
but to prove that we were incapable of doing "better". The Light has
always been here. It is Jesus that saves us through grace because
neither then nor now has anyone been able to always to what is right!
Response
Scripture teaches us that God did in fact wink
at sin, but that things changed when "light" came into the
world...........now every man/woman will be without excuse as we have
ALL be commanded to repent and turn to the Lord.
"and the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all
men everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which
he will judge the world in righteousness by that man who he hath
ordained"...........Acts 30-31
"and this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and
men loved their darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
evil; for every one that doeeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to
the light, lest his deeds should be reproved (examined), but he that
doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest,
that they are wrought in God"......Jn 3:19-21
Comment/question
This is for marriage or any other area in our
lives. Does an on going sin of gluttony cause the same concern when you
see someone over weight?
Response
Weight is not always an indication of
gluttony.........there are some very THIN people that are gluttonous.
Comment/question
Does the on going sin of hurting the "temple
of our bodies" cause the same concern when you see someone smoking or
being foolish as a weekend sports player and hurting themselves? Does
the on going sin of materialism that so many of us deal with to some
degree ever concern you this much? I don't see God winking at any of the
things that we wink at. I do see Him loving us and covering our sins
with His redeeming work. I do see Him working in our lives to do less of
these mistakes and outright sinful choices. We were never ignorant about
divorce and therefore earning a free get-out-of-jail card.
Response
I agree that God works in those who belong to
Him.......in an ever progressing way. When I first became a Christian, I
swore like a sailor............but not for long. He dealt with that,
then swearing became offensive to me. I also smoked. Again, in His
perfect timing, it was gone. Same with drinking alcohol.........THAT is
what we can say is the Lord's Grace. When we come to Him, it is only
through Christ that we are "perfect"................however, if we truly
belong to the Lord He does not leave us in our newborn state, still
walking in the flesh and all it's desires. As we grow, He teaches us
more and more what is offensive to Him and if we love Him, we will obey
those things He speaks to us.
As far as being "ignorant" on divorce, I agree with you. I think deep
down MOST all people know in their hearts that divorce is not
right----morally, socially, and in the big scheme of things. What we
disagree on is that you believe that marriage----in God's sight-----can
be entered and exited at will, human will, that is. I believe since it
is God who joins the two into ONE, that we must then fall into line into
what HE says concerning marriage and how we are to use it. If Jesus says
that remarriage is adultery, that means it is not acceptable to Him. If
He says the union of two is sin, He will not join that union into ONE.
You say He understands our weaknesses and allows for it, I say He does
not and that someday, the Church coming first, we will stand in
judgment.............some will experience His wrath, some who claim they
are His (Mt. 7:21-24). I do not want to see that.
Comment/question
Deuteronomy 24
Law of Divorce
1"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds
no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he
writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends
her out from his house,
2and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,
3and
if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of
divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if
the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife,
4then
her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to
be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination
before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD
your God gives you as an inheritance.
Response
Many try to use that passage to say a covenant wife and covenant husband
are not to be rejoined after a remarriage has taken place. However, if
we truly want to be correct in what is presented scripturally, then this
would only apply to the wife, since in the OT times, women were NOT
allowed to put away their husbands.
Again, to be scripturally accurate, if the wife in Deut. 24 was guilty
of adultery, she would have been stoned, either due to adultery within
the covenant marriage OR if the 2nd marriage was adultery(as Jesus
taught in the NT), she would be stoned THEN---along with the 2nd
husband. Stoning (death) ended the covenant marriage---just as DEATH
ends a covenant marriage in the NT (
In
any case, Deut. 24 does not fit at all with the teachings of Jesus and
Paul in which remarriage IS considered adultery. In Deut. 24 a man could
divorce his wife because he "hated" her........certainly that is NOT in
line with what Jesus taught. Deut. 24 was a code of conduct regarding
divorce. The prohibition was to prevent frivolous divorce. The MAN was
actually the one punished if he put his wife away. The punishment was
that he could NEVER have her back.
Even
so, that is not the way of the Lord........we all have the option to
repent of our sins now, thankfully. The heart of the Lord is shown in
Jer. 3:1. The Lord says, "THEY say, "if a man divorces his wife, and she
goes from him and becomes another man's, may he return to her again?
Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot
with many lovers, YET RETURN TO ME, says the Lord"............
In
Mt. 5:32 the Lord says that if a wife is put away by the husband and
remarries, she commits adultery. The Lord charges HIM with her sin.
Notice that her new marriage is called "adultery"-----having unlawful
relations with one who is not a spouse. She is STILL bound to her first
husband.......and whoever gets involved with her will commit adultery by
doing so because she is bound to her husband TIL DEATH(a new "vow" does
not negate the original vow......if it did, she would not be "called an
adulteress). As Romans 7:2-3 teaches, "so then, if while her husband
lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if
her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no
adulteress, though she has married another man." Death is what severs
the original marital bond......not divorce, not a new marriage vow.
And
for a second witness of this truth to a different group of believers,
Paul teaches, "a wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives, but
if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes,
only in the Lord." I Cor. 7:39
Comment/question
Reconciliation with the faithful spouse is not compulsory.
Response
Yes, and I think Paul discussed this one very clearly: the one who has
departed must remain unmarried. That is the alternative to
reconciliation, though I believe the Lord's ultimate goal is humbling
all and bringing all to repentance so that those whom HE joined together
are walking in unity as He desires.
Comment/question
I don't see Jesus saying return to your first spouse if you remarry. He
doesn't say what to do either way, and to me it's adding to scripture
when you say you must go to your first spouse, regardless. Especially
when Deut. 24 states that it is a sin, among other verses regarding
other sins.
Response
If a new relationship is called adultery (sin) and one repents from
that, the "fruit" of TRUE repentance means forsaking the sin
(relationship). We also have the Lord's command concerning covenant
marriages: "remain unmarried OR be reconciled".........
So, if someone has transgressed and gotten themselves into sin, they are
to "remain unmarried" or be reconiled to their lawful spouse. Staying in
such a sinful relationship was never mentioned as an option, since the
relationship itself is sin in the Lord's sight.
Comment/question
There
is not a verse in the New Testament that says "leave your second spouse
and return to your first, IF you do marry again".
He gives us specific instruction, and I just feel that it is adding to
scripture by saying you are to leave a second spouse and return to the
first.
Response
The fact that Jesus calls a new relationship "ADULTERY" says that the
person/persons involved belong to another person in the sight of God.
Now, if one forsakes an illicit relationship (adultery), they are still
BOUND to the one God joined them to. No? If they are bound, how is it
that they should NOT reunite, if possible? They are merely returning to
the covenant made before God and with God.................
Comment/question
I am
confused, though, because, Deut. 24:1-4 says that for a woman who was
divorced and remarried and then either was divorced from her second
husband or widowed it would be "detestable in the eyes of the LORD" for
the first husband who divorced her to marry her again. Yet it seems that
many on this forum think that the one who was divorced and remarried
SHOULD return to the first spouse.
Also, I also had asked a question about polygamy. Do you think all
polygamous relationships, other than the first wife, are adulterous?
Response
Ok, let's break down Deut 24:1-4, compare it with other OT passages and
NT passages, and see if it really means what you think it does.
First of all, let's look at the nature of OT marriage. Men could have
many wives (it was tolerated by God and was never spoken of as
"adulterous", though we can see that first wives were considered FIRST
by God, though not necessarily loved best by the husband(as in Jacob's
case). Women could NOT lawfully be polygamous. In the NT teachings of
marriage by Paul and Jesus, marriage was brought back to 1 man/1 woman
for life. Polygamy, not only is against the law civilly, but is also
against Jesus teaching on creation marriage. So, yes, to be involved in
polygamy would be to be an adulterer/adulteress, since God only sees the
first wife as the one He joined the husband to.
Now, looking at the admonishments of Deut. 24, we see that the
prohibition was for a man to take back a wife put away for
"uncleanness", but we see no such prohibition for a wife to take back a
husband, since wives could not "put away" their husbands to begin with.
In OT scripture, we do not find where a man's virginity mattered in
regards to the marital bed-----only the women's, and a woman could be
stoned to death if she came to the marriage bed "defiled".
Here in Deut. 24 we see that a man marries, takes his wife to his home,
then finds that she is "unclean". He rejects her, giving her a
certificate of divorce, sends her away, then she becomes another man's
wife. The next husband then has the option of divorcing her because he
"hates" her(nice, huh,---something we can agree with that is NOT OK with
Jesus). If the second husband dies, she is free to marry, but not the
first husband. We must ask ourselves these questions: In OT teachings on
marriage, do we see that she committed adultery by marrying the second
time? If so, why is she not stoned as adulteress were? If if wasn't
adultery, why is it that now (NT)Jesus says something very
different----"whosoever marries her that is put away, commits adultery"?
Does it appear by Jesus' teachings that divorce is something that
dissolves a marriage(as was practiced in the OT). No, that is not what
Jesus taught about divorce. He said: "whosoever divorces his
wife/husband and marries another, commits adultery, and whosoever
marries one put away commits adultery".
The first husband is prohibited from taking her back because she was
defiled (that is the reason he put her away). What many try to say is
that the second marriage "defiled" her. The problem with that rendering
is that David's wife, Michal, married another man, and David took her
back. Did David sin? I don't believe so. David did not divorce his wife
and then want her back. He did not treat the marriage covenant with his
first wife in a "flippant" way----divorcing her, then wanting her back.
She was taken from him and then she entered into another marriage. So
the marriage did not "defile" her. In Deut. 24, a man cannot take his
wife back because he rejected her FOR being defiled, then for some
reason after she is another man's wife(even more defiled now), wants her
back??? No, he could not have her.
However, let's go to Jer. 3:1 to see what the Lord ultimately thought
about receiving back one who is "defiled": They say, if a
man divorces his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man's,
may he return to her again??? Would not the land be greatly polluted?
But you have played the harlot with many lovers; Yet return to me,
say the Lord.
Interesting the Lord would use Deut. 24 in such a way---------saying
that even though one is DEFILED, He wants them back and leaves the door
open to that!!!!!!
Let's now go to Hos. 2:7..............we see that after Hosea took Gomer,
a prostitute, as wife, she returns to her harlotries----she suffers for
her sins. She then decides that she will return to her FIRST
husband.............
Hosea is all about God's redemptive love for a world caught up in
"adulterous/harlotrous" acts. Does it appear that God thinks Hosea
taking Gomer back as his wife is an abomination----especially since she
is so "defiled"?
Now we go to Mal. 2:10-17. A "priest" has divorced the wife of his youth
(his covenant wife) and then taken a heathen woman as his second wife.
The priest goes to the altar to bring his offerings...........he covers
the altar with his tears, weeping. What does the Lord say? He does not
regard the offering ANYMORE, nor receive it with goodwill.
Why? Because he has put away the wife of his youth. The Lord says, "SHE
IS (not was) your companion and your wife by
covenant"............. We also see here that it is in regards to
COVENANT spouses that the Lord says He hates divorces. Many like
to say that God hates ALL divorce, but that is not true. God does not
hate the putting away of unlawful partners. As a matter of fact, true
repentance requires the putting away of unlawful relationships. I hope I
answered your questions.
Comment/question
But
then were all Levirate marriages of the OT adulterous? (Because I find
it very hard to believe that all the men who married their dead
brother's wives were single.) Or did something change in the marriage
relationship at the time of the NT?
Response
I'm not sure if they were all single, nor if that matters when we are
speaking of NT teachings on marriage. Jesus was very clear that marriage
was to be between one man and one woman. Man perverted God's creation
intent for marriage----in many different ways, as we see manifested not
only in OT times, but in our present age.
Comment/question
Jesus is the Word made Flesh. He does not change. The OT & NT is about
the same thing.
Response
Can you show me in the OT where a person AFTER a divorce
was said to be committing adultery when they married again---since you
keep insisting that things are the SAME in the OT and NT?
Comment/question
You seek to dismiss the Pharisees and teachers of the Law but Jesus does
not! The issue wasn't about everything they taught being perverted. Why
would Jesus explicitly instruct the people to obey everything
they told them, if that would lead them into following
twisted teaching? No. Jesus warned the people not to do what the
Pharisees and teachers of the Law were doing, which was not practicing
what they preached. That was the problem according to Jesus.
Seeking to discredit the Pharisees and teachers of the Law because what
the believed and taught goes against this doctrince is a common
practice.
Response
Jesus SPECIFICALLY addressed the "law" of marriage and the conduct of
the Pharisee in Lk. 16:15-18------
"15And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in
the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly
esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.
16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time
the gospel of the
17"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one
stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. 18"Everyone
who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who
marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery. "
Comment/question
I see no indication in this passage (Deuteronomy 24) that the 2nd
marriage was "defiled" nor do I see any indication that would suggest
that the 2nd marriage covenant was invalid.
Response
I agree with you here. There is no indication that the second marriage
is viewed as invalid. Actually, quite the opposite. So, if she is not
"defiled" from the second marriage, then your view that she cannot
return to the 1st husband does not make sense in light of what Jesus
taught in the Gospels. In Deut. 24 the divorce IS recognized as freeing
the woman to be with another. In the NT, divorce is NOT recognized as
freeing a woman/or man to be married again without "being
defiled"(committing adultery). Deut. 24 then is NOT relevant to what
Jesus taught on MDR.
Comment/question
I personally believe that asking someone to divorce would be not only be
encouraging sin, but would also be involving me in their sin. This is
the reason why I believe that a willingness to reconcile with a spouse
that has remarried is wrong.
Response
I hope then that you are confident to be able to share the scriptures
which such people who can see scripture teaching that divorce did not
nullify/dissolve their marriage in the sight of God and that He calls
the second relationship, adultery. I don't think one can, in good
conscience, try to point a person to Deut. 24 when that passage does NOT
show adultery in the case of a remarriage.
Comment/question
I believe that a willingness to reconcile with a spouse that has
remarried is wrong; when that marriage begins to have struggles (and it
will), you may end up providing an easy escape and ultimately encourage
a divorce that should not have happened. I think this is why
there is this prohibition in Duet. 24
Response
Ah, there is a problem in that regard with even using Deut. 24 because
it speaks about a man putting away his wife because he "hates"
her..............in such cases, it appears she can marry again. Is this
the case with Jesus' teachings? Deut. 24 and Mt. 5, 19, Mk. 10, and
Luke. 16 are not apples to apples. Jesus taught something VERY different
than we see in Deut. 24............Jesus taught what we see in Hosea/Gomer's
case......a case in which she DID return to her 1st
husband.
Comment/question
If we agree that there was no defilement in the second marriage, and we
agree that in the OT case the second marriage covenant was valid, there
still remains the question about why there was a prohibition about
remarrying the first husband. My view is because that it is because it
makes it much easier to break the second vow, when the first husband is
willing and maybe trying to persuade his wife to return to him.
Response
Absolutely, it is "easier" to break a second vow if one's first husband
is willing to reconcile..........as it should be, in my opinion, since I
don't believe a second vow overrules the first one honored by God. I
think though, emotionally, many will suffer. However, in the long run
God will be glorified by such acts of repentance, as it is HIS will that
covenant couples return to their covenant---the one HE entered into and
rejoin the one He joined them to---for life.
What you said above makes no sense to me in light of what we read there
in Deut. 24.........even if the second husband dies, she is prohibited
to return to her first, so she would not be treating her second vow
flippantly if that marriage was dissolved anyways, would she?
My view on Deut. 24 is that BECAUSE the husband put away his wife for
being defiled, it was HIS PUNISHMENT to never again be able to have her.
See, even if she is free from her second husband, she cannot return to
him. I believe that was to discourage frivilous divorce.........to make
a man KNOW, he shall NEVER, EVER have his wife back, should he chuck her
away. I have read some interesting studies on this passage. It has been
said that in that day, the man received quite a nice dowry from his
bride's family. If a man put away his wife, he lost the dowry. Some may
have been tempted to again try to regain the money that came with this
wife---hence to prohibition to marry her again. I don't know about that
as it is merely speculation.
In any case, what we do know is that in the NT, adultery DOES occur with
a new marriage and it doesn't appear anywhere that as long as the 1st
spouse lives, the second marriage is anything but adultery.
Comment/question
If you define reconciliation as including divorce and a return to the
former spouse, but that is not the definition of reconciliation.
Reconcile - (Greek diallasso) - to renew friendship with one
Websters
cause to become amicable: to reconcile hostile persons.
to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.).
To reestablish a close relationship, as in marriage.
Response
If one is committing adultery against one's spouse (and that is what
Jesus calls remarriage), then yes, reconciliation on the part of the
erring spouse would be to reestablish the marital relationship---since
there is no indication in scripture that Jesus sees the adulterous
relationship as anything other than adulterous. As for the third party,
reconciliation would come in the form of sincere apology(asking for
forgiveness) and the forsaking of sin with that person's spouse. Then,
and only then, would the "guilty" in such cases be free to come to the
altar of God and bring Him offerings.
Comment/question
Sometimes reconciliation only leads to friendship. No hostility and warm
wishes for the other party. Sometimes it results in a restoration of the
marriage. The parties involved are the only ones qualified to make that
determination after they have sought the Lord individually.
Response
Whether a friendship occurs or not is not the issue. If one has stolen,
in reconciliation/restoration, they give back what they have stolen. If
the Lord says the thing stolen(a spouse) cannot be kept by the
stealer(adulterer), it matters not whether the one offended wants what
they have been joined with by God back.
Comment/question
There are many divorced couples who are great friends. They have been
able to forgive one another for whatever offenses occured during the
marriage. Reconciliation does not carry with it a command to return to
the former spouse. There are those who have been reconciled and never
remarried their former spouse.
Response
In regards to marital relationship, that is not true reconciliation.
What God has joined, let no man separate. It is God's will for that
which He joins to remained joined, or if separate, to be restored. Only
man's sinfulness keeps what God joined together apart.
Comment/question
If one insist that reconciliation means divorce the current and
remarry the former, then those who choose not to return to the former
after divorce would still be out of order according to how this doctrine
is stretched. The passage in Matthew does not support a remarriage to
the former. It does not go that far.
Response
Oh yes, it goes that far and much father. Jesus doesn't recognize
adulterous unions as lawful. He calls them adultery. Husbands and wives
every day enter into adultery and then forsake their sin and are
restored. How the civil authorities have entered the process does not
change how God still views the union He joined together, nor does it
change how He views those who have joined themselves in sinful
relationships.
Comment/question
No. What is says is that He won't accept the offerings if you have not
made the attempt to renew the friendship with the offended party.
Response
Scripture does not say "friendship"----it says that such persons are to
be reconciled. One cannot be "reconciled" when they have another's
spouse as their own and refuse to forsake that sinful relationship. They
may kid themselves into believing they can keep that which the Lord
calls adultery, trying to be "nice" to the one offended, but God is not
mocked. He hears the cries of those who have been forsaken---whether it
be spouse or brother/sister/friend in Christ. The Lord will hold us
accountable in how we treat our brothers/ sisters.
Comment/question
There is a balance here that is missed many times by folks who are
controlling for example. It is not peaceful to ever force your desires
on another person. If they don't want to be with you, you should leave
them alone and pray. If they choose not to return, then it is very
hostile to try and make them come back to you and it's even more out of
order to use the Word of God to do so.
Response
Oh, I agree with that. If the person does not come back, they have their
own problems with the Lord---above and beyond their marriage. Showing
them God's Word will not work because they are rejecting of God's ways
anyways. When one is of that mindset, they will not receive God's Word,
so all one is truly left to do is pray that the Lord penetrate such a
one's heart and draw them to repentance.
Comment/question
I may be, as a divorcee for example, perfectly fine with being Jim's
friend but just because he wants to be married again, doesn't mean I'm
obligated to do so. If Jim refuses to be friends with me because he
wants more, then my offerings are acceptable to God. His will not be.
Response
Well, if "Jim" has truly repented for the cause of separation, then yes
you would be in sin if you did not reconcile. Jim would not be in sin by
him desiring to rejoin with the person God joined him to. He may be
sinning in how he is going about trying to reconcile, but wanting to
reconcile and not wanting to be "just friends" is not sin.
Again, "whatsoever God has joined together, let not man separate". If a
woman had the need to separate due to sin in the marriage, the Lord
commands she remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband. If such a
woman took another man as husband, she now becomes an adulteress(Rom.
7:2-3)----much more so if she has taken a sister's husband as her
own.........and the same would be said for a man who does not remain
"unmarried", but instead joins himself with another woman/another man's
wife.
Comment/question
There is scripture that says specifically to not go back to
the first spouse after marrying after divorce (Deut 24). But it is
continually ignored.... as is the parts in 1 Corinthians 7 that deal
with marrying after being loosed from a spouse or abandonment.
I expect that the treatment of these verses will remain the same....
Response
It is not ignored. We have addressed Deut. 24 MANY times. I
think you just do not like what has been said in regards to the OT laws
made specifically for Israel, the truth that in the OT remarriage did
not =adultery, and NT teachings that remarriage=adultery as spoken by
Jesus and Paul. As for I Cor. 7:15, Paul never taught that the bond of
marriage was dissolved, releasing the deserted one to pursue remarriage.
Paul taught that only DEATH dissolved the bond of marriage, giving the
right to remarry.
Comment/question
The fact that Deut says that if a man divorces his wife and
she marries someone else, and then she is either divorced again or
widowed she cannot under any circumstance be reunited with her former
husband, which is described as "abomination," clearly shows that
remarried is a state recognized biblically.
Abomination means God finds it absolutely detestable. He does not change
so you cannot just write this off as "...the law which passed away."
Response
Read Jeremiah 3:1.........also, explain David taking back
Michal after she was married to another man..........then explain why it
was in the OT a woman who marries again is NOT looked at as an
adulteress, but in Jesus' teachings in the NT a divorced woman IS looked
at as an adulteress if she marries again while her husband is still
alive.
Comment/question
The divorce was never legal, Saul did it arbitrarily
without any legal cause or legal course.
That doesn't prove what you say it proves.
Response
What makes the rejoining of an original marriage couple in
Deut.24 an abomination------the rejoining of such AFTER a divorce or
the rejoining of such AFTER a third party has entered the fray or the
rejoining of the original couple AFTER the man has treated the covenant
of marriage in such a flippant way (NOT wanting his wife, then wanting
her after she has been another man's wife)?
Comment/question
Because the divorce was completed legally. Saul couldn't
break the marriage contract, because he wasn't one of the ones held in
binding by the covenant.
Response
Yes, true. Because David did not divorce his wife(OT),
she was still his wife........and even though she "married" another
man(was committing adultery), she did not belong to the second
"husband"---though she entered into marriage with him. Her being
"defiled" by being with another man did not stop David from taking her
back, nor should it stop anyone from taking back their covenant spouse
who no longer is involved in an adulterous relationship.
In the same way, in the NT, we see Jesus teaching that divorce does NOT
dissolve what He put together, nor does a new marriage nullify what God
joined together. A man/woman CAN take back what is theirs because the
ONE FLESH was NOT dissolved........the second relationship is not lawful
in the sight of God (as was the case with Michal and her second
husband).
Comment/question
No... had the divorce been legal, then you might have a leg
to stand on... apples and oranges...
ETA
All you've proved that if a women is given to another man illegally (no
binding divorce) by her father, she may return to her husband.
Response
Exactly, the point. In the OT, a divorce did dissolve a
marriage and a woman was NOT an adulteress if she remarried (at least
that is not found in the passage). What we do find in the OT is that if
a woman marries unlawfully(as was the case with Michal), her husband CAN
take her back, even though she has been with another man(in marriage).
The "abomination" then is not in her being with another man, is it?
In like fashion, we see then in the NT, that when a person has entered
an unlawful marriage (in the Lord's eyes), the person remains bound to
the the one God joined them to----irregardless if there has been vows
taken in marriage. The marriage is "null and void" in God's eyes, it is
adultery----just as Michal's "marriage" was.
Comment/question
Can you show me where David ever gave her a "get,"
or certificate of divorce? If he did not disolve the marriage, then it
was not this situation.
Do not be swayed by our modern sense of egalitarianism in what was
called sin and what was not.
Response
No, you are 100% correct. David did not give her a
'get'........their marriage was still binding according to OT practice.
Even though Michal was "with" another man, David taking her back was not
an abomination. So with that in mind, if Jesus does not observe a
divorce as dissolving a marriage(one HE joined together), why is
returning to one's spouse in NT times an "abomination"? What do you
believe IS the abomination of Deut. 24:1-4?
Comment/question
Deut 24:4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may
not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that
is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the
land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.
I believe it is narrowly defined by the text itself. A man marries a
wife and for some reason (we do not know the real meaning of ervah)
divorces her. She then marries another man and is subsequently divorced
or widowed. If the first husband remarries her, it is the abomination
described here.
Response
You still didn't answer my question. What is the
abomination to you: that the woman vowed to another man, that the woman
was "with" another man, that the husband put her away for uncleanness,
then would take her back after being with another man?
Comment/question
It seems quite clear to me that (c) is the only one
specifically stated in the text. Although the term "uncleanness" is a
guess.
Response
Ok, so do you believe the "abomination" would be with the
husband for doing such a thing(treating the marriage covenant in such a
flippant way), or do you believe the abomination is directed at the wife
(for being with another man)?
I personally think that the abomination is that the husband put away his
wife for "uncleanness" or something along those lines (which WAS
tolerated, as Jesus says), yet would want that same wife back,
AFTER she was even MORE "unclean" by being with another man.
Such actions concerning the marriage covenant were abominable. It seems
to me that this prohibition was a punishment against the man........and
would hopefully give them pause before doing/causing something so
irreversible.
The big difference between the NT and OT is that this putting away was
"permitted/tolerated" by Moses. However, we do not see such toleration
of this in the NT. Where in the OT it was not spoken the woman who
marries again commits adultery, in the NT Jesus does say that those who
marry again after a divorce commit adultery..........why? Because the
divorce does not severe what God has joined together---hence when one
marries another, they are committing adultery against their TRUE
covenant marriage partner.
Comment/question
But he
(ex-husband) cannot come back to me, as God said that is an abomination
in HIS eyes.
Response
Sister, let me ask you to please really study the meaning of Deuteronomy
24, in light of the OT passages I will talk about below, as well as how
Jesus views a second illicit marriage. Ask yourself these questions: If
God was talking about the taking back of a covenant spouse AFTER they
had married another as what the abomination was, what did He mean in
Jeremiah 3:1? Did David sin when he took his wife Michal back from her
second husband? Did Hosea sin when he took back Gomer? (Hosea 2:7) If
God Himself calls a second union adultery(not a marriage HE joins), is
not TRUE repentance FORSAKING the adulterous relationship? Is going back
to one's original spouse after they have committed adultery an
abomination? Please ponder these things. Blessings.
Comment/question
What if I should go back and remarry my first partner,
which also is wrong.
Response
If Jesus did not dissolve a first marriage to begin with,
it is NOT wrong to reconcile. As a matter of fact, it is putting things
right since God Himself said that what He joins together will NO LONGER
BE TWO.............
Man likes to think he has the power to put asunder what God has joined,
but he/she does not have that power. If the ONE is no longer TWO, they
are not able to be split apart, unless it is an act by God HImself.
Comment/question
(Name Deleted) continually repeats an argument based on the
Hebrew grammar of Duet. 24 to explain why the plain sense understanding
this verse should be ignored, but there is absolutely no Hebrew scholars
that would give any credibility to his explanation, and as a student of
Hebrew I can tell you that his argument is completely without merit i.e.
he is bluffing and hoping no one knows better
Response
There are Hebrew scholars and those who KNOW of the
cultural practices that will say that the reason this prohibition was
given was due to MONETARY gain by the husband who would want his
disgarded wife back. They will say that the "defilement" was in regards
to the man's intentions. This was a "law" for the nation of Israel. It
was not a law given to all the nations. We also see that in this action,
the woman who is put away is NOT charged with adultery, so Deut. 24 is
not even applicable to what Jesus and Paul taught on divorce/remarriage.
I find it interesting that many say we are no longer "under the law",
yet they go back to the Old Testament laws given to Israel to prove that
a wife/husband should not repent of their adultery and return to their
one God joined them to.
Comment/question
The Lord Himself say that is defilement , abomination to
take ex spouse back, who had remmarried with another. What The Lord
joined together was defiled and is abomination to be together again as
it was before defilement...it was put asunder before His own eyes, as
abomination is a terrible situation of a state that before was pure in
marriage bed. That is terrible.
Response
So you do not believe that ANY marriage in which adultery
has taken place should be restored---because it has now been "defiled"?
I think you will have much problems with trying to prove this idea based
upon scripture (see Hosea, see Jeremiah 3, see the example of David and
Michal). The thing is that if God does not recognize a divorce as
dissolving what He joined together (and scripture says that He doesn't
recognize it), then the original marriage is still ONE FLESH in the eyes
of God----it matters not that the new pair have a piece of paper saying
they are now joined in marriage. We see that very example with
Herod/Herodias. Even after their marriage to each other, John made it
quite clear that Herodias did not belong to Herod. She belonged to his
brother, Philip.
Comment/question
Yes sure the Child of God must forgive
but to reconcile it needs two in the same step for it to happen. God
does not reconcile with those who are not repentant and seek
forgiveness. What you seem to disregard is the hardened heart state of a
person before the Lord...
You can say there is no if with God but is not what Himself says in Hid
Word. The Word of God is full of "Ifs" conditions to follow Him. If one
does not believe in Lord Jesus the Only way, If one does not walk in the
Spirit, If you don't abide in Christ and Him in you, If you take the
narrow way, if you trust and obey, If you submit to God, there are more
then 1500 verses in the Bible with If, the Precious Promises of God and
its conditions.
Response
I agree that in order for TRUE reconciliation to take
place, there must be repentance. However, the problem lies with man and
his timing. If repentance does not happen soon enough, they then believe
that they are "free" to then find another. Scripture does not teach
that. Scripture teaches that love never fails............love is long
suffering.........love hopes all things. If one says to themselves,
"this person is hopeless...........they will never come to repentance!",
is this the Love that is spoken of in I Corinthians 13----the love that
believers claim is within them? Scripture teaches us that faith is the
substance of things HOPED for............do we have faith if we have
lost hope for the one who is wayward?
Comment/question
He does know who are those who belong to Him. Teaching what
He does not and try guessing the state of those who harden their hearts
by adultery and remarried,and to an spouse to wait for them, is not what
the Lord said.. He already said by doing so is defilement, abomination
to go back to ex-spouse who remarried. Sure the Children of God listen
to Him in His World and search Scriptures as Bereans. Our waiting is in
Him alone and obedient to Him alone walking by the Spirit.
Response
You sure are trying hard not to see what Jesus says about
the divorced, Adriana. If Jesus doesn't recognize a divorce as
dissolving the union HE joined together, then the second union is
nothing but adultery----period, because the original covenant STANDS IN
FORCE. The adultery does not dissolve it, nor does new vows (see Romans
7:2-3 as well as the biblical examples I gave you above.)
Comment/question
For sure one thing I sure take very serious is the fear of
the Lord and what Himself says and His perspectives as a Holy God. When
He says something to truly take to the heart and very very serious obey.
Lord have mercy on us and Blessed be Your name as You alone are God!
Response
I absolutely agree with you. I would not want to be found
in adultery---whether it was "extra" marital or by remarriage. The fear
of the Lord is something that is not in much of the professing Church
today. That is why we see rampant sin in those who profess to know Him.
They acknowledge Him as their Saviour, but they just cannot see Him as a
HOLY GOD who will judge ALL of mankind.
Comment/question
Are we taking about adultery or to put away a spouse for
any reasons? I sure talking about adultery because to put away for any
reason leads to adultery when person remarried anyways and sure in those
circumstances it applies "remain unmarried" or reconciled if remarriage
did not happened because it would be defiled and abominations go back to
ex-spouse (everybody sure loosed one way or another by sinning before
God and law), as the adulteress were sentenced to die by the Law of
Moses in Leviticus. Yep swapping in the ways of men is nono for sure.
Adultery we know was death punishment...so serious. Still nobody now
days is stoning no adulterous (well some Muslim countries still practice
that..)
Response
You are stuck on the law of MOSES (Deut. 24:1-4). That
seems to color everything you say in regards to those who enter into
adultery. Please explain to me what makes a person defiled and unable to
return to their covenant spouse. Is it adultery or is it the remarriage?
Does what Jesus said in Matthew 5, 19, Mark.10, and Luke 16 apply
exactly to what Moses permitted in Deut. 24?
Comment/question
The truth in the Word is that people could not move on as
the way the please, but move on based on the law of God. And sure if you
were sinned against by adultery , as it was punished by death one would
become widow and sure widow could marry again in the Lord. Then sure the
Word of God remains as the seriousness of adultery, as defilement and
abomination before the Lord to receive back ex who remarried. The Word
says that based on God's perspectives as we can read in it
Response
It seems to me that concerning "punishments" you are stuck
in the Old Testament. Do you not understand that Jesus gave GRACE to the
adulteress----she did not die for her sin of adultery. The Lord gave her
chance to "go and sin no more"............just as He does for each of
us. Jesus changed MUCH from the OT (see Matthew 5). He gives us the
opportunity to forsake our sin and to follow HIM. The OT "law" on
adultery made sense-----if a spouse was no longer alive/around, there
would not be what we see today in Step families where there is a living
spouse(chaos, financial issues leading some first spouses/second spouses
to be very angry about not being cared for due to divided incomes,
children heartbroken because their parents are with other people/are
taking care of other's children, etc, etc). Do you honestly believe the
Lord thinks this is a "good" thing to offer the one who has had adultery
committed against them?
Comment/question
I do believe of the Bible tells us so..as in NT the way is
forgive to be forgiven, but there is a great violence before the Lord
when person divorce by put away and any reasons, and the state before
the Lord when an adulteress remarried, to go back is abomination and it
takes another marriage to remarried those who divorced..and abomination
and defilement implicates that the 1ts covenant were broken, as the Lord
says that it is abomination...People must not mock the Lord as to harden
one hearts and step and step in more sins is not a light thing as to
"wash" the way of men do, but it takes the Blood, precious blood of
Christ. The spouse sinned against by adultery do have a stand before the
Lord, clearly. Sure forgiveness is required and reconciliation, but
after adultery remarried the situation is abomination as the one who
remarried did so contrary to what the Word of God says. Then my standing
base on the Word is that clearly, there are 2 very different standings
as the one who sinned against the other who were sinned against, before
the Lord.
Response
Like I said, I think you are really stuck on the law of
Moses and do not see that Jesus was nullifying ALL in regards to ANY
toleration/permission to divorce/remarry. The fact that Jesus labels a
new marriage as ADULTERY means that He does not see a divorce as
dissolving what He joined together. If you are believing that a new
marriage nullifies the marriage God joined together, I would truly like
to see New Testament scripture which shows this. If you say adultery
destroys the covenant of marriage, again, I would like to see scriptural
evidence of this. In the Old Testament the covenant was not destroyed by
adultery...........the adultery lead to the DEATH of the guilty----DEATH
destroyed/nullified the covenant of marriage. We see the SAME thing
spoken in Romans 7:2-3. The woman in Paul's illustration is not freed
from her husband due to her adultery. Paul teaches that she is only free
with his DEATH. DEATH frees one/both from the covenant. You will find
nowhere that Paul teaches divorce or adultery dissolves the covenant of
marriage for those God has joined together.
Comment/question
About Herodias and Heroes they on top of all sins were
committing incest..I am telling you Cindy,.the nobles did what they
pleased and go sinning, if was another Jew sure would be stoned to
death, as Philip by the law to receive her back was abomination, by the
Law...and sure John the Baptist died because of his godly standing about
situation going on. And sure lets not forget the adulterous is
adulterous because they broke covenant, they are not free as the sinned
against was and is. Who were to be put to death in this situation by the
law of God? Those 2 of course...they were "untouchables" in their
thinking and ways, but the Lord sure is just and Himself do justice
because it belongs to Him. Amen
Response
By the law, Philip did not divorce Herodias, she divorced
him (unlawfully) and married his brother. So, in fact, if we are to go
by the law of Moses it would NOT have been an abomination for Philip to
reclaim his wife. David reclaimed his wife from her second husband, and
there is no record that what David did was sin in the Lord's sight. What
CAN be ascertained in the Herod/Herodias situation is that she did not
belong to Herod----she belonged to Philip, irregardless of the divorce,
remarriage, adultery. She was NOT Herod's wife in the eyes of God.
Comment/question
Yes, men mess up big time as always, the Lord is merciful
and have great patience as He wants everybody to repent and come to
salvation in Him that His blood, only His blood covers the sins and we
take His righteousness...the situation is that covenant before the Lord
is very much serious, although the world change laws and see it the way
they see it, still in God eyes things are the same, abominations still
the same before Him. Each one walks before the Lord and will stand
before the Lord a individuals. The Lord work on men's hearts and do the
convincing, if one hardens and hardens, goes unrepentant and dies
unrepented, they sure will die in their sins. I am sure do pray for
prodigals a the Lord as the prodigal Father is waiting more the any of
us for their return. Still only the Lord knows regarding prodigals.
Response
I agree............however, we do not know about the
prodigals, yet many today believe it quite ok to give up on them and