Is divorce and remarriage permissible for Christians?

Jesus said "saving for the cause of Fornication."

(MATTHEW 5:32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (KJV)

Jesus seems pretty consistant with His doctrine, It was seen as "Take the Wrong, and even take more wrong out of love."

(MATTHEW 5:40) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. (KJV)
(MATTHEW 5:39) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (KJV)
MATTHEW 5:41) And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. (KJV)

But having it ok to get a divorce if a spouse cheats. does not take any more wrong out of love. Jesus is consistant. The Church has misunderstood what Jesus was saying. First we need to see Fornication according to God's words.

(ISAIAH 23:17) And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the Lord will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth. (KJV)
(ISAIAH 23:18) And her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the Lord: it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for her merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the Lord, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing. (KJV)

Tyre's hire is to commit fornication with everyone, But that hire is seen in the next verse as Holiness unto the Lord.

God speaks in Similitudes:
(HOSEA 12:10) I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.(KJV)

The day of the cross is as 1,000 years. Jesus is alive as Adam (similitude) for 930 years, He is dead or desolate as Jerusalem (all curses for Jerusalem falls on Christ.) 70 years. After Jesus is revived He loves all mankind. This then seen as Holiness unto the Lord.

For a Jew to make a marriage or to love a Non-Jew was as fornication. Marriage seen also as between believers, so to reach for a non-believer seen as reaching outside the Marriage.

Now to put the reason for a divorce into the context God wanted. "If your spouse loves another, Take the Wrong and set them free so they can be with the one they now love."

This now fits all of the other things Jesus spoke of us doing, always out of love take the wrong. Even if you do not want to let your spouse go. Take the wrong so they can be happy together, in this there is no wrong on your part. for it is done out of the love God put in your heart with knowing Him.

Ken

 

Huh?

 

Never met someone into numerology eh, sir ed?

Yes, A Christian can divorce his wife under the following scripture:

Matthew 19:1-12
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; [2] And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] 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.
[10] His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. [11] But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. [12] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

This shows what garbage 'Catholic tradition'-- or any "tradition"-- is. The only way to differentiate that Jesus said "This is my body" in regard to the bread he passed out and he meant it literally [even though his physical body was right there housing his vocal organs]- but then he said "...except for porneia" and he did NOT mean it literally-- is to make yourself a mindless puppet to some organization. It's little wonder there are so many different views in relation to so many doctrinal points, since every Christian is selective as to what scripture must be accepted denotatively and which is not.

 

When the disciples said it is not expedient to marry, they were saying the same thing that Paul said. That a person will have more of themselves to give to the service of God if they are single.

Second, Why is it OK in this case not to just accept what Jesus said. When we discuss remitting and retaining sin and "This is my body" it says what it says and you won't discuss that there is more to it. Now we have a scripture that says what it says, "except for unchasity" and it doesn't mean what it says. It seems you interpret scripture based on what the RCC says already. You are using scripture to prove a position instead of studying for yourself and developing a position, which is a huge difference.

Also, Carson I must say I am surprized that you lack the dignity to respond to the other thread. You know the one with "real" in the title. I showed where you said what you said, which is what you asked and now you start other topics and ignore my question. If I am right and you are wrong on that thread then admit that and we can move forward. Remember, Pride comes before a fall!!!

In Christ,
Brian

[ April 17, 2002, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

 

Yes, Carson, divorce is permissable if the other abandons the marriage in a continuing adulterous relationship. The mate left behind, after the formality of the divorce is finished, should take time to heal and get close to God and not go out looking for a replacement.

But if, at a later time, God brings another into the divorce victim's life, then yes, remarriage is OK.

I was abandon by my children's father (he left us all, with no further contact after the divorce was final) almost eleven years ago after 20 years of marriage. He had evidently been unfaithful a good part of that time. I had not. He married his 'latest' within a couple of months of the divorce being final.

For seven years (not on purpose as per the number, please!) I refused to speak to any man in any situation which might give any encouragement or cause any other woman even a suspician of the intense pain I had suffered when I was thrown away like a used and crumpled paper cup.

And then the Lord brought Barry into my life. When he first mentioned the possibility of marriage my response was "friendships are so nice!"

Two years later I married him. He is the only man I have ever met who references every moment of his life to Christ. I am intensely proud of him and secure with him. We have been blessed with a love I did not know could exist in this life on this earth. My children are our children and they love him. On our wedding program we put the words to the old Barbra Streisand song from "Funny Girl"

a feeling deep in your soul says you were half now you're whole

For a long time I did not think remarriage was possible. Now I think God for His love, mercy, and provision for us all.

 

Are you the same helen I know from CARM?

Yes.

 

Good answer Helen.
Common sense when reading the Bible and in your Christian life is a really good thing!
There are reasons, not to be taken lightly, for divorce. I'm soooo tired of people trying to "improve" upon what God has already said, declaring divorce wrong for every single person and looking down on those who have had the misforune to go through it, without even bothering to know the circumstances. Jesus himself didn't do that, what gives anyone else the right?
And right Helen, about taking time to heal. My divorce isn't even final until May 15th (hopefully) and I've heard everything, people trying to set me up, people showing interest, and others TELLING me I need to get remarried right away for support. It's disgusting!
da Gina

 

Hey Carson, If I offened you by my comments I apoligize. They were meant to get your attention and were done more in humor then anything, which is why I put the "eek" face in. Again, I am sorry for what I said.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Not really interested in getting into the debate, I am mainly posting for fyi. The following is the "unofficial official" position of the LCMS.

http://www.lcms.org/ctcr/docs/divrem-1.html

 

< The problem lies in that we disagree in how to take this exception clause literally. >

Now ain't that a sticky wicket? Literally in Greek? literally in English? literally in Latin? I haven't looked at that passage in Latin, but otherwise the only difference is that some English translations are more restrictive than the Greek in that "fornication" does denote intercourse between 2 not married to each other.

But regardless [and to the real point], if anyone attemtps to put greater restrictions on people than scripture itself does, it should be regarded as incompetent.

 

Hi Carson, Hope this day finds you well! I agree with you that some people should stay single to serve God better. Before I was saved I thought priests and monks were silly to do this but scriptually they are doing the preferred thing. I cannot deny that the Bible says that some choose to be single for life. Here is the question though. Paul says clearly it is better to marry then to burn with lust. Paul clearly understood the sexual drive that people have and how many people needed to be married to deal with it. If remarriage is not permissable what would happen to the young man who was married, whose wife leaves him never to be seen again, since he has established for his life that he needs the imitacy of a wife. Is he supposed to just put aside all of the emotions and drive that he has naturally for the next 40 years or so. --Or-- did the writings of Paul give us an out when it comes to the problem of remarriage.

I look forward to your response,
Brian

 

Carson: I had thought that remarriage was forbidden only on the part of the spouse who had committed adultery or divorced for unbiblical reasons.
It is said that if an unbeliever leaves a believer, the believer is free to remarry, doesn't it?
Gina

 

Carson, you disappoint me. You are smarter than this, look at what you quoted in making your challenge. Hermas isn't even recognized as part of the canonical books. So Clement's argument which as far as I can tell is based on Hermas is going to be looked at as "that's nice what does scripture say."

Yes we acknowledge the ECF's to be smart men even cite them for precedence in a given interpretation of accepted Scripture, but we also maintain they are falliable.