The thing is, every Jew knew that divorce did dissolve marriage. Only a few here seem to not understand that. Either your understanding is wrong, or Jesus did not know what the word divorce meant”.
How can a divorce “dissolve” a marriage, yet JESUS charge one with committing adultery AFTER the divorce? It is a hard question to answer holding such a stance.
What you have a problem with is that Jesus, being a Jew, fully understood that divorce meant dissolution of a marriage. It is also problematic for your position in that since Jesus, a Jew, and Paul, a Jew, both used the same understanding of divorce, and that no Jew questioned its use, and the Jews knew what divorce was, that the historical position of the Jews is that divorce is dissolution of the marriage. It is also problematic in that the historical position of the Jews is that second marriage was allowed, always had been, and still is.
Are you saying that you believe Jesus, though prohibiting divorce in His response to the Pharisees, was actually saying “well, guys, I am coming strongly against divorce, prohibiting it for all reasons, but one…………but IF YOU DO divorce for other reasons, and then decide to marry another, I will “join” that union…………because as you all know, divorce dissolves the”one flesh'”……………..I won’t like it, but I will abide with your decisions and even bless those things I’ve prohibited.”
If this is what you are maintaining, then yes, I have issue with your interpretations because they are diametrically opposed to Jesus’ very words on the subject. I don’t see the treating of marriage any different today than what the Pharisees were doing in Jesus’ day—-divorcing for “any cause”……….
In Deut. 24:1-4, marriage after a divorce WAS allowed—with a new marriage following. Never do we see such a marriage labeled “adultery”…………….yet, when asked about divorce during Jesus’ walk upon the earth, He told those listeners, that WHOSOEVER shall divorce and marry another COMMITTETH ADULTERY. What was “allowed” in the OT does not dictate the meaning of what Jesus spoke. Things changed in many different ways, not just concerning marital adultery. What changed with marriage is not only very clear by Jesus’ EXACT words, but it is clear by the response of His disciples—who knew about divorce practices of the day. They were SHOCKED by Jesus’ response.
In this case, Fred is justified if he divorces Sally, since Sally is an adulterer. Since the divorce is lawful in the eyes of God, then naturally if Fred remarries, it is a blessed union and God will smile upon it. Sally though, has sinned.
If Sally remarries, she and the man she is with are considered adulterers because Sally is sinful. But if Sally comes before God and asks God for forgiveness and genuinely repents, then I believe that God will mercifully forgive her adulterous ways and then she can remarry if she wants to.
How would Sally be an adulteress if her 1st husband remarries—in your opinion? Don’t you believe the divorce dissolved her marriage? If so, wouldn’t she be free to marry? In other words, if you believe adultery allows a marriage to be dissolved through a divorce, how could Sally then be guilty if she marries another man AFTER her husband divorces and marries another woman?
If you’re divorced, reconcile, because the marriage is sacred in the eyes of God and you must pray that God will fix it. If however your ex-spouse has found another person, then in God’s eyes it is ADULTERY (Matt 5:32) and then you are allowed to remarry so you can go ahead.
But if you’re divorced and remarried without knowing that it was a sin to do so, then pray for God’s forgiveness and he will forgive you of what you have done. And then don’t look back, but look ahead at what you have and keep on living.
If you believe that adultery dissolves the “one flesh” joined by God how do you reconcile what Paul taught in Rom. 7:2-3 and I Cor. 7:39………………and I Cor. 7:10-11? In none of those passages does Paul ever gives allowance for another marriage to take place while one has a living spouse—-EVEN though he specifically mentions adultery/remarriage in Rom. 7:2-3. He also never mentions divorce due to adultery dissolving the “one flesh”—–He only speaks of death dissolving the “one flesh”.
I see this as a “command to the Saints who are equally yoked. For example my husband and I are both Christians. If we are both having problems living with one another for a host of reasons that can range from mental/emotional illness to one being a spend thrift or another being too lazy to work to help the family (causing the family harm – may be a gambling or drinking addiction) Then as “Christians” after applying Matthew 18, seeking wise counsel and trying our very best we are permitted to divorce. Because I “know” that my husband is a Christian then I am not to remarry. Rather I would believe that God would have me to continue to pray for him and spend more of my energy doing the kingdom’s work and providing for my family.
Do you believe that some divorces “dissolve” the one flesh, while other divorces do not? What I have seen concerning the Mt. 18 process is that MANY Christians use that to ultimately label a spouse who has confessed to being a believer—-an unbeliever—when they don’t repent quick enough to suit everyone. Then they apply I Cor. 7:15 to them and believe they then can not only divorce, but remarry—-a more “Godly” spouse. That, is beyond grieving, that we, the professed Body of Christ would twist the Word of God in such a way to give us “allowances” that God never gave nor intended.
In Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 specifically. When He says “but I say unto you” he is not negating the divorce certificate, He is negating the divorce for any reason. He affirms the divorce certificate for reason of porneia on the part of the erring spouse.
He doesn’t address the divorce certificate AT ALL.
Jesus was speaking of perversion of divorce, not the abolishment of divorce.
Really? Can you show where Jesus approved of divorce with people who were made “one flesh” by God? I cannot. What I see Jesus saying is that Moses gave them a STATUTE, not part of God’s law—which BTW, did not include divorce. Moses “SUFFERED” them to divorce their spouses because of HARD HEARTS. It’s not that difficult to see. Jesus plainly spoke what HIS intent for marriage was, and a permission to “put asunder” was not in there. Even when Paul taught on marriage and a person departing from it, he referred back to the LORD’s teaching on the matter of “one flesh”.
If two people make a covenant that their marriage will consist of just one husband and wife union and then one of them becomes one flesh with another person then they have brought another party into the covenant, breaching the covenant … in which case, a new covenant will have to be made in order for the relationship to be restored. Clearly the old covenant is no longer a valid covenant.
What biblical references lead you to this position? Do you not realize that fidelity (forsaking all others) within a marriage is just ONE of the promises made concerning the vows of marriage? By your thinking, if even ONE promise is not kept, the covenant is made invalid. I just don’t see that in the NT. Also, we have to remember the “covenant” we are in just doesn’t involve two—it involves THREE and the third person is the most important one in that it is HE that joins the two as ONE. He and He alone determines when the covenant is no longer in effect and He has spoken—at death the covenant will no longer be in effect (Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). That is why Jesus calls a marriage after a divorce adultery—because a divorce DOES NOT dissolve the previous union. It is still in tact, so when a new person enters the picture, they are judged by Jesus as taking another’s wife/husband.
Remarriage becomes a lawfully joined union the moment two people who are lawfully divorced from previous spouses say “I do.” “Lawfully” meaning that they divorced for biblically acceptable reasons and their divorce is legally complete.
The Lord says that if one marries a divorced person (including the man who marries an INNOCENTLY divorced woman–Mt. 19:9) they commit adultery. The divorce does NOT dissolve the previous marriage, therefore any marriage contracted after a divorce is NOT acknowledged by God as “lawful”. It is considered BY HIM as the sin of adultery.
The marriage vows are not made TO GOD, although they are made in His presence. A marriage covenant, therefore, is a human, not a divine institution.
I disagree completely. Marriage was made by God for man. He is not merely a “witness” to the marriage, He JOINS the two as ONE.
Well, at least you are fully persuaded in your own mind. I am impressed, it is good to see someone who wants to put Gods will ahead of there own. I am not 100% convinced that one can never remarry no matter what, however lucky for my I will never have to worry about that for my own life.
You are blessed, (name deleted). I know of quite a few people who have had the scriptures opened up to them and they are remarried. The turmoil they go through is just awful—–wanting to believe what is popularly practiced this day and seeing what God’s Word says. It’s a very difficult place to be in when you’re in a happy second marriage.
My only other input is that if someone separates from there spouse and ends up divorced and the other spouse remarries then I believe that frees them up to be able to be remarried.
I disagree with this. I believe the scriptures to teach that the marriage bond lasts until the death of one of the spouses—-no act (continuous lifestyle or one-time act) of adultery dissolves this bond. The clearest evidence of this is Rom. 7:2-3 where Paul uses the example of a woman who gets remarried while her husband is still alive. Paul calls her an adulteress (a title). Her sin was not a one-time offense—-she will remain an adulteress as long as she stays with the other man while her husband lives. In that passage, you will note that not anywhere does Paul say anything other than death dissolves the marriage—–even though he uses the example of an adulterous wife.
Marriage was intended to be permanent, but because sin entered the world, God provided a means of release from bondage to an unrepentant believer through dissolution of marriage, and this release from bondage frees the person to marry again.
And again, you ignore Jesus’ words to the contrary. Divorce does not dissolve what He put together—-otherwise there would be no adultery upon a new marriage—yet, He says there is adultery (defined as: having unlawful relations with one who is NOT your spouse or having unlawful relations with the spouse of another). One can’t be lawfully married to another in the sight of God AND be having unlawful relations……….
As has been stated over and over again, “put away” as used in Matthew 19 is referring to those who “put away” or separated from their wives without giving them a certificate of divorce. Therefore, they were not lawfully divorced and were still married. It is adultery to marry someone who is not legally divorced because the second “marriage” is not legal.
Are you saying that all of Jesus’ teachings about remarriage being adultery have to do with not having a legal document saying that union is dissolved? Do you believe if someone does have the piece of paper, then Jesus doesn’t look at the new union as adultery? Jesus wasn’t addressing the “method” if divorcing……..He was addressing the REASONS why they were divorcing. Never did He mention the necessity of getting a legal document for a divorce to honored by Him.
Now understand this: that is what was said, not divorce, but sending away which literally meant to send away without a divorce certificate. So then you and others, Jesus did not address the divorce certificate and “official divorce” in these passages because He was NOT removing the Law, He was correcting the misunderstanding of the Jews in regards to illegally putting their wives away. Simple. Plain. Consistent.
The truth of the matter is that Jesus nowhere, no place mentions that it is the “certificate of divorce” that will make a “putting away” acceptable to Him. Putting away—with or without a certificate has to do with HARD HEARTS. You cannot get away from this truth. Try as you may to give a importance to a piece of paper that Jesus did not even mention as necessary in the so called “exception clause”.
The ONLY reason one could put away was for PORNEIA(fornication)…………to put away and marry another for any other cause would be to commit adultery. Again, no mention at all of a ‘certificate of divorcement’……..The REASON for putting away is what is being focused on by Jesus, not the method. If the reason for putting away is wrong, the sin of adultery is charged by Jesus to those who marry again——for the innocently put away one as well as the one who put the innocent one away.
Matthew 5:31-32, I affirm again, whoever marries the woman who is not properly divorced will commit adultery, because she is still another man’s wife. She was sent away (apoluo) not divorced by a “get” (apostasion). So there is no condemnation for those legitimately divorced. Blessings all.
Still you continue your focus on the “certificate of divorcement”, which Jesus did not even discuss when speaking about a divorce being permitted. The simple fact was that divorce (with a certificate of divorcement) was due to HARD HEARTEDNESS. Jesus disallows for HARD HEARTEDNESS, with or without a certificate of divorcement. One can be “properly” divorced civilly, yet commit adultery if they marry again—-in God’s sight. Your focus on a piece of paper to say a marriage is dissolved is no better than homosexuals saying a piece of paper makes them “married”………….What saith the Lord?
15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight. 16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. 18 18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
is “highly valued” among men… and there’s a lot of justification for going on…
It is so troubling to me that there are some here who will read this passage and still insist that once one has a paper in hand, they can go ahead and marry another person without committing adultery………
“did God say” indeed………
Malachi 2 is a condemnation by God of those who put away their lawful wives to marry foreign women in order to make alliances with foreign nations. Their “covenant” wives were not lawfully divorced because they had no legal cause for divorce. They would have had to “divorce” them by using foreign laws that just verbally put them away rather than giving them a writ of divorcement. Their subsequent foreign marriages were not lawful under the Law because they weren’t lawfully divorced and were most likely married under foreign laws.
Where would we find in scripture where God was condemning the WAY(without a writ of divorcement) a wife was put away instead of the REASON she was put away? At the time of Malachi, men WERE putting away their wives for no lawful reason……..and it was tolerated as Jesus speaks in Mt.5, 19, Mk 10, Lk. 16.
One thing that many seem to miss in that passage is that God REJECTED the man’s offerings—-in spite of his tearful pleas and such, yet today, this is what people are told will satisfy God and allow a person to keep the spouse Jesus said one was committing adultery with.
History is a very valuable resource in Bible study. I’m sure your aware that having the background of the scripture can help you place scripture in it’s proper context…
Absolutely. Historical practices are helpful in understanding some of what we see presented in scripture. However, what some mistakenly do is point to historical practices as “truth”, when some of those very practices completely oppose the Lord’s Word on the matter. For instance, doing a divorce the supposedly “right” or “wrong” way culturally does not matter. If God does not approve a divorce and does not see it dissolving a marriage, it does not matter how the divorce is accomplished—whether by word and separation or by piece of paper and separation. I find it interesting that there are some who hold so tight to the method of divorce, when Jesus clearly spoke against the PRACTICE of divorce. NONE of the methods of obtaining an unbiblical divorce are ok with the Lord—whether culturally acceptable or not. The only “putting away” that is Ok with Him, is the putting away of an illicit relationship deemed by Him as sin.
Adultery is always condemned as sin and is a legal cause for divorce. If someone is divorced in a “non legal” way then they are NOT divorced and any “remarriage” is not a remarriage and is adultery. Pretty simple. If I’m still legally married to somebody else I can’t get remarried.
Do you believe ALL civil divorces dissolve a marriage joined by God? What exactly do you believe Jesus is meaning when He speaks about those who UNLAWFULLY put away a spouse and remarry? I forgot, is it you who believes as long as someone has a divorce certificate, God honors the next union?
Yes, I believe that ALL civil divorces dissolve a marriage. I also believe that ALL civil marriages are joined by God (excluding homosexual marriages). According to Jesus, unlawfully putting away a spouse was verbally declaring that the marriage was ended and then sending the spouse away without obtaining a Certificate of Divorce…
wow……….The thing is, Jesus never mentions the need for a certificate of divorce so as to avoid adultery in a remarriage. He spoke of the REASONS for putting away—-the one He would acknowledge and those He would NOT.
Matt 19:7″Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
The Pharisees refer to the Certificate of Divorce. Jesus acknowledges the Certificate by confirming that Moses permitted divorce. That is a direct reference to the Law. The Law was given to Moses by God. Scripture declares every word of the Law to be holy and right. Therefore, the Certificate of Divorce (Get) was the lawful way to obtain a divorce.
Jesus NEVER affirms the “get”………if you find where He does, please show it to all of us. As for the above passage, you forgot to add the rest of verse 8:
BUT from the beginning it was not so……………….9: AND I say to you
Mt. 5:32 says the same thing only much more clear is that the only reason to put away is porneia……….no mention of the necessity of a writ of divorcement (the “get”)……
But then again, if person A divorces person B for the wrong reasons, and thus commits marital immorality in that way, then person A is an adulterer. But the divorce STILL dissolves the covenant. Therefore person B is released and not an adulterer because they divorced for reasons of immorality.
No, I do not see. What I see Jesus saying is that even an “innocent” person after a divorce is NOT free to remarry (hence the “put away woman” in Mt. 19:9 AND 5:32 is guilty of adultery if SHE marries—as is anyone who marries her. Why? Because a divorce did NOT dissolve the union GOD joined together. That is reaffirmed by Paul’s teachings in Rom. 7:2-3 and I Cor. 7:39.
It is not the relationship with another person that alone makes them an adulterer or adulteress, it is the means by which they arrived at that situation.
How do you then explain someone who marries a divorced person being guilty of adultery? If the divorce dissolved the marriage in God’s sight, then the divorcee would be FREE to remarry, no? But that is not what we see Jesus saying, not at all…………that is why His disciples were troubled at His words.
If person A went on to marry person C, and because of the immorality of person A in their prior divorce, yes, they are both in adultery UNTIL person A repents of their adultery. Now the consequences of their prior actions in divorce and their remarriage are that they remain married to person C for the rest of their days (assuming person C is not a psycho harlot).
So, a question for you. Can God forgive adultery? Does He forget it?
This I do know, when we repent of ANY sin, God will forgive us. Does He forgive us when we do NOT repent and understand our sin? It doesn’t appear so. Otherwise, Paul would not have mentioned it so many times when warning the BRETHREN not to be deceived…………that those who DO such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. The Lord also speaks about this when in Rev. 20 and 21 He says that those who DON’T repent will have their place in the lake of fire. Continuing in sin and encouraging others to disregard the Lord’s command to repent is serious stuff, affecting one’s eternity. It is a very serious thing to tell people that a divorce dissolves their marriage freeing them to remarry, when the Lord says such ones would be committing adultery.
What reflects Jesus is when each person is obedient to how God leads them personally. For the one called by God to wait perpetually, they must wait. For the one called by God to move on, they must move on. That type of obedience reflects Christ.
See, you are not consistent. Either a divorce dissolves (as you say) or it does not. God is not obscure about this. If a marriage covenant (a covenant marriage) is dissolved, the person is FREE. They do not have to wait perpetually……….yet now you are saying that many who are hearing God say this should wait or they are being disobedient? Does God tell some that to remarry it will be adultery, but tell others to remarry it quite ok? So, what you are really saying is that it depends on what one “feels” or thinks they “hear”? Are you ok with that same mindset concerning other doctrinal issues?
Yes it is what Jesus said. The original Greek clearly refers to a “putting away” as different than “divorced”. And to be properly divorced one must have the “get”, which means they had to take their petition before the rabbi and elders and they had to review the situation.
Yes all things must be done in proper fashion for otherwise, they would be acting just like the Gentiles and that was something God specifically instructed them not to do.
How do you explain that Jesus spoke of woman not divorcing their husbands. That was NOT a Jewish custom. Only the men divorced. Again, Jesus was NOT talking about making sure one put their spouse away in the right fashion.
In the case of blatantly obvious, I would say, yes the civil divorce does dissolve the marriage.
Now in the case where someone wants to get a divorce and does not have justification, what does that indicate about that person? If they have no justifiable excuse, but are intent on the destruction of the marriage, and despite the pleas and desires of the other spouse they continue on this path, then such a person has committed a marital sin by perversion of the marriage and they are themselves the “hard-hearted ones”. And such a person is in fact providing the justification through their own sin for the divorce.
So in such a case, I would say, yes the civil divorce does dissolve the marriage.
Thank you for clarifying that you do NOT believe in just marital immorality as a cause to dissolve a marriage joined by God, but you also include hardheartedness as a reason to allow for the dissolution (civilly recognized, but not, I believe recognized by God) of the marriage.
This is what I find when certain people stand so firmly on their right to divorce/remarry due to “porneia”(Mt. 19:9)…………..they really don’t believe in divorce JUST for porneia………….they believe divorce AND remarriage can happen for ANY reason……..it’s all subjective. You have proven that with your own words, so I really don’t know why you keep going back to just using Mt. 19:9 to justify your position.
The simple truth is that you have brought us right back to what the Pharisees were wanting in regards to their divorce practices……for any and all reasons.
You all keep twisting this…
It is not any reason…. the hard-heartedness of the sinful and abandoning spouse would come under the clause of abandonment (we see in Corinthians)…
The Pharisees liked to add to the law too… So they could appear Holier than the “sinners”….
Take the Word in context – in entirety.
Paul did address couples that are separated…………and he surely did not give desertion as an allowance for remarriage to a different person to occur. He said, per the LORD’s COMMAND, that if one spouse did depart, they were to REMAIN unmarried OR be reconciled to their spouse.
In that passage (I Cor. 7) Paul never states that all couples WILL be restored, but gives commands on what should happen if reconciliation did NOT occur—–remain unmarried.
There is “putting away” as the Gentiles did, something which was not tolerated by God. He introduced order in the chaos of marriage in the region by requiring documentation for both marriages and divorces. Now when one does not properly obtain the “get” to release them from marriage, they are guilty of that sin, that they did not obtain what was necessary, but merely “put away” their wife.
Again, we come back to this. Where did Jesus EVER mention the METHOD or divorce and making sure one did things properly to ensure a couple’s marriage was severed lawfully? He did not. He spoke of the HEART behind divorce. You are doing the very same thing Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for in Mt. 5:32—-
“”Remember the Scripture that says, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him do it legally, giving her divorce papers and her legal rights’? Too many of you are using that as a cover for selfishness and whim, pretending to be righteous just because you are ‘legal.’ Please, no more pretending. If you divorce your wife, you’re responsible for making her an adulteress (unless she has already made herself that by sexual promiscuity). And if you marry such a divorced adulteress, you’re automatically an adulterer yourself. You can’t use legal cover to mask a moral failure.””
Since Paul does not go into the specific details every single time an item of the Law is referenced, there is no inclination to at this point either to set aside the consistent assumption that Paul makes concerning the average understanding of the basics of the Law, at least the most common elements of it like Sabbath, marriage, divorce, etc., and suddenly impart his lack of detail on this one point to be significant. I think that is greatly inconsistent exegesis and an argument from silence.
You make quite an issue of putting away being different than actually putting away with a writ. Why is it you assume in this passage that a “writ” has been issued? (Though I have to make it clear I don’t believe a “writ” makes divorce ok to the Lord, nor dissolves what He joined together).
You need to consider the book of Malachi at the same time as Ezra and Nehemiah as Malachi was written at the same time period. It wasn’t just that the men of Israel had taken foreign wives but they “put away” their Israeli wives to do so. From the language used in Malachi it is evident that the men “put away” their Israeli wives without issuing the “get”.
You got out of the Malachi passage that the Lord was displeased because the men didn’t do the correct paperwork when they put their wives away? Do you not see that the Lord speaks that the first IS(not was) the wife of the covenant? In the OT days, men has MULTIPLE wives. David had multiple wives AND concubines………the concubines, he put away (after they were defiled), yet he did not give them a “get”…………he put them out of his house, took care of them, but no longer “acted” as husband—- and they were NOT free to pursue other relationships(they were considered as living in WIDOWHOOD)(II Sam. 20:3). Did David act in an evil manner?
Isn’t the Malachi passage saying that God hates divorce? Isn’t God saying He is not answering prayer and cries because husbands have broken faith with their wives?
Is He decrying that the documentation isn’t equitable? Like the husbands haven’t divorced them correctly enough?
Absolutely NOT! I can’t seem to understand how anyone could think God is upset with these men because they didn’t “divorce” their wives properly……….the problem was with them forsaking their covenant wives, not the method in which they did it………
I do believe that taking a new vow of marriage after a divorce nullifies the original vow; however, I believe very strongly that the choice to do so would be wrong i.e. sin, but the fact that the vow was entered in sin does not nullify that vow. I think we both agree that someone cannot by vow be bound to two different spouses, the question is which vow takes precedence. My opinion on this is that the choice to make such a vow while reconciliation is still a possibility can only be done by someone while in rebellion towards God, and with the full intent to break the original vow or the assumption that they had already broken it.
Well, I have to disagree with that stance because I don’t believe it to be biblically based. AFTER a divorce, Jesus says that the parties commit adultery. To me, that says Jesus did NOT recognize a divorce as dissolving what HE joined together. If it is still joined then, ANY relationship entered into is adultery………and that is exactly what He states in regards to remarriage. This is also what Paul teaches in Rom. 7:2-3 when he uses marriage in his analogy/illustration.
I’ve just finished reading to book “Till death do us part?” by Dr. Joseph Webb, which I highly recommend. One of the most important points that I had not really thought to hard about was that the marriage law was instituted with Adam and Eve. There was no one else present except God. By a supernatural act of God (much like when we are saved and become in CHRIST) they are made ONE FLESH. Sex does not make them one flesh (married), and a pastor “pronouncing” someone husband and wife does not create this one flesh union…only God can do that in the spiritual realm. And when he does it, it is for LIFE. From that point on he sees them as one flesh… NEVER AGAIN….TWO- BUT ONE FLESH NEVER AGAIN…NEVER AGAIN…NEVER AGAIN…NEVER AGAIN… We know what the definition of NEVER is… That sums it up for me!
The other thing he noted was if the government can’t MAKE the ONE FLESH union that only God can, than how can the government BREAK that ONE FLESH union? HHHMMMM….
They can’t. The govt. does not have the power to undo what God has accomplished. They can work in unison with the Will of God or they can work in opposition to God. When a govt. declares a marriage joined by God dissolved, they are in opposition to God, as are those who join with the civil authorities in trying to nullify God’s work. Whatsoever God has joined together, let not man (the married parties, a third party, the gov’t) put asunder…….
there are exceptions for remarriage and causes for divorce.
You’re correct. Death of a covenant spouse gives the right to marry again (Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39) and Paul speaks of a woman’s allowance to remain apart from her husband(I Cor. 7:10-11), though he does not give the reasons for her departure… We can see clearly in that passage that her departure does NOT dissolve the union joined by God.
No, you have just missed our Lords point. He is not redefining divorce, as some of you suppose, not in the least. Divorce means just what it always has, the putting asunder of a marriage covenant.
Yes, it does mean putting asunder the marriage covenant and Jesus was quite clear that He does not recognize the putting away as dissolving the union HE joined together——hence it is adultery to divorce and marry another AND it is adultery to marry a divorced person (see the wife of Mt. 19:9)……….whoever married her(the so called “innocent party) is guilty of adultery in the Lord’s sight—-by His own word.
Our God tells us we are to obey the laws of the land. Why would he tell us to obey the laws of the land if he didn’t mean that either? My ex divorced me. Law of the land states that once divorced we are free to remarry. Do we only obey the laws of the land we want to obey…or does the Bible give us the right to disobey the laws that are “wrong”?
Are you serious? The law says your marriage is dissolved, but I think we can agree—-at least concerning most marriages, God says such that divorce are NOT free to remarry. Are you saying that man’s laws trump God’s commands? God says we’re bound and that remarriage=adultery, but since the law says it is not adultery, we’re ok?