Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 2
LJ After becoming lawfully joined in marriage by God's law as revealed by Jesus, for example Luke 16:18, only death can terminate the marriage. 1 Cor 7:39. The old solemn phrase, "till death do us part" is proven to be right after all, even though most are deluded to think that divorce for adultery is what Jesus' exception clause was intended to identify. The 'divorce for adultery' explanation of the exception clause is extreme heresy.
RW Really? You think God did not establish divorce and that there was not nor is a reason or purpose for it? Have you not even read Deut. 24:1,2; Jer. 3:8. Are you not aware that Paul said the 'loosed" (divorce looses) do not sin if they marry? 1 Cor. 7:27,28 Are you not aware that Paul said, regarding the "unmarried' (this would be those that divorced), "LET THEM MARRY"? Verse 7,8
LJ Those that are divorced after a divorce that is allowable, yes. for example, a man becomes a Christian, who had in his ignorance married a divorced woman whose lawful first marriage is still binding by Jesus' teaching. He realizes as a Christian that predicament is really just adultery. He gets out of that adultery by lawful divorce. Yes, he is eligible for marriage because that first marriage was a sin to enter to begin with. He is eligible for lawful marriage because he had not yet entered lawful marriage in God's eyes.
LJ RW, you are misunderstanding Paul. He summarizes his position in. Cor 7:39. Nothing he said before contradicts that straightforward clear literal statement. That is in accordance to what Jesus said. Remarriage is adultery. We are not under Moses anymore who allowed what God hates. Under the circumstances that was the responsible thing to do as choosing the lesser of evils is the most responsible thing to do when faced with such a difficult dilemma. Under the numerous laws by Moses that felt with situations and what to do under difficult circumstances, the lesser of the evils is always the best choice.
RW LJ I allowed myself to be deceived by that same doctrine. If "RE" marriage is adultery then Jesus committed adultery when he married Israel whom God divorced.
RW Your exegesis of verse 39 rules out divorce, which is clearly taught in the Bible.
LJ Using allegorical things as a basis to establish absolute truth concerning those literal things which are used to represent the spiritual truth shown by the allegory is just plain stupid. By using an allegorical divorce to establish what the doctrine is for literal divorce and remarriage; I can just as easily use that God says he had two wives in Ezekiel to justify polygamy now in the NT. The standard attempt to use the allegorical divorce of Israel by God in Jeremiah may as well be used as a premise to also justify physical flesh and blood war; since Jesus used war to create an analogy of our war as Christians.
RW Divorce was established before the allegory. Thus, your accusation is stupid, to use your words. The allegory is just the icing on the cake that is proof that divorce exists and that it ends a marriage regardless of the reason for the divorce. God teaches through example, but then not everyone is of a mind to receive it. Your bottom-line comment is ridiculous.
LJ You are not taking into account what Jesus said about what Moses allowed. It was not right. It was done for the hardness of their hearts. Jesus made it known that since what Moses allowed was not from the beginning, therefore Jesus was upholding what was from the beginning. Jesus is upholding "no divorce" after entering lawful marriage. Divorce was not from the beginning and it is not so now under the NT. Divorce was allowed much later on after Gen 2 was spoken. Jesus revealed to us what Gen 2 meant WHEN it was spoken at creation. Jesus supports that absolute truth from Gen. 2 as part of his new kingdom commandments. Gal 3:19. There is a new priest and a new law. The NT establishes a higher moral standard. For example, polygamy is no longer accommodated. Killing is forbidden. John 1:17 OT law was not always "truth" after the absolute truth that Jesus revealed.
RW Jesus was teaching them that putting away but not according to the Law that required a certificate was wrong, but He ALSO taught that divorce was not justified simply by following the Law. This was because of their vows and the need to show love, as Paul later taught. Jesus did not recent the divorce law. There were then and will always be hardness of heart, which justify the need for divorce.
Your charge against Jesus is not a higher moral standard. Your doctrine leaves couples without a marriage when the "unbeliever departs". Paul says there is no bondage in such cases. Your doctrine leaves them in bondage.
You need to try to forget what you have learned from the continual pounding of preaching and writings by preachers who spoke before they took the time to learn the truth. One cannot read 1 Tim. 4:1-3 and 1 Cor. 7 without preconceived ideas and come up with what you somehow came to believe.
LJ What I believe has nothing to do with following what others say or write.
You admit yourself that you think the NT allows hardness of hearts. Nothing more needs to be said. That identifies the foundational gross error responsible for your accepting what the NT identifies as gross heresy. The NT prohibits divorce because of the pattern after which it was established. They were 'one flesh' till death in the beginning and so it is now. And so the basis for 1 Cor 7:39.
Did you know that the honorable 'first mention' of the doctrine of divorcee in the NT (Matt 5:31,32) has within it internal evidence to prove that "fornication" in the exception clause CANNOT mean adultery? Of course you don't; modern Christianity is unaware of such facts.
RW Really? You accuse me of saying the N.T. allows hardness of hearts. That is not even close to what I said and you should know it. You listen to others about as well as you listen to God--hardly at all. I see you are not open to hearing me or learning from God.
LJ You said hardness of heart justifies the need of divorce. Is it so that you believe Jesus allows divorce for adultery as per the exception clause of Matt 5:31,32? Since you said hardness of heart justifies divorce then that means hardness of hearts is allowed. Please get yourself out of this one.
RW LJ .....The Fact that there is and will always be "hardness of heart'. Therefore, the need for divorce.
LJ RW In Christianity divorce is forbidden no matter why, after becoming joined in marriage. If a Christian decides to get a divorce for whatever reason, he is abandoning Christianity by so doing.
RW Just what clear passage do you use to support your stamen above? And how do you live with yourself as you deny clear teaching to the contrary?
LJ RW Jesus opposed divorce, not on the basis of whether or not it was done by proper paperwork, but on the basis that it is contrary to the pattern in the garden after which marriage was fashioned. Jesus declared that divorce was not from the beginning, and at the beginning there was no such thing as a certificate of divorce. So even when there did not even exist a certificate of divorce, which was at the beginning: there was no divorce. There is no divorce, under the higher NT standard, established by Jesus' kingdom commandments. Jesus could not have been any plainer in speech: there was no divorce in the beginning and under his new covenant there is no divorce. Those who teach Jesus allowed divorce are under delusion. That includes divorce for adultery or similarly divorce as derived from the scenario in Dt 22:13-21. ANY post marital divorce from the lawful spouse is forbidden. That by itself is sin. Remarriage is then going further to commit adultery against the spouse that was divorced. And whoever marries the spouse that was divorced commits adultery. Read Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor 7:39.
RW Jesus did not oppose divorce. Divorce was God’s Law that Moses gave by inspiration. You can’t reason this away. God even confirmed it was not just Moses’ doing by noting that he followed the details in his own divorce. Jesus could not have changed or abolished that law before the cross because it would have been viewed as sin and the Jews would have had reason to kill him, but they did not. This speaks volumes.
You say “there is no divorce under the higher new standard”. That is absolutely NOT true. This doctrine is specifically noted by Paul as the sin of forbidding marriage. When someone is divorced, which you deny can even happen, and you say they cannot marry because they are still married, you are guilty are guilty of “forbidding to marry” which Paul put into the category of “doctrines of devils”. Paul was very clear in his teaching and used multiple points to get his message across. First, in 1 Cor. 7:1,2 he said to let every man and every woman have a spouse and he gave the reason—“to avoid fornication”. Your doctrine takes that away. Second, he said regarding the “unmarried” “let them marry” 8,9. Look up the word “unmarried” and you will see that divorced people are unmarried. Then he contrasts those “bound” (married) with those “loosed”. Why would he do that if he was not referring to divorce? Then, regarding the “loosed” he says they do not sin if they marry. 27,28.
You say "Jesus could not have been any plainer in speech" but you want to make much more out of what he said, and you redefine a key word in doing it. The KJV errs in Matt. 5:32 by not being consistent in translating the word “apoluo”. Apoluo means to send away or put away, repudiate and it is only part of divorce. If all one does is apoluo there is nothing but separation and naturally it is adultery if the woman marries another. Not so if God’s divorce law is followed.
In support of your teaching you have to deny the teaching of God’s own example that one divorced may marry, as Jesus married Israel. Divorce is clearly taught elsewhere so I'm not establishing a doctrine based on an allegory, as you falsely charged.
LJ RW You are unsound in the basics of Christianity. We are not under Moses any more. The people of God have access to regeneration. Along with that comes a higher moral standard. New wineskins and new wine. Hence Jesus throwing out Dt 24:1-4 and revealing the true intention at creation. You are believing Moses, and not Jesus. Jesus told us WHY Moses allowed it. You are assuming it is still OK to divorce. So how about polygamy, do you also accommodate polygamy like Moses did?
RW The church does not follow the Law of Moses but then the church has no authority over marriage/divorce which God established in the Old Testament. Thus, not only is your charge against me false it is YOU, sir, that is unsound when you deny that divorce is a divine law and deny marriage. Worse, you are teaching doctrine of devils. 1 Tim. 4:1-3 There is a tremendous amount of evidence here, but when one has a closed mind it matters not how much evidence there is nor how clearly it is presented.
RW I never said it was OKAY to divorce under any circumstance. God did it. This is a fact that you seem not willing to acknowledge. Thus, divorce is not necessarily a sin. I believe Jesus but I don't believe what YOU say he said.
LJ RW So define "persons". Is not a person a being? So "One Supreme Being" at creation is false because we are supposed to agree with '3 supreme beings' being in existence? I believe that is polytheism. The Godhead is a mystery that we must accept on its own terms, not after a tooled reconfiguration that pleases our limited human mind. You must accept the mystery on its own terms and stop butchering it by carnal reasoning. The Son of God was literally begotten of the Father through Mary's pregnancy just like we see in the famous John 3:16.
LJ RW There you go again putting the cart before the horse. It is the NT that has authority over the OT. You think Moses over rides the creator himself in Jesus.
LJ Jesus says a man causes his wife to commit adultery if he divorces her. You disagree with that simple concept.
RW Evidently you do not have enough background or knowledge in the scripture for us to have an intelligent conversation. There are just too many subject that come into play and you are wrong on them.
LJ You are in denial of what Jesus said concerning WHY God allowed divorce under Moses. Under the NT divorce is forbidden. It is OK to not believe in Jesus; I mean you are given that choice. But stop lying and stop saying you believe in him while you deny what he taught. Was divorce from the beginning? Did Jesus allow what was not from the beginning? Is English your first language?
LJ RW Them that know the law as spoken by Paul was in reference to Gen 2 having domination over Dt 24:1-4 as per Jesus' instruction. Someone really knowing the law concerning divorce because of how Jesus explained it to us from Gen 2, knows that divorce as per Dt 24 was NOT from the beginning and it is not for now. It is YOU who do NOT know the law as Jesus explained it. Notice the 1-4 below that you seem completely unaware of:
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
We are dead to Dt 24:1-4. That was crucified with Christ. We are under a new covenant, old obsolete things, which were suffered for hardness of hearts are passed away.
LJ The same in Luke 16:17,18. Jesus is not coming from a Dt 24 perspective. he is coming from the perspective of KNOWING the law. That what Moses wrote in Dt 24 was a temporary allowance UNTIL the messiah would come: Gal 3:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Gen 2 means what Jesus said it means, and that is what it meant when it was first spoken in the garden. What Moses allowed later was to deal with hardness pof heart UNTIL Jesus came to bring regeneration. Hardness of heart is forbidden under the NT. Divorce is forbidden. Lori Jones said something like it did not matter about the divorce as long as they parties do not get remarried. that is false doctrine. The man who divorces his wife is facing damnation for that act because he causes her to commit adultery by divorcing her.
Luke 16: 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. 18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Nothing of what Jesus revealed about Gen 2 has failed. That has always been absolute truth. But what Moses allowed much later on (Dt 24) was NOT from the beginning; it was NOT absolute truth but was allowed temporarily UNTIL Jesus brought the new birth and the new man and the new law.
Heb 7: 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
BL Jesus says from the beginning divorce was not so.
RW And just what are you trying to make of that statement? It obviously WAS so after God made the law. And if Jesus had been perceived as having tried to change that law he would have been killed by the Jews for it and we would see him as having broken His promise in Matt. 5:17-19
BL Moses permitted divorce, Jesus took the authority back, and says but I say. God designed marriage in Genesis 2, Jesus restores it in the Gospels, and Paul reaffirms it in the Epistles.
LJ RW You are misunderstanding Matt 5:17-19. Notice verse 19. Jesus is introducing his kingdom commandments, which contradicted what was under Moses. No killing, for example. No swearing, no vengeance or retaliation, no hatred, no adultery; not even in the heart, and yes, absolutely NO divorce after becoming lawfully joined in marriage. Divorce was not so at the beginning and it is not so now under the higher moral standard established by the NT. RW, you are simply not rightly dividing the word. Was divorce from the beginning? Yes or no?
Any lawful couple by God's law have the same status AS IF the wife was made from her husband’s own rib. It was impossible for Eve to become no longer Adam's wife, so likewise for every lawful couple; it is impossible. they are still husband and wife even if they have a worthless paper defying God.
RW LJ You could not be more wrong. Jesus did not take issue with the teachings of Moses, which were the teaching of God. He was taking issue with the false notions of the Jews. You really need to back up and take a look at what you are teaching. It is opposite the truth.
LJ RW You teach that how the false misguided seminary schools teach it. The straightforward wording clearly indicates Jesus is bringing new things. He is revealing things hid from ages and from generations. In Matt 19 he reveals WHY Dt 24:1-4 were written. It was not because divorce is a good thing. He reveals what Gen 2 meant WHEN it was spoken. That destroyed the notion that divorce is OK. If Gen 2 really means what Jesus said it meant when it was spoken, then absolutely, what Moses allowed in Dt 24 was in direct contradiction to Gen 2. That is why they asked about Dt 24 after Jesus destroyed it with Gen 2.
RW I agree that Jesus was making the point that divorce is not something that the Jews were justified in. This was because they got the idea they could break their covenant with impunity. But "because of hardness of heart" i.e., men that would not follow the will of God, the divorce law was given. It was for the woman. It was what she wanted and needed. It was not for the man. And it was a GOOD thing. It came from God. It was GOD'S idea. He even practiced it Himself. Yet you say it never existed? Or are you saying God made a bad law?
LJ RW Don't slander me. You know perfectly well that I am not saying Dt 24 never existed. When Jesus revealed WHY it existed, then how it is to be looked at changes dramatically. That whole argument of what exactly is correctly identified as what is worthy of divorce is thrown out the window in the NT. Since Dt 24 is forbidden by those under the NT, then that question is irrelevant. NOTHING the wife can do qualifies for the man to divorce her after entering marriage.
We understand the law in Dt 24 was very necessary and very wise under the circumstances BEFORE the new creature in Christ came on the scene. The law had to work among the unregenerated. Law often fulfils the very necessary role of establishing order and regulating very serious things that need regulating. For the survival of the nation UNTIL Messiah came to introduce the kingdom of God within believers, then having a law to deal with what the unregenerate state of the heart would inevitably do, with regard to divorce, was very necessary, honorable and wise. Yet after all the glory that can be heaped on the law; when compared to the new man in Christ and regeneration, it becomes easy to identify things that are now passed away that were very important under the OT.
2 Cor 3: 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
RW Sorry about misrepresenting you. I deal with many that make all kind of ridiculous argument as they endeavor to defend their tradition. Unfortunately, many have no interest in real truth because they do not know the difference in truth and tradition.
LJ RW Jesus directly contradicted Moses in numerous places. No more eye for eye in the NT. No swearing under the NT. The NT being identified as a better and greater covenant was not some kind of mistake. We have a higher moral standard which became possible because of the death and resurrection which is directly connected to the new man in Christ. Regeneration makes it possible for us toreceive the absolute truth, which is higher than mere law. See John 1:17. The law served its purpose UNTIL Jesus came. Gal 3:19.
RW You have the wrong idea about divorce and the wrong idea about what I think about it. I agree with you, to an extent, that there should be no divorce. But YOU say divorce is sin and you care not about the consequence of the position. You have GOD sinning. This means YOU, sir have taken the WGONG position. Divorce was give, n for a reason and that reason still exists. The Jews had gotten away from the Law and Jesus sought to bring them back to it. One of the things they had changed was the dowry. This resulted in them actually having a MOTIVE do put away but not divorce according to Deut. 24. If all they did was put away they would not have to give the dowry back. This, sir, is the reason the woman would commit adultery if she married-she was not "put asunder". You say she is not put asunder even if GOD does it when His Law is followed.
The men that put away but not divorced sinned greatly. This was much worse than actually divorcing. Jesus said they "committeth adultery against her" (Mk 10:11). They did this to women--forcing them to live a life of sin while they, being allowed to have more than one wife, could just replace her with another. Jesus did not bring that issue up.
Here is a link to an article that explains why Deut. 24:1,2 (the divorce law) was given. The need for that law still exists in Israel and throughout the world. Paul gives the reason. 1 Cor. 7:1,2 "To avoid fornication"
RW I'm not seeking to be justified by the Law of Moses. However, I do recognize that the Old Testament is from God and God established marriage and divorce in the Old Testament for all people for all time. If there is no divorce , because we cannot learn from the Old Testament, there is no marriage. You pervert Gal. 5:4 just like you do other verses to promote your tradition.
LJ RW Jesus forbade people to remarry. Adultery is a sexual sin. If a single man marries a divorced woman HE, listen to that, HE commits adultery. What man then is he committing adultery against by having sex with that divorced woman?
Luke 16: 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. 18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Verse 18 is in complete agreement with what Jesus said about Gen 2. Gen 2 represents Gods absolute truth law. there is another kind of law in the OT that was not the absolute truth kind. that was the temporary necessary order creating kind to deal with sin UNTIL Jesus came.
Gal 3: 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Dt 24 was a temporary law to deal with hardness of hearts. We are either part of the kingdoms of the world, which exercise divorce under their unregenerated fallen state or we are part of the kingdom of God that is within believers; and are regenerate and divorce is forbidden by our master. Remarriage is adultery according to our master.
RW LJ You are saying things Jesus did not say. And, you are not listening at all to what I have said.
LJ RW Jesus said the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. When a man commits adultery with a woman, he being single, then that woman has to have a husband AGAINST whom that single man is committing adultery by having sex with her. Against what man is the single man committing adultery by having sex with that divorced woman?
Please answer. Your misunderstanding is forcing you to disagree with Jesus. Jesus said whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery, while you say it is absolutely a lie that whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery. Would you like us to address you as, "Lord RW"?
RW Read my article above. The woman was not divorced. "Leave" or "depart" is mere separation. It would be adultery for her to marry, just as Jesus told the Jewish men regarding the woman they were putting away but not divorcing according to the Law.
LJ RW A problem with the incest explanation is that it switches the committing of fornication from what the woman does (as a grounds to divorce) to what the man does, which gives incentive for the divorce. So he divorces based also on his own sin to get out of it. While that makes sense in and of itself and it is indeed a 'divorce' that should be done, that is not what the exception clause was intended to identify. The incest divorce is an extreme out-of-normal scenario, when the question Jesus was answering pertained to the down to earth question about divorce. Since divorce between two eligible persons was commonly done during engagement, which did not put asunder what God had joined together, then that explanation fits perfectly with the actual texts of 5:32 and 19:9.
RW LJ You have no idea what you are talking about.
RW Divorce is something that ends a covenant, which was intended to NOT be violated. Unfortunately, people often either do not believe in God or look for greener pastures act contrary to God in divorcing their spouse. This is why divorce was instituted by our loving, wise and just God. Paul gave the reason we (who attempt to understand and teach on this issue) must "let them marry". See 1 Cor. 7:1,2. It give the reason to "let them marry". It is so they can "avoid fornication." When someone tells someone that is divorced and therefore HAS NO MARRIAGE that they cannot marry, they are in rebellion to this clear command. In addition, they are, in "forbidding to marry" are guilty of teaching "doctrines of devils" 1 Tim. 4
LJ Stop accusing Jesus of teaching doctrines of devils. Maybe something bad will happen to you today because you so slander Christ. Those who are eligible are to who Paul says, let them marry. The divorced woman is not eligible, neither he who divorced her: they are still bound by God's law. They are to either become reconciled or avoid adultery by living a single clean lifestyle. Your hatred to God's wisdom is just shocking.
RW I have had enough of your abrasive false accusations. I did not accuse Jesus of teaching doctrines of devils. That sir, is without a doubt what you are doing when you deny people who have been divorced marriage. Just exactly like the Catholics about whom the "forbidding to marry" doctrine was prophesied. You say the divorced person is not eligible. That is teaching doctrine of devils, which you accuse me of. Divorce does what it was intended. You cannot deal with this fact so you attack me by making a charge that is not only not true but is applicable to you. I'm done discussing this subject with you. You are not honest, evidently.
LJ RW Your doctrines of devils, allowing the ineligible to marry, is what Satan is extremely happy about. The demons are having a party at their success of your being their agent. And their success is highlighted by how you in effect accuse Jesus himself of being the one who promotes doctrines of devils by his forbidding remarriage. We could not get a better case study on demonic intelligent mental manipulation than what we see playing out in your personal life. Just read Mark 10:2-12. That is absolute truth as plainly written. No remarriage. According to you Jesus is pushing forbidding to marry. I believe the demons are now jumping for joy at the response you are now fabricating in your mind to contradict Jesus, yet again.
You are a victim. Satan has you under his intelligent thumb. And you think that you are serving God. This is a shocking state of affairs.
RW Of course death ends a marriage, but divorce does to. That is what God designed it to do and for a good reason.
LJ RW You plainly asserted that forbidding Remarriage was forbidding marriage. You said forbidding Remarriage is forbidding marriage and is therefore a doctrine of a devil. Since Jesus did very clearly forbid remarriage, (which you say is forbidding marriage) you accused Jesus of pushing doctrines of devils.
You are a blasphemer and do not even know it. Saul of Tarsus was also a blasphemer, he obtained mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief. You do NOT believe Jesus. Just read Luke 16:18!! A child can understand that.
CW and NO ONE taught me (and my husband). We Diligently searched the scriptures and FOUND the truth---and knew NO ONE who taught the permanency of marriage til death. What WAS comforting, is that I was led to study what the EARLY Church taught/believed on MDR(before RC took hold of Christianity).......and found that they TOO took the same stance that I had come to see in scripture. Grieving to see how many in today's PROFESSING Church has gone away from the scriptures in their marital practices. The Early Church, if transported to today.....would be castigated as teaching "doctrines of demons"......and some of these were taught by the very Apostle's of Christ. Hmm.....
LJ The early writers were correct concerning no remarriage. Yes, absolutely that is adultery and if a person is in adultery by remarriage, they must get out of it: divorce. But the same early writers made a mistake concerning the exception clause itself. They thought it had to relate to an allowable divorce for adultery, but that did not work so well, so they then changed it to separation for adultery. So they were honorable by forbidding remarriage, but they goofed it with regard to correctly understanding what the exception was intended to identify.
The correct explanation of the allowable divorce was the strange premarital divorce under their culture we see Joseph was about to do with Mary. That amounts to breaking an engagement. No problem, what God has joined is not put asunder by that type of "divorce". There is another explanation from Dt 22:13-21 claiming to be a "betrothal explanation".
RW CW, do you are missing what is right before your face. The "doctrines of demons" was about "forbidding to marry" NOT denying it, as most in this list do.
CW Forbidding adultery is far different than "forbidding to marry" as RC's do with their priests.
RW Yes, it is different. But Deut. 24:1,2 makes it clear that the woman "may go be another man's wife." It did not apply to the man then because the men could have as many wives as they wanted.
LJ Jesus 'forbade to marry' according to RW. Jesus forbade remarriage. That is what RW is claiming to be a doctrine of a devil. Anyone can see Jesus forbade remarriage in Luke 16:18 1 Cor 7:39, Mark 10:11,12. So according to RW, Jesus promotes a doctrine of a devil. Something really bad could happen to RW today.
CW I am interested why there are some professing Christians who keep going back to the "law", which Jesus said was only TOLERATED due to man's hard heartedness. The same people who cling to their rendering of Deut. 24:1-4 do NOT embrace the other things spoken in Deut. 22-23? Why is that? Why cling to what was TOLERATED due to hard heartedness (if in fact this marriage was a valid marriage---not incestual, etc).......as your standard? Jesus brought back the ORIGINAL standard when speaking publicly (Mt 19) AND privately (MK 10). His disciples found His teaching VERY hard to embrace, saying it was better to NEVER marry? If you COULD divorce for adultery (or a myriad of other reasons.........if you only had to get a legal "writ" to have it accepted by Jesus).....they would not have had the response we see in scripture.
CW RW Do we see what Jesus taught in the OT? (Remarriage=adultery, or taking another man's divorced wife=adultery)? Where do you find this teaching in the OT, RW? We see throughout the OT polygamy, true. However, do we see Jesus teaching that polygamy is STILL an option for marriage? No. He teaches: 1man+1woman=1flesh (created by God).......for life (Rom 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). THAT is the "law of marriage".....Jesus taught while He walked the earth. Many, just like His disciples, find it HARD to accept.
LJ CW They go back to Moses often because they misunderstand Matt 5:17. Out of context they read that as if Jesus came to ENFORCE Moses. So it is an unstable state of being. Jesus refers to his NT Kingdom commandments in Matt 5:19, which he proceeds to reveal. Numerous things from Moses are flatly abolished in Christ. Not just the ceremonial things. Take for example the "But I say to you": six times in Matt 5. Moral things they thought were OK, Jesus said "not at all". No more divorce, no more swearing, no more "eye for eye" etc.
CW I think those who get "confused" need to read Luke 16:15-18.......Lots of clarity there.
CW Jesus taught many "hard" things.......even some who grasp rightly His teachings on marriage do not see some of the other "hard" things He teaches (regarding the application of: LOVE your enemies). Many who are "off" on their marriage views do not REALLY understand I Cor. 13 and how to biblically apply that passage to ONE God joined you to (far less divorces would occur if people ACTUALLY understood and desired to walk this out towards the spouse God joined them to).
RW You cannot make error right by saying it is a hard saying. Jim Jones led 900 followers to their death by giving them a "hard saying." But your teaching is hard alright because it prevents conversions, about 90 percent of those taught had been divorced previously, it breaks up family, churches, castigates preachers and destroys homes. Devil's doctrine for sure.
CW Scripture says what it says, RW. If one truly LOVES the Lord and truly desires to REPENT to walk with Him, there is NOTHING that will stop them. Men are not converted because they love their lives/sin MORE than they love Jesus. Your reasoning is not spiritual, it is fleshly. By your reasoning, then gay people who are legally married should never be told they are in sin.......and need to repent......cause that will stop their conversion. Is this what you contend is correct?
CW Also, concerning the "breaking up families".......that argument just makes me shake my head. How many pastors/leaders/Christians in general are FIGHTING to keep ORIGINAL families together? Do you have any idea how injured the children of ORIGINAL marriages are? How about the spouses from original marriages who are forsaken......and then PASTORS marry their spouse to another? You think the Lord is ok with this? (Mal 2:10-17).....
RW CW Utterly ridiculous. There are many people in second marriages who have children and have a great home or family situation. You teach them the gospel and then tell them they must break up and live celibate, and it does not matter to you whether they committed sin or not. You punish them. That is evil. It is not a characteristic of God and God condemns punishing the innocent. How blinded you are if you cannot see this.
CW Again, the Words of Christ, are His Words, not mine. There are many 'nice' people who are in SIN. So, by your response, I take it you teach those who are in homosexual marriages, have children etc......you would not expect them to separate in repentance?
LJ RW The reference to "hard saying" did not have anything to do with evil deluded men. Jesus' statements on marriage are straightforward. Sometimes truth, though simple, is "hard" to accept. Like Jesus' hard saying in John that resulted in some disciples leaving him. You are allowing your own humanistic carnal sensibilities to cloud the issue. A divorced person with a living lawful spouse is not eligible to remarry. Their first or lawful spouse must first be dead. What is so difficult with "till death do us part"? A child can understand that. Cold or hot, Jesus does not like lukewarm. I say get on the hot side and stand with Jesus or get out. Better to profess no connection with Jesus than to push your demonic accusation against him, with your deluded pity for the divorced. "The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel", in your deluded state, your mercy for the divorced is cruel. The loving thing is to warn them to NOT get remarried. That is forbidden by Jesus. As is; you are leading them into damnation. Like I said, something really bad could happen to you today.
CW God condemns punishing the "innocent".......exactly, RW! Do you think He is ok with those who come in between the union HE joined as One Flesh? Do you think He is ok with those who commit adultery against the "wife of their youth".....and take another wife instead? Do you think He is ok with the men/women who forsake their children and join together with others who are not their children's parent?
LJ CW RW's position if he is to be consistent must agree that yes, Jesus allows all the evils you identified. But he is blinded by his own carnal mind. He is lukewarm. Ready to get spit right out.
CW Inconsistency is what I find most with teachings like his. That is because the teaching is not found to be solidly founded in the Word of God, but has a LITTLE Word of God mixed with human/fleshly reasoning. None of us can come to VALID biblical conclusions when we mix in fleshly reasoning or personal experience/feelings. Yes, it is true though that to walk HIS line/HIS way is HARD.....and being obedient regarding true repentance can cause much hurt......but with Jesus, the burden is lightened and made easier.
CD CW You are correct CW. The disciples were very SHOCKED by what Jesus said. Their reaction was quite telling they understood exactly what Jesus said. They understood that if you could never get out of the marriage that it was better to not marry. Jesus was serious.
RW CD That is NOT what they thought Jesus said. They understood that Jesus has just condemned the Jewish men for putting away but not according to the Law (Deut. 24) that would release her. Jesus gave the exception for that terrible wrong: "Except it be for fornication", such as incest i.e, where the marriage was illegal. This is when they said it would be better not to marry in such a case.
CW Except Jesus forgot to add: whosoever divorces his wife "WITHOUT a writ of divorcement".....hmmm. The thing is RW, we also have MK 10 as another "witness" and in that passage we see Jesus saying the SAME thing to a wife as He says to a husband......and wives in the OT did not do the "divorcing With or without a "writ""......the husbands did.
CW Again, Jesus NEVER mentions the METHOD of putting away (how to do it properly). He speaks solely of PUTTING away as SIN. Why? Because man is trying to negate a work of God (who is the ONE who joins husband/wife together).
RW CW All the more reason to accept that divorce was not what Jesus was talking about.
CW Jesus was talking about SEPARATING what HE joined together, RW. He was NOT talking about the method of separating (with or without a writ of divorcement). The Disciples knew about the reasons for divorce......Jesus didn't support ANY of the views. He brought marriage back to creation. THAT is why the Disciples felt it a HARD teaching and it better to NEVER marry (than transgress Him or be "stuck" in a marriage for life).
LJ RW You expect us to read your mind. You mean "uncertified divorce"? 24: 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. Jesus was referring to verse 1 above in Matt 5:31. That is the context. You assert he was not talking about certified acceptable divorce as per Moses. Jesus said that whole section, certified or not, was written for the hardness of their hearts; while you deny that.
Marriage was already to be like it was from the beginning. Jesus did not change that. He just reminded them. But you evidently don't believe what Moses taught, which was practiced by God himself. I don't have much patience for people who deny plain scripture.
LJ RW Jesus said divorce was not from the beginning. You jump to much later to Moses and say divorce WAS from the beginning.
CW RW I agree. I don't have much patience with people who ignore plain scripture yet insist they are "teachers" of God's Word. :/
CW LJ Absolutely, correct, LJ.
CW RW.........can you answer the question I posed above regarding gay marriages with children? Would you expect repentance to look like this: them forsaking their relationship?
LJ CW He dismisses anything not convenient for him.
CW Lk 16:15-18: "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The Law and the prophets were UNTIL JOHN.......SINCE THAT TIME the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail, Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
LJ CW The law Jesus is emphasizing there in verse 15 is the absolute law established at creation, which Jesus revealed and clarified by his commentary on Gen 2. Jesus is not in any way supporting Dt 24:1-4. That was a later added temporary law to deal with sin UNTIL Messiah came, Gal 3:19. Heb 7:12. RW puts the cart before the horse. He cannot differentiate the temporal in Dt 24 from the absolute from Jesus' commentary of Gen 2.
RW Is this group made up of mostly Catholics?
LJ Catholics allow divorce and remarriage, they just give it a different name, annulment. Like YOU allow divorce and remarriage by virtue of giving Jesus' teaching a weird interpretation, not at all literal as we see Mark 10:2-12 as very literal and self-explanatory and which exposes your lies to be from Satan.
- Back to Refuting the Put Away Vs. Divorce Error
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 1
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 3
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 4
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 5
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 6
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 7
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 8
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 9
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 10
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 11
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 12
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 13
- Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 14