Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 3


To Those Who Believe and Promote the Devil’s Doctrine

If you are guilty of this, no doubt you have read 1 Timothy 4:1-3, which speaks of “forbidding to marry” as being “doctrines of devils.” But you allowed yourself to be deceived into believing that the text is applicable only to Catholics who deny their priests marriage, and that if YOU do it then it is not the same.

At some point you had to read Paul's command to let every man and every woman have a spouse so all people can avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:1, 2). But you latched onto the quibble that this means only that an individual cannot have someone else's spouse.

If you actually have a love for truth and do not look to human tradition for authority, maybe you are not totally blinded YET (2 Thess. 2:9-12). If so, you would do well to actually do some searching to see if Jesus really said what is attributed to Him. When you do, you will discover, if you do not already know, that He did not say nor teach what is in quotes above. It is all a false assumption based on the idea that Jesus contradicted Moses’ teaching that allowed the divorced woman to “go be another man’s wife” (Deut. 24:1, 2, KJV). Maybe it will be helpful to learn that the best versions, like the American Standard Version and several others, never translate the word “apoluo” as divorce.

The truth is, Jesus was seeking to correct an evil—putting away but not divorcing according to the Law (Deut. 24:1,2; Jer. 3:8). The devil would have you believe and teach that Jesus actually said those divorced must remain celibate, and if already married must divorce.

Now, after some real soul searching, does it not make sense that a woman merely separated from her husband would indeed commit adultery if she took up with another man? It does, and you know it. But perhaps you love tradition more than truth; and like the “chief rulers” of the synagogue you are not willing to confess the truth, lest you be cast out (John 12:42). (See Joel 3:14; Joshua 24:15.)

The true follower of Christ will not ask, "If I embrace this truth, what will it cost me?" Rather he will say, "This is truth. God help me to walk in it, let come what may!" --A.W. Tozer

LJ You are calling Jesus a promoter of devils' doctrines. Jesus forbade the marriages of those not eligible. If a person has a living lawful spouse, then they are not eligible to get married again. The first real spouse must be dead first. No ifs ands or buts.

CG RW, truly, God is not interested in our happiness. He is only interested in our holiness and the pursuit of such. He cannot CANNOT look upon sin. He does not see us until we seek Him and repent. Then, if we invite Him in, the Holy Spirit comes to help us discern the Word and be obedient. I so very much wish I could remarry as my husband is in ongoing unrepentent adultery and he divorced me against my will without my signature (there you go, the very evil of "no fault" divorce) BUT the Holy Spirit revealed to me that adultery CAN be forgiven and I am NOT free to remarry. I truly wish this weren't the case but I choose to obey...

LJ RW there you have a gal NOT promoting doctrines of devils. She knows that remarriage is a sin (adultery) punishable by damnation. It is you RW who would accuse her faithfulness to Jesus as being influenced by Satan. You, RW, must repent of slandering others who are obedient to Jesus. You remind me of the Catholics who persecuted real Christians who disagreed with the Catholics' false doctrine.

RW CG, not only is God interested in our being happy he commands that every man and every woman be allowed to have a spouse (1Cor. 7:1,2) so they may enjoy a family and have sex without it being fornication. You are teaching doctrines of devils in forbidding people who have no spouse to marry. And, you disregard, or utterly reject, the clear teaching that divorce ends a marriage. You say Jesus changed it, that is not possible. It would have him breaking the Law, which would be sin, and it would have him breaking his own promise. My doctrine does not have this problem. IT is YOUR doctrine that has these consequences. A reasonable person would reject a position that had such serious problems.

LJ RW A reasonable person does not reject that with the priesthood being changed it was necessary to also change the law as Paul declared. Heb 7:12

RW LJ, I know all about the change of law. But as I have explained several times, the marriage and divorce law for all people for all time. This does not affect the authority of the church in any way. The church dos not have any authority over marriage and divorce.

LJ They declare what God has said is truth. Jesus revealed the truth from Gen 2 as the real law as per 1Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3. Reference to law there had nothing to do with Dt 24:1-4. That law has been abolished by Jesus' teaching from Gen 2. Matt 19:3-6 Mark 10:2-12. You disagree with the simplicity that Jesus taught from those verses. Remarriage is indeed adultery against the spouse who was divorced from before the remarriage. A child can see that.

RW I'm done. You hear nothing.

LJ RW I hear all, and see you cannot let go of Moses. Gal 5:4 Paul says you are fallen from grace by holding to things from Moses that are now obsolete by the greater and better new covenant. Gal 3:19. Dt 24:1-4 served its necessary purpose due to hardness of hearts UNTIL Jesus and the regeneration became available by way of his death and resurrection. New man in Christ, then also new law based on absolute truth we see Jesus revealed from Gen 2. But you are stuck on Dt 24:1-4.

LJ Three NT references to "law" that pertains to absolute law that Jesus revealed to be absolute truth: not temporal law that Jesus abolished, such as Dt 24:1-4

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.

In verse 17 Jesus is referring to Gen 2 and what was intended at creation. If he was speaking of Dt 24:1-4 then he would have contradicted himself in verse 18. Verse 18 supoports the law, as in absolute truth, from Gen 2, and NOT "law", as in temporary imposition for such a time as it was for. 1Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3. are also referencing "law" as absolute truth. Not as per Dt 24:1-4, which we know was only suffered temporarily for the hardness of their hearts.

LJ True happiness is abiding in a good conscience. RW is out to encourage the simple-minded to sear and defile their consciences: to embrace reasons to beat down the working of the Spirit of truth in their own consciences, which convicts people of the sin of adultery by being remarried. To be remarried is to be damned. Yet RW encourages that lie. So RW is the real agent of Satan here; not those siding with Jesus' plain words. Luke 16:18. RW is leading people to hell and thinks by so doing he does service to God. John 16: 2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

RW Answer this as best you can or I block you. I'm really tired of you wasting my time. 1 Cor 7:39 is about WOMEN, not men. Do you apply this passage to me? In other words, do you believe the Bible teaches the divorced man may not marry. If so, what passage do you use to teach it.

LJ RW The man is just as bound to his wife as the wife is bound to her husband. That is why if the husband divorces and marries again he commits adultery. His real wife is alive; the remarriage is committing adultery against that real wife. Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11,12 show his permanent attachment to her as we see she has a permanent attachment to him for as long as he is alive. 1 Cor 7:39

She cannot be attached to him without him being attached to her.

I answered you, so answer me. IF the exception clause says adultery is a grounds for adultery, then the last clause in Matt 19:9 says she who is divorced for adultery is off limits: whoever marries her commits adultery. Yet the same verse shows her husband who divorced her for adultery can marry afterward and it is not adultery. That makes her attached to him but not him to her. Against what husband of hers is the man committing adultery by marrying her??? She has to be attached to a lawful husband in order for the man who marries her to be charged with committing adultery. Please answer. I will not block you if you don't answer.

RW LJ, the two passages that you use to support your false doctrine that the divorced may not marry speak of the woman ONLY. Thus, you cannot use them to forbid marriage for the man, if he is divorced. What is the ONE passage that forbids the man from marrying. THe sin the Lord said the man committed with "adultery against her" -- the woman he send away but did not divorce. It was not with a woman in a subsequent marriage. Answer honestly or I block you.

LJ RW There you go again with the ignorance of assuming that someone with a different set of foundational assumptions than yours must be dishonest if they disagree with you.

Jesus plainly said they BOTH commit adultery: either one who divorces the other and marries another, they each commit adultery. They are equally bound to each other. Mark 10:11,12. Luke 16:18 I answered your question but then you refused to answer mine.

RW That comment is the final straw. You are blocked now.

LJ Good

CW RW Actually, Paul is teaching that every man should have his OWN (not another's) WIFE and every woman should have her OWN (not another's) husband. You are teaching that in order to avoid "burning", people should commit adultery rather than "remain unmarried" as Paul speaks (not I, but the Lord commands) I Cor. 7:10-11.

RW Cindy, that is a ridiculous quibble. He is teaching that you are to allow them to have a spouse. There are other passages that teach against taking someone else wife. And, not it is not adultery for one who is divorced to marry if they need it to avoid fornication. It is traditional false doctrine that teaches this--not Jesus or Paul.

CW RW It's not a ridiculous quibble. I quoted EXACTLY what Paul spoke.......you added YOUR spin to his words.......regarding "traditional" doctrine, I would encourage you to read the early church father's writings (pre 100ad-300ad). You may be VERY surprised that they did NOT teach what you are teaching.....and I can guarantee that they had a much better handle on the Greek/Aramaic of the day than you do.........

BL No one is forbidding to marry, the sin happens if you marry another, according to Jesus.

RW Nope. Jesus did not say that. He was dealing the those APOLUOed. That word does not mean divorce. The Jewish men were putting away but not divorcing according to the Law. They were merely putting away, which did not allow the woman to marry If they actually divorced they would have to give the dowry back. Jesus said they "committeth adultery against her" (Mk 10:11).

CW RW Again, Jesus Never addressed the METHOD of putting away (separating what God has joined together)... Never does He say, "if you make it legal, getting a writ, THEN you can remarry." No, He made it clear that the SEPARATING what God joined is the problem.