[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Marriage And Divorce  (Read 35693 times)

Reformer

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1713
  • Reformed and Evangelical
Re: Marriage And Divorce
« Reply #165 on: February 08, 2019, 05:16:10 PM »
Nonsense. Like I said before, sometimes divorce is just inevitable because of irreconcilable differences.

So where is your proof that God allows 20 different reasons for divorce? Or are we to just accept your word for it?


Reformer

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1713
  • Reformed and Evangelical
Re: Marriage And Divorce
« Reply #166 on: February 08, 2019, 05:20:32 PM »
Hyper-conservative? Is that a bad thing?  I am delighted to be conservative, to preserve the existing doctrines that are testified from God's word, and once handed down by the saints.

Isn't it amazing how some Christians can build a whole doctrine of divorce on the single word "except," and yet can totally ignore all the many other full verses that plainly say that God hates divorce, marriage is for life, remarriage is not permitted, what God has joined together cannot be separated, etc.?

Erik Diamond

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Gender: Male
  • We are to God the aroma of Christ. (Eph 5:2)
Re: Marriage And Divorce
« Reply #167 on: February 08, 2019, 07:02:46 PM »
Quote from: Betty
As for Tony Warren claiming there is no exception clause, that's just crazy talk. It's perfectly clear that Jesus says if anyone divorces for anything except fornication. Therefore, there is an exception clause.

You (and your female pastor) do not make any sense at all.  You said this after you just listed your ridiculous 20 reasons for divorce (red bold mine):

1. Adultery
2. Fornication <--"Exception"
3. Irreconcilable Differences
4. cheating
5. Mental Illness
6. Desertion
7. Non Support
8. Bigamy
9. Fraud or lying to get into the marriage
10. Criminal activity, conviction or imprisonment
11. Physical abuse
12. Desertion
13. Drug addiction or alcohol abuse
14. Verbal and mental abuse
15. Underage marriage
16. Arranged marriages
17. Impotence
18. Husband no longer loves the wife, or vice versa
19. Incompatibility
20. Breakdown of trust
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Jeff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Marriage And Divorce
« Reply #168 on: February 08, 2019, 10:57:11 PM »
>>>
"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?" Matthew 19:3
<<<

The word translated every is an unfortunate but accurate translation, as it should have been translated "any." Regardless, every reason "in this context" means any reason.

#1. The Greek word [pas] means all (all = any).
#2. Regardless, "every" by definition means "any"-- i.e., if there is a prohibition against "every reason" for divorce, there is a prohibition against "any reason."
#3. The context that the word is in demands that it be translated "any" since that is the crux of their original question, and their follow up question.

Matthew 19:3
"And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?"

Matthew 9:3 (ESV)
 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

Tony is correct, they are asking if there can be divorce for any reason. The devout Jews would never ask if there can be divorce for "every" reason. They already know there can't. And that word "every" in that context seems forced.

Stephanie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Marriage And Divorce
« Reply #169 on: February 10, 2019, 08:28:02 AM »
But then why does God make it so complicated?

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Marriage And Divorce
« Reply #170 on: February 10, 2019, 11:53:12 AM »
    >>>
    Nonsense. Like I said before, sometimes divorce is just inevitable because of irreconcilable differences.
    <<<

    You start off with the presupposition that marriage is like mathematics and deals with the equation that one plus one equals two. Therefore you can easily conclude that the two are free to divide for (as you've stated) almost any reason. Or at least he 20 golden reasons you listed. But the faithful stewards of Christ's word (Luke 11:28) accept God's proclamation that in the marriage Vow or Covenant, one plus one equals one where the one joins inseparably with the other. Even as Christ unambiguousluy stated that they are "NO MORE" Two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man pull apart. Now where in Christ's words is there any vestige or trace of ambiguity?

    Matthew 19:6
    • "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

    They are no longer two anymore, but one, and now being one, inseparable. So in what universe are those words, or their meaning, in the slightest way polysemantic, vague or arguable? One of the most basic rules of sound hermeneutics is that you cannot use one verse to contradict another. One verse may surely "qualify" another verse, but it will never, ever, contradict it. God will never say, I hate divorce, but I give you permission to divorce if you want. He lays down what is His will, not gives you license to do yours. In your scenario, it has to be "if you want" because God didn't "command" divorce. So that would mean it's left up to you. God will never say "what I have joined together you better not pull it apart," but you can pull it apart if you personally find fornication unforgivable. God doesn't work like that.

    Matthew 18:32-33
    • "Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
    • Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?"

    Good question. And your answer is what? That you can't forgive seven times seventy because your pride would be too hurt? Do you know that every time we sin as the bride of Christ, we are committing spiritual fornication against Christ? And yet there is never divorce from being His bride because we do not remain the bride of Christ by our faithfulness, but by His. Selah. Why do you suppose the Lord uses the Husband/Wife relationship to represent His unconditional Covenant of love for His bride? Coincidence? Will Christ ever divorce us when we are unfaithful to Him? Never, because the New Covenant Marriage we are in is unconditional.

    In the Old Covenant, Moses, for the hardness of their heart, and as "representation" of a "Conditional Covenant," permitted divorce for fornication. In the New Testament, Christ, despite the hardness of our hearts, and as a representation of a "Unconditional Covenant," does not permit divorce. Even as He will not divorce His bride for her unfaithfulness or fornications. This is what God had always intended in a marriage as a representation of this unbreakable union, even from the beginning. Now is that truth realized in Christ Jesus. Selah.

    So when you say "sometimes divorce is just inevitable because of irreconcilable differences," I retort that in Christ Jesus, there is no such thing as irreconcilable differences. Because all our sins were forgiven, and reconciliation is for every transgression. We don't start off with the presupposition that our differences are irreconcilable, a Christian should start off with the preposition that:

    Mark 10:27
    • "And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible."

    i.e., if Christ thought like we do about unfaithfulness in marriage, then no one could be saved.  The truth is, we are "commanded" not to divide in divorce, what has been joined together by God. Start out with the law that there cannot be divorce, and differences will be worked out. Even as they were for thousands of years "before" the plague of divorce and remarriage manifested itself in modern society.

    "There never was a marriage that could not have failed, and there never was a marriage that could not have succeeded." -WiseManSay

    Christian marriages fail because one (or most likely both) parties violate God's laws. Husbands love your wives and treat them with respect and honor, and wives love your husbands and submit to him as head. When both fail, the failure of marriage becomes inevitable only because of this violation of God's laws. Despite proclamations to the contrary, usually, there is no "innocent party." Since Christian divorce was rare until relatively recently, obviously this is a new phenomenon brought on by violations of God's laws, and compromises by God's Ministers.


    Quote
    >>>
    As for Tony Warren claiming there is no exception clause, that's just crazy talk. It's perfectly clear that Jesus says if anyone divorces for anything except fornication. Therefore, there is an exception clause.
    <<<

    There is an exception, but not for allowing divorce for fornication as you suppose. Divorce for fornication is unlawful, and divorce for anything beside fornication is unlawful. That is the exception. Thus Christ has covered all bases. Both divorce for fornication, and divorce for anything except, or literally  [if not] fornication. Or to put it more succinctly and withoutr exception, as Christ did in Mark chapter 10, there is to be no divorce period, as Moses once allowed for fornication/uncleanness/illicit nakedness. Tell me if you see anything in these words about an exception to allow divorce for fornication?

    Mark 10:2-12
    list]
    • And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.[/i]
    • And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
    • And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
    • And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
    • But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    • For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
    • And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
    • What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    • And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
    • And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
    • And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

    The Pharisees come to test Christ and ask Him can they divorce their wives, and Christ says no, and explains why Moses allowed it. He then reiterates no divorce and no remarriage, making sure everyone understands exactly what he is saying. NO DIVORCE PERIOD! Scrutinize every word there. Mark, under divine inspiration of God, has put it very plainly and informatively that though Moses gave a writing of divorce for fornication, that was never what God wanted for His people from the beginning. He wants no divorce for any reason, period. Of course, even His disciples thinking out loud that if that is the case, it's better for men not to ever get married at all. Because they (unlike the church today) understood fully that Christ was saying you can't divorce for any reason.

    ...which by the way, was the actual question that was asked in Matthew 19.

    "nosce te ipsum"
     
    Peace,
    Tony Warren
    "i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

    Tony Warren

    • Administrator
    • Affiliate Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Gender: Male
      • The Mountain Retreat
    Re: Marriage And Divorce
    « Reply #171 on: February 10, 2019, 12:17:16 PM »
    >>>
    Tony,
      Love your answers. But the leading position of churches for the permanence of marriage and no possibility of divorce interprets the exception clause (Matthew 19:9) as referring to fornication during the betrothal period. Why do you not accept that position, rather than the position that you hold for the permanence of marriage.
    <<<

    Greetings Spencer,
        That has long been a highly disseminated idea in some Christian circles. But the reason that I don't agree with it because this position is based upon Jewish secular history, tradition, speculation and supposition, rather than on the Bible "alone" and in its entirety. The whole foundation of this hypothesis rests on the hypothesis that Christ was referring only to the betrothal period, and not the period after consummation or confirmation of the marriage. There is no Biblical proof or warrant for that. But they look to secular Jewish tradition, writings and history to fill in the blanks. That is not a sound way to interpret scripture. The main problem I see with that idea is that "the word of God" doesn't say "nor even imply" this.

    Moreover, this idea necessarily implies that the marriage betrothal was not really a actual marriage. Otherwise, they couldn't separate that betrothal period where they believe it theoretically allows for divorce, from the actual marriage afterward. Again, the problem I have with that is that nowhere in the Bible does it ever state that this betrothal is not actual marriage (e.g. Marry and Joseph) where a divorce could lawfully take place. And it contradicts the fact that they were actually married because a divorce was needed to separate them. You see what I'm saying? There's only one kind of marriage. Either you are married or you are not married. There is no marriage with a chance of divorce, and marriage without the chance of divorce. The whole idea is fatally flawed IMHO. I believe that true biblical exegesis "requires" getting our beliefs from "out of" the Bible, not the eisegesis of reading things "into the" Bible simply because we can't find the Biblical answers.

    • "While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her own personal belief or interpretation into and onto the text."

    I don't hold to that view because it basically assumes Christ is saying, you can divorce from a legitimate marriage for fornication, except when you are in a legitimate marriage after you've slept together. That makes no sense. Because there is nothing that would lead anyone to speculate a Jewish betrothal was anything but a legitimate marriage. On the contrary, otherwise, why would anyone need a divorce? Christ never in all of scripture separates marriage into separate betrothal and after Betrothal laws. Betrothals were actual marriages in those days. It was a marriage "Vow" or covenant before God of joining together two into one. That's the exact reason why Joseph, who was betrothed to Mary, had a mind to divorce her when he "supposed" she had been unfaithful when she was with child of the Holy Ghost. Betrothal wasn't a simi-marriage, it was an actual marriage that by the law of Moses "required" divorce to be loosed. Joseph thought to divorce her by the Old testament law that Moses wrote for divorce for fornication. EXACTLY what Joseph, who was betrothed to Mary, had thought that Mary was guilty of. This same fornication! This again makes the point I have been saying here that the law that Moses gave for divorce was for fornication. Selah.

    Matthew 1:18-20
    • 'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
    • Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
    • But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

    This was the law of divorce for fornication that Moses had written. There is no other law for divorce. So how could Christ have been saying in Matthew 19 that this law of Moses for divorce for fornication was voided, and also be saying they could divorce for fornication? It makes no sense because it's not true.

    But I digress.

    The point is, their idea of permanence only after betrothal is pure speculation because Christ doesn't say if you are bethrothed (like Joseph was) you are free to divorce. He wasn't saying that the law of Moses stands, He was saying just the opposite. Nor does any law of God in the New Testament state this. Indeed, it says just the opposite over and over again. Marriage is until death do us part. When Married, you are no more two but one, so that man cannot separate. So this idea of an exception to allow for divorce for fornication of the betrothed only, is IMHO from the minds and traditions of men, not from the written word of God. Christian doctrines should be based solely upon Scriptura, not the ideas handed down from Jewish or non-Jewish historians, from educated guesses, assumption, hypothesis, or the suppositions of uninspired theologians. This position contradicts not only Christ's One-Flesh rule when betrothed, but also His perfectly clear teaching that the law that Moses gave was not to be held, and was only given because of the hardness of their heart.


    Quote
    >>>
     They agree with you that remarriage is not permitted unless the spouse is deceased. You are only different on the exception clause, though you both come to the same conclusion.
    <<<

    Coming to the same conclusion is all well and good. But it is also important that we come to conclusions regarding Biblical teachings "by Scripture," and not by osmosis or effusion. This is the process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of foreign ideas, interpretations and knowledge "into" the Bible. Not saying these Christians are bad people (God Forbid), just that we have to be careful that we get our interpretations from "within" the Bible, not outside of it.

    2nd Timothy 2:15
    • "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

    I believe that the metaphor is from a steward rightly cutting and distributing fairly. i.e., that we understand the bread that God has given us justly, honorably, righteously, interpreting God's word by God's word. Not by the words, speculations or traditions of men. Even as the "more honorable" Bereans did in Acts 17:11. That they received what Paul was teaching, comparing it with the Holy Scriptures rather than their Jewish leader's words, and therefore many of them came to truth.


    "nosce te ipsum"
     
    Peace,
    Tony Warren
    "i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

    Tony Warren

    • Administrator
    • Affiliate Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Gender: Male
      • The Mountain Retreat
    Re: Marriage And Divorce
    « Reply #172 on: February 10, 2019, 12:46:37 PM »
    >>>
    But then why does God make it so complicated?
    <<<

    Stephanie,
        First, as we know, God has a sovereign right to complicate any part of His word that He deems necessary for multiple reasons, not the least being:

    Proverbs 25:2
    • "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

    Second, is God's edict that "what He joins together should never be pulled apart" really so complicated that man can't understand it? Or is it more accurate to say that God leaves man just enough rope to hang himself (so to speak)? There is always a place in the word that the self-willed will see as either manipulatable or non-authoritative, and thus stumble or be snared, blindly caught in their own will rather than surrender to God's will.

    1st Peter 2:8
    • "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."

    Why did they stumble at the word? God says it is because they were disobedient. In other words, they just didn't want to "keep" or guard against loss God's truths. A lack of obeying God's unadulterated word is not an accident, nor as innocent as we would like to believe. The heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it.  I believe the decree or law against divorce seems complicated to many because man flesh and is always looking for loopholes that will allow him to do his own will. It is really not because it's actually sooooo difficult to understand. i.e., the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It seems complicated because we're struggling with acceptance or because God hasn't revealed that particular truth to us yet. Otherwise, it is the same reason God has always spoken to His people in types, parables, mysteries, maxims, symbols, proverbs, analogies and riddles.

    Luke 8:10
    • "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

    To some it is hard to understand, however, having Spiritual eyes, was it really so "unclear" that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah that was spoken of as coming in the Old Testament? Or was it just that they were determined to do their own will because God never opened their spiritual eyes that they could see what was clearly in front of them? Indeed, with the Spirit of truth revealing it to us, we might say "how could they miss it?" Is it that the word is so complicated that Roman Catholics cannot understand that God's word is the ultimate authority over the church, and not the Pope? Or is it that their allegiance and will is to the church, and not to the Living WORD, Christ? Likewise, is the command of God that we are to be bound together as one flesh until death parts us soooo complicated? Or is it really just a case of man's will versus God's will? I submit to you that unless God through His comforting Spirit reveals these truths to His professing servants, Scripture will always seem more complicated than it really is. Thus mankind will always find reasons to doubt that Jesus is the Christ and Savior, that the world was created in 6 literal days, that Revelation chapter 12 is not to be understood literally, that God is sovereign and the unsaved don't have free will to come to Him, and that divorce is clearly not allowed. Not for one reason, three reasons, not for "any" reason that our vain imaginations can dream up. The point being, the Lord's prayer reads:

    "Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven..."

    Because we still live in this robe of flesh, some will always view that as meaning "My" will be done in earth. Remember, professing Christians can't just say God's word is not true (and still claim to be a Christian), and so he looks at it as too complicated, or he will convolute it, obfuscate it, or even feign being obtuse concerning any clear Scriptures presented to him contradicting what is his will to believe--either consciously or unconsciously. But none of man's rationalizations are hidden from God. Those still in unbelief or in self-justification are often fond of saying, "God knows my heart." Unfortunately for many, indeed (Hebrews 4:12-13) He does. He knows the heart of man is desperately wicked.

    "nosce te ipsum"
     
    Peace,
    Tony Warren
    "i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

    Halle

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 187
    • "Because He Lives"
    Re: Marriage And Divorce
    « Reply #173 on: February 11, 2019, 05:03:52 AM »
    Moreover, this idea necessarily implies that the marriage betrothal was not really a actual marriage. Otherwise, they couldn't separate that betrothal period where they believe it theoretically allows for divorce, from the actual marriage afterward. Again, the problem I have with that is that nowhere in the Bible does it ever state that this betrothal is not actual marriage (e.g. Marry and Joseph) where a divorce could lawfully take place. And it contradicts the fact that they were actually married because a divorce was needed to separate them. You see what I'm saying? There's only one kind of marriage. Either you are married or you are not married. There is no marriage with a chance of divorce, and marriage without the chance of divorce.

     )Goodpoint(  )Bible-Red(  ]ThUmBsUp[ ]ThUmBsUp[ ]ThUmBsUp[ ]ThUmBsUp[ ]ThUmBsUp[ ]ThUmBsUp[

    Your point about Joseph and Mary was on Point!

    Trevor

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 110
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Marriage And Divorce
    « Reply #174 on: February 11, 2019, 07:50:51 AM »
     )ditto(  Agree, outstanding point! A marriage is a marriage according to scripture, even if called a betrothal or espousal. If it requires divorce, then it is the marriage that God said cannot be separated by divorce. There aren't two types of marriages just as there aren't two types of divorces. I understand that according to some theologians there are, but not according to scripture. As usual, Tony makes an excellent point countering this view of selective permanence.
    A Mind For Truth
    Dr. C. Trevor Bavinck
    New York, NY

    Reformer

    • Affiliate Member
    • ******
    • Posts: 1713
    • Reformed and Evangelical
    Re: Marriage And Divorce
    « Reply #175 on: February 11, 2019, 05:05:31 PM »
     )cLaPpInGg( Silence cannot by itself establish a Scriptural principle. Any conclusion that there are different types of marital joinings that is based purely on outside sources and assumptions brought to the text are arguments drawn from the silence of the critical texts. And we know that type of defense for Christian doctrine is unbiblical.

    Hammerle Labinowic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 138
    • Obviously I'm a Novice
    Re: Marriage And Divorce
    « Reply #176 on: February 11, 2019, 06:27:58 PM »


    I recommend
    The Great Divorce Controversy
    by E S Williams (Author)
    Pages 461, hard cover, 22 illustrations, ISBN 0 9529939 3 7

    Wanda

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 122
    • Gender: Female
    • I'm a llama!
    Re: Marriage And Divorce
    « Reply #177 on: February 12, 2019, 03:25:29 AM »
    Quote from: Betty
    My minister is a minister of love and shows compassion for those who, by no fault of their own, have fallen into bad marriages. She teaches that there are 20 golden reasons and exceptions to the prohibition of divorce.

    Your minister is a woman?


    As are so many today, and so many more male ministers justifying it also. Signs of the times.

    Terry

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 35
    • Obviously I'm a Novice
    Re: Marriage And Divorce
    « Reply #178 on: February 13, 2019, 05:27:34 AM »
    Quote from: Betty

    She teaches that there are 20 golden reasons and exceptions to the prohibition of divorce.
    Your minister is a woman?
    Signs of the times.

     )iagree(  Signs of the Times. The blood moon.

     


    [ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]