Remarriage and Divorce: Seven Minute Seminary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лют 2014
- seedbed.com
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com
What does the Bible teach about remarriage and divorce? Are there ever exceptions? Dr. Craig Keener leads us in a sensible discussion on a very sensitive subject.
Beautiful short sermon, says it all about divorce and remarriage. In fact, none of those who condemns the innocent party against remarriage (or even condemns people who are divorced period, whether remarried or not) have themselves experience ongoing betrayal and the pain that goes along with the covenant being broken. They themselves are Pharisees and their hearts are even more "hardened" than the spouse who betrayed you! No wonder why I was very quick to forgive my ex-husband and partnered with him in our parenting. Yet, I experienced the greatest pain for the past 20 years from most Christians I came across, who continue to look down upon me, or even condemn or reject me simply because my husband committed adultery and eventuallly divorced me.
You'll receive no condemnation from me regarding your divorce, nor will you receive any condemnation from me if you elect to remarry. The Word of God is very clear: you are free to do so. Anyone who tells you otherwise is preaching false doctrine.
This kind of prejudice from Christians angers me. Not only that, these people are slandering God when they insinuate that God will judge you for this. God is not an idiot, nor is He unjust. He deals justly with people as individuals.
I have experienced this myself when I had no choice but to begin the process of dissolving my marriage of 14 years. Because of the unjust condemnation I received, I no longer attend any church. I take the view that such "Christians" are idolators and unworthy to even be recognized as fellow brethren. That is how I view them.
That leaves no room for the covenant spouse who is not dead to repent and be restored back to his covenant marriage, even if he committed adultery as a serial adultery, so did Gomer and God told Hosea to keep taking her back and loving her it’s the Pharisees that want to kick people out and never bring them back and treat people like second-class citizens, and their blood of Jesus would be of no power. If those are who are committing adultery, can never be forgiven and restored the heart of God, is covenant marriage, and only death break the covenant.
Most Pastors lack the courage to preach about this issue for fear of offending the many congregants who live in adulterous remarriages. Offended people leave, and they take their tithes with them.
I look at what John the Baptist was preaching as an example. He knew that Herod was committing adultery and it was worthy of damnation if not repented of...Very scary stuff here....
Yes, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery, Luke 16:18.
I dislike when people say “most churches” or most christians”….just how do you know that?! Do you know most churches?! Have you heard the teachings of most churches?! 🙄😒😒😒
This is very wonderful. There are millions of Christians who are living in difficulties because of misunderstanding the words of the saviour. The fate of marriage, for example, in the Coptic Orthodox Church is determined by a monk bishops who have no clue about marriage.
I hope many, especially women, can watch this and feel free.
Don't take the vaccine trust in The LORD ALMIGHTY
@@jacoblandis1899 who have ears let him hear
A dear cousin of mine had a husband who committed adultery 'in his heart" continually, even to the point of following women around at gatherings. He also was addicted to hunting which he did every weekend through every type of hunting throughout the year. He essentially abandoned his family and was not emotionally or physically present much of the time and was lax in supporting them, because of so much absence.
At some point she had an affair when he was away hunting. She confessed and repented and continued the marriage. In revenge he went out and had affairs, and at that time she divorced him. What a complex mess! This is not uncommon in many MDR's and it is no cut and dried issue. We must all rely on God's mercy and not get Pharisaical about this issue.
It’s not about being “pharisaic all.” It’s about truth. Did God join two together as one flesh? If so, intimacy w another is adultery, whether it’s legal, through divorce and remarriage, or not.
@@michaelmakinney20 amen, marriage is a covenant between two people, it is a type just like God made a covenant with Israel. Not to be undertaken lightly.
@@michaelmakinney20 Actually, divorce ends the marriage. The reasons don't matter - divorced is divorced.
@@dh605x What's it like having no idea of what you're talking about? You wouldn't know, because you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Jesus said, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, "Luke 16:18.
Whom should I believe?
Tough choice.
Just kiddin'
😆😆😆😆
1 Cor 7:12-13 says "consents to live with." If I consent to you walking past my house on your way to your own house, you won't be fearful of being attacked when you do so. If any time you walked past there was a chance of me coming out with a baseball bat and doing you harm, no reasonable person would say I consented to what you were doing. Likewise, someone who makes their spouse fearful for their safety cannot be said to be consenting to their living together regardless of what they may claim.
Don't take the vaccine trust in The LORD ALMIGHTY
Anybody really think that if Jesus were listening to Craig here Jesus would be nodding his head in agreement?
LOL 😂
EXACTLY
I'm shocked in this man! what a hypocrisy!
The Lord made it very clear in Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
False teaching!
Yes I do.
@@YouhannaGrace You can actually render that verse "18 “Any man who divorces his wife to marry another woman is committing adultery. The man who marries a woman divorced in this way is committing adultery" Luke 16:18 (God's Word Translation). The sense would be in this case that anyone who uses divorce as a means of marrying another person commits adultery. This makes perfect sense if you think about it, divorce becomes simply a procedure to move on to another person.
Good points: hyperbole is a hypothesis worth considering. However, if it is hyperbole, it still means it's something you shouldn't do. If looking at a woman lustfully is 'adultery', and remarrying is 'adultery', in both cases we're being told they're bad things that we should not do. (Sure, we might do them, and if so that's just sin: all paid for, and we should stop it when we spot it. But we must never tell others it's ok to do these things - unless we want a hyperbolic millstone around our neck.)
+Steven Kelly But isn't that why Dr. Keener introduced Paul's example in Corinthians: where if a person breaks the marriage, the offended party is free to remarry?
Adultery exist at many levels. Technically I caught my son in adultery when at age 12 I found several Hustler magazines under his bed mattress but I think that is rather tame to the real adultery when a man who is married climbs into bed with another woman and even worse if he leaves a family to pursue his new interest after taking the marriage vows. All men and most women have committed adultery countless times in their lives but there is a world of difference between fantasies single young people might have and a man saying goodbye to his wife and family and creating the rift and heartache that destroys kids and the family structure.
@@joycekoch5746 there is only one unforgivabale sin
Scripture clearly teaches anyone who divorces and remarries while their covenant spouse is still living (with the exception of fornication) is an adulterer or adulteress (Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-15; 1 Corinthians 7:39).
Additionally, scripture clearly teaches in order to receive God's mercy one must repent or they won't inherit the kingdom of Heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Luke 13:3).
God saves anyone who genuinely repents. Repentance has two elements: Confessing AND forsaking our sins.
Proverbs 28:13, says: "He who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses AND forsakes them will have mercy."
Remaining in an adulterous remarriage is not repentance.
The liar has to repent and stop lying; the thief has to repent and stop stealing; the homosexuals have to repent and stop committing homosexual acts; and the adulterers and adulteresses (including those in adulterous remarriages) must repent and stop committing adultery.
Sharing the scriptural truth about divorce and remarriage infuriates people who are supposed to be followers of Christ. Jesus's words regarding this issue anger his alleged followers like no other topic. Perhaps, it's time to obey Jesus Christ, and to begin believing He means what He says.
Most importantly, ALL sins are unforgivable without repentance...including remaining in adulterous remarriages. According to the clear, easy to understand words of scripture: Jesus most definitely sends unrepentant adulterers and adulteresses to hell.
I just wanted to make sure that you understand that Matthew was written for the Jews and is in a Jewish context in accordance to the law in Deuteronomy 22:13-21. The Jews under the law were called husband and wife during the betrothal before the actual marriage took place according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24. This makes it very clear that fornication is not the same as adultery and only occured before marriage.
Great point AJ.
Randy, your right in your discernment of the result of all divorce and remarriage; your wrong about the solution: divorce. You’re to stay in the state you’re in, because breaking that promise helps no one. Furthermore, God understood and allowed the inherent adultery of divorce and remarriage as implied by the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The remarriage- which Christ said the divorcing husband was responsible for- of the wife to the second husband was still adultery, but CLEARLY God “permitted” it... for the sake of peace. Divorcing someone you’re promised to is a bit different than confessing a lie or returning something you’ve stolen 😉
Send me a picture of you with your eye gouged out and hand chopped off, Matthew 5:27 (unless you're going to tell me you have never once lusted after anybody). Otherwise I can't take this reading of scripture seriously. It's a human reading of scripture rooted in a desire to damn and condemn others, which behavior is itself condemned in the bible.
The only true solution is faith in Christ. Nobody is without sin, you cannot escape it when you read it earnestly. That's why Christ is so necessary.
Amen! God bless you for your very accurate understanding of the "covenant", to break the lies of Satan which continue to accuse the innocent party, prevent his/her life to live the fullest by putting him/her under judgment if s/he finds another half "in Christ" to continue prospering in both of their spiritual journey.
👍 I've been amazed how many people OCD on this issue who are convinced that remarriage is permanent unforgivable state of adultery.
I just wanna ask these people: Look at the state of marriage in Christendom today, it is a massive trainwreck. Then take those folks who were badly hurt in secular or nominally Christian marriages who have barely read scripture--- who have a Massive change of heart, decide to devote their lives to Christ, and hope they may remarry eventually and raise kids in the church and help restore a tiny corner of our wrecked culture, ....are we gonna tell those folks who have turned their hearts earnestly towards Christ that they have to be celibate for the rest of their lives? Or let them participate in picking up the shattered pieces of our culture?
I suppose the answer from the legalists on that issue would be LET THEM BURN. sounds more like Satan to me haha 😅
Btw I noticed you're into classical piano Improvisation too maybe could be friends. Haha, fun coincidence! Subbed to your channel. Cheers 😊
@@derekgeorgeandrews Totally agree.
I don't know how many times I wanted one, and how many times Jesus said No.
I love her.
Please read a teaching by...
Dr Leslie McFall
You are literally contradicting what Jesus said regarding divorce and remarriage not to mention what Paul said as inspired by God. If a woman is married while her covenant spouse is still alive, she will be called an adulteress.
How is this subject to some type of man’s perverted interpretation?
Wow! This is very sad and dangerous and for everyone that becomes deceived by this teaching and obtains their “excuse” to remarry, you will have your share of accountability!
You are absolutely right!
Welcome to modern Christianity. Ear tingles for all. It’s a joke.
@Dennis oh well Dennis doesn’t think it’s so. Let’s put all of our biblical comprehension to the side because Dennis has an opinion.
@Dennis I have a better idea: let’s listen to Jesus Christ Who said, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery,” Luke 16:18. How ‘bout that? Why might that be? Because the two are One Flesh by covenant, God’s Covenant w them. That’s why. The idea that the adultery Jesus speaks of is “hyperbole” is like saying the eternal torment those who take the mark will experience is hyperbole.
Very Dangerous, my friend.
@Dennis Haha so that’s your argument? You can’t debate my point so you go after my silly internet name. Ok bro.
Keener is correct: a delicate yet deliberate telling of the facts of 1st century biblical marriage in tandem with Moses and the Graeco-Roman marriage contracts. Keener's last sentence is well worth pondering. At times, personal ignorance of Scripture in situ, coupled with the genuine desire to encourage people to remain married, ones own blindness can veer toward modern-day Phariseeism; thus serving to violate the abiding principles against sowing contention/discord, as recorded in Prov. 6:16-19 (*19), and thus reap the consequences.
Are we still under the law in Deuteronomy?
Keener's interpretation causes one to keep the law (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. We are not under the law that Jesus freed the Jews from.
Freedom in Christ
1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another (Galatians 5:1-15).
AJ Louviere yes
Galatians 5:4:
For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.
AJ Louviere In my view your interpretation is legalistic.
This guy has students? And he can't understand the plain meaning of the text when Jesus is clearly talking about actual adultery? We must be in the end times.
Whether you all agree with some of the things he says on here or not, this man has spent his life devoted to old and new testament Literature, Culture, Archaeology, and History. He's able to add context, not everything is 100% comparable to today's time, some of the Bible is and some isn't. Norms, Beliefs, Values and so much more differ and certain texts are for those people at that specific time. I'd take his lessons and ability to bring to life the scriptures over anyone person on here any day, but you still have to rely on faith, prayer, and ask God to guide you with his spirit daily and study the scriptures on your own. Seek Christ and stop driving people away with your harsh comments.
So embrace a message strictly based on a man's scholastic achievements?
@@ajlouviere202You don't know what you are talking about, the Bible is a spiritual and historical book delivered to humans with cultural settings, you do not interpret it anyhow, there are principles guiding interpretation. Don't be spiritually arrogant to submit to this graceful piece from this humble vessel. Your ego has betrayed you.
So if one is remarried, should we repent by divorcing again? Or can the remarriage be forgiven and blessed?
We are to live as we find ourselves, “27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek release. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” I Corinthians 7. Divorcing would be breaking yet another promise and the adultery was committed on the day of remarriage. Stay as you are and love God and your spouse.
Grace to you Johnny
When Jesus spoke to this issue He was directly speaking to His covenant people Israel. He revealed to them that divorce caused remarriage to cause one to commit adultery. His criticism focused on accommodating their hard hearts (Matthew 19:8). Thus divorce was allowed for peace sake, same as 1 Cor. 7:15. After remarriage a man was not allowed to remarry his ex-wife because he caused her to be defiled by releasing her (with the right of remarriage) to another (Deut.24:2,4).
The defilement/adultery was the inadvertent consequence of allowing a marriage to prematurely end because as Jesus revealed God had created marriage for life in the origin (the beginning) of time (Matt. 19:8b).
By accommodating their hard hearts later and allowing divorce the second marriage transgressed the intrinsic obligation of exclusive faithfulness to each the other as design by God. By creative design sexual intimacy is to be exclusive to husband and wife for life. Allowing a marriage to end (divorce) causes the second marriage to violate that exclusivity. Thus the adultery Jesus described and the defilement Moses revealed in verse 4 of Deuteronomy 24.
Remarriage itself was not sinful and did not require repentance for being married. The point Jesus was making to those who ask Him about divorce being allowed for every cause (Matt. 19:3) was to help them understand that divorce was not inconsequential. There is a consequence for ending a marriage prematurely (before death). It causes the intimacy God design solely for two to be transgressed when remarried.
Jesus did not actually criticize remarriage, He criticized hard hearts who insisted on the right to put away their wives. The question the Pharisees ask Jesus trivialized marriage and thought of divorce as inconsequential. Thus Jesus reveal the consequence it caused by not remaining married. If they had stayed married this manner of adultery would not have transpired. Hope this helps. Blessings
Can one keep committing any sin, and just continuously ask for forgiveness, never actually repenting, effectively continuing in their sin?
@@exposefrauds3929 Nope, certainly not other wise we are bringing the precious name of Christ into open shame. If we mess up, we endure the chastising and we make an effort to CHANGE that behaviour. There is forgiveness for messing up, but we cannot live a life of willful sinfulness otherwise we are reprobates, unregenerate beings just like the world and we all know where that is going. We are told to be different, light to the dark world, salt that has not lost its saltiness.
These words apply to believers as well and are a warning:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6
@@nealdoster8556
Wrong!
Such a liberal modern day churchianity false explanation!
Remarriage IS ADULTERY, PERIOD! Releasing a BETROTHED woman from an unconsummated not yet actual marriage, is not the same as a divorce from an actual consummated marriage!
Why do you libs constantly twist and turn truth into lies, to placate the sinful nature of man, in order to accommodate selfish desires?
Remarriage is SIN, ADULTERY, and must be, sorry the awful word, REPENTED of! One cannot repent if remaining in an adulterous marriage, which cannot "be blessed!" All aberant sexual behavior is sin! Would you allow polygamy to "avoid divorce," or a homosexual marriage to "avoid divorce," or an incestuous marriage to "avoid divorce?!" No! It's all sin!
Stop twisting truth to fit the new accommodating, watered down, sin filled "churchianity!"
God made a covenant with us - we opted out - does the covenant still stand?
God's covenant with Israel still stands.
@@ajlouviere202 exactly
Except He destroyed and dispersed Isreal in 70 AD...
Yes. it still stands, very much so. It is just that when we intentionally disobey Him, like any parent, He will punish us as a way to show us His right ways.
You are bound for life adultery is not the exception is is Fornication!!! Porneia the narrow view of the word because in the same sentence and others in the Bible Jesus uses adultery (mocheia) side by side with Porneia(fornication). KJV and 60 others the exception is fornication!! There is no way out of marriage covenant except death. Watch David Pawson Cambridge and durham scholar and Dr. Joseph Webb
@Dennis You can disagree w the law of gravity, too, but you’re still gonna fall at the rate of 32 ft per sec per sec, if you jump off the ledge. Here’s the point: Jesus meant what He said, and Ge knew what He was saying, when He said it. 😉
@@michaelmakinney20 Awww. Poor Dennis disagrees 😪 isn't that a shame?? You make great points using scripture. God bless Michael
@@philarevolutionarywarriorp8295
Thank you for that; it’s tiring and tedious to fight this battle for the understanding which flows from the clarity of simply allowing what Christ said to stand on its own and speak for itself, so I appreciate the encouragement, Phil 😉
If both are Christians, they might probably stay together to HONOR their Marital Vows, even if the LOVE has faded and gone, "for better or worse, till death do us part"... but... The American Motto (Unalienable Rights)... "Life, Liberty (Freedom) and the PURSUIT (Seek) of HAPPINESS"... most often always on their AGENDAS before somehow (hindrances) obey and follow the commandments of God/Christ... Facts and Truth of the Matters...
If your covenant spouse is alive and you marry someone else, you are in adultery. It's not difficult to understand. There are NO loopholes. Jesus was very clear on this matter. If you love Jesus then you will obey His commandments!
Excatly💯
Yep. I believe Jesus said what He meant, and meant what He said 100%, is Horton the Elephant more straight forward than God??? Do we all have to attend Bible seminary and learn everything about biblical culture, language and history before we can figure out what Christ was saying? We're back to the "only the priests and scholars can properly interpret God's Word" this is spitting on Tyndale's grave. He wanted even a plough boy to understand more of God's Word than the priests. Whatever happened "so simple a wayfairing man need not err therein"? (Isa. 35:8)
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Matt. 11:25
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1Cor. 1:19-20
Presumably people making adverse comments have torn their eye out?
As those who do not choose the easier way of repentance.
Weak comment.
I would like to know about the situation of a husband who beats his wife. Should the wife stay know he may end up killing her. My ex husband beat on me and i left. I plan to remarry someone who does not beat on woman. Is that still adultery.
I recommend checking out David Instone-Brewer's masterwork "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context." Many people miss that divorce for abuse or neglect is allowed by Scripture. Many people misunderstand key parts of the discussion in Matt 19.
I have listened to all of David In stone Brewer case. It's sound research into beliefs and practices of 2nd Temple Juadism on divorce and remarriage,which is his expertise. But I think he jumps to far in interpreting Jesus.
As far as Craig Keeners central argument that Jesus uses "HYBERBOLE"(gouging eye out if it offends etc) I think that actually misses the heart of the matter. The scribes and Pharisees would solve things by the cutting off of an offending member.But the adultery is still in the HEART. This is the reflection of Dallas Willard. Cutting one's self off from seeing a woman DOESNT deal with the heart.
The words by Jesus did not sound like hyperbole in this context. I usually don’t take Jesus words as hyperbole. What do you think?
I’ve read somewhere the “adultery” mentioned in Mathew 5:32 and 19:9 are interpolations, not said by Jesus. That is why it isn’t in Marc 10:11-12 or Luke 16:18.
Tatiana J.
Regardless if it's a sin or not, CHRIST FORGIVES those that believe in him, because we are all sinners. Christs' teachings are to protect us from evil; from being hurt, confused, lost, etc... But it doesn't mean the person can't be forgiven. In fact, you judging and being harsh on here is probably some sort of sin. So what is your message to the 70% of Americans that divorce these days, "well, you're all going to hell!" Perhaps it should be, "Christ tries to guide us because he loves us, but when we fail, he will forgive you if you believe in him and ask for forgiveness."
In other words, stop focusing on divorce and wasting your time debating it and proving people wrong and spend your time teaching people about the love and forgiveness in Christ. Why do you think Christ spoke in parables in many instances.
Well to your point then I guess John the Baptist could have benefited from your advice and instead of crying out to the King that he was committing adultery he could have just no problem dude, just ask for forgiveness and enjoy that new wife....Dang you could of saved John a lot of pain...Wonder why he never thought of that????
I would add that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Galatians 5:19-21 are being completely ignored as though the Apostle Paul was not aware of true grace.
Excellent thank you
5:00 the words in Matthew 5:28 and 5:29-30 are not hyperbolic. I have heard that said since I started being a christian, but no-one can come up with a good argument why it should be so.
Also, since this is a matter that is decisive on our eternal destiny, why would our Creator use unclear language? Would it be fair if He was deliberately unclear, to reject us afterwards? No, the righteousness of God is a sufficient argument for that he means exactly what he says.
Why would God be hyperbolic in passages warning about the danger of hell? I believe that is wishful thinking. Much rather, have fear, and make every effort to enter through the narrow door.
Taking it literally suggests that the woman has a right to leave her husband on the basis of lust. Are you in line with this conclusion?
Both perspectives, I believe, lead to the same conclusion but differ in the process. We ought to guard our hearts. The literal version is self explanatory but the hyperbolic one could potentially be signaling that our minds can pave the way to sin and ultimately death/corruption. Thus, we ought to guard our thoughts and bring them into captivity.
First, be quick to listen and slow to speak. Keener was NOT making a point about "the danger of hell" being just a hyperbole.
He was talking about the "gauging your eye" bit being the hyperbole in order to make a point about the danger of hell.
Secondly, your assumption that Creator would never use "unclear," hyperbolic, or figurative language is flawed. They may be unclear to you but they were very likely understood by the original audience. Why? Because of the cultural background.
You cannot start with your own assumption. That is precisely how the message becomes unclear. Let Scripture shape your assumptions first.
@@DS-lx7tf where is anyone being presumptuous by taking Christ's commands literally? Does he not command the divorced woman to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11?
@@ajlouviere202 I addressed two things in my previous comment.
First, I was pointing out that thinking that Keener was making "the danger of hell" hyperbolic here would be a mistake.
Secondly, it would also be a mistake to think that God would never use a hyperbolic language, and therefore, we cannot start with that assumption as we approach Scripture.
So, in light of this, your response seems a bit out of place.
However, regarding 1 Cor 7, yes, you're correct. But should you neglect looking at the whole counsel of God on such important matter?
A question you cannot neglect to bear in mind is... "Is a married person indiscriminately BOUND to his/her spouse unless one of them dies?"
What do the next few verses in 1 Cor 7 say?
(i) a believer must not divorce his/her non-believing spouse who is willing to live with him/her (vv. 12-13),
(ii) and yet if the unbeliever leaves, the believer is NO LONGER BOUND, in the eyes of God, to the spouse that left (v. 15; cf. 2 Cor 6:14).
Another well-known teaching from the Lord is in Matthew 5:32.
It is not true that a married person is indiscriminately bound to his/her spouse unless one of them has died.
@@DS-lx7tf I respectfully disagree with the scripture in 1 Corinthians 7:15 saying that those who are abandoned by the unbeliever are "no longer bound." The reason is the way it is actually worded which gives it an entirely different meaning and context to the one you are implying. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." As you can see the actual scripture says "not under bondage," which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse. Subsequent translations have changed the words to mean that they nullify the marriage covenant, when this is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." As you can see that those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 has the Apostle Paul giving permission to remarry do not understand that the abandoned husband in 1 Corinthians 7:11 is expected to also remain unmarried in order to be reconciled with his wife. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh in marriage puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ by implying that he has issued an opposing command only four scriptures later.
If both Christians (male and female) realized after 3 or 5 years of marriage that they are not COMPATIBLE with each other and lost their love for each other and decided to divorce and marry someone else, can God still forgive them by repentance without going back to their previous spouses?... what if they both now have their own children from their second marriage?
It always shocks me when pastors teach against the bible.
@@DS-lx7tf by not teaching what it says.
@@DS-lx7tf does the bible tell a divorced person they can marry someone else while they have a one-flesh covenant marriage with another until death?
@Dennis There’s a difference between a contract, severed if the terms of that contract aren’t kept, and covenant, a promise to do something in relationship to another no matter what. Gods covenant of One Flesh is “mystical” in the sense that God is Spirit; no one has seen Him, though Jesus Christ revealed Him, and Sovereign over all. Holding high the holiness of marriage blesses everyone; 😢 sadly, you don’t see that.,
@Dennis my “flowery descriptions”
don’t irritate you nearly as much as the truth does, sadly
@Dennis It’s not really that, Dennis as it is (or was) a desire to turn something to an angle someone might better see what I see. Now, I don’t know you, but I have discerned a couple things from the attitude you’ve conveyed in all you’ve said this far. Tragedy Triumphs over Truth in your mind, and I’m not without empathy. But the trust in Gods Grace in the most difficult of situations is something that Shines through His Body in the most trying of times- witness the testimonies of Christians and others to the degree early Christians suffered in the Roman Colliseum, for instance.
And if someone divorces and remarried into adultery, isn’t that better than being an open prey to the desires of the flesh, or, as Paul would put it, isn’t it “better to marry than to burn,” and isn’t that why God, knowing it was adultery, as Christ later made clear, allowed for divorce and remarriage under the Mosaic Law?
But, Dennis, “the other side” doesn’t alter the truth. The other side in terms of physical, mental and verbal abuse is never to be approved, but we’re Archie and Edith in love on “All in the Family”? The producer and minds behind the comedy had a gross exaggeration of the, what, “conservative Christians American couple” in mind, and the whole show was, as funny as it was at the time, a shot across the bow at the “average (apparently quite shallow) Christian American family.
But the question (one those without any real respect for God and His understanding Providence, even in the worst of environments) remains- should Edith have divorced Archie long ago? And if she did and found a more decent, understanding, deeper man as a fortuitous result in both her heart and mind, would she be better off?
She wouldn’t be going to hell, okay, as I believe Scripture indicates, but, in lacking the grace commensurate with being viewed by God as their Father as one in all His thoughts, plans, dreams, refinement and hopes for them, would the very real material benefits her new husband provided outweigh the God’s grace in her life with Archie?
Perhaps. I can’t say. But what I can say is that all parties involved deserve to know the truth of Gods Word on this subject as never before.
Watch "Who Changed the Sabbath" by Pastor CD Brooks
nice
The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel.
The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death.
The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15.
Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife.
Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15.
Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16.
The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions.
The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24.
Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.
I am just glad that my wife and I made a covenant against divorcing one another! I truly can't figure out if Scripture is allowing for remarriage after an adulterous affair by one's spouse. Is this grounds for the innocent party to
remarry? I just can't tell. I hear one pastor teach yes and it sounds ok, but then another teaches no and it too sounds correct. I will never deal with this personally, but I know several couples that are remarried after a divorce! I just don't know which view is correct!!
Hamilton Rowan bless you both. I wasn't that lucky. My husband took off with his side chick.
Therefore it seems I am single forever since the age of 35 after 5 years of marriage. Now is that fair to me while he carries on his adulterous marriage???
Dell Chica
Fair? Well no... but we are called to suffer as Christians. Most of us have not experienced the tortures of a Syrian prison, but some of us have to choose the narrow gate and be wronged and still honor our marriage covenant when life doesn’t work out as we imagined.
Laura Kakoschke easy to say when you have babies to take care of and surviving barely on 1 salary ....its not easy....my children suffer too
Dell Chica
easy...no, and that’s why suffering is by definition horrible.
God is a father to the fatherless.
We don’t know each other’s situation. I don’t know yours. You don’t know mine.
I will tell you I’ve walked black hopeless paths and have tasted deep suffering. But the worst is seeing my children suffer. I agree.
ALL the churches that was founded around the eastern mediterranean by the apostles and their helpers (many of them were probably the witnesses around Jesus) always said that remarriage while the first covenant spouse was alive was always sin , and mark 10 / Luke 16 dont mention a clause , Paul dont mention a clause for christians , he talks about a unbeliever so dont try to make that include a christian who is backsliding ... Paul adresses the two demographics that can remarry, and that is virgins and widows ....
Another thing is that in Matthew Jesus uses fornication as clause, NOT adultery as is said here ....which makes the matthew clauses more uncertain verses ... and we have to let the clear verses be authoritative, NOT the unclear
Paul says that a husband and wife are tied for life , and if they remarry they are living in adultery, they either have to reconcile orcremain unmarried
Excatly i can not believe this guy deceiving Thousands he is supposed to know NT. Wow sad.
A covenant can be violated but not broken. Joseph Webb, David Pawson, Dr. Mike Gorrie, and Gino Jennings.
That is not correct. Not all are Christians when they marry. When one states forsaking all others, if that is not adhered to then of course divorce may be the option and remarriage. Every situation is different and needs to be taken to God in prayer. He will lead and guide.
@@maunder01 Scripture please.
@@madisonmichelle5182 Matthew 19:9 flows with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Sexual immorality. As does Paul regarding abandoning spouse in 1 Corinthians 7.
As Jesus said, whatever is bound on earth is bound I Heaven. Whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven.
I suggest reading G Hugenberger’s dissertation on Malachi; it is the most thorough and sound treatment of this subject I know of, and he comes to a very different conclusion. “Marriage as a Covenant: A study of biblical law and ethics governing marriage developed from the perspective of Malachi.”
Also Willian Heth’s article from 2002 (“Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed”) on what led him to change his position from no-remarriage to allowing it, a reversal from when he wrote with Gordon Wenham in the 80’s/90’s. His reasoning centers on marriage permanence and the nature of covenants. These are very much worth the read even if you still disagree.
This is what happens when you stop taking what Jesus said at face value, start throwing around some very academic vocabulary and start making assumptions about things the text doesn't explicitly state (such as not under bondage allowing for remarriage). Luke 16:18 is NOT hyperbole. This man seems well intentioned but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. After watching this video I can't even say for certain what his position actually is, other than he believes Jesus was exaggerating when he said remarriage is adultery. Terrifying.
@@Liminalplace1 I look at what John the Baptist was preaching as an example. He knew that Herod was committing adultery and it was worthy of damnation if not repented of...Very scary stuff here....
Andrew you have a good, humble, obedient view of this subject. Unfortunately, many, many don't 🔥
Andrew, You said it very well.
The woman at the well had 5 husbands, & the one she was with was not her husband. So Jesus offered her living water instead. Meaning, seek first the kingdom & then everything else will be added to you. The sword entered king Davids home forever because he killed Uriah. And John the Baptist had his head cut off.
So what sin did John commit?
@@Moms87 Luke 3:19
John also publicly criticized Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, for marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for many other wrongs he had done.
Mark 6:18
For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”
(married or unmarried)
God will be the judge. He sees the big picture. Sin is impossible to be forgiven from without Jesus.
In the first, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying: “It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of porneia (sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31-32), pretty clear and simple
Don't take the vaccine trust in The LORD ALMIGHTY
Studies have shown that non-christians think that Christians are too judgmental. After reading some of these comments I totally agree with the non-christians. With the judgment that you judge, you will be judged, but the merciful will be showed Mercy. Hmm, I wonder who said these things and why?
@Panchito Odette Thanks for proving my point.
In James he called them adulteresses. Adultery in the broader sense is anything that deviates from God's will.
(Eph. 4:24) "and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness."
(2 Tim.1:7) "For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline."
(2co.5:17) "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!"
(Col.3:3) "For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God."
Benefits:
(Ro.6:14) "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace."
(Ga 2:21) "I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die."
(Phil.3:9) "and become one with him. I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ. For God’s way of making us right with himself depends on faith."
(Ro.3:19) "Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. 20. For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are."
21. But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Mosesi and the prophets long ago. 22. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.
Moses, in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, commands to divorce with a certificate and remarry. You say we are not under the law. So which is it?
Nothing you are posting permits those who are divorced and not widowed to remarry.
Well that is half the gospel...You been listening to Joel Olsteen? LOL
@@christopherjordan6237 what he's not telling anyone is that he is possibly divorced and remarried and this is what he must do to justify it.
@@ajlouviere202 Thats right. You know he is. LOL
Excellent and biblical presentation by Craig Keener. Interested in the comprehensive details? Read DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE in the BIBLE: The Social and Literary Context, David Instone-Brewer, Eerdmans, 2002. amzn.to/2mFR6a7
"People who claim to be serious about the Bible often expend a lot of energy talking about how it needs to be interpreted “in context”--but then turn around and [unknowingly] filter it through their own traditions. The context for correctly understanding the Bible is not the Church Fathers. Biblical theology neither began nor ended with Augustine. It is also not the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation, or modern evangelicalism. Rather, the correct context for interpreting the Bible is the context in which it was produced--the ancient Near East and Mediterranean." Michael Heiser
David Instone Brewer would have you filter the CLARITY of what Jesus said about Divorce & Remarriage through a filter of rabbinical teaching at the time. Yet, Christ REPEATEDLY called out teaching of the day as false. Instone Brewer sees the marriage covenant as a contract (see p. 15 of his “D & R in the Bible”). There is a vast and substantive difference between a contract, which may be severed if certain conditions of that contract aren’t met, and a covenant; wherein, God declares what He will do in relationship to someone (or two, in the case of marriage) and Himself. When He led Abram outside and said ‘Count the stars; so shall your descendants be,” He made a covenant with him, and He would keep His Word regardless of what Abram or any of his descendants did thereafter.
Dr. Craig Keener, could the Samaritan married five brothers, whom died one by one including the fifth one. Thank God, she had a grown up son when Jesus met her. Quite the contrary, she could be another Tamar or Ruth in her time🙏
Why is no one discussing the truth ... that it doesn't say EXCEPT in the Greek for both Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9? It literally means "NOT for sexual immorality." Jesus upheld God's law. It didn't have a command in Deut. 24:1 to give a certificate of divorce. It wasn't an imperative, instead it was a narrative.
Not a good message nor clear.... very modded
God Changes the heart!!! It is not your spouses it is the spirits working through them Ephesians 6:10-20. If it is not what is of God it is not finished yet. You continue to speak out with your mouth and declare and decree that she is a proverbs 31 wife of noble character ECT... When it is hopeless praise God! When it looks impossible praise God! Because that is situation He wants to use for his Glory! Do NOT listen to people saying she has her free will and has to want to change!!! Did Jonah have his free will? He ran from God and look what happened! Did Saul have His free will? And who did he become? A new man from a murder to Pual the greatest apostle. Did pharo have his free will and God said HE hardened His heart for His glory! Did king Nebenekanezzar have His free will? And God made him like an animal for 7 years and then God have him back his mind and he submitted to God! “God moved Saul’s heart” in 1 Samuel 10:9 and the “valiant men whose heart God had touched” in 1 Sam 10:26. Deuteronomy2:30 God made Sinohn king of Heshbon spirit and heart change for his glory-“The Lord your God has made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as He has now done.”
Jeremiah 24:7
'I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
Did not God move in in the nation of Israels hearts and put his spirit in them Ezekiel 36 and breath into the dead dry bones in Ezekiel 37? Didn't God move in King Cyrus's heart to let His people go? Ezra 1:5 The the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites-everyone whose heart God had moved!!- prepared to go up and build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. Didn't Jesus come and bring Nazareth out of the grave when they said if you had of come sooner Jesus he would not have died...He is body is stinking now no hope!!! And THEN Jesus spoke life into him and brought the dead back to life! He is just looking for someone to have the faith to believe what is in the Bible. Will you?
Ancient book, dealing with people in ancient times. Marriage, relationships, sex in these modern times are a complex issue to be dealt with. I don't think the formula of a simple no divorce, no remarriage, or you're permitted to divorce, but you cannot remarry will not work. In my opinion that is.
Please keep opinion to a minimum....Man's opinion is how we got here in the first place.
You will have to explain that to God who does not change.
Uncertainty 74 you just explained the main issue with this topic and that's modernism, which attempts to force God to bend, and bow to man's need to somehow evolve and separate himself from the truth written in the scriptures.
@@ajlouviere202 In the Bible, God changes all the time. In the old testament divorce and remarriage was permitted (Deuteronomy 24). But in the new testament, Jesus who is God changes the law concerning marriage.
The problem is most people fail to differentiate between divorce and putting away.
I look at what John the Baptist was preaching as an example. He knew that Herod was committing adultery and it was worthy of damnation if not repented of...Very scary stuff here....
Those who fail to do so understand that it is a false doctrine that was created to give a loophole. Matthew was written to the Jews who were following the law in Deuteronomy. The Romans and Greeks, to whom Mark and Luke were written, had no knowledge of Moses's precept and were only divorcing (putting away) by verbal command.
The Scripture says NO adulterer OR fornicator will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Was Abraham a fornicator when he had Keturah his concubine?
@@1Sackettgirl no. The Bible has specific rules about men and their concubines. Abraham was committed to provide for her under the law
@@godeeperbiblestudy
So...that brings me to today. Would "common law" relationships be in that same category? I know numerous people who live this way they've been together for years sometimes even their whole lives, is this fornication? Or concubinage?
Then why does Paul say that you cannot remarry as long as your ex-spouse remains alive. This is the worst explanation I've heard in my two-year study on this topic.
He mention 1 Corinthians 7:15 is the reason someone can be remarry but he should had read 1Corinthians 7: 39 that rejects this teaching on remarriage.
Excatly
7 minute seminary... in only 11 minutes. :)
I'm searching the truth! Its confusing your saying I'm free others its Adultery!
Remarriage while covenant spouse is still alive is adultery.
AJ Louviere well my ex husband is doomed? He married his side chic and abandined me.....whaat am I to do???
@@dellchica2373 I understand your pain. I do. It's not easy to follow the scripture teachings. That's why most people do otherwise on this issue, and why the word says narrow is the gate, and few find it. I remember when I believed as this man believed. When I first began to study this issue it read that you could be divorced and remarried if adultery was committed on you. But, I was not simply accepting that as the answer. I couldn't make Matthew 5:32, and Matthew 19:9 harmonize with the rest of the gospel in Mark 10:10-11, and Luke 16:14-18. Then one day I was reading from the KJV where Matthew 19:9 says "saving for the cause of fornication" and the Lord spoke to me and said it was until the wedding night if the woman could not seal the covenant in blood to her husband. He could claim she comitted fornication against the betrothal and she would be stoned if she couldn't produce the proof of virginity on the cloth as per Jewish law at that time. I began to study Jewish betrothal and found the truth. It was also being confirmed that Matthew's gospel was writen to the Jews and not the Gentiles. That is why you only see that in Matthew and nowhere else in the word. What you do see is that only death breaks a marriage covenant in God's word. Romans 7:1-6 is a clear example that death breaks it and nothing else. From two perspectives, the marriage between man and wife, and the marriage between Christ and the church. We had to die to the old covenant in order to be born again, and joined in a marriage covenant to Jesus. I hope this offers you the answers you are seeking. It stopped me from marrying a woman who is divorced. Basically God really got my attention and I sought the truth without wanting to only see what I wanted to see, and that is how I found it.
@@dellchica2373 this video series helped to open my eyes before descovering the rest as confirmation.
ua-cam.com/video/1hQvETCgEek/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/837o4On3g24/v-deo.html
AJ Louviere I will respond to you after I have given this some thought.
Jesus said: "NOT on sexual immorality." Look up the Greek word for NOT there in Matt 19:9. It always was translated as NOT, negation .... EXCEPT for Matt 19:9!
that is the best explanation I have ever heard, very well done within the context and the meaning of scripture, very intelligently done
I look at what John the Baptist was preaching as an example. He knew that Herod was committing adultery and it was worthy of damnation if not repented of...Very scary stuff here....
It is like a soothing ointment to itchy ears.
It's not a hyperbole. Instead Jesus starts out talking in the subjunctive and "av" just like in Deut 24:1, meaning "perhaps", "might" have divorced his wife (Matt 19:9). It starts out being said hypothetically, not in a hyperbole, and then Jesus proceeds to declare that the man who did this to the presumably innocent woman is present tense committing adultery. Jesus is accusing those men before him of adultery, if indeed they did this to their wives. Jesus said NOT on sexual immorality because they were thinking about it ("me" in the Greek) and it was not permissible to divorce for sexual immorality in Deut 22. Jesus was upholding the law. Not being permissive.
Its interesting how modern scholars are quick to apply what the scriptures apply to men also to women. I mean without even a word of justification for doing so. It might be justified but where is the reasoning. The exception was for the man to divorce.
That was the standard under the law of Moses. Yet notice that there is no such language used in Mark 10:1-12.
@@Liminalplace1 I agree on post-feminist society. But what is your stand on divorce and remarriage?
@@ajlouviere202 after Futher study, I think most scholars views on divorce are just reflections of their own cultural understandings and are just not what the scriptures teach. John Walton, OT theologian, has pointed out that we cannot take proof texts from the Torah to support modern morality as the Torah was not originally given
I've pounded this thought many times in my mind about adultery, if you look upon a woman with lust, you have commented adultery in your heart, Jesus says. Praise Jesus! this thought came to my mind, in the days when jews were under the law, and lets say they were at the market place, let say, (a man) he's a married man, and has been married for seven years with four kids, and his wife has gain a few extra pounds! and this man sees a young beautiful woman! and he looks upon with lust? now here is when that thought come's to minded, what I gather is that the jews in those day gave certificate of divorce like they were going out of style, and for any reason! and yes I believe that God was in touch with the pain of the one that was being wrong! because the innocent one, was faithful to the other party! getting back to my point of lust, (the thought) it was not that the man was lusting after her for sex, it was that he wanted that woman to be his next wife and have sex with her? in other word using God's law to do it by the rules, so as not to commit sin and not get stoned! that was the lust in his heart! and under the law you can not have sex out of marriage! it was a sin, punishable by death! (stoned to death) so he plan the divorce! which is evil! and if she ask him why or please don't kick me out with the kids, his heart was so blinded with lust for the other woman, that his heart harden against her with no mercy! he didn't care if she found someone else! he just wanted that new wife! and if another took her for his wife he commits adultery! sad!
Wow. Such a long explanation for something otherwise left as unclear as when the listener tunes in.
That's what happens when someone is not speaking the Truth. They go on and on and leave you unclear.
I believe Jesus said what He meant, and meant what He said 100%, is Horton the Elephant more straight forward than God??? Do we all have to attend Bible seminary and learn everything about biblical culture, language and history before we can figure out what Christ was saying? We're back to the "only the priests and scholars can properly interpret God's Word" this is spitting on Tyndale's grave. He wanted even a plough boy to understand more of God's Word than the priests. Whatever happened "so simple a wayfairing man need not err therein"? (Isa. 35:8)
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Matt. 11:25
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1Cor. 1:19-20
I'm gonna have to disagree with Craig here. The only exception Jesus made for divorce is "pornea", which is fornication. That's sex before marriage. Adultery is a sin committed by married people, but fornication is sex before marriage. Craig is simply wrong here.
Excatly💯
Daniel R Jennings wrote Except for Fornication, it's free online. And his view blasts Keener out of the water. Unless Keener can solidly and clearly refute Jennings then Keener is plain wrong no matter how right he may be on other fronts.
Where people get it wrong is repentance. There is no forgiveness without turning from the sin. You have to leave and stop the sin. You can't die in sin and expect forgiveness
Do you walk sinless everyday?
So I must remain single forever? Great
You don't have to do anything. This scripture is plain. I put before you death, and life, choose life.
AJ Louviere right. Divorced abandoned by husband. Therefore single and alone forever. Great.
@@dellchica2373
1 Cor. 7:15
@@dellchica2373Our God is living. When we remain single God can change heart to reconciliation. My Mom remained single and Dad came back. She always used to pray. My Dad was Hindu and still God changed his heart.
@@inc8733 amen. That is the true meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:15, to be seperated, not remarried after a divorce.
Divorce is sometimes unavoidable and the Lord has brought new spouses into the lives of many divorced Christians. The remarried couple confess the sin and God forgives❤. They do NOT live in perpetual adultery. There are evangelists/preachers who have been happily remarried for decades and God has blessed their marriages and ministries. If they were living in perpetual adultery, I don't think that He would do that.
Why is divorce unavoidable if not for sexual immortality?
Q?... if both spouses are faithful to each other, until they have lost their LOVE from each other, or stop LOVING each other, due to everyday QUARRELSOME of disagreement practically of everything, family problems, disappointments in life and careers, failure with their children's good direction in life, etc., etc... Marriage counselor does not also work, what is NEXT for them?
@@revelation13_9 If both are Christians, they might probably stay together to HONOR their Marital Vows, even if the LOVE has faded and gone, "for better or worse, till death do us part"... but... The American Motto (Unalienable Rights)... "Life, Liberty (Freedom) and the PURSUIT (Seek) of HAPPINESS"... most often always on their AGENDAS before somehow (hindrances) obey and follow the commandments of God/Christ... Facts and Truth of the Matters...
When Moses conceded divorce to hardhearted men he did so for peace sake, just like Paul in 1 Cor.7:15. When Jesus made a reference to this fact (Matthew 19:8) He was not criticizing Moses (as claimed by some), He was actually being critical of hardheartedness. Jesus’ following remarks “but from the beginning it was not so” (8b) revealed to the Pharisees that divorce was foreign to God’s creative design for marriage(4-6). This masterfully exposed the calloused hearts of the Pharisees for wanting to divorce their wives for all kinds of subjective reasons and it revealed to them that they were transgressing God’s will for marriage by prematurely ending it. Divorce then causes an inadvertent consequence for remarriage.
In the sermon on the mount Jesus revealed to His covenant people Israel that by divorcing their wives (which were allowed to remarry Deut. 24:2) they were causing them to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). In the Patriarchal society of Israel men were causing their wives to commit this manner of adultery, that is to commit adultery by defaulting on “the law of her husband” set forth by marriage itself (Romans 7:2b) KJV. Because marriage sets forth the responsibility of lifetime faithfulness, divorce and remarriage will transgress that obligation. Jesus revealed to Israel the consequences of prematurely ending a marriage. In the Patriarchal society of Israel men who initiated divorce were the ones guilty of the ensuing adultery of their former wives when they remarried (Matthew 5:32).
This adultery was not the adultery of being unfaithful while married which was punishable by stoning. This adultery happens exactly how Jesus describes it in the text. These TRUTHS are overlooked by “divorce to repent” (DTR) advocates (those who teach that the divorced and remarried should divorce). Jesus is directly speaking of an adultery that’s a result of prematurely ending a marriage. He is not speaking of an adultery that’s a result of Him abrogating (as they claim) the law of Moses. The abrogation supposition changes (adds to) the dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus. By adding to God’s word it perverts the text. It changes the perception of when this adultery began, how and why the adultery occurs and to whom the adultery was relevant.
For most DTR advocates this adultery begins as a result of believing Jesus abolished the Old Testament divorce concession. Thus they believe Jesus changed divorce possibility or made divorce impossible and therefore the teaching of Jesus (for them) is applicable going forward. In other words Jesus’ teachings is not applicable to whom He was speaking historically. It becomes applicable by adding the abrogation supposition, understand? This oversight and addition to Jesus’ teaching is the ground work for even more suppositions that are legalistic in nature. Particularly the “divorce to repent” supposition itself, for they are claiming divorce is necessary for salvation sake.
The perception that Jesus changed marriage to being indissoluble is what drives those who advocate DTR. They believe this adultery to be the same as that punished in the law of Moses. But the truth is this adultery was not punished throughout the Old Testament. The adultery Jesus describes happens after the first marriage ends and because it ends prematurely (before death). If one overlooks the retrospective application of Jesus’ words, they cannot account for this adultery in the Old Testament. Therefore they have to account for it some other way, How? By believing abrogation. I cannot over emphasize the problem suppositions cause for this issue. Take a fresh look a the comment threads on any site that deals with divorce and remarriage. You have a spectrum from the licentious all the way to the legalist. But my point is, if you believe abrogation or the abolishment of the divorce concession, you will arrive at the legalistic end of the spectrum. Thankfully there are balanced perspectives also.
One way of having a balanced perspective on this issue is recognizing supposition. That’s because supposition drives supposition. For example the false supposition of abrogation produces the false supposition of indissoluble marriage. That false supposition produces the false belief that divorce is no longer effective. That false supposition produces the false belief that the adultery Jesus described is happening in the first marriage. That false supposition produces the false belief that remarriage itself is the adultery, etcetera. If that false supposition is believed, wouldn’t you then suppose that God would want you to repent of your marriage if the marriage itself was the adultery?
That’s what DTR advocates are telling those who are remarried. They believe a divorced and remarried person is still married to their first spouse or some would say they are still in a one-flesh relationship with the first spouse. Consequently they READ INTO Jesus’ teachings the idea of “indissoluble marriage” or “indissoluble one-flesh union.” These ideas for them explain the ensuing adultery but they don’t realize they have changed how Jesus described this manner of adultery nor to whom it was relevant. They have overlooked the retrospective indictment Jesus was making against those who divorced throughout the Old Testament. By believing Jesus made the husband/wife relationship indissoluble, they imagine the adultery to be occurring in the first marriage and see remarriage as merely one long case of adultery. By changing Jesus’ words to fit their suppositions they have changed how this manner of adultery occurs from that which Jesus described.
Their suppositions misconstrue Jesus’ words, but it all starts when biblical precedents become irrelevant by believing abrogation. Precedents where remarriage resulted in a binding marriage even though it caused a shameful consequence. My post have primarily opposed DTR. That’s because their suppositions have caused so much confusion for this issue by creating a whole new dimension not even in the bible. Their suppositions are a contentious issue for Christendom today while not even being part of New Testament dialogue. Supposing a remarried individual is still married to their first spouse causes much confusion for this issue. My heart goes out to those who are victimized by DTR which exacerbates divorce and destroys families.
Conversely, if Jesus’ words are understood contextually He would be understood to be speaking retrospectively about what hard heartedness caused Israel. When this adultery is understood to be happening in the Old Testament the abrogation supposition is proven a lie. Therefore this manner of adultery is not something new, not something happening in the first marriage, thus not that adultery. Therefore not the adultery described by abrogation. We then should realize that biblical precedents were not abolished. When we understand Jesus did not contradict Moses, Moses and Jesus can be and should be read harmoniously. We then understand that even though a shameful consequence occurs because of divorce, remarriages were binding marriages to be honored as such.
I should emphasize that both Jesus and God knows that the inadvertent shameful consequence that women experienced when remarried was the fault of their husbands for divorcing them (Matt. 5:32, Deut.24:4). I want to say here that there is often an innocent party in divorce today. I see God’s grace in allowing remarriage in the Old Testament and I’m not for keeping people out of marriage except if they are within the New Testament circumstance in which Paul prohibited it. I want to reiterate my main points in short propositional statements so as to expose supposition.
*Miss the retrospective relevance Jesus made to His convent people Israel about adultery and you will account for adultery some other way. DTR does exactly that.
*Add abrogation (or the idea) to Jesus’ teachings and you are poised to believe marriages no longer end.
*If you believe marriages no longer end you will also believe that the adultery that occurs in remarriage is the same adultery that was punished.
*If you believe in indissoluble marriage you will believe in perpetual adultery.
*If you believe in perpetual adultery for those remarried you will advocate the “divorce to repent” supposition.
*If you advocate the “divorce to repent” supposition you will be legalistic.
*If you add rules to the bible for salvation sake, then your own salvation is suspect because you are perverting the Gospel.
A legalist by definition is one who adds rules to the bible for salvation sake.
Grace to you, Jeff
I believe you missed the Lord’s point. Remarriage never was the adultery. Jesus was criticizing divorce and He did so by revealing what it caused for remarriage. God had not forced singleness on His covenant people even though they inadvertently committed this manner of adultery. Divorce is the primal cause because it prematurely ends a marriage therefore staging remarriage to violate the “faithfulness until death” obligation. Jesus taught that divorce AND remarriage causes one to COMMIT adultery, not the marriage is the adultery. That was the Lord’s point and that is why He admonished Israel to stop separating the one-flesh union (Matt. 19:6). Blessings!!!
I’ve read and responded to some of your previous postings (such as Sharon Henry‘s site). It’s people like you I wish I could help.
By the way, Sharon deleted some of my postings and blocked me from being able to post on her site. To her credit she did endure a counter perspective for a while. But she didn't want someone systematically exposing her errors. This can only mean she doesn't have the strongest argument from scripture. Most sites don't block a counter perspective. Once their ( like Sharon) strong holds are torn down, they are exposed as teaching falsely. Hoping the Lord will bring you to a place of peace Jeff. God bless you.
I’m all for removing falsehood from competing with truth so that others are not confused. But you are assuming Sharon is the one defending truth. So everyone gets to defend what they believe on her site to be true but a few who actually are demonstrating the differences put forth. What Sharon has done (and you are defending) is stopping others from having an informed perspective so that they can make an informed decision for themselves. This leaves them in bondage to false teaching, not safeguarding them.
I wasn't obligating her for anything. I was wanting an opportunity to demonstrate that her suppositions were just that. That's why I was blocked. She got frustrated with having to prove what she couldn't.
If divorcing is considered adultery, then why are fornicators aloud to marry? Haven't they already violated the marriage bed and their marriage is perpetual sin?
Read DanielRJennings book/paper online(it's free) called : Except for Fornication, it will explain it detail. It is UNDISCLOSED fornication that's the prob. Jesus was referring to. Never married people who come to Christ who are not virgins because of fornication, can marry, their past sins are washed away. If they are Christian and fornicate, they must repent(be sorry AND TURN AWAY FROM THAT ACTIVITY)and God will forgive them(that's what the foot washing after baptism analogy means)and they will still be able to marry,BUT they must NOT hide their past from their prospective spouse, the prospective spouse needs full discloser before they are able to make true marriage covenant commitment.
Abuse in Marriage people say there are gray areas what about abuse well the bible DOES talk about it! Why have we never seen this or our pastors talked about it?
1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God SUBMIT yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are HARSH. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the PAIN OF UNJUST SUFFERING because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 TO THIS YOU WERE CALLED, BECAUSE CHIST SUFFERED FOR YOU, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22
“He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”[e]
23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 25 For “you were like sheep going astray,”[f] but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
1 Peter 3 New International Version (NIV)
3 WIVES, IN THE SAME WAY submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
1 Peter 4:Living for God
4 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin.
@Dennis It’s the simple truth of Gods Word and your vows til death do you part. It’s Gods law in marriage not mans. Can two gay people be married in Gods eyes? No. Neither can two adulterers because that’s what God calls people who are “MARRIED” after a divorce and the other spouse is alive. Gods laws by how he begins and ends it by His laws not mans.
Making a big assumption there big guy! And if you studied the WORD, you'd know what is meant by the "camel going through the eye of the needle".
I'm guessing YOU must be divorced?
Bruce Allen Smith, what is meant?
@@michaelbrickley2443 are you asking me to explain the "eye of the needle" and the "camel"?
@@bruceallensmith4491, Who are you asking if they’re divorced? Craig Keener Dr. Craig Keener? I’d be interested what you think of the camel verse, as well. You’re making comments and calling someone big guy…who
LOL I guess you don't know who Dr Keener is? "if you studied the WORD" LOL
Your adding to scripture. Till death. The lord says no divorce.
Why Divorce and Remarriage Is Adultery & Why We Can Not Remarry To Enter His Kingdom
1 Corinthians 7:1010 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she Must Remain Unmarried OR else Be Reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
Romans 7
By law a married woman is Bound to her husband As Long As He Is Alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, She IS Called an Adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man
Luke 16:18
“Jesus said: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Greek present continuous tense or state of being)
Christopher, you interchange a sin, adultery, with salvation. Yet, he who sins in one thing has committed them all, James 2:10. The woman is to be called an adulteress to notify all that she doesn’t enjoy the One Flesh covenant of God in her new marriage. However, she’s not kicked out of the church. So long as she believes and confessed her faith, she’s saved:
“8 But what does it say? “The word is near to you, in your mouth and in your heart”[a] (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim), 9 that[b] if you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Romans 10:8-9.
Whereas, in the case of the guy fornicating w his step-mom in Corinthians, Paul has him removed from the church.
@@michaelmakinney20 Sorry but these are all taken out of context and made a pretext. There are over 200 NT verses you can loose your salvation. As the Word says please “Do Not be DECEIVED no fornicator nor adulterer nor homosexual.... nor idolaters will enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus parable of the prodigal son... my son was DEAD and Now he is ALIVE. He was LOST and now he is found.
“ O foolish man don’t you know faith without works is dead? Even the Demons BELIEVE and tremble!”
@@michaelmakinney20 1 Corinthians 7:10
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the LORD): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she MUST REMAIN UNMARRIED OR else BE RECONCILED to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
1 Corinthians 7:39
“A wife is bound by law AS LONG AS HER HUSBAND LIVES; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
Romans 7:1
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 LIVITH, 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
Luke 16:18
“Jesus said: Whosoever/anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman committith adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman committith adultery.” (Greek present continuous tense or state of being)
Mark 10:11-12
11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marrith another committith adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marrith another, she committith adultery.”
Hebrews 13:4
Let marriage be held in HONOR (reverence) among ALL, and let the marriage bed be UNDEFILED, for GOD WILL JUDGE the sexually immoral and adulterous!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do NOT be DECEIVED!!!!!!! Neither fornicators, nor ADULTERERS, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
John 14:23
Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words.
John 15:6
Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned.
1 Corinthians 16:22
“If anyone does not love the Lord, that person is cursed. Our Lord, come!”
1 John 2:4
If anyone says, “I know Him,” but does not keep His commandments, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
@@michaelmakinney20 Ezekiel 18:24 But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.
@@christopherjordan6237 Not taken out of context at all. Paul is talking about 2 entirely different realities here: the Christian married to the Christian and the Christian married to the unbeliever. If the unbeliever agrees to live w the Christian, so be it; your faith might save your spouse. But if they leave, let them leave. Why? Because “the brother or sister is not bound in such cases.”
What are they no longer bound to? The consent of the unbeliever. The unbeliever was “sanctified” because of their children, but nowhere does it suggest they were One Flesh by God’s covenant.
10 To the married I command-not I, but the Lord-a wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if indeed she does separate, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 Now to the rest I say-not the Lord-if any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if any wife has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she must not divorce her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the brother, since otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. The brother or the sister is not bound in such cases. But God has called us in peace.
What is the antithesis of being bound? Freedom.
Furthermore, the Christian woman who divorces her husband and remarries isn’t the same as someone who takes his inheritance and leaves his father. She never left her Father; she left her marriage. And what did Paul say?
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.
You would have a Christian woman who divorced and remarried break her new vows and destroy another marriage? Really?
The interpretation of scripture should be left to the leading of the Holy Spirit alone. It is not your duties sir to interpret what God is saying through His words on the basis of whether or not God is simply using parables (hyperbole) to drive home a point or if He is saying something that needs to be taken literally. Yes Jesus purposely spoke in parables because scripture made it clear that the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven was not meant for everyone but for only those of whom God has called or chosen to reveal himself to. That is why it is so important that a person accepts Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior, becomes a son/ daughter of God and then God will reveal Himself to them. It is perfectly clear in scripture that God HATES divorce. Even though God eventually allowed it, the Bible let's us know that it was because of the hardness of our hearts that Moses commanded that a writing of divorcement be given. Jesus came into the world as the Light of the world. Jesus Christ literally illuminated God's holy word and made it come alive. He and He alone was given the authority from God the FATHER to speak on His behalf. So when Jesus commented on the Scriptures everything that He said was to be taken literally. He that have the Holy Spirit let him discern what I am sayingc. So in Matthew 5: 28 (KJV) when Jesus said " But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." This was not an example of hyperbole or parables but was a literal explanation of God's words that is to say that sin starts in the heart. It is not only your actions that God sees as sin but the forethought. He saw the secret intentions of your heart and has already judge it as sin. When you sit there twisting God's word, condoning divorce and remarriage you are leading people astray. You are indirectly giving people the rights to do as they please because you are saying that not all of God's can or should be taken literally. Giving people the rights to omitt or disregard the word of God that they don't agree with. This is not only the doctrine of devils, but it is Anti-Christ in content and supports rebellion against God's eternal word. People need to stop looking for excuses to divorce their spouse and re-marry. Rather, they should have just waited on the Lord for His guidance in Him choosing a husband or wife for them. If they are already married, work it out with the Lord's help. Do not get divorce under no circumstances, (except for adultery which I will explain later). If you are a Christian who is married to a non-Christian then love that person and let your Christ- centered love win that person to Christ. Do not simply divorce that person thinking that God will bring you a Christian spouse. That's not even biblical. God never mentions it in His word and you think that you can hold God to something that He did not say. I do not think so. Back to what I mentioned earlier with the ONLY biblical clause for divorce which is adultery. The Bible clearly states that if your spouse actually committed adultery then you have the rights to divorce him or her period. However; what's so hard for people to accept is that remarriage has never been Biblically supported. If you have Biblically divorce your spouse then you must remain alone and NOT remarry. I am not saying this, but the Bible says it. The only option for remarriage is the breaking of a marriage covenant through death. If your spouse unfortunately passed away, (hopefully not through malicious means) then you are free from the marriage covenant and are free to remarry without committing adultery to your former spouse and with the new spouse. Yes I am saying this unashamedly. If you're former spouse is yet alive and you remarried another person, not only have you committed adultery on your former divorced spouse but you are also committing adultery with the new spouse. God only recognizes marriage ONCE not 2, 4, or 6 times just ONCE. That means that any subsequent marriages are not recognized other then as sin, as adultery. If you can not stay alone after being divorce than the only option according to the Bible is reconciliation. You can reconcile with the divorce spouse, work things out with him or her and remarry. Other than that you must be alone. So, do not get divorce. Wake up people!!! Marriage is for Life and it is not a game or something to play with. God bless.
+drdesir I think he was more focused on the offended party in the case of adultery. Because he then compared that w/Paul's example in Corinthians where the offended party (who did not break up the relationship) was allowed to remarry.
drdesir
You write, "However; what's so hard for people to accept is that remarriage has never been Biblically supported. If you have Biblically divorce your spouse then you must remain alone and NOT remarry."
You have an ignorance of biblical history that is replaced by supposition on your part. When divorce was conceded so was the right of remarriage (Deut. 24:2). No one in either Old or New Testament disputed that. Second, you could have made your counter point without being condescending to this man. While I disagree with him at one point, he otherwise demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of this issue. He has a compassion for those victimized by divorced, something everyone needs when discussing this issue. I did not understanding him to be condoning divorce as you claim. You start from the false supposition that remarriage was not biblically allowed. Try reading Moses, Jesus and Paul congruously, this will help you avoid false supposition.
MATTHEW 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. *What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.*
7 They say unto him, Why did *Moses* then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, *Moses* because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: *but from the beginning it was not so.*
GOD DID NOT PERMIT THEM TO PUT AWAY THEIR WIVES, IT WAS MOSES' WHO PERMITTED THEM TO.
MoonPhaze5
You write, "GOD DID NOT PERMIT THEM TO PUT AWAY THEIR WIVES, IT WAS MOSES' WHO PERMITTED THEM TO."
In the verses you sited Jesus was being critical of those with hard hearts, not Moses. Your interpretation alters that fact. You instead suggest that Jesus was being critical of Moses and thereby suppose Moses went rogue on God and allowed divorce and remarriage in which God was powerless to prevent. In your interpretation God was victimized by Moses. This impugns God’s representative and makes Moses untrustworthy. Do you have any biblical evidence to prove such an accusation?
Excellent explaination of the truth. Apparently all do not have an ear to hear it. Sad that these guys study the word for years and not understand what some do in 5 minutes. Remarriage is for hard, wicked hearts, and the Kingdom of Heaven is not. Plain and simple!
WRONG VERY WRONG
There is no divorce clause once married
Your teaching contradicts countless scripture
"2 For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. 3 So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress"
Romans 7:1-3 (ASV)
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 amen exactly yet they keep teaching false teachings
Yes, Jesus was going after the men for divorcing their innocent wives and holding them accountable, but why did He say that once the other man of Deut 24:2 married her, that he was going to be committing adultery? Because now the woman would be defiled, and the man in Deut. 24:1 who divorced is wife wouldn't be able to take her back because she was defiled and would be bringing sin upon the land. It's not our words. It's Jesus words. I'm not twisting them. You are twisting them to make the broad way that leads to their destruction. Jesus said that the road was narrow and few their be that find it. We must obey His commands. You are giving them a loophole out. You are giving them an exception that Jesus never said.
We are not think for our Lord and Savior in things He explicitly says! We are not to divorce our spouse and remarry. It is adultery.
Romans 7
Tree of Life Version
Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I speak to those who know law), that the law is master over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives; but if the husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law-so she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you also were made dead to the Torah through the body of Messiah, so that you might be joined to another-the One who was raised from the dead-in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions that came through the Torah were working in our body parts to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the law, having died to what confined us, so that we serve in the new way of the Ruach and not in the old way of the letter.
IF we have difficulties within our marriage relationship we can separate and stay single or we can forgive and return.
Scripture also teaches to not worship false gods either and to repent and return to your God Adonai. We are to be faithful to our spouse and to our God Adonai.
IF we have given ourselves to the Lord and we have received the Holy Spirit, if we return to our sinfulness then we lose the Holy Spirit and we will not ever receive Him again.
Yeshua said we cannot enter into the kingdom nor see God if we do not have the Holy Spirit.
May God open your heart to HIS truth.
Proverbs 2
Tree of Life Version
My son, if you accept my words
and treasure my mitzvot within you,
making your ear attentive to wisdom,
inclining your heart to discernment,
yes, if you call out for insight,
lifting up your voice for discernment,
if you seek her as silver
and search for her as for hidden treasures,
then you will know the fear of Adonai
and discover the knowledge of God.
For Adonai gives wisdom.
Out of His mouth comes knowledge and understanding.
He stores up sound wisdom for the upright.
He is a shield to those who walk in integrity.
He guards the paths of justice,
and protects the way of His kedoshim.
Then you will discern what is right
and just and fair-every good path.
For wisdom will enter your heart
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.
Discretion will watch over you
-discernment will guard you-
to deliver you from the way of evil,
from those speaking perverse things,
who leave the straight paths
to walk in ways of darkness,
who rejoice in doing wrong
and delight in the perversity of evil,
whose paths are crooked
and are devious in their ways-
to deliver you from a seducing woman-
a wayward wife with seductive words,
who forsakes the partner of her youth
and forgets the covenant of her God.
For her house sinks down to death
and her tracks to the dead.
None who go to her return
nor reach the paths of life.
So you will walk in the way of good men
and keep to the paths of the righteous.
For the upright will dwell in the land
and the blameless will remain in it.
But the wicked will be cut off from the land
and the treacherous uprooted from it.
adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Do you want to gamble with you soul in eternity. NO
Holy Spirit has already told me that your cant remarry if your 1st spouse is still alive.
This life is like the lillies of the field today and gone tomorrow.
Eternity in hell being torched everyday.
Can't take that chance.
This speaker is WRONG!!!!!
What are you talking about? He never said "go out there and commit adultery."
That is precisely the opposite of what he said. He literally quoted, "What God joined, let no man separate."
Be quick to listen and slow to speak.
@@DS-lx7tf does this man give any grounds for remarriage after a divorce?
It’s true that our Lord Jesus absolutely disapproved divorce and he qualifies remarriage as adultery. Also God hates divorce. However, we should bear in mind that GOD is aware that as human even as Christians we are never and will not be ever perfect in following His commands. We are not and will not be save by the works of our righteousness rather by the redeeming blood of Jesus through our faith in Christ. If we examine various Scriptures like: “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” Amos 3:3 NKJV will tell us that God understand that when 2 are not in agreement they can never work together and marriage requires a great effort of 2 people to make it work. And the truth and nothing but they truth, many at times 2 individuals mistakenly fall in the trap to enter into “Covenant of marriage” only to realize that both of them can not co-habit. Also Mathew 12:1-5 will teach us that God is not keen on using his law to trap our life into miserable and frustrated situation, rather that we may have any option to better welfare of our lives. In that Scripture Jesus said God is not more interested in Sacrifice but He is more interested in showing us His mercy. Jesus warned those “Holier than thou” Christians who were too rigid with the law over their fellow Christian not to condemn the innocent. This teaches me that no matter where I have fallen and the state of sin I found myself, I don’t have to give up in believing in the salvation of God, his forgiveness and mercy which he obtained for everyone on the cross the Scripture said: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” I John 1:8-10 & 2:1-2 NKJV. In this context, if you’re a Christian who have divorced and you’re convinced that you can never be in agreement with your ex and you need to move your life on in getting married with someone else you feel you’re in agreement with and especially for the sake of companionship and avoiding sexual immorality/perverseness you go ahead with your life in getting into the new life of new marriage. But however, always recognize your state of sinfulness before God and keep asking in quietness for God’s forgiveness and mercy. You can draw your inspiration from the scripture: “Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men-extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:9-14 NKJV
There are many so called perfect holier than thou Christian marriages where abuse of all sort is going on, hatred and malice are order of the day, no form of love going on in that marriage and every part of that marriage is absolutely miserable. Yet when they come out in public they pretend to the public they’re in perfect marriage. Some marriages their sex life is death even when both parties still burns in sexual passions; many a times their unsincereness and pretends lead them to secret marital affairs in search for sexual fulfillment outside marriage. I believe God wants us to present ourselves to Him just as we’re, no matter how weak and state of sin we found ourselves: “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.” Isaiah 1:18 NKJV and “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30 NKJV. Jesus law is not intended to make life so miserable for us His disciples.
Finally as Christians we should try as much as possible not to fall victim of our Lord Jesus parable about judging others: “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3-5 NKJV. I have come to a total conviction that at least in this present generation of Christians and church leaders, you can never or at least rarely find any perfect follower of our Lord Jesus that keep His commandments of His word to the last letter. For instance how many of gospel preachers including those judging and condemning the remarried brethren here, will be bold to prove that they have kept the command of our Lord Jesus that said: “Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21 NKJV. Also Holy Spirit commanded Christians: “Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” Acts 4:32, 34-35 NKJV. Is there any Christian or bible preacher who can be so righteous to disclose how much wealth he has to his/her fellow Christian talk less to sell all his/her possessions in order to share with those that don’t have. Do you know this is a permanent state of sinfulness that has potential to attract dead? Yet mercy of God is reigning over as many as accept Jesus as their Lord and personal savior.
I will conclude this episode with this scripture: “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.”Jude 1:20-25 NKJV. I will like to state that no one goes into marriage just for the. Sake of child’s play. Most people goes into it with genuine intention but however only to realize that their human limitations have let them down again - they realize the incompatibility of their partner too late after marital covenant. Also I will like brethren to not to forget that incompatibility in marriage have lead to many disastrous situations in relationship where the wife or husband kills their partner in a bid to be set free from that relationship. All sort of allegations went on in the relationship and so many wickedness that went on in that relationship. Many at times the only way to establish peace between 2 people is separation and divorce, we should not forget that God calls us for a life of peace. In the Jude verse above we can see and understand that as Christians it’s God that keeps us from stumbling and faultless.
Disclaimer: I do not in anyway expressly endorsed that divorce and remarriage is the best for any couple going through challenges in their relationship especially when it has to be a matter of forgiveness, God expect us to forgive one another. However, when misunderstanding between 2 peolpe in marriage becomes life threatening and the foundation of that relationship-Trust is destroyed then divorce can be a remedy for the 2. But they should bear the consequences of bearing the title adulterous if this is the case. But thanks to the blood of Jesus who saves us from all sin even from adulterous sinful state. Many at times bible preachers preach from their personal emotions not from the graceful emotions of our lord Jesus. This life can be very controversial and complicated in a dynamic and unique to individuals. God will always understand us with our unique challenges in our walk with Him. Put your absolute trust and hope on Him
God bless you all!
So remain living in adultery, or repent?
You are not allowed to remarry. Many think that because of the “fornication” clause in Matthew you can remarry because of adultery:
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication (or uncleaness porneia), and marries another woman commits adultery (moikeia)."-Matthew 19:9
Notice that the Greek word for fornication is “porneia” and the Greek word for adultery is “moikea.” Also, please note that this “except for fornication” clause is not found in Mark 10:1-11 or Luke 16:18. This is because Matthew was writing to Jews. The Jews had a betrothal period before marriage. This was somewhat like our engagement period today.
For example, since Mary was pregnant, Joseph could have ‘put away’ his fiancée because of fornication. Notice that the Bible refers to Mary as Joseph’s wife before they were married:
Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife,
Matt. 1:20 … Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife…
The Jewish betrothal was begun with a proposal and a commitment made in the presence of witnesses. It was beyond the private promise made in modern engagements of today, and was considered legally binding.
Therefore to break an espousal in Jewish society required a legal separation - a writing of divorcement equivalent to that required of married couples.
THERE IS NO DIVORCEMENT CLAUSE FOR GENTILES BECAUSE GENTILES DO NOT HAVE BETROTHAL LAWS LIKE JEWS.
If you remarry while your spouse is still alive, you are continuously committing adultry, you can't put a band-aid of grace and continue in that sinful marriage, just as you can't continue in a homosexual marriage, because though God is aware that people do divorce and remarry others, He still does not even recognize the second marriage as valid, he instead says that the remarried are STILL committing adultry against their original spouse:
"So then if, WHILE HER HUSBAND LIVETH, she be MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN, SHE SHALL BE CALLED AN ADULTRESS: 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."-Romans 7:3
WHAT MAN HAS JOINED LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER (SEPARATE). TWO SHALL BE ONE FLESH (Matthew 19:6).
"'Till death do you part". KEEP YOUR VOWS.
That is why when the disciples heard the hard truth about marriage, they said that it would be better to not even marry at all (Matthew 19:9-10).
If you are remarried, you must divorce. If you are divorced only, you must stay single or wait for reconciliation with your original spouse. The only time you can remarry is if your original spouse dies.
You don't have to believe me, you can read the Word of God, there is no remarriage allowed in there. Also, you can read the testimonies of all these people who were convicted and even had dreams of hell because of their adultrerous remarriages: cadz.net/humphrey.html
God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)
So God, who hates divorce, would command us to divorce if one is remarried. You do see the hypocrisy in that statement right?
Amen. Amen amen
@@mattbaldwin247 No. That is not so. The so called second marriage is NOT marriage its adultery. It was not looked at nor honorable in the sight of God. They are no more married than a man on the moon. The marriage needs to be dissolved because of the standard by the world that it was contractual. In the sight of God they aren't "married" to begin with. God no more recognizes that second divorce as divorce ...no more than he recognizes the second marriage as marriage. AGAIN ITS ADULTERY AND CONTRACTUAL UNION PLACED TOGETHER BY THE WORLD. SO TO UNDO IT MUST BE DISSOLVED BY THE WORLD. SO NO....its not hypocrisy.
@@Gud2B_Blessed I know strawman exegesis when I see it. I also know hypocrisy when I see it. If you dissolve ANY marriage you are breaking a covenant made before God.
@@mattbaldwin247 and I know Adulterer when I see it too and excuses to stay in a adulterous marriage when I read it.
Hope that's not you Sir. God bless you.
This guy has students?!?
Poor students being mislead
Scripture on marriage, divorce and remarriage
Marriage is plan of God from begining. Marriage is holy covinent between husband and wife before God and it is only able separated by the death.
Divorced is thing that hated by God and its against the God's Law and His Will.
Remarriage bears adultery act for a husband who divorced his faithful wife and for a wife who divorced although her husband is unfaithful, abusive, abandon her and for all men who marries a divorce woman and for women who marries a man who divorced his faithful wife.
Divorce is allowence for husband only if a wife commits sex immorality (Matthew 5 : 32 except for sexual immorality)
Divorce may be allowed for a wife but she has to remain unmarried or reconciled to her husband ( 1 Corinthians 7 : 11)
Remarried is allowed for husband if he divorced his wife who commits sex immorality but he marries woman who never been married (Mathew 5 : 32) or if his wife dead naturally.
Remarried is allowed for wife only if her husband (include ex husband) dies and she is being widow and she has to marry a believer man (Roman 7 : 3, 1 Cor 7 : 39)
Scriptures is so clearly and easy to be understood if everyone read it.
Do not teach against scriptures nor adds, changes it.
I could not have said it better💯💯👍
This is the most hypocritical explanation on this subject which I have ever heard.
@Dennis Because the so-called “teacher” completely ignores the clarity of everything Christ says on the subject, chalking it up to “hyperbole” and thereby disgracing himself- that’s how so. But, then, you don’t care about the truth here, do you, Dennis? You don’t care about the fact that, not enjoying the grace of the One Flesh covenant God gives two in marriage, a far higher percentage of 2nd + marriages fail, meaning more heartbreak and abuse of the hearts, minds & souls of those involved.
Just just want to seem like the nice guy, when, in fact, you’re the insipid, sour, bad guy.
What puzzles me is how so many Christians get into a tangle over a very simple verse of Scripture: Matt.19:9..."Jesus said: “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”......The first thing to bear in mind is that the people to whom Jesus was speaking were still under that old theocratic system; so the statement had to do with the legality of divorce according to those old Mosaic laws. Essentially, what he was saying is that - under that system - a person could only be divorced if the legal grounds such as fornication were met; otherwise, the divorce is not authorized; hence the couple is still married. And if the one who is still married copulates with another person, both of them are guilty of adultery. To put it another way, Only the person who is legally divorced may marry again. In that case, there would be no adultery.
Not what Jesus said.Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
So what's your point Mensajes para el Remanente? Both of our quoted texts are saying the same thing - which is, fornication is the only grounds for divorce. If you divorce without this legal ground, the divorce is not allowed; hence, under that old legal system, you are still legally married. Whenever legally married people copulate outside of their union, they have committed adultery. However, it's a different story if they were legally divorced. In that case they would be legally free to get married again!
@@merlinmoore1031 where does it say that in the scriptures?
Ummm no.....
1 Corinthians 7:10
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she Must Remain Unmarried OR else Be Reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
Romans 7
By law a married woman is Bound to her husband As Long As He Is Alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, She IS Called an Adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man
Luke 16:18
“Jesus said: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Greek present continuous tense or state of being)
"But in the beginning it was not so"...
"Except it be for fornication" means the woman has already been deflowered, and it was discovered on the wedding night, and this is the only grounds for "putting away your wife".... which begs the question: How many of us are truly married in the sight of Yahweh?... Most of us define marriage with a gentile, pagan bias ; two people, agreeing to love each other exclusively ; man gives women a ring, woman gives man a ring... "Awwwww... However, Yahweh is blasphemed by this "sun god " symbolistic, circle on the finger exchange... Yes, our societies' values are pagan-gentile, we do not know, and are not known by the TRICE HOLY GOD... ( Amos, 3:2 ) To Isreal… "You only have I known of all the families of the earth...." So the exchanging of vows by just any two individuals, in any pagan society, guarantees no union before Yahweh's eyes, unless His ways are exemplified, and Glorified.... In fact, no covenant by man is justified before the TRICE HOLY YAHWEH, without there being the clear display of His wrath against sin.... "Justice and judgement are the habitation of thy throne." Psalms 89 :14 … His presence before sinful man demands either man's death, or a substitute, to symbolize man's "deserved" death, if there is to be reconciliation ... Again, THE SHEDDING OF JUST OR INNOCENT BLOOD MUST SYMBOLIZE, THROUGH DEATH SUBTITUTION, THAT THE SINFUL MAN DESERVES DEATH, BEFORE THERE IS JUSTIFICATION OF HOLY UNION ; This is the messianic type... And the first and second Adam both bore out this symbolism, PRIOR TO THEM BEING GIVEN A WIFE …
The woman came from the man, his rib (innocent blood being released prior), produced his wife, Eve... She was made to cleave (sexually unite as one flesh) to the man, who was made in the image of Yahweh.... Yahweh therefore, subsequently designed every woman from birth, with the mechanism to effectuate the intent to glorify Himself in judgement and justice ( messianic symbolism ; Yeshuah to produce his wife)..... Therefore it is said, "what Yahweh hath put together, let no man put asunder "...... The rupturing of the woman's innocent, untouched hymen, by the man ( the shedding of it's blood ), symbolizes the act of Yahweh pouring out His wrath, personifying Himself, and His demand for Holiness : He is demonstrating, through this consummation, the messianic type, the first and second Adam both bore out PRIOR TO THEM BEING GIVEN A WIFE..... And also illustrating that the both parties, deserve, since the fall, death ; by the presence of this innocent blood.... This is the creating of true covenant, with the messianic message on display.... ( A WIFE, from INNOCENT blood )…. Yahweh's Holy union in demonstration.. ( messianic symbolism, justice and judgement ).... So too, in the case of a widow or widower ; the death of the spouse, justified in Holy union, demonstrates the flow of the wrath of Yahweh against the innocent, again, to justify reunion by either.... Therefore the widow is justified to "remarry".. and vice versa...… For fallen man, there must be an awareness, through shedding of blood , death of the innocent substitute symbolism, of the judgement of his wickedness, before there is justification ..... Yahweh is always glorified in justice and judgement before Holy union or reunion... "Justice and judgement are the habitation ( BASE ) of thy throne." Psalms 89 :14..... This is Yahweh's signature, demonstrating His Holiness as Alpha and Omega. ( first and last Adam symbolism ).... So the shedding of innocent blood clearly is covenantal... A wife ( the church ) is produced.... Make no mistake. The deep sleep that Yahweh placed upon the first Adam is a type of Yeshuah ( the second Adam ), dying...
Therefore the fist woman you deflower is your wife for ever, by Holy ritual, because the Holy covenant established at the point of this sexual union, provides the only just basis for continual sexual union (repeated sex), in the same chasm.... If the woman is deflowered by object, the first male to enter the garnished chasm, is justified by default .... and if you marry a deflowered woman, her deflowerer or husband, better be dead ( making her eligible for new covenant ), or you are committing adultery... Only in this context, do Yeshuah's words make sense.. Matthew 19 : 3-12. "except it be for fornication".... meaning, she was already deflowered, and hence, in holy union with another, and he discovered it.. No blood ( messianic typing established prior to him ).. Therefore she just committed adultery, being already in Holy union, having FORNICATED PREVIOUSLY, lustfully... She's someone else's husband."... Therefore the man can put her away to be stoned. ( for committing adultery) ( Deut. 22:13-19 )…... Interesting to note, that Joseph was willing to put Mary away privately, when he discovered she had already been touched, and pregnant... He knew, her perceived fornication was grounds for her dismissal...
Those with reverence for Yahweh are instructed to deem anything other than the scriptural, spiritual concept of marriage, just described, as pagan ritualism ; corrupt ceremony sanctioned by pagan society....... So this includes a man marrying a deflowered woman, once her deflowerer is alive (No messianic symbolism)... It includes a woman marrying a woman (No messianic symbolism) ...… It includes a man marrying a man (No messianic symbolism)...... It includes a woman marrying a horse (No messianic symbolism)..... It includes a man marrying a dog (also, No messianic symbolism)....... None of these forms of fornication, except the " MAN - WOMAN - BLEEDING HYMEN PARADIGM " magnify or represent the purpose, or the prophetic messianic type, of the Alpha and Omega - Yahweh Yeshua Elohim, the exhalted sovereign, who inhabits eternity in the high and Holy place, between the cherubim........ He alone, who made Adam in His own image, and is Trice Holy, is separate from other gods.... He alone is glorified in justice and judgement, in heaven and earth...... And He alone, and this his standard, are hated today, only because we all love, and are guided by our pagan - gentile conditioning, to embrace fleshly "lusts"......…...Peace.
That premartial sex view has hit hard times amongst scholars. Heth one of it main proponents publicly changed his view and published a retraction. He said it comes down to the biblical view of a covenant. equip.sbts.edu/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/sbjt-61-spring-2002/jesus-on-divorce-how-my-mind-has-changed/
He changed his mind part from attempting to critique Keeeners view here.
@@Liminalplace1 divorce and remarriage is the keeping of the law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Freedom in Christ
1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another (Galatians 5:1-15).
@@ajlouviere202 1 Cor 2:16 We have the mind of Christ.
Romans 8:4 In order that the righteous REQUIREMENT of the TORAH might be fulfilled IN US (not by us but in us) who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Even though Christians arent UNDER the Torah/Law they still fulfil its righteous requirements within.
Jesus pointed towards this in Mathew 5:28 Anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery in his HEART.
Allowing the Spirit to renew your heart and mind to instinctly do the righteous requirements (including marriage and divorce) is what the NT is about.
Lookng for loopholes or looking to condemn people are neither the way of the Spirit.
Only those Spirit people will get it, others will become legalists or antinomians and costantly jusify themselves.
The Spirit convicts as one reads the word. What God has joined together let no MAN separate.
This is what Keener essentially says.
@@Liminalplace1 we are not to fulfill and requirements of the law. The Mosaic law was given to the Jews, to whom the Apostle Paul, in Romans 7:4, was said to now be "dead to the law" in order to be joined to Christ in a New Covenant. This is what Christ's fulfillment of the law on the cross means. Gentiles are not obliged to keep that which was intended for the Jews until Christ. That is why Jesus said "the law and the prophets were until John" in Luke 16:16.
@@ajlouviere202 yes kind of..Something lopsided about your idea about Law.
Galatians 5:18 "Those who are led by the Spirit are not under the Torah" period.For Paul the Spirit marks the effective end of the Torah bringing the old to an end AND because the Spirit is sufficent to do what the Torah was not able to do in terms of righteousness, namely, to " fulfil IN US who walk by the Spirit the righteous commandments of the Torah" (Romans 8:4) Ezekiel 36:27 has been fulfilled "I will put my Spirit in you and CAUSE you to follow MY DECREES"
(Ive paraphrased Dr. Gordon Fee from his Gods empowering presence)
The Law had righteous requirements.. they still are required of us..but the Law is not the method by which do whars required the Spirit causes us to obey within us...as in we want to do it. Not divorce and remain faithful
Sounds like you're trying to justify a divorce against God's word. I don't think I've ever heard these translations twisted around so 180 from Biblical Scholars. Watch the UA-cam teachings by David Pawson, Dr. Joseph Webb, Derek Prince, and John Piper that actually break them down and look back in church history and translations.
He definitely does a masterful job in twisting the meaning and context of the scriptures.
Great points of reference Tony! Thank you
@Yvonne Dalton There's no unscrambling of eggs Miss. WE ARE NOT EGGS. we're human beings. I suggest researching Pastor Joseph Webb of Christian Principles Restored. There you will get an accurate, opposing teaching to this. May the Mighty Holy Spirit lead you to Truth 🙏
@Yvonne Dalton I'm very sorry for the pain and suffering you've endured in your marital situation. We are commanded to show compassion and comfort to those (in and out of the brethren) that are hurting and I do Twd You.. But Webb is just one person that I pointed to. There are many (thankfully) teaching the Truth on the marital Covenant is indeed for life. I'm also very sorry that you don't accept the biblical Truth about the constant state of adultery. By your long response I see that unfortunately, at this point, there's no convincing you (at least for now). You are wrapped up in feelings and emotions and apparently (like many sadly) are letting that drive you. The Word is there to read. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will convict you of Truth and you'll act accordingly. I seek no argument, our points have been made. I would just consider this- which side has the MOST TO LOSE if they're wrong? The side that accepts Jesus's teaching in Matthew 19:5-6,19, and Mark 10:2-12 that the marital Covenant is for life and all marriages can be saved with humble forgiveness and love and thus stays in marriage and honors thier vows.... Or the side that refuses to accepts God's design and plan [Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:7-9, Ephesians 5:31-33] and instead looks desperately for ways to belittle it, dismiss it and get out of it. 🤔
@Yvonne Dalton As far as Paul (and Peter and Timothy in fact) talking about Wolves in sheeps clothing and false teachers preaching the tickling of people's ears (telling them what they want to hear), You're obviously referring to "preachers" teaching that divorce and remarriage after (while the original Covenant spouse is still alive) is ok right??🤔
Also, on what authority do you claim that adulterous affairs (2nd, 3rd, etc, marriages) are Legitimate marriages?? Where is your authority to claim that from? I'm curious bc Jesus's words in Mark 10:9-12, and Luke 16:18 are pretty clear...
(1) By understanding this issue from a chronological perspective we can determine that it was many years after Christ teaching on this matter that the Apostle Paul (while addressing questions submitted to him by the church of Corinth / 1 Cor. 7:1) restricted remarriage for the first time and only under one of the circumstances he enumerates (v. 11). This is the only remarriage restriction following divorce and it proves that prohibiting remarriage is unique in God’s Word. That’s why it’s important to understand biblical facts chronologically (and NOT randomly). That way biblical precedents reveals that keeping people out of marriage was NOT God’s will either. Marriage is the right place for sexual expression and Paul reveals that those formerly married should remarry instead of burn with passion (1 Cor. 7:8, 9).
(2) Some Pastors have put the “horse before the cart” (so to speak) chronologically by reading Paul’s prohibition as if Jesus had already prohibited remarriage. Thus they are theorizing that “remarriage was prohibited” by Jesus when in fact it was not. Believing that rearranges the chronology about when and to what extent remarriage was actually prohibited in God’s Word. It subverts a persons perspective by exchanging the uniqueness of prohibiting remarriage with that of a uniform prohibition. In the New Testament we don’t actually have one exception for remarriage (as some suggest), we only have one exception for prohibiting remarriage.
(3) While the Church should be fully involved in preserving marriages, we should be very careful about coercing those divorced into a life of perpetual singleness. Formerly married Christians have their sexual struggles and 1 Cor 7:8,9 gives them instruction as to what to do. It is best to read those verses in light of the first 7 verses that precede it.
(4) It is worth noting that when Jesus’ teaching is paralleled with the writings of Moses neither men criticize remarriage or blame the innocent party of divorce for the adultery it causes them to commit. Jesus actually revealed that men who insisted on the right to put away their wives were culpable (Matthew 5:32 "causeth her to commit adultery"). The woman divorced in this case scenario was allowed to remarry and was NOT blamed for the ensuing adultery. Jesus uniquely revealed that this adultery was distinct from that of the law and that culpability did NOT reside with her (the one repudiated).
(5) In the Patriarchal society of Israel a man was not allowed to remarry his ex-wife if in the intervening time she remarried. That’s because he caused her to be defiled by releasing her with the right of remarriage (Deut. 24:2,4). The defilement that ensued (like the adultery of Jesus’ teaching) was the inadvertent consequence of violating an exclusive obligation established by the first marriage as God designed from the origin. This way of committing adultery was uniquely different from that which was punished.
(6) While most of Jesus' teaching centers around the fact that men in Israel's Patriarchal society controlled divorce, it is worth noting that He did give a case scenario in the event the wife does the divorcing (Mark 10:12). This scenario helps men repudiated by their wives (particularly in today's culture) understand that they are not always at fault for the divorce or culpable for violating sexual exclusivity when remarried. It is also note worthy that the Apostle Paul gives a New Testament circumstance where the believer is emancipated of all marital obligation. Thus there is NO residual obligations to violate.
(7) In 1 Cor.7:12-15 the Apostle Paul emancipates New Testament believers who are repudiated by unbelievers. This absolves believers from further obligations to the marriage. Christians experience absolution if they are repudiated by an unbeliever. This exemption did not previously exist under the Old Testament, thus causing one to commit adultery by violating an exclusive obligation intrinsic to marriage.
(8) Because my motive for defending marriage after divorce is often misunderstood, I’d like to affirm that believers should strive to honor first marriages. Love your spouse in difficult times and don’t let your own weaknesses be the reason your marriage fails. God did create marriage for life, so do all within your power to make that happen.
(9) In summary of Jesus' teaching on divorce, the question the Pharisees ask Jesus (Matt. 19:3) trivialized marriage and perceived divorce as inconsequential. Therefore Jesus revealed the consequence caused by the first marriage ending prematurely. If they had remained married this way of committing adultery would not occur (which was the point Jesus was making). Divorce causes the paradox Christians grapple with because it is antithetical to God’s creative design for marriage (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). From the concession of divorce onward the second marriage (which was graciously allowed under the law) inadvertently violated an exclusive obligation set forth by the former. Thus causing the adultery the way Jesus described. An inadvertent adultery caused by the first marriage not being sustained.
(10) It's necessary to understand Jesus and Moses in an agreeable fashion so that Christians don't make their teaching on this issue contradict. When we see the big picture of interpreting them in harmony we understand that divorce and remarriage in God's Word are real and effective events that changed marital status and obligations from the former spouse to the present. Pastors who teach that those remarried should divorce their present spouse has come to that conclusion by believing the "indissoluble marriage" theory, thus imagining that the first marriage survived divorce. That’s NOT what Jesus taught!!
Divorcing your current spouse causes sin, NOT repentance. You MUST believe what Jesus actually said within it's original CONTEXT so that you can rightly divide the Word of Truth. Blessing
At 5:30 mins he misrepresents what Jesus said. Matthew 5:27 jesus didnt say "if you have a problem with this, you should rip your eye out".. no, Jesus said "it would be better if you rip your eye out" than to go to hell, which if you dont stop lusting, you will go there, was Jesus' point.
What is the context? 5:04... If you had - you would... (Craig knows his students)
Brett, how is Keener misrepresenting what Jesus said!?!?
He is precisely saying that "this is a graphic way of making a point."
Keener is with you in saying that "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away... And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away" (vv. 29-30) does NOT mean "you should rip your eye out."
@@DS-lx7tf those who choose to follow the law have to keep all of the law. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the law.
@Yvonne Dalton are you certain that Christians are still required to keep all 613 ordinances of the law of Moses?
@Yvonne Dalton the entire concept of divorce and remarriage, or remarriage after a divorce, was part of the law of Moses. There are no scriptures that advocate this practice in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament scriptures actually prohibit it, but in the modern era (the 16th - 21st century) this has slowly gained popularity. When Henry VIII created the Church of England, it was during the reformation, and was for the sole purpose of allowing him to divorce and remarry another wife without having to execute the other. He had two of his wives executed because he began to understand what the scriptures said. At that time, he wanted to part with what had been taught for the first 1500 years, and create a church denomination, and new doctrine, that was based on the allowance of remarriage after a divorce, but was only something that was initially granted to people of influence to create loyalty to the king. The Roman Catholic church later adopted the practice of annulments in 1626 to stop the flow of wealthy, and influential people, that were leaving the Roman church to join the Church of England in order to be allowed to divorce their covenant spouse and marry another. The epidemic in America began in California in the late 60s when "no fault" divorce was created. From there it spread to the remaining states in the union, and then church denominations, beginning with those who were part of the "Jesus Movement", began to see that this was becoming the best way to grow their denominations, and compete with larger denominations, that were still only granting divorces to select people. Now, anyone can get divorced and remarried, for any reason, or no reason at all, and remarry at will. The original writings of early scholars showed that even though this practice was allowed by Moses, for the Jews of the exodus, it was prohibited by Christ under the New Covenant.
Surely God forgives divorce. There are many who are remarried as divorced Christians. So you should remain in a marriage where you are abused, physically, mentally, emotionally? Of course not.
That's not the point!
One may divorce, if absolutely necessary, and for true and justified reasons, but remarriage is a different thing!
@@exposefrauds3929 so are you saying that you can lose your salvation if you remarry and you're going to hell?
@@johnjohn-ky3hu
Why do people twist, turn, and emotionalize obedience.
What is more important, love for the Father, or love for the world? What is more important, obedience to the Father's way, plan, system, or selfish personal desires? If so called believers, and followers choose to do as they please, and rationalize it away, justify it, emotionalize it, then those who believe "love," or their personal, self serving definition of love, is more important than "archaic," "out dated" laws, and obedience, including those attracted to the same sex, both sexes, or find, define "love" in bigamy, polygamy, polyamory, sex with anyone and everyone they meet. What makes them worse off than any one else that ignores, waters down, twists, morphs, "updates," and "modernizes" the definition of "love," and obedience?
"Salvation?" "Hell?"
No one will escape Judgement. All will be judged. All! Which Judgement? That's up to the Father alone, based on what we do here and now.
So, emotionalize away the whole divorce and remarriage issue, or believe like some do, that they can fool the almighty, by "get-ting saved" after they remarry, "get-ting born again" after they commit adultery, or being disobedient, thinking they can just ask for forgiveness, without REPENTING! Staying in an adulterous "marriage," is not marriage, and is a continuous living in UN-REPENTED SIN! It doesn't matter what some fraud behind a pulpit says, to appease, placate, coddle, his income stream congregants! After all, look at all the warped, aberant, unrepentant "ministers" that teach aberant, sodomite behavior is ok, "as long as it's love!" Or are homosexuals, lesbians, pan sexuals, "transgenders" themselves. They are all the same. They all subtly tear down the family unit the Creator set up, "in the name of LOVE!" Love, love, love. That's all that matters, not truth, understanding, true faith, or the nasty word, OBEDIENCE, and above all, not the most uncompassionate, insensitive, overbearing word, and concept of all, "REPENTANCE!"
I suspect that people have been duped, conned, into believing they are "saved" NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, and that they'll "be raptured," die and "go to heaven," when they may wake up on a Judgement day, they were told they'd never see!
@@exposefrauds3929 ua-cam.com/video/vLAn3Ar9UW8/v-deo.html
@@exposefrauds3929 Funny how David wasn't stoned to death after his adultery was exposed.... AND they are listed in Matthew 1 as Jesus' lineage.
This is a false teaching. If a "till death" covenant can be dissolved by a piece of paper or abandonment, then it isn't a covenant. If it can be dissolved by adultery, it can be dissolved for burning the bread. God said, "Let there be light. Let there be stars. Let etc." Jesus said,"Let no man separate." Jesus and the Apostles described second, third, marriages in the terminologies that the hearers would understand. If Jesus said, you've been an adulterer 5 times and you're an adulterer with the one you are with now. She wouldn't have any idea what he was saying. Also, that woman could have been a widow 5 times and Jesus was pointing out her current situation.
Jesus' words are hyperbole? huh? Jesus spoke in paraboles but meant to be applied not dismissed.... a very dangerous path to take? Why?
Let's consider the warnings Jesus gives us upon his return to those ignoring his words, not doing what he says?
John 12:47-48 Jesus said he did not come to condemn in the first visit, but to save, but his words would be used on his return to Judge all of mankind.
Acts 10:42 Peter says the apostles were commanded to tell all that we will be judged by Jesus along with the dead.
Hebrews 5:8-9 Jesus is source of salvation to those who OBEY him.
Luke 6:46 "why do you call me 'Lord Lord' and do not DO WHAT I say?"
Matthew 7 Jesus condemns those working lawlessness (οι εργαζομενοι την ανομομιαν).. i.e. disobeyers of Jesus.
Acts 5:32 God gives HS to those who OBEY Him.
This guy is WRONG! he is mixed up. He is in over his head. Luke 16:18 is very clear; you don't divorce and there is no remarriage; it's adultery; very simple.
There's ALWAYS going to be these types of people out there looking to excuse sin. He doesn't like that Jesus teaches that remarriage after divorce is adultery, so he claims Jesus wasn't literal when in fact he was. Not once did he try to make claims against the Roman's pagan laws about remarriage, because he defends their abomination of remarriage. (obviously)
Jesus was also being literal when He said divorce and marry another, but there is always going to be these types of people who are going to deny the divorce or the marriage as real.
It's real unfortunately and it is adultery.
When Jesus spoke He spoke of a real divorce and a real second marriage. One marriage ended and another marriage constituted. Divorcing the present spouse would be another real sin, multiplying transgressions.
Dr. Keener's argument doesn't follow Jesus' own words, logic or authoritative & Patristic teaching. When Peter betrayed Jesus, He didn't renounce the authority that Jesus had given him. Rather He challenged Peter by asking him later about Peter's love for Christ - allowing Peter to seek forgiveness and receive the Mercy and Forgiveness of Jesus Christ. Judas, on the other hand, despaired of his own betrayal and refused to seek out Jesus' forgiveness. There isn't any teaching against separating from an abusive (by infidelity or physically) spouse, however, while the spouse is alive - NO MAN can put asunder the ontologically indissoluble union of man & wife in marriage.
If your spouse decides to cheat on you (there is no love or respect anymore or never was) then you will be okay with riding out the marriage till the end of life?
@@b2l421 No, separation is permissible - so-called "re-marriage" is not. The vow to God is made with the agreement "in sickness and in health until death do us part". I know couples where the husband was unfaithful - repented - and forgiven by his spouse. Jesus is clear in the Scriptures on this topic - it's the reason there is no such thing as "re-marriage" in the Catholic Church if the two spouses are still alive and the marriage was made licitly, validly and already consummated.
JESUS is coming soon and JESUS is the only way to Salvation accept JESUS as your LORD and Savior today before it is too late
You better check yourself.
It sounds like a Gay Marriage argument! Hyperbole can explain away univocal language!
He is 100% correct. We need to understand the context of scripture so that we can understand it. So often scripture gets used to attack the very people that it was intending to protect.
He totally misses the Reality of what God does in marriage, which is to join two as One Flesh by covenant. Adultery is not the punishment; it’s the FACT. Why? Because two God joined as one flesh remain as one flesh in God’s sight no matter what they do or say. That’s why “whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” Matthew 5:32. To suggest that the adultery Christ speaks of is “hyperbole” is like saying that the eternal torment those who take the mark will experience is hyperbole.
This is CLOWN TALK
Unf ingbelievable ✨
You speak Truth.
Mark 10:7-12 and
Luke 16:18 both confirm your point also.
Thanks for all your comments guys... I'm going to save myself in 11 minutes... by not watching it!!
Good decision..I watched just enough to get me mad....
Wise decision. This man is preaching a 500 year old false doctrine.
God Changes the heart!!! It is not your spouses it is the spirits working through them Ephesians 6:10-20. If it is not what is of God it is not finished yet. You continue to speak out with your mouth and declare and decree that she is a proverbs 31 wife of noble character ECT... When it is hopeless praise God! When it looks impossible praise God! Because that is situation He wants to use for his Glory! Do NOT listen to people saying she has her free will and has to want to change!!! Did Jonah have his free will? He ran from God and look what happened! Did Saul have His free will? And who did he become? A new man from a murder to Pual the greatest apostle. Did pharo have his free will and God said HE hardened His heart for His glory! Did king Nebenekanezzar have His free will? And God made him like an animal for 7 years and then God have him back his mind and he submitted to God! “God moved Saul’s heart” in 1 Samuel 10:9 and the “valiant men whose heart God had touched” in 1 Sam 10:26. Deuteronomy2:30 God made Sinohn king of Heshbon spirit and heart change for his glory-“The Lord your God has made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as He has now done.”
Jeremiah 24:7
'I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
Did not God move in in the nation of Israels hearts and put his spirit in them Ezekiel 36 and breath into the dead dry bones in Ezekiel 37? Didn't God move in King Cyrus's heart to let His people go? Ezra 1:5 The the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites-everyone whose heart God had moved!!- prepared to go up and build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. Didn't Jesus come and bring Nazareth out of the grave when they said if you had of come sooner Jesus he would not have died...He is body is stinking now no hope!!! And THEN Jesus spoke life into him and brought the dead back to life! He is just looking for someone to have the faith to believe what is in the Bible. Will you?
What does it mean to take Jesus literally when He speaks to the issue of divorce and remarriage?
* Did Jesus mean divorce when He said divorce.
* How about remarriage? Should we understand Jesus as not being literal when He said “marry another?”
* Did Jesus conclude that adultery follows divorce and remarriage but he didn’t literally mean divorce and remarriage?
* Should we understand the ensuing adultery literally but the divorce and remarriage that preceded it non-literally?
Is this line of thinking confusing and might the confusion be because an interpreter has chosen to interpret some of what Jesus said literally and some non-literally?
Throughout Church history Jesus’ teaching about divorce and remarriage was hard to understand for most individuals because they were associating ADULTERY with an intact marriage. In other words adultery was understood as being unfaithful to whom one is married. This definition creates a box from which most have not thought outside of. Therefore (for them) Jesus could not have meant that adultery occurs in the manner He described. But the truth is, it can.
* Could Jesus have literally meant everything He said? Can adultery occur exactly how He described it?
* Must we believe there is only one way to commit adultery?
The most prevalent problem for bible expositors (past and present) on this issue has been the paradox of explaining the adultery. That’s because most interpreters can’t understand how adultery can be literal if the divorce was literal. Explaining the adultery has produced a variety of hotly contentious views. Some of these views seek to explain away the adultery, while others seek to explain away the divorce and second marriage. There are those who interpret divorce and remarriage non-literally and there are those who interpret the adultery as non-literal.
For instance, David Servant takes the same (or similar) view as Dr. Craig Keener in their UA-cam videos. Craig believes Jesus was being hyperbolic when He spoke of the adultery that followed divorce and remarriage. In other words the adultery is not to be understood literally, while the divorce and remarriage should. David Servant in like manner says that divorce and remarriage “is like adultery” but falls short of describing it as adultery. Both take a non-literal approach for the adultery while seeing divorce and remarriage as literal. This interpretation is not as detrimental to marriage and families as those who interpret the divorce and second marriage non-literally.
Conversely individuals such as Stephen Wilcox and Dr. Joseph Webb interpret the adultery as literal but the divorce and second marriage non-literally. This way of interpreting Jesus for these guys means that divorce does not actually mean divorce nor does remarriage mean marriage. Here are a couple of propositional statements that both men affirm,
* “Marriage survives remarriage and precludes it”
* “A marriage is for life. No matter what a spouse turns out to be, or how they may act, what they do or don’t do, or
the sins they commit, the covenant remains fully in effect. A remarriage while a former spouse lives is not marriage
at all, but sinful adultery. God does not divide the one flesh relationship except by physical death”
For context sake remember both statements are in reference to the issue of divorce and remarriage. Preclude means to prevent so they believe that the first marriage actually prevents a second marriage and that the first marriage doesn’t end at divorce. Therefore divorce and remarriage is not being interpreted literally. This interpretation mentally dismisses the very events that causes one to commit adultery this way. Mentally dismissing part of what Jesus said isn’t going to get you to truth. You can clearly see that the idea of “indissoluble marriage” creates self-contradicting statements. These statements actually invert words in which Jesus spoke to this issue. It creates an argument in the mind that was never set forth by Jesus. This way of interpreting Jesus does not mean that adultery is committed by two preceding factors, it actually eliminates those factors. They end up describing the adultery as if there was no divorce or second marriage. There is ample evidence from these men’s teachings that they purposely convey that this adultery is caused by not being divorced (from the original spouse). Therefore “indissoluble marriage” is forged into Jesus’ teaching by not taking divorce and remarriage literally. Consequently adultery does not ensue from divorce and remarriage (as described by Jesus), it occurs within the first marriage (as interpreted by Stephen and Joseph). See the difference?
What is taken as literal and non-literal by David and Craig is reversed by Stephen and Joseph. They all have a issue with understanding all the factors as literal. For instance, Mensajes para el Remanente (Pastor Carlos), one who has addressed me and said,
“I, and the entire History of 2000 years of Christianity, take the words of Jesus literally and at face value. Your (False) premise, in my estimation, is that you believe Jesus did not literally mean what He said but the opposite in : "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matt. 5:32)”
Carlos who supports Stephen and Joseph interpretation makes a fundamental mistake about my “premise” in regard to Matthew 5:32. I take everything Jesus said there literally and at face value. This is why I disagree with all five men. Understanding all the factors given by Jesus literally and at face value means for me that the divorce was effective, the remarriage was effective and that adultery resulted as a consequence. Taking everything literally and at face value means that the adultery that ensued occurs because the first marriage ended and another one was constituted. This is a different way of committing adultery than those who believe the first marriage is still intact (indissoluble marriage).
Continued in the comment thread.
Carlos makes the following observation by believing “indissoluble marriage.” Notice how he attributes to Jesus what he believes personally. Notice also that a non-literal interpretation of “divorce” and “marry” creates self-contradicting statements in what he is saying. Carlos writes,
“What is significant about adultery in remarriage? When Jesus said, "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9) He said something significant that I did not see for a long time. When Jesus made that statement, He was stating that divorce does not end the first marriage. People have always assumed that divorce ends the first marriage, but Jesus said that it is not true. The sin of adultery can only occur if one or both of the persons involved is married. If neither of the persons are married the term adultery cannot be used. When Jesus said that "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery", He was stating that when a man marries a divorced woman he is living with another man's wife and therefore is guilty of adultery. Divorce does not make a man or a woman single again. Divorce does not end a person's first marriage. That is why a person commits adultery when they marry and live with a divorced person. Do you get the significance of Jesus' use of the word adultery? Adultery could not occur in remarriage if divorce ended the first marriage. Adultery can only occur in remarriage because the divorced spouse is still married to their first marriage partner in Jesus' judgment. (Jesus is the Judge we will stand before, for our hearing on Judgment Day and it is important that we understand our Judge's reasoning and logic if we want to enter Heaven.) The significance of the sin of adultery in remarriage is that divorce does not end a person's first marriage!”
Does this argumentation sound familiar to what I have pointed out?
Notice what Carlos said,
* “Divorce does not make a man or a woman single again.”
* “Divorce does not end a person's first marriage.”
Having stated this conclusion as a basis of reasoning for the ensuing adultery, he then makes “indissoluble marriage” the reason why a divorced person commits adultery. He writes,
* “That is why a person commits adultery when they marry and live with a divorced person.”
* “Adultery can only occur in remarriage because the divorced spouse is still married to their first marriage partner in Jesus' judgment.”
Is Carlos representing Jesus’ judgment as he claims? Is he interpreting everything Jesus said literally and at face value? Is he not making the same fundamental mistake that Stephen and Joseph make when they dismiss divorce and remarriage as literal? Do you see the literal conflict Carlos makes with words he is using non-literally and inversely? He is actually using words he has to mentally discard in order to convince himself of what he is saying. Anytime you hear someone say “the divorce spouse is still married“ you have heard a self-contradicting statement that is made worse by attributing it to Jesus.
What would happen to one’s interpretation if everything Jesus said is taken literally?
It would eliminate the false supposition of “indissoluble marriage.” It would eliminate the supposed conflict between Jesus and Moses. It would simply mean that Jesus revealed to His covenant people that they had for hundreds of years been committing adultery by supplanting one spouse for another. It would mean that Jesus gave them a reason to stay married. It would mean there is no difference in the outcome of divorce from one Testament to the other.
It would mean that “divorce” means divorce. It would mean that divorce terminated the marriage. It would mean the divorce was real. It would mean that the theory of “indissoluble marriage” is false. It would mean that a divorced woman WAS NOT “still married to her first husband.” It would mean that all the suppositions based on “indissoluble marriage” are false. Particularly the “divorce to repent” supposition.
It would mean that “marry another” (Matthew 19) means marry another. It would mean remarriage is a marriage. It would mean remarriage was real. It would mean there is no difference in the outcome of remarriage from Old Testament to New.
It would mean that all those who advocates “divorce to repent” are guilty of causing the dissolution of families. It would mean that all who divorced their second spouse out of fear transgressed another marriage. It would mean transgression were multiplied. It would mean wives and husbands abdicated their role in their home. It would mean that families were destroyed from false teaching.
Continued in the comment thread.
This manner of adultery happens because the first marriage ended and another marriage was formed. Jesus was making a counter argument against the Pharisees from God’s design for marriage (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). Jesus did not answer their question (v.3) by appealing to the law, but rather by appealing to God’s creative design for marriage. While Jesus acknowledged God’s creative design for marriage, He never denied the reality of divorce. This way of committing adultery happens exactly how Jesus described it and everything He said was relevant to whom He spoke. Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees that ending a marriage causes one to commit adultery when they remarry because the obligation of lifelong fidelity is violated.
Women throughout the Old Testament were allowed to remarry if their husbands divorced them (Deut. 24:2). Consequently the ensuing adultery did not occur in the first marriage as “indissoluble marriage” advocates teach. There is a difference in the adultery that Jesus described from those who teach that the adultery is occurring in the first marriage. In the back and forth argument between Jesus and the Pharisees Jesus reveal to them that they were violating God’s creative design for marriage by prematurely ending it. Jesus never made an argument about the indissolubility of marriage. He never said that the woman divorced was not really divorced. He never made the argument that the husband in the second marriage was sleeping with another man’s wife. These are false suppositions forced into Jesus’ teaching by “indissoluble marriage” advocates. Those who do not interpret all that Jesus said literally.
While Jesus acknowledged God’s creative design for marriage (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b), He never denied the reality of divorce. I find no where in scripture where marriage is said to survive divorce. The claim itself is a self contradiction. When Jesus speaks to this issue He is specifically speaking to the premature termination of marriage and the consequence that causes for remarriage. Isn’t it better to interpret the biblical writers who speak to this issue congruously? Should we interpret Paul as contradicting Jesus? Should we interpret Jesus as contradicting Moses? The following is a congruous understanding of biblical history on this issue.
When Moses conceded divorce to hardhearted men he did so for peace sake, just like Paul in 1 Cor.7:15. When Jesus made a reference to this fact (Matthew 19:8) He was not criticizing Moses (as claimed by some), He was actually being critical of hardheartedness that insisted on the right to put away their wives. Jesus’ following remark “but from the beginning it was not so” (8b) revealed to the Pharisees that divorce was foreign to God’s creative design for marriage (v.4-6). This masterfully exposed the calloused hearts of the Pharisees for wanting to divorce their wives for all kinds of subjective reasons and it revealed to them that they were transgressing God’s will for marriage by prematurely ending it. Divorce was therefore causing an inadvertent consequence for Israel not previously understood.
In the sermon on the mount Jesus revealed to His covenant people that by divorcing their wives which were allowed to remarry (see Deut. 24:2), they were causing them to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). Because marriage sets forth the responsibility of lifetime fidelity, divorce and remarriage inadvertently transgresses that obligation. In the Patriarchal society of Israel men were causing their former wives to commit adultery in this manner. Jesus was revealing to them the consequences of prematurely ending a marriage.
In the Patriarchal society of Israel, men who initiated divorce were the ones culpable of this adultery, “causeth her to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32). Jesus never made an argument that divorce was not real. He always spoke of divorce and remarriage in it’s literal sense, never in a non-literal sense. This is a proper and contextual interpretation of Jesus’ teachings on divorce and remarriage. When Jesus is properly understood there is no difference in the outcome of divorce and remarriage in either Testament.
The simple truth Jesus revealed to Israel was that an obligation inherent in marriage (exclusive intimacy) is violated by divorce and remarriage. The catch 22 is that divorce and remarriage formed another husband wife relationship which transgressed in principle the exclusivity set forth by the first marriage, thereby causing the adultery in the manner Jesus described. Divorce and remarriage produced both a transgression and a transference of marital obligation. This is the dilemma it caused Israel then and the Church today. It is the very dilemma Jesus described. But the dilemma turns into an enigma when biblical precedents are dismissed. Or to put it another way, by believing this adultery occurs because the first marriage was not terminated.
I notice that only your comments show up. Did you report Carlos's comments as spam?
@Yvonne Dalton Grace to you Yvonne
The two thousand year confusion (on this topic) comes from those who feel the need to non-literalize some of the factors in Jesus’ teaching on the matter. As I pointed out in the original post there are different views postulated by either seeing the adultery or the divorce as something less than what it is. That’s not only unnecessary, it alters Jesus’ teaching by doing so. Therefore the view cannot be right!
By claiming some of the factors as literal and some non-literal the adherent to that view becomes confused as to what’s real and what’s not. More and more suppositions are added to try to explain the view until we miss the simplicity of what Jesus communicated to Israel. Instead we get an entanglement that many can never extricate themselves from. That’s especially true for the “indissoluble marriage” view.
Conversely when believers understand to whom Jesus is speaking they will then understand it’s retrospective relevance to Israel historically. Thus understanding that the consequence that Jesus revealed for divorce and remarriage ran concurrent to Old Testament history. A right perspective allows us to understand Moses and Jesus congruous. Thus eliminating the supposition that Jesus opposed Moses (and all the derivatives of that).
There are two predicates (base points) in Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees (Mark 10). Their question to Jesus was asked from the base point of the law of Moses (v.2). Jesus did not answer them from the law (the first predicate). He instead answered them from the base point of creation “the beginning” (the second predicate) (Genesis 2:24). It was from the second predicate that Jesus revealed an ensuing transgression.
Jesus’ counter argument to the Pharisees explains,
“In the beginning” there was no divorce. Later (in time) divorce was conceded because of hard hearts (Mark 10:4,5) with remarriage allowed (Deut. 24:2). This is the predicate for the adultery to which Jesus describes. It was the inadvertent consequence of the divorce concession.
Just as Moses revealed an ensuing defilement as a consequence of divorce and remarriage (Deut. 24:4), Jesus in like manner reveals an ensuing adultery. You are not following the chronological facts if you don’t understand that this way of committing adultery immediately followed divorce and remarriage allowed. The context for Jesus’ teaching is directly addressing Israel and the consequence of them insisting on the right to divorce. Don’t let someone re-frame the context for you.
In the Patriarchal society of Israel men were causing their wives to commit this manner of adultery by NOT cleaving as explained by Jesus (Matt. 19:5). This is a key in understanding the back and forth dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees. “Cleaving” is an intrinsic obligation for marriage established “at the beginning” (v.4). This way of committing adultery ensued specifically because the (former) marriage ceased to continue. Do you get that?
On the other hand this way of committing adultery would NOT have transpired “IF” cleaving had been honored, understand? This is the whole point to Jesus’ counter argument to the Pharisees.
In Deut. 24:1-4 we can see that divorce and remarriage was allowed (v.2). Meaning one marriage ended and another one constituted. Jesus revealed to Israel that it was because of their hard hearts divorce was conceded (Matthew 19:8). What they didn’t fully understand about divorce is what it caused for remarriage. So Jesus revealed to them the consequence of not maintaining their marriage. Divorce causes remarriage to cause one to commit adultery (Matthew 19:9) just as Moses had already revealed divorce caused defilement for the second marriage (Deut. 24:4). So a congruous interpretation of both Jesus and Moses would conclude there was an inadvertent consequence to prematurely breaking the marriage covenant.
Defilement and adultery are different words but have overlapping meaning. They both speak of impurity or the adulteration of a thing. In this case the inadvertent impurity caused by men insisting on the right to put away their wives. The prohibition in Deut.24:4 forbid the husband from reconciling with his former wife because he was the one who caused her to be defile when she remarried. He was the one who released her with the right of remarriage. Jesus’ criticism focused on divorce not remarriage. Remarriage was graciously allowed for women put away by their husbands (Deut. 24:2). Unfortunately there is an unintentional consequence even for the innocent party. But we have every reason for practical purposes to discriminate between the innocent and guilty party!! That’s because Jesus does exactly that.
Jesus indicts the men of this Patriarchal society in Matthew 5:32 with the culpability of their former wives transgression. “causeth her to commit adultery” (KJV) or “makes her the victim of adultery” (NIV) is an indictment against the former husband. Jesus makes no indictment against the innocent party whatsoever. There was an innocent party and they inadvertently were defiled because of unloving husbands (Deut.24:4, Mark 10:5). God prohibited a man in this Patriarchal society from remarrying a former wife when he was culpable for the ensuing adultery/defilement it caused for her (Matthew 5:32). A man is to protect his wife from defilement not cause it (Malachi 2:15,16 NIV). The Deuteronomy 24 prohibition strictly forbids the reclaiming of a former wife after divorcing her caused her to be defiled.
In verse 4 “that is an abomination before the Lord” is a direct reference to remarrying a former wife who was defiled in a subsequent marriage which resulted from the first husband’s repudiation of her. A man who releases his wife to marry another and then subsequently remarries her would perform “an abomination before the Lord.” This phrase bespeaks that which is detested by God. It is unconscionable to trivialize the sacred union of marriage by ending it (with the ensuing consequences) and then want to restore it. A man culpable for his former wife’s defilement/adultery was forbidden to remarry her. To a degree this prohibition was punitive in nature. The legislation would cause a man to be more thoughtful and less hasty before pursuing a divorce by imposing restrictions on him for not honoring his wife and marriage.
The ensuing adultery literally follows because the principle of cleaving (intrinsic to marriage) is violated, understand?
There is absolutely no reason to non-literalize any of the factors Jesus gave when He is understood within context! Hope this helps. Blessings
@Yvonne Dalton Grace to you Yvonne
I remembered your first name but I wasn’t sure it was you. So good to talk with you again. I felt a kindred spirit in our convictions.
I’ve tried to tighten up some of my thinking on this issue sense then. I felt I was being ambiguous (and thus confusing) with how I was explaining the ensuing adultery. One thing to remember when discussing this issue is that all the views have a common goal of explaining how the adultery occurs or why it happens, but unfortunately with different explanations. When we understand that, we then can follow the logic or the reasoning process of that view, understand? We can break down the explanation and compare it to the text itself to see if it is actual being faithful to the biblical narrative. Thus if the view doesn’t properly explain why adultery ensues it’s false, which in turn creates a false narrative that needs exposing.
When Jesus speaks to this issue He is explaining to Israel the inadvertent outcome of conceding divorce to them. He is literally describing what transpires by the first marriage NOT surviving. That’s His main point. There is NO ulterior motive as some seem to think. He was emphasizing the importance of staying married. Conversely He was not claiming “the first marriage survived”. He was literally explaining to the Pharisees what is caused by the first marriage NOT surviving (Matthew 19, Mark 10). This clearly differentiates between Jesus and “indissoluble marriage” Pastors.
The Pharisees wanted to know all the reasons for divorce (Matthew 19:3) to which Jesus countered by explaining what divorce causes, thus discouraging them from putting away their wives. In other words Jesus was actually explaining what will transpire if a marriage comes to a premature end (the VERY opposite of “indissoluble marriage”).
The Permanence view is built around the belief that “marriage and/or the one-flesh union survives divorce”. Some believe one or the other but most believe both. One Pastor puts it this way, “Marriage survives remarriage and precludes it”.
You can clearly see that they believe the first marriage doesn’t end and the second marriage is prevented. In this make believe world divorce and remarriage are “ineffective” events and not being understood as literally ending one marriage and constituting another. If you eliminate a literal divorce and remarriage from Jesus’ teaching you then have the first marriage still intact. Thus you have the adultery occurring within the first marriage, which is what they believe and want others to believe. Of course if this was true then ending the “second relationship” would be correct. But all of this misconstrues the historic context.
Conversely when you understand the history to which Jesus referred He is literally speaking of one marriage ending and another marriage constituted. Thus “their” interpretation inverts the VERY words of Christ and mass confusion ensues. It’s the VERY reason so much confusion exist on this subject. Try to explain that to them and they only dig in deeper. Follow all of their explanations and you go from one (false) supposition to another. It’s one long lengthy mess.
To properly interpret Jesus one must understand that all the factors He mentions literally transpired. That’s why I oppose any view that dismisses them or sees them non-literally or even hyperbole. With all the factors as literal you have one marriage ending and another marriage constituted which causes one to commit adultery the way Jesus described. The adultery does NOT change the fact that one marriage has ended and another marriage constituted. Those divorced and remarried should understand that they ARE married to their current husband/wife and NOT there former when Jesus is properly understood. Follow “indissoluble marriage” advocates and those remarried will think they are still married to their first spouse and not their present, totally backward!
Jesus criticism was NOT focused on the concession of divorce itself, but rather on the reason for the concession. Being what? Hardheartedness (Matthew 19:8). This is an important point of distinction. In other words Jesus was not criticizing Moses for the divorce concession itself (as claimed by indissoluble marriage advocates) but rather criticizing Israel who insisted on the right to put away their wives. Jesus did NOT prohibit remarriage not did He criticize it, He merely reveal the negative consequence divorce causes for it. Believing He had other motives only makes this issue more confusing .
Once you understand that “indissoluble marriage” Teachers (with all their derivatives) are actual inverting and thus complicating Christ teaching, something very complicated becomes something very basic and simple. The simple point Jesus made to the Pharisees was that “if” you don’t remain married a negative consequence will ensue. Jesus explains this by appealing to God’s creative design for marriage from the beginning. Jesus referenced back to the origin to explain that marriage was ordained from the beginning for life. Thus the Old Testament concession inadvertently causes intrinsic obligations in marriage to be transgressed.
Jesus was actually describing a way of committing adultery BECAUSE the first marriage ENDED before it was ordain to end. IF the first marriage remains intact, the adultery Jesus described doesn’t occur. The simple point Jesus was making to the Pharisees was about the importance of staying married. That’s because divorce (with remarriage allowed) causes one to violate intrinsic obligation in marriage.
Jesus is not arguing about the ineffectiveness of divorce, He was exposing to Israel the inadvertent consequence of them insisting on the right to terminate their marriages.
These questions help frame Jesus’ counter argument to the Pharisees (Matthew 19, Mark 10).
* Do you believe God created marriage for life?
* Do you believe God designed the intimacy between husband and wife to be limited to them (exclusive)?
* What would transpire if God (because of man’s hard heart) allowed divorce and remarriage?
* Would that exclusivity be transgressed?
As to your question, it is obvious that the text is NOT focusing on sex itself. However I do believe Jesus is looking at the big picture where the sexual intimacy ordained for ONLY two (husband and wife), ends up being shared with another. Ironically rightly so because there are sexual obligation for the second marriage. What you need to keep in mind is that Jesus did NOT fix the divorce dilemma, he appealed to hard hearts by admonishing them to stop separating the one-flesh union. Breaking wedlock is indeed the cause of the ensuing adultery.
That’s as far as Jesus took it. False teaching takes it much further, understand?
It’s adultery!!!!
God Changes the heart!!! It is not your spouses it is the spirits working through them Ephesians 6:10-20. If it is not what is of God it is not finished yet. You continue to speak out with your mouth and declare and decree that she is a proverbs 31 wife of noble character ECT... When it is hopeless praise God! When it looks impossible praise God! Because that is situation He wants to use for his Glory! Do NOT listen to people saying she has her free will and has to want to change!!! Did Jonah have his free will? He ran from God and look what happened! Did Saul have His free will? And who did he become? A new man from a murder to Pual the greatest apostle. Did pharo have his free will and God said HE hardened His heart for His glory! Did king Nebenekanezzar have His free will? And God made him like an animal for 7 years and then God have him back his mind and he submitted to God! “God moved Saul’s heart” in 1 Samuel 10:9 and the “valiant men whose heart God had touched” in 1 Sam 10:26. Deuteronomy2:30 God made Sinohn king of Heshbon spirit and heart change for his glory-“The Lord your God has made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as He has now done.”
Jeremiah 24:7
'I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
Did not God move in in the nation of Israels hearts and put his spirit in them Ezekiel 36 and breath into the dead dry bones in Ezekiel 37? Didn't God move in King Cyrus's heart to let His people go? Ezra 1:5 The the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites-everyone whose heart God had moved!!- prepared to go up and build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. Didn't Jesus come and bring Nazareth out of the grave when they said if you had of come sooner Jesus he would not have died...He is body is stinking now no hope!!! And THEN Jesus spoke life into him and brought the dead back to life! He is just looking for someone to have the faith to believe what is in the Bible. Will you?
That is right!
God didn't make our hearts to endure betrayal? Why not? He know the other imperfect creatures he built would betray us and he know they would when be built them the way that he built them. This god doesn't sound very competent.
I look at what John the Baptist was preaching as an example. He knew that Herod was committing adultery and it was worthy of damnation if not repented of...Very scary stuff here....