I've never been taught this! Breaking down divorce according to the Law of Moses, martial requirements, and God's divorce of Israel (feels weird even saying that). It seems to finally harmonize the Law, Jesus, and Paul's words on this topic. Worth being further studied and tested.
Cultish created a T-Shirt with the words 'bad theology hurts people' and sadly I've recently seen a dear sister in the Lord been given council by her elders to remain in an abusive marriage (with children involved), I've been struggling to process their council and obviously it has added a whole other trail to my friend. They wouldn't even entertain separation. I've sent her this sermon as clearly the Word is being preached here faithfully. So so thankful for this ministry time and time again.
What they're doing is hurtful and not biblical. They are protecting the abuser while leaving the innocent spouse vulnerable. When you coddle an abuser instead of holding him accountable, it only allows that sin to grow, which isn't the best thing for his soul because he needs true repentance. She needs a new church and a separation, pronto.
My "Christian" husband left me pregnant, and then came back once our baby was born and then left again once she was 7 weeks old.. this message is awesome for me.. because I had to file for a divorce for legal reasons.. I have reached out MANY times and this man wont even respond.. his church which is here in AZ said we should have "never gotten married in the first place" and that told him gods grace was bigger when he left in great confidence because of his "church". he doesn't pay child support and doesn't see our kids at all. I have wondered many times if I did the right thing.. this gives me peace. im still very broken by our divorce.. and I still pray maybe we could reconcile but I am looking forward to the man god has for me in the future. thanks!
you filed for divorce, for legal reasons.....according to the Bible it has to be for porneia....and now you think you can remarry, according to the Bible....hmmm....of course you have told a sad, emotional, story, but is it Biblical....something to think about....because if the interpretation that remarriage would constitute adultery it would mean that you and the one you....married....would both be living in adultery....
@@philipbuckley759 No that is not a real Christian, he is an unbeliever and abandoned her. She is not under bondage and free to marriage . Don't be religious Pharisee enforcing your rules not God's.
@@missinsanelogic not being under bondage, is not akin to not being bound it is a different word.....and he had just said that one is bound, as long as the other lives.......so that would be a contradiction.....
@@missinsanelogic Exactly 'Phillip did not listen to this teaching in it's entirety to get all the context behindall the verses.. Thanks for bringing it up bcs I was just about to...
I’m going through a divorce right now. We were together for 13 years and married for 5. He was my first boyfriend, my first and only EVERYTHING. We also have two children together. We separated 1.5 years ago. Never pushed the divorce. I guess I always hoped maybe we’d be a family one day. I left because he didn’t respect, honor or make me feel loved. He’s currently in a live-in relationship with another woman. He still gives me mixed messages. When he sees me he tells me he wants to be with me, but when he’s gone he never reaches out. I just told him today that I’m giving him up now and I hope he finds happiness. I’m so broken. My heart wants him, my head knows better. I’m leaning so hard on God right now 🥺
This clarified a lot about my divorce. for the first time in a long time, I do feel peace. Yes, I used my Pastor and other elders to talk about what I feel and my divorce but I guess I wasn't asking the right questions to receive the correct answer. After praying..for the past year, I finally asked God the right question. SO, here we go.
I am 18 year old young man. And this sermon hit me hard. I am not gay, I'm not married yet not in a relationship with a young lady yet. But, I am happy i learned this before I started dating and marrying I will.remember this when I get to that point of our life. And yes we need to approach the LGBT community with love and knowledge of God's holy word Again, thank you for a powerful sermon, Jeff.
Hello and greetings from the southern border! I'm usually not a commenter but definitely a follower and advocate of Apologia Ministries. I'm grateful for the work you all are doing to advance the Kingdom of Christ! God bless you all and keep up the great work! Here is why I've chosen to comment today. The topic of divorce is one I take very seriously in my life and in the counseling I give to others. I was disappointed to learn of Jeff's position on divorce, but not surprised. What I appreciate about Jeff is that he is consistent and committed. I was challenged by this message because I haven't heard a biblical argument for divorce that aligned with the Scriptures. Most people use the "exception clause" (Matthew 5:32, 19:9) while arguing some personalized and muddied definition of what sexual immorality is. This is where I appreciate Jeff. He didn't define it himself, he pointed to it in the Bible. But this is one of my big concerns with reconstructionism/theonomy, in order to be consistent, which Jeff is, now he is has to believe and teach that it is permissible for believers to violate their marriage covenant with each other before God. We can't. If we are going to refer to Ezekiel 16 when defending marriage, and we should, then why wasn't the fact mentioned that God not only didn't "divorce" Israel the way that Americans divorce today, but the more important truth that God doesn't abandon his wife. He foretells of a new covenant with her in Ezekiel 16: '60 But I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your older and younger sisters. I will give them to you as daughters, but not because of your covenant. 62 I will establish My covenant with you, and you will know that I am Yahweh, 63 so that when I make atonement for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth again because of your disgrace.” This is the declaration of the Lord God.' Amen! The blessing of shame. God doesn't divorce his Bride! He stays committed to her. If he had divorced his bride, we'd all be lost forever. I also briefly want to touch on the use of 1 Corinthians 7 to defend not only divorce because of sexual immorality but "other" reasons as well. Paul was addressing an issue of new converts to Christianity leaving their spouses who remained unregenerate because of their proper understanding that we're not to be joined/married to an unbeliever (unequally yolked). Had Paul not addressed this topic, leaving these unions would have been appropriate. Why? Because God does not "join together" an unbeliever to a believer any more than he joins together a prostitute to the body of Christ! Which Paul also addresses in 1 Corinthians 6. It is permitted for a Christian to be deemed "divorced"/not bound to an unbeliever if the unbeliever abandons the relationship because they were never joined together by God in the first place. Biblical marriage is permanent in this life. Here's the crux of it. God hates divorce, which I'm thankful was proclaimed, but he doesn't permit it in the church. Ever. Not between two believers. God permitted it in Israel because of their "hardness of heart" (Mark 10:5). Rebellious hearts of stone. Jesus reminds his followers of the Law of God, the state of sinful man, and draws us to himself, the gospel, the hope of the new covenant. Receipt of a new heart of flesh, a new spirit that obeys Christ, a new life that will abide in Christ forever! We cannot and should not reconstruct a mosaic law given to a hard-hearted people of a former covenant (Ezekiel 16:60). With new hearts we now have the ability to obey God by the power of his Spirit. Today, as new covenant people, he causes us to obey him. "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:6). For His Glory, Ken
Let’s say a man & a woman get married. Both are unbelievers or both claim Christianity, but do not fully comprehend, or let’s say the 2 claim to be Christians but are not saved or born again. If one becomes truly saved & the other does not, is the believer bound? The 2 married, said their vows, before God or at least they believed they were vowing before “a god.” Is the believer stuck in the marriage? What I am really asking is, if the believer’s unbelieving spouse commits adultery, May the true believer divorce and remarry a real believer?
so if a believer, ignorantly, marries an unbeliever, then is this one authorized to leave that relationship.....or maybe commanded, as....God did not bring them together.....sounds like a flimsy argument..
@@Job_Siciliano this is academic as the issue is bondage, vs bound....the departure of the unbeliver does not affect the bond, of marriage....just that the believer is not under bondage, to the individual...a different term and a different teaching...
@@kenduffy After all remember God required his people to end adulterers lives. This is his command. And if there were no witnesses, then the woman was to be taken to the priest and poisoned in Numbers 20 I think. These are the consequences for adultery. This is separate and apart from the believer forgiving the betrayer. We are required to forgive, but we are also commanded to follow God's commands. If you're correct and adultery isn't grounds for divorce, fair enough. God commands the betrayer be put to death. So believers are supposed to follow God's command, and walk in holiness after all, correct? We should maintain the standard God sets, not set our own, isn't this holiness? This frees the betrayed from the betrayer, since putting the partner to death, as God commands, means they are widowed.
So good. I'm late to the party but better late than never. I am recently divorced and this was very helpful to confirm what my pastor told me. This is not to say that I didn't believe fully my pastor but I needed to confirm what he said. Looking to God and the scriptures, it shows my pastor was right. Amen. Why confirm my pastor? Well I'm recently born again and my pastor is new to me so I was just looking for confirmation. I now have it. Pastor Jeff thank you for all that you do. You were the spark to help me go and seek God again, because I was lost but now I'm found. Amen.
I hope it went well. My divorce finalized last year. I hope this sermon helped you as it helped me. Praying for complete healing for ya, from an unknown brother.
I got married when I had just turned16 (in a courtroom if that makes any difference) didnt even know what I was doing later divorced. Later in my life learned God hates divorce. Not being able to remarry anyone is devastating! If I have biblical grounds to remarry someone else it's so UNCLEAR to me it's risky. So I will spend my life alone, how this needs to be taught loud and clear to all people, alot marry and divorce before even coming to true faith
This is a good message! Made it easy to understand what the word says. God hates divorce, but in those last last circumstances there is a way for Christians to do so, shamefully, knowing it's not what God intended but still able to move forward. Shame is a gift that God allows, just like sorrows, only the holy spirit convinces of sin and only God could do this work in you. Love the parallel between the pharisees and the people of today telling sinners, just be yourself and follow Jesus on the outside without being transformed from the inside, these are the real pharisees. Awesome word
This is an important question that sheds proper light on this topic yet nobody has been able to answer it. Were the Jews following Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, or following the Jewish betrothal in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, and Leviticus 20:10 at the time of Christ?
@@missinsanelogic Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses on the cross. Paul said, "26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:26-29).
@@ajlouviere202 The ceremonial law is passed away the moral law remains. Adultery , homosexuality , murder , are the moral law which does not pass away and marriage is also a moral law that is not done away. So if you are saying moral law passed away to, then adultery along with deutronomy 24:1 was nailed to the cross. So what's your point ?? What are you babbling about calling things adultery? Be consistent
@@ajlouviere202 You can't make Mark 10 the Rule, it is the exact same scenario as Matthew 19:9 , except Matthew 19:9 is the complete version that is not missing any information. We make Matthew 19:9 the Rule of the new covenant, it includes the exception clause and adds to the Pharisee's question " Can we divorce our wives {for any reason}?. How did Christ raise up his standard ? by saying you can't just divorce { for any reason} This didn't do away with deutronomy 24:1 Christ says if you even lust after another woman, you have committed adultery in your heart. This new covenant standard did not do away with adultery in the Old Covenant, it just refined it. Deutronomy 24:1 is not done away with, it's a moral law , it's just been refined by saying you can't divorce for {just any reason} , the only exception is porneia.
Faithfulness, food, clothing, and "love". That's quite a wide category. Now I know why the Jews thought that they could divorce for any cause. Seems like a teaching like this might water down the covenant of marriage.
aribbonatatime Maybe you missed the part where Pastor Jeff described that as "marital love"... conjugal rights. Same thing Paul mentions (that Jeff quoted). Perhaps you'll consider listening closer or taking notes?
The Old Testament makes it legal to hoard wealth, use force and to kill in war. Three things that the New Testament declares to be a dead creed most sinful. And so, if we want heaven, we must desire to do what is done in heaven.
I recently found out my husband had a dating profile and cheated on me. It's a tough place to be to either leave or stay. I know Jesus will forgive me if I leave.
She knows and understand clearly that she's being neglected inside her marriage long long time ago, then sin and separation came. She heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God regenerated her heart and became born again. She reconciled to her unbelieving husband, praying and hoping that it will gonna be better, she wanted to try again and again and love his husband like Jesus love, forgive, and give mercy and grace like Christ did to her. His husband agreed to stay, physically present but the truth is He still choosing to abandoned the marriage. No work, tied up to his friends, addicted to alcohol, not doing his role as a father, no emotional support to her wife who is working abroad, no repentance at all, no signs of wanting to work out his marriage, totally choosing himself. Its painful to her, really painful seeing herself in a same cycle of heartache, nothings change. Please pray for this woman, may the will of GOD be done to her life. That no matter what happen, She will stay strong in her faith in Jesus Christ Alone.
Apologia Studios I have a question that I am currently very confused about regarding Biblical Divorce. In the KJV Jesus specifically chooses the word FORNICATION instead of ADULTERY in the beginning of the verse in Matthew 19:9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Why does Jesus say the word fornication once and then chooses to say adultery twice? I thought fornication means sexual intercourse between two people who are both UNMARRIED to each other and to other people as well. If one of the two people are married then wouldn't it be adultery and NOT fornication? Back then, the Jews valued what we call "engagement" as something that was almost as strong as actual marriage because if two engaged people wanted to leave the relationship, they needed a written divorce. Being betrothed to someone was a PROMISE to be married and the two people were already recognized as Husband and Wife... we can see this in Matthew 1:19,20 "Then Joseph her HUSBAND, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily." " But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." At this moment, Mary and Jospeh were not actually married yet, but he was still referred to as her Husband. So is it possible that Jesus was warning us that divorce was only possible BEFORE GETTING MARRIED in the engagement stage? I just don't see how God could be ok with divorce when scripture tells us that a spouse is bound to the other until death do them part. Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” No more twain. Meaning never again. A husband is bound to his wife unless she dies. A wife is bound to her husband unless he dies. This is something A LOT of people including professing Christians will not accept but Jesus told us that the path to Heaven is narrow. Few will find it. Please let me know your thoughts God Bless
SundaySchool: So, although Jesus allows divorce in the case of adultery, your Sunday School teaching is that those who divorce within that context fall from Grace? λύω lýō, loo'-o; a primary verb; to "loosen" (literally or figuratively):-break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off. I still hold to the fact that the adulterer (especially a serial adulterer) is the one who has "loosened" "broken up", "destroyed" the bond of marriage. The innocent would only fall into sin if they remarried.
Apologia Studios, in light of Angela S comment. How? I have listened to this message twice. Jeff said its all in Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3. In Isaiah 50:1 "Thus says the LORD, "Where is the certificate of divorce By which I have sent your mother away?" Jeff said God gave them a certificate of divorce but thats not what the text says. But in Jeremiah 3 it says "And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also." Here there seems to be a contradiction. But also in light of Hosea 2:20 "I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the Lord." So I think there needs to be made a distinction between Israel and True Israel. The betrothal period and the marriage. What Israel put themselves into and that God was still faithful. The differences between land promises and spiritual promises.
Hi Jeff, can you please clarify your statement that in 1 Cor 7:15 the abandoned partner is free to remarry? The text does not say that they are free to remarry, only that they are free (ESV says "not enslaved"). Thank you
it is, as you say a different word than bound.....under bondage, or enslaved.....and they use this to justify divorce....it does not seem correct....so I would be careful with this interpretation...
Yes enslaved. Bible says we are enslaved to Christ and we are His bride. If we stop being enslaved to Christ , we stop being His bride. If we stop being enslaved to our husband/wife we are no longer their husband/wife , therefore the marriage covenant is dissolved. Divorce. Simple. Lest you twist it
I need a prayer i going through stress n depression n anxiety i have a daughter n her dad we decided to be married last year june 2 2018 n feb valantine week he left because i was talk to my guy friends behind his back i never said nothing sweet to my guys friend n i text my ex child hood boyfriend n he decided to give me divorce my frist one i am nerous n scared
This is an older sermon, has your sermon changed? I struggled with this question and scripturally came out as on the Permanence side. Jesus said "what did God Create it to be from the beginning"
I’m confused about the part in Revelation. Jeff said Rev 17 was God divorcing Israel, which I understand, but then he went to Rev 21 and talked about the new heaven and new earth and I got lost from there. Is he saying that Rev 21 is when God opened salvation to the gentiles or is he saying Rev 21 is referring to when Jesus returns and will marry the church? I always through that verse was referring to the future when Jesus will return for his bride, Not something that already happened.
It's when he returns.. Simply Revelation 21 is on how YAH will forgive his Remnant 'the repented after playing the harlot and bring them back into the new kingdom on earth.. Forgiveness then remarrying his adulteress bride
I love this message who praise God this is great biblical straight from the Bible verbatim there's no interpretations are these are verbatim straight word-for-word verbatim not hard to understand for those people that like to use interpretation as an excuse there's so much of that and it's sickening even people that claim to be Christians a lot of times they are actually lukewarm and they're not really truly saved some many of those will use that as an excuse when in reality it's not hard to see when in the Bible which is Verbatim what truth is it's what the Bible says they give approval to like oh what's wrong with it I love it Pastor Jeff preaching on truth will obliterate lies
So my wife left about 3 years ago and I havent had money to divorce her. She left me to another country and hasnt contacted or replied to me besides the topic divorce. I would wait for her if God would ask me but I dont know what the right thing to do is. :/
some say abandoment, by an unbeliever allows for divorce and remarriage....but for the ones that say Matthew is the only case your only recource would be remain single....
@@philipbuckley759 it would make sense for Jesus to address an exception unique to gentiles in Matthew 19. It’s not exclusionary of a further exception to gentiles
The same rule applies both to Jews as to gentiles (either a Christian or a non believer) concerning divorse and remarriage.God and Jesus don't make distinctions , what Jesus told the Pharesies concerning marriage applies to all!.God does not play favorites or make consentions with no one.
On this subject you are wrong. What is being translated as "divorce" in the scriptures (based upon Deut 20-24) is not what we call it today (disolvement of marriage). If you would like we could discuss this.
Apologia Studios What isn't adultery? I don't understand your comment. Principle of abandonment? The context is believing and unbelieving spouses. It is specifically talking about an unbelieving spouse leaving a believing spouse. For you to tell people that it is Biblical to divorce if your believing spouse abandons you is false and dangerous. You can't take a clear statement in the Bible, throw out details and apply it as a principle to everyone. Not proper interpretation.
ROCKLIKEACOBB While it's not wise I don't think you will find a specific passage of scripture prohibiting you from marrying an unbeliever. There were clear prohibitions to Israel not to marry foreigners who would turn them away from God but that usually seemed to be the aim, the believer not falling away.
MrDen312 I think we see that atleast twice in the New Testament 2 Corinthians 6:14 NIV Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 1 Corinthians 7:39 NIV A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
What if two unbelievers who eventually got married after coming to Christ, but both partners were unfaithful before the marriage? One partner was aware before the marriage, but the other was not aware the other was unfaithful before the marriage. Is there any grounds for divorce in this situation?
I was very afraid when I gave my life to God. I had just found out that I was very sick and I knew I had hurt a lot of people and knew I deserved what I got and was very sorry for that and knew in that moment that God had my life in his hands and said I was sorry to God and asked him to forgive me and then I heard his voice loud and clear! It was amazing and scary at the same time but I had no doubt it was God's voice. I recognize his voice now to this day and am guided by it although I don't hear it as loud but it's a still small voice of love. I know he sustains my life and provides all my needs and will until he's ready to take me. :) That was 5 years ago. Shame is a gift from God because he loves us! Amen! Praise God!!
@@philipbuckley759 If you don't repent God will punish you. It happened to me and I'm warning you because I care. God is not mocked. A man does reap what he sows so sow goodness.
abandonment is not a reason, for divorce and remarriage.....check the verb tense....and the term is enslaved, or under bondage.....totally different to bound.....it relates to the relationship to the individual and not the bond, of marriage....
“Bound” and “Bondage” both means the same thing essentially. Bound means you’re confined or restricted. Bondage means you’re confined and restricted WITH the obligation to SERVE. When scripture says the Children of Israel were in bondage to the Egyptians, they were bound with the obligation to serve the Egyptians.
Thanks for this. My question is is our world now as corrupt as is was in Noah’s day before the flood? I mean it seems like sin and the disobedience of Gods word can’t get any more corrupt. Or is it worse? Now??!!! Example as Jeff said about all the sin taking place about gender. All I can say is what ever needs to happen to be fulfilled before His second coming God make it quick cause frankly I am tired of all the sin!!!
Imagine though, had the Day of the Lord come before YOUR (or my) repentance during the time that the faithful saints were "tired of all the sin"? I say, wait for Christ to decide when to judge and if that means another 2k years, so be it!
abandonment is not a grounds for divorce...the exception clause is one reason....not being under bondage, to an individual is not akin to not being bound to a covenant....because marriage is not bondage....also one needs to evaluate the verb being used here.....some that never existed and does not exist today..
The exception that Christ gave was about the justifiable grounds on which a man could initiate divorce. 1 Corinthians 7:15 is about the UNBELIEVER initiating the divorce, and the BELIEVER submitting to it.
SERMON: LETTER TO APOLOGIA Brothers and sisters of Apologia. God has used me to preach against divorce for about 25 years. Its your turn. I will keep it brief and simple: I heard your sermon expecting that it would be in line with the Word of God instead of 99% of the Apostate church of this wicked generation. My heart broke with what I heard. As you should be aware, divorce in America, those who commit this sin, are responsible for the blood of millions who because of this suffer all manor of spiritual, mental, social, et al ills. This generation, from about 1950, is Balaam: those who hold the doctrine of Balaam: Revelation 2:13-16 (To the church at Pergamum) “I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast thy name, and hast not denied thy faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelt. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth.” As you know, but others do not, Balaam, a seer and prophet, taught Balak how to trap Israel: Get the single girls of his kingdom to dance and seduce the men of Israel. When these men were seduced, and married them, they were committing fornication because it was forbidden that they marry outside of the Jewish people. Carnal fornication led to spiritual fornication as these men of Israel began to worship the false gods of their non-Israeli brides. God had to judge them. But God did also judge Balaam and he was slain with the sword. I like manor, the Holy Spirit keeping as He does the same idioms, the warnings for you apostates is the same, from Billy Graham being used to do so, hundreds of other men of God to now: Repent of teaching God’s sheep to divorce for any reason other than adultery. Marital divorce leads to the spouse who committed this sin to cause their spouse to commit adultery- the punishment for causing sin being greater than simply sinning itself. And this sin has led to the Great Apostasy- the great divorce of the Church from Christ. Just as in Balaam’s time, when he taught Balac how to trap Israel, so you are teaching the church how commit adultery, divorce, which had led to being divorced from Christ. 9 out of 10 pastors cheating on their wives; evolution taught in most churches and seminaries; 9 out of 10 people who come to Christ or enter a church leaving, most the leadership; false Christians right now professing their apostasies in public, famous ones, that they are not Christians anymore, not keeping it to themselves, promoting it; witchcrafts, spirit guides, ‘the universe’ instead of ‘God,’ ecumenical agreement with Rome and Evangelical leaders proclaiming the Pope Vicar of Christ and the Inquisitions just a big misunderstanding; Oprah and other of her gang of New Age, Bilderberg Group witches and warlocks appearing as ‘Christians’ in T.D. Jakes church, etc., etc., etc. If the Great Apostasy which must happen - the great Divorce - that must come before the man of sin is not in full stride right now its certainly begun. Fornication lead to spiritual fornication. Marital divorce leads to spiritual divorce; apostasy. Its not rocked science. This is a warrant of arrest and an alter call. If you want to repent of this doctrine of Balaam I am very happy to pray for you. If not, the blood of all that you taught to divorce in sermon, counselling, whatever, through suicide, drug abuse, murder, mental illness and all other fruits of divorce will be on your hands and as pastors your punishment will be greater than non-pastors. Not a single professing Christian has ever repented of this doctrine of Balaam in my 25 years of preaching. That should terrify you. Its either the faithful remnant or this faithless generation without an ounce of conscience, fear of God, repentance in them. He stands at the door, knocking. If any man opens and lets Him in He will have sweet communion with them. That from Revelation was to the church, not sinners. I pray you are the first in my life I get to see turn from this iniquity.
BUT, it FEELS sinful and our whole lives we have heard of the CREEPY men who take many wives so there is a perverted light on the subject so it's difficult for any Christian to overcome the stigma despite what the Word ACTUALLY says on the subject.
I'd agree but nothing good ever came to those with many wives from everything I could remember reading. Abraham with Sarah and Hagar and Jacob with Leah and Rebecca. Solomon and his wives and concubines who managed to turn his heart. Always messy. Human love (specifically spousel love) is too difficult to split with multiple people because we're too selfish to begin with. I think it was something adequate for the time and not condemned by God. It required lots of effort. One women is hard enough lol
@@shale1757 culturally when half your babies died before age 3, and then living under constant threat of other kingdoms coming in and murdering you, the words be fruitful and multiply probably had a more important meaning back then
The only time a divorce can take place within God's marriage laws is when a wife commits Adultery against her true husband in Christ and the husband is not an adulterous man himself - Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19: 1-9, with 1 Corinthians 5:1 Kjv for clarity. The God - fearing husband can, if he chooses, divorce that adulterous wife and he can re-marry while she is alive but she can't re-marry while he is alive. The wife can separate from her husband, if necessary, but she can't divorce him and she can't marry another man while her husband in Christ is alive. Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19: 1-9 (with 1 Corinthians 5:1 Kjv for clarity), Romans 7: 1-3, and 1 Corinthians 7: 10-11 and 12-17. Kjv Bible
I appreciate Jeff and the ministry of Apologia church and their normal consistency, but this is.....bad hermeneutics. All the comments below point out the loopholes in his presuppositions which lead to horrible advice - ultimately dishonoring God. He would do well to sit down (for a long time) and reanalyze his position in this particular area.
Not if she has been given a certificate of divorce. Strangely even the king James bible has mistranslated two key words. Apolyo and apostasia. The former meaning put away or abandoned. The latter meaning divorced. Jesus used both words in his famous sermon in Matthew 5. What he is saying is that if you put your wife away (apolyo) without giving her a divorce certificate (apostasion), then you force her to commit adultery by finding another husband while still legally married to her first husband. The new translations use divorce for both of these words which is a mistranslation of the original greek text. One has to wonder if the translators decided they didnt want divorce to be an option. But the only time a husband can biblically put his wife away is adultery (porneia) which as I understand is intercourse, so not even for kissing another man, it would have to be intercourse. But due to the hardness of mans heart he can divorce as long as he gives her a written certificate of divorce. Otherwise the adultery of the wife who was abandoned would rest on the feet of the one putting her out, along with her new husband. In deuteronomy a woman is allowed to remarry if she has been given a certificate of divorce. Deutoromny 24: 1-2 KJV “When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. I found this article useful www.gospelminutes.org/marryagain.php
There is a couple in our church who I believe are divorced and they are still in the church..both of them...how is this ok...i dont know why they are divorced...but I know they are both still there...they met in the church, married had children, Divorced and still in the church...?????
How do you then discern? A women may swear a husband completely emotionally abused her. Her pain may actually be real, but the reality that communication in marriage is such a problem for a lot of people, the husband may have been trying his best to love his wife. I feel like the two examples you used of divorcing for other then sexual immorality "may" be valid, but this sermon is going to be used for justification for many divorces in our society, probably almost for "any" reason. Men and women are infallible and are going to commit adultery in their hearts, be unloving in their marriage on a continual basis, even though it is their heart to be the best husband or wife she can be. I think you need to watch out, because this new emotional abuse doctrine is taking over and it is being declared that emotional abuse is more damaging then physical abuse. Im not saying that it is not, I think the number one emphasis should be on spouses to forgive one another and that divorce is not permitted if the women or husband is repentant and willing to work on their issues with the other person. I think what I'm saying is that your sermon can greatly be taken out of context and used for justification for divorce in instances where it is not permitted at all in scripture.
GRATEFUL HEART --- ONLY WAY TO SALVATION Half the church is filled with pride boasting they chose salvation, while the other half has a god-ego thinking they were among the chosen few. For never do we hear that a grateful heart is the first and most essential step in salvation. GRATITUDE --- “We love because He first loved us.” For a love relationship with God is offered to everyone as all have received the free gift of life. So, if we are willing to give up our most cherished possession, our god-ego pride, by creating what God cannot create, the humility of a grateful heart, than salvation is ours. For God wants our pride, grateful humility is the vehicle upon which we give it up and from then on it is all, “The work of God…” For grace is a free gift from God, faithfulness, trust and loyalty are the fruit of the Spirit that come after we receive the indwelling Spirit of God and after it is all said and done, the humility of gratitude is the only part we play in the greatest love story ever told. For “saved by faith alone” is not a love relationship, as it is a pride filled and enslave our God dictatorship. The illusion being that our inner goodness of producing faith relieves us of any burden to suffer the humiliation of gratitude, the embarrassment of having to admit that we could not make it on our own. Pure pride from start to finish. For “saved by grace alone” is a most self-glorifying no-love association with God, and again, pure pride from start to finish. A fake morality form of salvation, most pride inflating and most favored by the rich, like the Catholic church leader John Calvin, the rich dictator of Geneva who beheading people. The fiction being that God has not the creative power to draw out the affections of those who are willing to be humble and grateful. For when we marry someone, it is with the understanding that our love relationship is by mutual agreement and mutual affection. So, how can our love relationship with God be any different? And so, is God such a dictator that he refuses to create a love relationship where we both chose each other? And to those who rely on the Bible as their sole guide to salvation, please reflect on three key points: 1. We cannot both give all our wealth to the poor and receive "many times more in this age." Therefore, the Bible has a subjective and relative form of morality. 2. We cannot be a pacifist who turns the other cheek and never goes to court, while we bear the sword for government. Therefore, the Bible does have human error 3. Christ and John the Baptist did not both die without faith. Therefore, the Bible cannot replace our ability to use logic and reasoning. And the big problem is, for all those who believe in faith alone or grace alone, is that they fail to exhibit the slightest gratitude, surely not the degree needed for salvation. Actually, in all their words about salvation, they fail to state that gratitude has any part in salvation. For in any plan of salvation where gratitude is completely omitted, it places a sever limitation on the creative ability of God and declares it impossible for humans to be motivated by gratitude and gratitude alone. For in all the heavenly realms, the motivating element in control of every aspect of society is the power of gratitude, the power above even the power of God. For the Creator has ordained it to be that way, so that none may say that God is ruling a dictatorship, that he is using rewards and punishments to control. For on earth we now witness the ultimate conclusion of a world so void of gratitude that it is impossible to perform an act of compassion, pity or charity in a way that does more good than harm, that does anything more than inflate pride. For all governments allow us to enrich ourselves upon the misery of anyone with less education, less wealth or less whiteness of skin. And so, by this we know that the end time is upon us, as the more educated upper-half of society hoards all the land, wealth and healthcare, the laboring-class lower-half is enslaved by poverty, and absolutely no hope is there for the one billion humans slowly starving to death. And lest we forget, all those babies being bombed in Yemen and the children being executed in Gaza for marching in a parade. Comes now a realization that, when less than 5% of humans ever gain salvation, surely all the sin and misery in this planet of the ingrates has nothing to do with saving sinners. But to show that without God overwhelming us with the affection needed to create a grateful heart, none would have ever been saved from this living hell called earth. True it is that Christ died to end our guilt and vengeance, so that we forgive our enemies and end our wars of vengeance. But, to say that Christ died for our sins, when it was Christ who created earth full of sin, just to reach the ultimate conclusion of sin, where is the common horse sense? For the fiction of a burning hell fills us with guilt, the idea that our sins killed God the Son just piles on more guilt, and such illusions are the reverse of what Christ stood for and died for.
"For the fiction of a burning hell fills us with guilt, the idea that our sins killed God the Son just piles on more guilt, and such illusions are the reverse of what Christ stood for and died for." Except Jesus was the one who said “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in HELL” (Matthew 10:28).
1. We cannot both give all our wealth to the poor and receive "many times more in this age." Therefore, the Bible has a subjective and relative form of morality. 2. We cannot be a pacifist who turns the other cheek and never goes to court, while we bear the sword for government. Therefore, the Bible does have human error 3. Christ and John the Baptist did not both die without faith. Therefore, the Bible cannot replace our ability to use logic and reasoning.
The innocent party can remarry. If you’re gonna destroy your genetic lineage because your wife cheated on you, you’re not doing yourself any favor. Remarriage is illegal for the guilty party. Origen of Alexandria believed this, the council of Arles (314 AD) proclaimed. Both the early church and the scriptures give precedence to allow remarriage for the innocent party.
where is this, in the Bible....Mt 5 states if a man divorces his wife, for non biblical reasons he is responsible for her adultery.....no innocent person there....
Understanding Jesus' teaching within it's historic CONTEXT! The Pharisees posed a loaded question to Jesus about lawful grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:3. Mark 10:2). The law on the other hand did not give grounds for divorce, it merely regulated it having conceded divorce to hardheartedness as Jesus affirms in Matthew 19:8. Instead of getting caught up in the "lawful grounds for divorce" argument of that time Jesus circumvented that argument by appealing to what marriage was suppose to be. He appealed to God’s creative design for marriage in the origin (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). By God’s design marriage was to be lifelong, because of hard hearts it was allowed to prematurely end. Accepting the tension that creates is part of understanding the divorce dilemma. That's because Jesus is contrasting divorce conceded over against marriage created for life (v.8). If you overlook that fact, you're NEVER understand why this way of committing adultery ensues and you'll get caught up in the false narrative about "grounds for divorce" which takes a long, long time to explain. That's because "grounds" sidetracks the simplicity of what Jesus actually taught. Moses allowed divorce primarily because of women caught up in the conflict of their husbands spite as Deuteronomy 24 verse 1 reveals, it was a mercy for the woman. Subsequently God didn’t force them into a life of singleness, He allowed them to remarry. Having a husband allowed them to have the companionship and provisions they would need, so remarriage was graciously allowed by God as verse 2 of that same law reveals. By appealing to the origin which predated the law we understand that the conclusion Jesus gave in Matthew 19:9 (in responding to the Pharisees question / v.3) was not derived from the law itself, but rather from God’s creative design for marriage in the beginning (Matthew 19:4-6,8b). So we should understand that this way of committing adultery has it's basis in another predicate, where principles of marriage are not sustained because the first marriage ends prematurely. We should understand Moses and Jesus congruous, not as one opposed to the other. Jesus’ teaching on this issue is pointing out to His covenant people that allowing them to divorce was not without it’s casualty. Something significant about life long marriage is violated in the process. Subsequently causing an inadvertent transgression because the first marriage was not sustained. Jesus words were applicable to Israel's history. When contextually understood He was conveying the inadvertent consequence of divorce being conceded. This He did to dissuade them from putting away their wives (Matthew 19:6). Under Jesus' teaching the ensuing adultery is multi-factored with divorce being the primal cause. That's because allowing marriages to end was not in keeping with that of God’s lifelong creative design. On the other hand Jesus did NOT prohibit nor criticize remarriage. The law (which represented God's will) graciously allowed remarriage as Deuteronomy 24:2 reveals. Jesus was merely revealing what transpires under those circumstances because the first marriage was not sustained. Divorce is to be understood as a biblical reality. Divorce although antithetical to God's creative design prematurely ends a marriage. Divesting divorce of it's meaning (as some Pastors do) is part and parcel of exaggerating Jesus' teaching on this issue!! Part of that exaggeration is claiming "remarriage is adultery". If you think "remarriage is adultery" you have not properly followed the counter argument Jesus made against divorce. Your interpretation has added a number of false theories to His teaching. In short you will find yourself claiming Jesus repealed, changed, or abrogated the law of Moses when in TRUTH He merely revealed the consequence of divorce being conceded under the law. "Remarriage is adultery" is one of the worse misnomers concluded from errant interpretation. A conclusion NOT derived from the biblical precedents to which Jesus referred, but rather from interjecting the belief that remarriage is the villain and shouldn't be allowed (as if God made a mistake by doing so). If that which God allowed by His Grace is thought to be sinful, does not the interpreter make the grace of God to be sin? It’s imperative Christians understand that Jesus is not speaking negatively against divorce as a concession (as falsely believed by some), but rather negatively about the reason divorce was conceded. The concession itself was not a mistake on Moses part. Jesus was not criticizing Moses, He was being critical of that which prompted the need for divorce. Jesus revealed to the Pharisees that the concession was an accommodation of Israel's hard heart (Matthew 19:8). Hard hearts ultimately were the cause of marriages ending before death, which in turn caused the exclusivity of being one-flesh with one person for life to be transgressed. Thus the "something of significates" within God's creative design for marriage being violated, causing the inadvertent adultery the way Jesus described. There is NO win win in divorce, fidelity for life to one person is transgressed by ending one marriage and marrying another (as Jesus stated). When women were divorced and remarried they were then bound to there present spouse and not there former. There was NO divorcing there current spouse and returning to their former for "repentance" or salvation sake as FALSELY claimed under the new narrative created by those who add false suppositions to Jesus' teaching. Hope this helps Christians to understand the retrospective relevance of Jesus teachings to whom He was speaking without the false suppositions added to it. Blessings
Jesus is not referring to Deuteronomy 24:1, but Deuteronomy 22. If the new bride is found not to be a virgin, Deuteronomy 22 allows for divorce if evidence is presented to the elders. If the claim made against the new bride is false, the husband is forbidden from divorcing his wife all his days. Jesus’ remarks on divorce in Mark and Luke make no reference to the fornication exception given in Matthew 5 and 19. Why? Matthew was written to the Jews, who would be familiar with the Torah’s teaching on divorce (Deut. 22). This is the only way Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew does not contradict the Mark/Luke teachings. Not to mention 1 Corinthians 7, which teaches married people not to depart from their spouse. Bottom line - if marriage isn’t for life, then what’s the point. For centuries, people understood this and churches taught this, but now there are few pastors who still teach this.
Amen Chris! MANY churches and pastors/priests today teach this false perception on divorce because they have re-married people before and/or are re-married themselves. Millions of people, including professing Christians would be outraged to find out that marriage is until death do you part, no exceptions - and this is coming straight from the mouth of JESUS. (People need to look at the Original Greek New Testament. Look up Erasmus. He added misleading words into all of the English Translations we see today) Matthew 19:9 has been so misinterpreted for centuries dating back to the 16th century. People forget how fornication was handled back then... God said it Himself that fornicators receive the death penalty. This is why Jesus mentioned fornication in Matthew 19:9. This cause was already handled (with the death penalty) so Jesus had to clear up the rest and say for any other cause it is adultery. God Bless!
Angela S So many pastors and Christians today seem to have the “permissible divorce exception” from Matthew memorized, chapter and verse, but they never mention Deuteronomy 22, which is the OT law on divorce! And of course when they discuss the topic, they also don’t touch the Mark and Luke passages, since those list no “exceptions.” When the Pharisees questioned Jesus on divorce, Jesus did not change the OT teaching, but affirmed it, rejecting the idea that it was permissible beyond the scope of Deuteronomy 22. The wishy-washy modern Churchianity teaching on divorce never leaves the book of Matthew.
You mean this is the only way it fits with confirming your bias. How could a bethrothed woman be caused to commit adultery if she's stoned to death already? Doesn't make a lick of sense.
Sin >Shame > Pride (or Super Ego) > Sin. Lather, Rinse, Repeat until DEATH. OR Sin > Conviction > Confession > Redemption > Repetence>Obedience>LIFE Shame is a tool of Satan used to keep us in our sin. Why are you teaching "Shame" as "Grace"? By His Shame, we are healed? That is disgusting blasphemy.
you seem to have that old catch all phrase, that you could excuse virtually anyone wishing a divorce and remarriage....boy the disciples sure had a reason to be shocked, when they heard of this....
It would be good to hear sermons on the original text of apolyo (putting away) and apostasion (divorce) and how new translations and even the King James version have mistranslated this. From my understanding and research, though not in Gods plan, divorce is permissible. So is remarriage. You cant put your wife away (apolyo) unless she has commitedd adultery (porneia). Because she would still be legally married and unable to remarry, thus forcing her to commit adultery. Thus if you put away your wife for any reason (other than sexual intercourse with someone else) she is innocent and must commit adultery because she cant legally remarry while still married to the one who put her out. However she is free to remarry if you give her a written bill of divorce (apostasion). The two words are not synonyms. I wonder how many people have lived unmarried after divorce for fear of breaking Gods law when it appears to me to be a mistranslation or misrepresentation of Christs words. Even King James version doesnt use the correct wording of the original greek text and replaces put away (apolyo) with divorce (apostasion). The newer translations use the two words interchangeably as divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1-2 24 “When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
Search "Bible Hub Greek Text Analysis" in Google for Matthew 5:31, and Matthew 5:32. The word "apoluo'" is not being referenced at all. The original Greek uses "apolyōn" (apolýō), which is a derivative of "apoluo'" but in the context of divorcing, with a letter of divorce, not only putting away. Matthew 5:31-32 (Greek to English): It was said also, whoever shall divorce the wife of him, let him give to her a letter of divorce.’ I however say to you that everyone divorcing the wife of him, except on account of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever if her having been divorced shall marry, commits adultery. This is what is found when searching "Strongs 630" in Bible Hub: 630. apoluó ► Strong's Concordance apoluó: to set free, release Original Word: ἀπολύω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: apoluó Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol-oo'-o) Definition: to set free, release Usage: I release, let go, send away, divorce, am rid; mid: I depart. 630 apolýō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 3089 /lýō, "to loose, release") - properly, to let go; release (discharge), dismiss. This term implies the release (annulment) of an existing bond. 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner (Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9 - parallels at Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18). Note: The Bible never contradicts itself and hence "the divorce passages" in the Gospels uttered by Jesus (following on fornication) are not contrary to the lengthy treatment of marriage/divorce by Paul in 1 Cor 6:15-7:16 (which permits divorce on a broad definition of constructive or actual abandonment).
@@jameybobamey7343 neither 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:15, nor 1 Corinthians 7:39 contradict the rest of the scriptures that involve this topic. They have to harmonize with one another.
@@ajlouviere202 ok so then it's clear that remarriage is permitted then as noted in 1st Corinthians 7. Thanks for the info, sounds like we are in agreement
Remarriage, in accordance with Matthew 5:32, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and 1 Corinthians 7:39 while you still have a living covenant spouse is adultery.
@@jameybobamey7343 when you go to "Bible Hub Greek Text Analysis" for Matthew 5:31, and Matthew 5:32, the word "apoluo'" is not being referenced. The original Greek uses "apolyōn" (apolýō), which is a derivative of "apoluo'" but in the context of divorcing, with a letter of divorce, not only putting away. Matthew 5:31-32 (Greek to English): It was said also, whoever shall divorce the wife of him, let him give to her a letter of divorce.’ I however say to you that everyone divorcing the wife of him, except on account of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever if her having been divorced shall marry, commits adultery. This is what is found when searching "Strongs 630" in Bible Hub: 630. apoluó ► Strong's Concordance apoluó: to set free, release Original Word: ἀπολύω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: apoluó Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol-oo'-o) Definition: to set free, release Usage: I release, let go, send away, divorce, am rid; mid: I depart. 630 apolýō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 3089 /lýō, "to loose, release") - properly, to let go; release (discharge), dismiss. This term implies the release (annulment) of an existing bond. 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner (Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9 - parallels at Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18). Note: The Bible never contradicts itself and hence "the divorce passages" in the Gospels uttered by Jesus (following on fornication) are not contrary to the lengthy treatment of marriage/divorce by Paul in 1 Cor 6:15-7:16 (which permits divorce on a broad definition of constructive or actual abandonment).
@@ajlouviere202 now you are contradicting yourself arent you? Before you had stated in your comments that divorce was not permitted under the new one flesh covenant. But now you are saying divorce is permitted in 1 Corinthians 7? Again the same word, aplyon, apoluo, apolyo, all derivatives of the same word are never used to mean divorce. It is used in the context of giving someone a divorce and refers to kicking them out of your household. Nowhere else in the bible could one even make such a leap as to say that the word apoloyo, apolyon, apoluo are to mean divorce. So when it is mistranslated they are absolutely two distinct meanings. Furthermore Jesus only refers to a woman put away, never a man put away. This is further indication that apoluo is not translated as divorce and the scribes of the KJV took liberty and changed the word to translate to divorce. Jesus never divorced the masses he had fed. Two distinct things. You cant marry a woman who has been put away And if you put away your wife without divorce you force her to commit adultery. Her sin is on you not on her.
@@jameybobamey7343 1 Corinthians 7 is not speaking of divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, or 1 Corinthians 7:15, but is referring to separation. 1 Corinthians 7:39 is referring to those who are widowed, not divorced. Divorce is only mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and indirectly through the wife being married to another man while her husband lives in Romans 7:2-3. For clarification about "apoluo" go to Bible Hub and search the "Greek Text Analysis" for Matthew 5:32 and also search "Strongs 630" there and you will see why "apolyōn" is used instead of "apoluo" since "apolyōn" is putting away with a letter of divorce.
@@ajlouviere202 these are all conjugations of the same verb and it ignores the fact that the same verb is used and never refers to divorce. In Mark 10:11 the word is apolyse. We now know that Mark was likely the oldest gospel and likely most accurate as in closest proximity to Jesus time. Apolyse is used when releasing the prisoner Barabas. In the same way you can send someone away, you can be sent away or you will be sent away, there are different tenses of the same root word apulou which only refers to divorce as the scribes have translated it. The word is a conjugation of dismiss, not a synonym of divorce as the two are distinct words and Jesus uses the two words independently of each other.
you must pay to gain access to prime gospel article on your new web site HOW extremely SAD AND UNBIBLICAL. Buy the truth and sell it not. give the gospel free on charge.. Don't restrict it so poorer Christian's and unbeliever's can't gain access. This the apostles and Christ did not
there are many other Ministries who have allow Christians and unsaved to read their article for free on the web. God will provide if you are sincere. There is no harm in asking for tithe, help, offering , donations (but not charge and restriction if you don't give any money.)
another false teaching on abandonment, as the term used is under bondage or enslaved....not the term bound....a term that the autor had just used.....and by the way, except means one reason....so for two reasons....wrong term and a contraddiction of Matthew.....except...
It's difficult to address in this format but one rule of thumb to remember is that, in scripture, "divorce" does not = automatic freedom for remarriage without sin. People always argue the "exception clause" in Matthew but the no one can argue that ALL OTHER cases of remarriage = adultery.
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to herhusband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while herhusband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Romans 7:2-3) 10And unto the married I command, yetnot 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. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) 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)
@@missinsanelogic ok. So you have breached your "contract", which is actually a new covenant through Christ, and I'm sure you feel it will be Jesus's right to divorce you, just as He does the 5 unwise virgins in the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Is this the way you feel, or would you rather be forgiven?
@@ajlouviere202 you want to ask me questions after you clearly couldn't answer my question How is Divorce defined in Deutronomy 24:1 ? Don't be a coward , answer it.
The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32, and Matthew 19:9. However, the wife in Matthew 5:31-32 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. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command. 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. But when Jesus died on the cross, he caused the Jews to be 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 law of Moses over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the whole law is no longer possible for those in 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. The phrase "sexual immorality" being used in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, in place of "fornication", creates conflict with what is written about fornication and adultery in Hosea 4:13-14, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Galatians 5:19-21. 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 the unbeliever, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way they word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 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, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply 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, 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. The other false claim that is being widely used is that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to a divorced man and a virgin woman who has never been married. This has been taught for some time in churches as to refer to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, including the 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 of 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 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 30:3-7. 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 the first two verses, speaking exclusively to men that have never married. If they were married, they were bound to a wife, but if they never betrothed or married, or if they were widowed, they were not bound. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly about 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 again speaking of a single, never before wed man, of youthful age, with a virgin bride who has become of age to bear children "let them marry." 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 to the man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged) to his wife, 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 means that those among the never before wed in the congregation do well if they choose to marry their betrothed virgin, and those who are also never before married do better if they choose not to, under the current climate. For 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 unlawful 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 is the same biblical record of Matthew 19:1-12, which 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 Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law 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.
@@ajlouviere202 wrong. Deuteronomy 24:1-2 24 “When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
Remarriage while your original spouse is alive (if you were their original spouse) is adultery. Repentance requires STOPPING THE SIN and SINNING NO MORE - thus getting out of the adulterous remarriage. We would not say a homosexual marriage is okay if they continue to stay married, neither is an adulterous remarriage okay by staying in it. Only the book of Matthew contains the "except for fornication" permission to divorce, as only the book of Matthew was specifically written for the Jews and the Jewish culture understood that this "fornication" meant sexual unfaithfulness in the betrothal/engagement period (not after the marriage was consummated by sexual union between the husband and wife). An example of this is shown where Joseph wanted to DIVORCE the mother of Jesus, Mary, before they had consummated their marriage as it appeared that she had been unfaithful as she was pregnant prior to having sex with Joseph. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together (sexually), she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." - Matthew 1:18-25 KJV (Jesus speaking) "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (the Greek word "porneia"), causeth her to commit adultery (the Greek word "moicheia") and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." - Matthew 5:31-32 KJV (Jesus speaking) "I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." - Matthew 19:9 KJV Note no fornication clause in the rest of the gospels, because it was specifically written to the gentiles which did not have the strict betrothal customs like the Jews: (Jesus speaking) "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." - Luke 16:18 KJV (Jesus speaking) "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." - Mark 10:11-12 KJV The ONLY permission for remarriage is the death of the original spouse: (Paul speaking) "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. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." - Romans 7:2-3 KJV Lastly, abandonment by a spouse does not allow remarriage to another. You must either reconcile or stay unmarried. (Paul speaking) "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage (to perform the marital duties - this does not allow remarriage) in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" - 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 KJV John the Baptist took the divorce and remarriage adultery so serious, that he lost his head over it via decapitation by Herod: But when Herod heard, he said, “This is John, whom I beheaded; he has been raised from the dead!” For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” - Mark 6:16-18 NKJV Of all the laws in the Old Testament, Paul emphasized only four - and abstaining from sexual immorality (which is what remarriage is while your original spouse is alive) is one of them: (Paul speaking) "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29 NKJV Staying in an adulterous remarriage can take you to hell: (Paul speaking) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor ADULTERERS, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE (note, they did not stay in their sinful acts as repentance requires STOPPING THE SIN) some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV
@@jameybobamey7343 "put away" means to divorce, why would you write a certificate of divorce if putting away was not a divorce. your argument in the above link implodes on itself. A certificate of divorce acknowledges the divorce. Duh.
@@heymichaelc Duh. Apoluo means put away. It's used in other references throughout scripture. Jesus sent the masses away after feeding them. The same word apoluo is used then. Grab a greek concordance and see for yourself. Jesus did not divorce the masses after feeding them. Regardless it was fairly common place for a man to send his wife away for no valid reason. She became destitute and if she tried to remarry in order to survive, her husband could easily come and show he was still married to her, which would be a capital offense of adultery. Thus Moses commanded people if they were to disavow their marriage, had to give a written certificate of divorce (apostation).
@@jameybobamey7343 I'm looking at the Greek word (630/apolyse) and it reads "to relieve, dismiss, pardon, to let die or divorce". If your going to separate as you say then why do you need a certificate of divorce? Obviously if your writing a certificate of divorce, it's a divorce. Therefore to draw the correct word out of the Greek word (apolyse) it would be divorce.
I get that you also used an example of God divorcing Israel, but let me ask you, will God divorce any of His church for being unfaithful to HIM. Once saved always saved is what I believe no one can take us from His hand not even ourselves. If you believe this then the number one rule is "repentance" when it comes to divorce, we as the church are to follow Christ's example, and His example is that we forgive 70x7, therefore if true repentance and acknowledgment is shown towards either spouse for their sin, we as Christians must do as Jesus did and forgive the other spouse, except for the case of sexual immorality, this I think is a direct violation of the marriage covenant. If a husband does not provide food, this is not a justification for divorce, if the husband is willing to repent and try, it is the responsibility of the spouse to forgive as Jesus would.
divorce, is not the issue....one can, but the options are to reconcile, or remain unmarried....and not reconcile, if possible....because if it is not possible, the other option is....remain unmarried...
I've never been taught this! Breaking down divorce according to the Law of Moses, martial requirements, and God's divorce of Israel (feels weird even saying that). It seems to finally harmonize the Law, Jesus, and Paul's words on this topic.
Worth being further studied and tested.
Cultish created a T-Shirt with the words 'bad theology hurts people' and sadly I've recently seen a dear sister in the Lord been given council by her elders to remain in an abusive marriage (with children involved), I've been struggling to process their council and obviously it has added a whole other trail to my friend. They wouldn't even entertain separation. I've sent her this sermon as clearly the Word is being preached here faithfully. So so thankful for this ministry time and time again.
What they're doing is hurtful and not biblical. They are protecting the abuser while leaving the innocent spouse vulnerable. When you coddle an abuser instead of holding him accountable, it only allows that sin to grow, which isn't the best thing for his soul because he needs true repentance. She needs a new church and a separation, pronto.
My "Christian" husband left me pregnant, and then came back once our baby was born and then left again once she was 7 weeks old.. this message is awesome for me.. because I had to file for a divorce for legal reasons.. I have reached out MANY times and this man wont even respond.. his church which is here in AZ said we should have "never gotten married in the first place" and that told him gods grace was bigger when he left in great confidence because of his "church". he doesn't pay child support and doesn't see our kids at all. I have wondered many times if I did the right thing.. this gives me peace. im still very broken by our divorce.. and I still pray maybe we could reconcile but I am looking forward to the man god has for me in the future. thanks!
you filed for divorce, for legal reasons.....according to the Bible it has to be for porneia....and now you think you can remarry, according to the Bible....hmmm....of course you have told a sad, emotional, story, but is it Biblical....something to think about....because if the interpretation that remarriage would constitute adultery it would mean that you and the one you....married....would both be living in adultery....
@@philipbuckley759 No that is not a real Christian, he is an unbeliever and abandoned her. She is not under bondage and free to marriage . Don't be religious Pharisee enforcing your rules not God's.
@@missinsanelogic not being under bondage, is not akin to not being bound it is a different word.....and he had just said that one is bound, as long as the other lives.......so that would be a contradiction.....
@@missinsanelogic
Exactly 'Phillip did not listen to this teaching in it's entirety to get all the context behindall the verses..
Thanks for bringing it up bcs I was just about to...
@@philipbuckley759
What if I told you there will be no such thing as luck on Judgement Day???
Read your Bible and learn how to understand context..
I’m going through a divorce right now. We were together for 13 years and married for 5. He was my first boyfriend, my first and only EVERYTHING. We also have two children together. We separated 1.5 years ago. Never pushed the divorce. I guess I always hoped maybe we’d be a family one day. I left because he didn’t respect, honor or make me feel loved. He’s currently in a live-in relationship with another woman. He still gives me mixed messages. When he sees me he tells me he wants to be with me, but when he’s gone he never reaches out. I just told him today that I’m giving him up now and I hope he finds happiness. I’m so broken. My heart wants him, my head knows better. I’m leaning so hard on God right now 🥺
*How are things going now?*
This clarified a lot about my divorce. for the first time in a long time, I do feel peace. Yes, I used my Pastor and other elders to talk about what I feel and my divorce but I guess I wasn't asking the right questions to receive the correct answer. After praying..for the past year, I finally asked God the right question. SO, here we go.
who divorced, who, and for what reason....
@@philipbuckley759how is that your business?
I am 18 year old young man. And this sermon hit me hard. I am not gay, I'm not married yet not in a relationship with a young lady yet. But, I am happy i learned this before I started dating and marrying I will.remember this when I get to that point of our life. And yes we need to approach the LGBT community with love and knowledge of God's holy word Again, thank you for a powerful sermon, Jeff.
What if one learns all of this after getting married?
Is it too late to separate your adulterous spouse then marry a Godly woman?
@@Job_Siciliano being married, to the ....wrong.....person is not a Biblical reason, for divorce and remarriage.....
Hello and greetings from the southern border! I'm usually not a commenter but definitely a follower and advocate of Apologia Ministries. I'm grateful for the work you all are doing to advance the Kingdom of Christ! God bless you all and keep up the great work!
Here is why I've chosen to comment today. The topic of divorce is one I take very seriously in my life and in the counseling I give to others. I was disappointed to learn of Jeff's position on divorce, but not surprised. What I appreciate about Jeff is that he is consistent and committed. I was challenged by this message because I haven't heard a biblical argument for divorce that aligned with the Scriptures. Most people use the "exception clause" (Matthew 5:32, 19:9) while arguing some personalized and muddied definition of what sexual immorality is. This is where I appreciate Jeff. He didn't define it himself, he pointed to it in the Bible. But this is one of my big concerns with reconstructionism/theonomy, in order to be consistent, which Jeff is, now he is has to believe and teach that it is permissible for believers to violate their marriage covenant with each other before God. We can't.
If we are going to refer to Ezekiel 16 when defending marriage, and we should, then why wasn't the fact mentioned that God not only didn't "divorce" Israel the way that Americans divorce today, but the more important truth that God doesn't abandon his wife. He foretells of a new covenant with her in Ezekiel 16: '60 But I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your older and younger sisters. I will give them to you as daughters, but not because of your covenant. 62 I will establish My covenant with you, and you will know that I am Yahweh, 63 so that when I make atonement for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth again because of your disgrace.” This is the declaration of the Lord God.' Amen! The blessing of shame. God doesn't divorce his Bride! He stays committed to her. If he had divorced his bride, we'd all be lost forever.
I also briefly want to touch on the use of 1 Corinthians 7 to defend not only divorce because of sexual immorality but "other" reasons as well. Paul was addressing an issue of new converts to Christianity leaving their spouses who remained unregenerate because of their proper understanding that we're not to be joined/married to an unbeliever (unequally yolked). Had Paul not addressed this topic, leaving these unions would have been appropriate. Why? Because God does not "join together" an unbeliever to a believer any more than he joins together a prostitute to the body of Christ! Which Paul also addresses in 1 Corinthians 6. It is permitted for a Christian to be deemed "divorced"/not bound to an unbeliever if the unbeliever abandons the relationship because they were never joined together by God in the first place. Biblical marriage is permanent in this life.
Here's the crux of it. God hates divorce, which I'm thankful was proclaimed, but he doesn't permit it in the church. Ever. Not between two believers. God permitted it in Israel because of their "hardness of heart" (Mark 10:5). Rebellious hearts of stone. Jesus reminds his followers of the Law of God, the state of sinful man, and draws us to himself, the gospel, the hope of the new covenant. Receipt of a new heart of flesh, a new spirit that obeys Christ, a new life that will abide in Christ forever! We cannot and should not reconstruct a mosaic law given to a hard-hearted people of a former covenant (Ezekiel 16:60). With new hearts we now have the ability to obey God by the power of his Spirit. Today, as new covenant people, he causes us to obey him. "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:6).
For His Glory,
Ken
Let’s say a man & a woman get married. Both are unbelievers or both claim Christianity, but do not fully comprehend, or let’s say the 2 claim to be Christians but are not saved or born again. If one becomes truly saved & the other does not, is the believer bound?
The 2 married, said their vows, before God or at least they believed they were vowing before “a god.” Is the believer stuck in the marriage?
What I am really asking is, if the believer’s unbelieving spouse commits adultery, May the true believer divorce and remarry a real believer?
@@Job_Siciliano adultery is not grounds for divorce as believers of the new covenant. So it does not matter whether the two are equally yoked or not.
so if a believer, ignorantly, marries an unbeliever, then is this one authorized to leave that relationship.....or maybe commanded, as....God did not bring them together.....sounds like a flimsy argument..
@@Job_Siciliano this is academic as the issue is bondage, vs bound....the departure of the unbeliver does not affect the bond, of marriage....just that the believer is not under bondage, to the individual...a different term and a different teaching...
@@kenduffy After all remember God required his people to end adulterers lives. This is his command. And if there were no witnesses, then the woman was to be taken to the priest and poisoned in Numbers 20 I think. These are the consequences for adultery. This is separate and apart from the believer forgiving the betrayer. We are required to forgive, but we are also commanded to follow God's commands. If you're correct and adultery isn't grounds for divorce, fair enough. God commands the betrayer be put to death. So believers are supposed to follow God's command, and walk in holiness after all, correct? We should maintain the standard God sets, not set our own, isn't this holiness? This frees the betrayed from the betrayer, since putting the partner to death, as God commands, means they are widowed.
So good. I'm late to the party but better late than never. I am recently divorced and this was very helpful to confirm what my pastor told me. This is not to say that I didn't believe fully my pastor but I needed to confirm what he said. Looking to God and the scriptures, it shows my pastor was right. Amen. Why confirm my pastor? Well I'm recently born again and my pastor is new to me so I was just looking for confirmation. I now have it. Pastor Jeff thank you for all that you do. You were the spark to help me go and seek God again, because I was lost but now I'm found. Amen.
I am going through a divorce please pray for me.
amen...
I hope it went well. My divorce finalized last year. I hope this sermon helped you as it helped me. Praying for complete healing for ya, from an unknown brother.
I got married when I had just turned16 (in a courtroom if that makes any difference) didnt even know what I was doing later divorced. Later in my life learned God hates divorce. Not being able to remarry anyone is devastating! If I have biblical grounds to remarry someone else it's so UNCLEAR to me it's risky. So I will spend my life alone, how this needs to be taught loud and clear to all people, alot marry and divorce before even coming to true faith
This is a good message! Made it easy to understand what the word says. God hates divorce, but in those last last circumstances there is a way for Christians to do so, shamefully, knowing it's not what God intended but still able to move forward. Shame is a gift that God allows, just like sorrows, only the holy spirit convinces of sin and only God could do this work in you. Love the parallel between the pharisees and the people of today telling sinners, just be yourself and follow Jesus on the outside without being transformed from the inside, these are the real pharisees. Awesome word
Hmmmm, I leave a comment and this message comes out the next day..........God is good!
This is an important question that sheds proper light on this topic yet nobody has been able to answer it.
Were the Jews following Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, or following the Jewish betrothal in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, and Leviticus 20:10 at the time of Christ?
Come one obviously deutronomy 24:1 all scholars agree
@@missinsanelogic Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses on the cross. Paul said, "26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:26-29).
@@ajlouviere202 The ceremonial law is passed away the moral law remains. Adultery , homosexuality , murder , are the moral law which does not pass away and marriage is also a moral law that is not done away.
So if you are saying moral law passed away to, then adultery along with deutronomy 24:1 was nailed to the cross.
So what's your point ?? What are you babbling about calling things adultery? Be consistent
@@missinsanelogic these are Christ's words under the New Covenant in the original Greek text, in Bible Hub's "Greek Text Analysis" of Mark 10:4, Mark 10:11, and Mark 10:12:
Mark 10:4
Strong's Greek (English Morphology)
3588 [e] Οἱ, hoi -
1161 [e] δὲ, de (And)
3004 [e] εἶπαν·,eipan (they said,)
2010 [e] Ἐπέτρεψεν, Epetrepsen (Permitted)
3475 [e] Μωϋσῆς, Mōusēs (Moses)
975 [e] βιβλίον, biblion (a roll)
647 [e] ἀποστασίου, apostasiou (of divorce)
1125 [e] γράψαι, grapsai (to write,)
2532 [e] καὶ, kai (and)
630 [e] ἀπολῦσαι., apolysai (to send [her] away.)
Mark 10:11
Strong's Greek (English Morphology)
2532 [e] καὶ, kai (And)
3004 [e] λέγει, legei (He says)
846 [e] αὐτοῖς, autois. (to them,)
3739 [e] Ὃς, Hos (Whoever)
302 [e] ἂν, an (-)
630 [e] ἀπολύσῃ, apolysē (shall divorce)
3588 [e] τὴν, tēn (the)
1135 [e] γυναῖκα, gynaika (wife)
846 [e] αὐτοῦ, autou (of him,)
2532 [e] καὶ, kai (and)
1060 [e] γαμήσῃ, gamēsē (shall marry)
243 [e] ἄλλην, allēn (another,)
3429 [e] μοιχᾶται, moichatai (commits adultery)
1909 [e] ἐπ’, ep’ (against)
846 [e] αὐτήν·, autēn. (her.)
Mark 10:12
Strong's Greek (English Morphology)
2532 [e] καὶ, kai (And)
1437 [e] ἐὰν, ean (if)
846 [e] αὐτὴ, autē. (a woman,)
630 [e] ἀπολύσασα, apolysasa (having divorced)
3588 [e] τὸν, ton (the)
435 [e] ἄνδρα, andra (husband)
846 [e] αὐτῆς, autēs (of her,)
1060 [e] γαμήσῃ, gamēsē (should marry)
243 [e] ἄλλον, allon (another,)
3429 [e] μοιχᾶται., moichatai (she commits adultery.)
@@ajlouviere202 You can't make Mark 10 the Rule, it is the exact same scenario as Matthew 19:9 , except Matthew 19:9 is the complete version that is not missing any information. We make Matthew 19:9 the Rule of the new covenant, it includes the exception clause and adds to the Pharisee's question " Can we divorce our wives {for any reason}?. How did Christ raise up his standard ? by saying you can't just divorce { for any reason} This didn't do away with deutronomy 24:1
Christ says if you even lust after another woman, you have committed adultery in your heart. This new covenant standard did not do away with adultery in the Old Covenant, it just refined it.
Deutronomy 24:1 is not done away with, it's a moral law , it's just been refined by saying you can't divorce for {just any reason} , the only exception is porneia.
Faithfulness, food, clothing, and "love". That's quite a wide category. Now I know why the Jews thought that they could divorce for any cause. Seems like a teaching like this might water down the covenant of marriage.
aribbonatatime Maybe you missed the part where Pastor Jeff described that as "marital love"... conjugal rights. Same thing Paul mentions (that Jeff quoted).
Perhaps you'll consider listening closer or taking notes?
The Old Testament makes it legal to hoard wealth, use force and to kill in war.
Three things that the New Testament declares to be a dead creed most sinful.
And so, if we want heaven, we must desire to do what is done in heaven.
Please pray for me. Long story. Heard the whole teaching wonderful brother.
I recently found out my husband had a dating profile and cheated on me. It's a tough place to be to either leave or stay. I know Jesus will forgive me if I leave.
He has committed adultery so you are free to leave the marriage of you decide not to seek reconciliation with him
She knows and understand clearly that she's being neglected inside her marriage long long time ago, then sin and separation came. She heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God regenerated her heart and became born again. She reconciled to her unbelieving husband, praying and hoping that it will gonna be better, she wanted to try again and again and love his husband like Jesus love, forgive, and give mercy and grace like Christ did to her. His husband agreed to stay, physically present but the truth is He still choosing to abandoned the marriage. No work, tied up to his friends, addicted to alcohol, not doing his role as a father, no emotional support to her wife who is working abroad, no repentance at all, no signs of wanting to work out his marriage, totally choosing himself.
Its painful to her, really painful seeing herself in a same cycle of heartache, nothings change.
Please pray for this woman, may the will of GOD be done to her life. That no matter what happen, She will stay strong in her faith in Jesus Christ Alone.
I’ve really enjoyed your teachings. Be Blessed
Hey Apoligia Studios, you all get Mormon ads tagged to your videos😅 You might want to check in to that
Thank you for answer me and my sister question about marriage
Apologia Studios I have a question that I am currently very confused about regarding Biblical Divorce. In the KJV Jesus specifically chooses the word FORNICATION instead of ADULTERY in the beginning of the verse in Matthew 19:9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Why does Jesus say the word fornication once and then chooses to say adultery twice?
I thought fornication means sexual intercourse between two people who are both UNMARRIED to each other and to other people as well. If one of the two people are married then wouldn't it be adultery and NOT fornication?
Back then, the Jews valued what we call "engagement" as something that was almost as strong as actual marriage because if two engaged people wanted to leave the relationship, they needed a written divorce. Being betrothed to someone was a PROMISE to be married and the two people were already recognized as Husband and Wife... we can see this in Matthew 1:19,20
"Then Joseph her HUSBAND, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."
" But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
At this moment, Mary and Jospeh were not actually married yet, but he was still referred to as her Husband. So is it possible that Jesus was warning us that divorce was only possible BEFORE GETTING MARRIED in the engagement stage?
I just don't see how God could be ok with divorce when scripture tells us that a spouse is bound to the other until death do them part.
Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
No more twain. Meaning never again. A husband is bound to his wife unless she dies. A wife is bound to her husband unless he dies. This is something A LOT of people including professing Christians will not accept but Jesus told us that the path to Heaven is narrow. Few will find it.
Please let me know your thoughts
God Bless
Angela S It's answered in this sermon. :)
So if you divorce you are irredeemable?
What happens if you divorce because of adultery but do not remarry?
Look at the Greek, use a concordance to study the words.
SundaySchool: So, although Jesus allows divorce in the case of adultery, your Sunday School teaching is that those who divorce within that context fall from Grace?
λύω lýō, loo'-o; a primary verb; to "loosen" (literally or figuratively):-break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off.
I still hold to the fact that the adulterer (especially a serial adulterer) is the one who has "loosened" "broken up", "destroyed" the bond of marriage. The innocent would only fall into sin if they remarried.
Apologia Studios, in light of Angela S comment. How? I have listened to this message twice. Jeff said its all in Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3. In Isaiah 50:1 "Thus says the LORD, "Where is the certificate of divorce By which I have sent your mother away?" Jeff said God gave them a certificate of divorce but thats not what the text says. But in Jeremiah 3 it says "And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also." Here there seems to be a contradiction. But also in light of Hosea 2:20 "I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the Lord." So I think there needs to be made a distinction between Israel and True Israel. The betrothal period and the marriage. What Israel put themselves into and that God was still faithful. The differences between land promises and spiritual promises.
Psalm 7.11 King James Version
God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Hi Jeff, can you please clarify your statement that in 1 Cor 7:15 the abandoned partner is free to remarry? The text does not say that they are free to remarry, only that they are free (ESV says "not enslaved"). Thank you
it is, as you say a different word than bound.....under bondage, or enslaved.....and they use this to justify divorce....it does not seem correct....so I would be careful with this interpretation...
Yes enslaved. Bible says we are enslaved to Christ and we are His bride. If we stop being enslaved to Christ , we stop being His bride. If we stop being enslaved to our husband/wife we are no longer their husband/wife , therefore the marriage covenant is dissolved. Divorce. Simple. Lest you twist it
@@missinsanelogic marriage is not slavery....regardless of the word game you just played....
@@philipbuckley759 Guess you are not married to Christ cause you don’t want to be His slave.
Patrick 💯👍
where, in the New Testament does providing for a spouse constitute a possible reason, for divorce and remarriage...
Exactly
You should put in the description which is the focal verse of the sermon it will make it easier to follow all the videos in order.
I need a prayer i going through stress n depression n anxiety i have a daughter n her dad we decided to be married last year june 2 2018 n feb valantine week he left because i was talk to my guy friends behind his back i never said nothing sweet to my guys friend n i text my ex child hood boyfriend n he decided to give me divorce my frist one i am nerous n scared
This is an older sermon, has your sermon changed? I struggled with this question and scripturally came out as on the Permanence side. Jesus said "what did God Create it to be from the beginning"
I’m confused about the part in Revelation. Jeff said Rev 17 was God divorcing Israel, which I understand, but then he went to Rev 21 and talked about the new heaven and new earth and I got lost from there. Is he saying that Rev 21 is when God opened salvation to the gentiles or is he saying Rev 21 is referring to when Jesus returns and will marry the church? I always through that verse was referring to the future when Jesus will return for his bride, Not something that already happened.
It's when he returns..
Simply Revelation 21 is on how YAH will forgive his Remnant 'the repented after playing the harlot and bring them back into the new kingdom on earth.. Forgiveness then remarrying his adulteress bride
I love this message who praise God this is great biblical straight from the Bible verbatim there's no interpretations are these are verbatim straight word-for-word verbatim not hard to understand for those people that like to use interpretation as an excuse there's so much of that and it's sickening even people that claim to be Christians a lot of times they are actually lukewarm and they're not really truly saved some many of those will use that as an excuse when in reality it's not hard to see when in the Bible which is Verbatim what truth is it's what the Bible says they give approval to like oh what's wrong with it I love it Pastor Jeff preaching on truth will obliterate lies
So my wife left about 3 years ago and I havent had money to divorce her. She left me to another country and hasnt contacted or replied to me besides the topic divorce. I would wait for her if God would ask me but I dont know what the right thing to do is. :/
some say abandoment, by an unbeliever allows for divorce and remarriage....but for the ones that say Matthew is the only case your only recource would be remain single....
www.gospelminutes.org/marryagain.php
@@philipbuckley759 Matthew is the only grounds to believers , this is no way contradicts
@@missinsanelogic it never says that......who so ever....is...hmm....who so ever....
@@philipbuckley759 it would make sense for Jesus to address an exception unique to gentiles in Matthew 19. It’s not exclusionary of a further exception to gentiles
The same rule applies both to Jews as to gentiles (either a Christian or a non believer) concerning divorse and remarriage.God and Jesus don't make distinctions , what Jesus told the Pharesies concerning marriage applies to all!.God does not play favorites or make consentions with no one.
great I have more reasons now to divorce, thanks for the video!
but what about the Bible.....
On this subject you are wrong. What is being translated as "divorce" in the scriptures (based upon Deut 20-24) is not what we call it today (disolvement of marriage). If you would like we could discuss this.
Yeah, he's calling apoluo divorce, but its not
@@streamhunters9940 check Mike Wingers teaching on this topic...
It says if the UNBELIEVING depart, UN BE LIEVING
Jarrett & Alyssa Neville The principal is abandonment. Further, that isn't "adultery". It is in line with God's Law.
How is continued adultery NOT abandonment of the marriage?
Why is marrying an unbeliever not the first sin?
Apologia Studios What isn't adultery? I don't understand your comment.
Principle of abandonment? The context is believing and unbelieving spouses. It is specifically talking about an unbelieving spouse leaving a believing spouse. For you to tell people that it is Biblical to divorce if your believing spouse abandons you is false and dangerous. You can't take a clear statement in the Bible, throw out details and apply it as a principle to everyone. Not proper interpretation.
ROCKLIKEACOBB While it's not wise I don't think you will find a specific passage of scripture prohibiting you from marrying an unbeliever. There were clear prohibitions to Israel not to marry foreigners who would turn them away from God but that usually seemed to be the aim, the believer not falling away.
MrDen312 I think we see that atleast twice in the New Testament
2 Corinthians 6:14 NIV
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
1 Corinthians 7:39 NIV
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
What if two unbelievers who eventually got married after coming to Christ, but both partners were unfaithful before the marriage? One partner was aware before the marriage, but the other was not aware the other was unfaithful before the marriage. Is there any grounds for divorce in this situation?
evidently this should be sorted out before the marriage.....
I was very afraid when I gave my life to God. I had just found out that I was very sick and I knew I had hurt a lot of people and knew I deserved what I got and was very sorry for that and knew in that moment that God had my life in his hands and said I was sorry to God and asked him to forgive me and then I heard his voice loud and clear! It was amazing and scary at the same time but I had no doubt it was God's voice. I recognize his voice now to this day and am guided by it although I don't hear it as loud but it's a still small voice of love. I know he sustains my life and provides all my needs and will until he's ready to take me. :) That was 5 years ago. Shame is a gift from God because he loves us! Amen! Praise God!!
you said a lot, and nothing, at the same time....
@@philipbuckley759 If you don't repent God will punish you. It happened to me and I'm warning you because I care. God is not mocked. A man does reap what he sows so sow goodness.
@@angelmd43 ????
@@philipbuckley759 As you did just now
er...what is the exception clause....abuse is not there....one can separate....yes....divorce, or remarry....for abuse....no...
www.gospelminutes.org/marryagain.php
abandonment is not a reason, for divorce and remarriage.....check the verb tense....and the term is enslaved, or under bondage.....totally different to bound.....it relates to the relationship to the individual and not the bond, of marriage....
“Bound” and “Bondage” both means the same thing essentially. Bound means you’re confined or restricted.
Bondage means you’re confined and restricted WITH the obligation to SERVE.
When scripture says the Children of Israel were in bondage to the Egyptians, they were bound with the obligation to serve the Egyptians.
Thanks for this. My question is is our world now as corrupt as is was in Noah’s day before the flood? I mean it seems like sin and the disobedience of Gods word can’t get any more corrupt. Or is it worse? Now??!!! Example as Jeff said about all the sin taking place about gender. All I can say is what ever needs to happen to be fulfilled before His second coming God make it quick cause frankly I am tired of all the sin!!!
Imagine though, had the Day of the Lord come before YOUR (or my) repentance during the time that the faithful saints were "tired of all the sin"? I say, wait for Christ to decide when to judge and if that means another 2k years, so be it!
I am confused, did you address the question....
abandonment is not a grounds for divorce...the exception clause is one reason....not being under bondage, to an individual is not akin to not being bound to a covenant....because marriage is not bondage....also one needs to evaluate the verb being used here.....some that never existed and does not exist today..
The exception that Christ gave was about the justifiable grounds on which a man could initiate divorce.
1 Corinthians 7:15 is about the UNBELIEVER initiating the divorce, and the BELIEVER submitting to it.
SERMON: LETTER TO APOLOGIA
Brothers and sisters of Apologia. God has used me to preach against divorce for about 25 years. Its your turn. I will keep it brief and simple:
I heard your sermon expecting that it would be in line with the Word of God instead of 99% of the Apostate church of this wicked generation. My heart broke with what I heard. As you should be aware, divorce in America, those who commit this sin, are responsible for the blood of millions who because of this suffer all manor of spiritual, mental, social, et al ills.
This generation, from about 1950, is Balaam: those who hold the doctrine of Balaam:
Revelation 2:13-16 (To the church at Pergamum)
“I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast thy name, and hast not denied thy faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelt.
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which thing I hate.
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth.”
As you know, but others do not, Balaam, a seer and prophet, taught Balak how to trap Israel: Get the single girls of his kingdom to dance and seduce the men of Israel. When these men were seduced, and married them, they were committing fornication because it was forbidden that they marry outside of the Jewish people.
Carnal fornication led to spiritual fornication as these men of Israel began to worship the false gods of their non-Israeli brides. God had to judge them. But God did also judge Balaam and he was slain with the sword.
I like manor, the Holy Spirit keeping as He does the same idioms, the warnings for you apostates is the same, from Billy Graham being used to do so, hundreds of other men of God to now:
Repent of teaching God’s sheep to divorce for any reason other than adultery. Marital divorce leads to the spouse who committed this sin to cause their spouse to commit adultery- the punishment for causing sin being greater than simply sinning itself.
And this sin has led to the Great Apostasy- the great divorce of the Church from Christ. Just as in Balaam’s time, when he taught Balac how to trap Israel, so you are teaching the church how commit adultery, divorce, which had led to being divorced from Christ. 9 out of 10 pastors cheating on their wives; evolution taught in most churches and seminaries; 9 out of 10 people who come to Christ or enter a church leaving, most the leadership; false Christians right now professing their apostasies in public, famous ones, that they are not Christians anymore, not keeping it to themselves, promoting it; witchcrafts, spirit guides, ‘the universe’ instead of ‘God,’ ecumenical agreement with Rome and Evangelical leaders proclaiming the Pope Vicar of Christ and the Inquisitions just a big misunderstanding; Oprah and other of her gang of New Age, Bilderberg Group witches and warlocks appearing as ‘Christians’ in T.D. Jakes church, etc., etc., etc. If the Great Apostasy which must happen - the great Divorce - that must come before the man of sin is not in full stride right now its certainly begun.
Fornication lead to spiritual fornication. Marital divorce leads to spiritual divorce; apostasy. Its not rocked science.
This is a warrant of arrest and an alter call. If you want to repent of this doctrine of Balaam I am very happy to pray for you. If not, the blood of all that you taught to divorce in sermon, counselling, whatever, through suicide, drug abuse, murder, mental illness and all other fruits of divorce will be on your hands and as pastors your punishment will be greater than non-pastors.
Not a single professing Christian has ever repented of this doctrine of Balaam in my 25 years of preaching. That should terrify you. Its either the faithful remnant or this faithless generation without an ounce of conscience, fear of God, repentance in them. He stands at the door, knocking. If any man opens and lets Him in He will have sweet communion with them. That from Revelation was to the church, not sinners.
I pray you are the first in my life I get to see turn from this iniquity.
what requirements are for the nonBiblically divorced and remarried.....confess...and remain....or leave the adulterous relationship....
Yes, the grace of shame. It's shocking how many people have no shame, and proudly proclaim their perverted lifestyle.
Deuteronomy 17 God never condemned polygny neither demanded that Israelite men could not multiply wives .
BUT, it FEELS sinful and our whole lives we have heard of the CREEPY men who take many wives so there is a perverted light on the subject so it's difficult for any Christian to overcome the stigma despite what the Word ACTUALLY says on the subject.
I'd agree but nothing good ever came to those with many wives from everything I could remember reading.
Abraham with Sarah and Hagar and Jacob with Leah and Rebecca. Solomon and his wives and concubines who managed to turn his heart. Always messy.
Human love (specifically spousel love) is too difficult to split with multiple people because we're too selfish to begin with. I think it was something adequate for the time and not condemned by God. It required lots of effort. One women is hard enough lol
I hear Christians and Mormons claim that at some times God commanded poligamy in the bible. God permitted it, never commanded it.
@@shale1757 culturally when half your babies died before age 3, and then living under constant threat of other kingdoms coming in and murdering you, the words be fruitful and multiply probably had a more important meaning back then
Mind blowing
The only time a divorce can take place within God's marriage laws is when a wife commits Adultery against her true husband in Christ and the husband is not an adulterous man himself -
Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19: 1-9, with 1 Corinthians 5:1 Kjv for clarity. The God - fearing husband can, if he chooses, divorce that adulterous wife and he can re-marry while she is alive but she can't re-marry while he is alive. The wife can separate from her husband, if necessary, but she can't divorce him and she can't marry another man while her husband in Christ is alive.
Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19: 1-9 (with 1 Corinthians 5:1 Kjv for clarity), Romans 7: 1-3, and 1 Corinthians 7: 10-11 and 12-17.
Kjv Bible
Had to stop at 45:29. The spandex definition of divorce was too much.
God divorced but is waiting to be reconciled....ergo this argument is meaningless...
I appreciate Jeff and the ministry of Apologia church and their normal consistency, but this is.....bad hermeneutics. All the comments below point out the loopholes in his presuppositions which lead to horrible advice - ultimately dishonoring God.
He would do well to sit down (for a long time) and reanalyze his position in this particular area.
I watched, again, and still am left confused about the message....here...
I re watched and am more convinced that this is a completely false teachig...
If it takes an hour of debate to justify something, you are probably trying to B.S. your way through.
amen....
Remarriage is ADULTERY if the spouse is still living. 1 Cor. 7
@Bachelorman 37 greetings, she needs to go back to her first husband, or remain unmarried.
@Bachelorman 37 he is living in adultery as well. He needs to leave that adulterous affair.
Shane Jensen I had better get repenting!,,,
Not if she has been given a certificate of divorce. Strangely even the king James bible has mistranslated two key words. Apolyo and apostasia. The former meaning put away or abandoned. The latter meaning divorced. Jesus used both words in his famous sermon in Matthew 5. What he is saying is that if you put your wife away (apolyo) without giving her a divorce certificate (apostasion), then you force her to commit adultery by finding another husband while still legally married to her first husband. The new translations use divorce for both of these words which is a mistranslation of the original greek text. One has to wonder if the translators decided they didnt want divorce to be an option. But the only time a husband can biblically put his wife away is adultery (porneia) which as I understand is intercourse, so not even for kissing another man, it would have to be intercourse. But due to the hardness of mans heart he can divorce as long as he gives her a written certificate of divorce. Otherwise the adultery of the wife who was abandoned would rest on the feet of the one putting her out, along with her new husband. In deuteronomy a woman is allowed to remarry if she has been given a certificate of divorce. Deutoromny 24: 1-2 KJV “When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
I found this article useful
www.gospelminutes.org/marryagain.php
@@shanejensen9429 what if they have children together? Should she leave the marriage and break up the new family?
There is a couple in our church who I believe are divorced and they are still in the church..both of them...how is this ok...i dont know why they are divorced...but I know they are both still there...they met in the church, married had children, Divorced and still in the church...?????
evidently the Church has given up on proclaiming this message.....
ask them these questions......and if you dont get an acceptable answer find a different congregation...
if they are divorced, then the issue is reconcile, or remain single....so, until one ...remarries, there is no sin....
where does sexual immorality come from.....who changed it, from fornication.....Erasmus..
any type of sexual activity, out of the marriage bond, is adultery....
Jesus took it further than activity. He said looking in lust is committing adultery in your heart.
Did they block out “Hell”
Matthew gives an exception for divorce.....fornication, and gives an example....Joseph and Mary....
How do you then discern? A women may swear a husband completely emotionally abused her. Her pain may actually be real, but the reality that communication in marriage is such a problem for a lot of people, the husband may have been trying his best to love his wife. I feel like the two examples you used of divorcing for other then sexual immorality "may" be valid, but this sermon is going to be used for justification for many divorces in our society, probably almost for "any" reason. Men and women are infallible and are going to commit adultery in their hearts, be unloving in their marriage on a continual basis, even though it is their heart to be the best husband or wife she can be. I think you need to watch out, because this new emotional abuse doctrine is taking over and it is being declared that emotional abuse is more damaging then physical abuse. Im not saying that it is not, I think the number one emphasis should be on spouses to forgive one another and that divorce is not permitted if the women or husband is repentant and willing to work on their issues with the other person. I think what I'm saying is that your sermon can greatly be taken out of context and used for justification for divorce in instances where it is not permitted at all in scripture.
GRATEFUL HEART --- ONLY WAY TO SALVATION
Half the church is filled with pride boasting they chose salvation, while the other half has a god-ego thinking they were among the chosen few. For never do we hear that a grateful heart is the first and most essential step in salvation.
GRATITUDE --- “We love because He first loved us.”
For a love relationship with God is offered to everyone as all have received the free gift of life. So, if we are willing to give up our most cherished possession, our god-ego pride, by creating what God cannot create, the humility of a grateful heart, than salvation is ours.
For God wants our pride, grateful humility is the vehicle upon which we give it up and from then on it is all, “The work of God…” For grace is a free gift from God, faithfulness, trust and loyalty are the fruit of the Spirit that come after we receive the indwelling Spirit of God and after it is all said and done, the humility of gratitude is the only part we play in the greatest love story ever told.
For “saved by faith alone” is not a love relationship, as it is a pride filled and enslave our God dictatorship. The illusion being that our inner goodness of producing faith relieves us of any burden to suffer the humiliation of gratitude, the embarrassment of having to admit that we could not make it on our own. Pure pride from start to finish.
For “saved by grace alone” is a most self-glorifying no-love association with God, and again, pure pride from start to finish. A fake morality form of salvation, most pride inflating and most favored by the rich, like the Catholic church leader John Calvin, the rich dictator of Geneva who beheading people. The fiction being that God has not the creative power to draw out the affections of those who are willing to be humble and grateful.
For when we marry someone, it is with the understanding that our love relationship is by mutual agreement and mutual affection. So, how can our love relationship with God be any different? And so, is God such a dictator that he refuses to create a love relationship where we both chose each other?
And to those who rely on the Bible as their sole guide to salvation, please reflect on three key points:
1. We cannot both give all our wealth to the poor and receive "many times more in this age." Therefore, the Bible has a subjective and relative form of morality.
2. We cannot be a pacifist who turns the other cheek and never goes to court, while we bear the sword for government. Therefore, the Bible does have human error
3. Christ and John the Baptist did not both die without faith. Therefore, the Bible cannot replace our ability to use logic and reasoning.
And the big problem is, for all those who believe in faith alone or grace alone, is that they fail to exhibit the slightest gratitude, surely not the degree needed for salvation. Actually, in all their words about salvation, they fail to state that gratitude has any part in salvation.
For in any plan of salvation where gratitude is completely omitted, it places a sever limitation on the creative ability of God and declares it impossible for humans to be motivated by gratitude and gratitude alone.
For in all the heavenly realms, the motivating element in control of every aspect of society is the power of gratitude, the power above even the power of God. For the Creator has ordained it to be that way, so that none may say that God is ruling a dictatorship, that he is using rewards and punishments to control.
For on earth we now witness the ultimate conclusion of a world so void of gratitude that it is impossible to perform an act of compassion, pity or charity in a way that does more good than harm, that does anything more than inflate pride. For all governments allow us to enrich ourselves upon the misery of anyone with less education, less wealth or less whiteness of skin.
And so, by this we know that the end time is upon us, as the more educated upper-half of society hoards all the land, wealth and healthcare, the laboring-class lower-half is enslaved by poverty, and absolutely no hope is there for the one billion humans slowly starving to death. And lest we forget, all those babies being bombed in Yemen and the children being executed in Gaza for marching in a parade.
Comes now a realization that, when less than 5% of humans ever gain salvation, surely all the sin and misery in this planet of the ingrates has nothing to do with saving sinners. But to show that without God overwhelming us with the affection needed to create a grateful heart, none would have ever been saved from this living hell called earth.
True it is that Christ died to end our guilt and vengeance, so that we forgive our enemies and end our wars of vengeance. But, to say that Christ died for our sins, when it was Christ who created earth full of sin, just to reach the ultimate conclusion of sin, where is the common horse sense?
For the fiction of a burning hell fills us with guilt, the idea that our sins killed God the Son just piles on more guilt, and such illusions are the reverse of what Christ stood for and died for.
"For the fiction of a burning hell fills us with guilt, the idea that our sins killed God the Son just piles on more guilt, and such illusions are the reverse of what Christ stood for and died for." Except Jesus was the one who said “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in HELL” (Matthew 10:28).
1. We cannot both give all our wealth to the poor and receive "many times more in this age." Therefore, the Bible has a subjective and relative form of morality.
2. We cannot be a pacifist who turns the other cheek and never goes to court, while we bear the sword for government. Therefore, the Bible does have human error
3. Christ and John the Baptist did not both die without faith. Therefore, the Bible cannot replace our ability to use logic and reasoning.
15:50 The grace of shame
The innocent party can remarry. If you’re gonna destroy your genetic lineage because your wife cheated on you, you’re not doing yourself any favor. Remarriage is illegal for the guilty party. Origen of Alexandria believed this, the council of Arles (314 AD) proclaimed. Both the early church and the scriptures give precedence to allow remarriage for the innocent party.
where is this, in the Bible....Mt 5 states if a man divorces his wife, for non biblical reasons he is responsible for her adultery.....no innocent person there....
Thank you so much for making it clear
Understanding Jesus' teaching within it's historic CONTEXT!
The Pharisees posed a loaded question to Jesus about lawful grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:3. Mark 10:2). The law on the other hand did not give grounds for divorce, it merely regulated it having conceded divorce to hardheartedness as Jesus affirms in Matthew 19:8. Instead of getting caught up in the "lawful grounds for divorce" argument of that time Jesus circumvented that argument by appealing to what marriage was suppose to be. He appealed to God’s creative design for marriage in the origin (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b).
By God’s design marriage was to be lifelong, because of hard hearts it was allowed to prematurely end. Accepting the tension that creates is part of understanding the divorce dilemma. That's because Jesus is contrasting divorce conceded over against marriage created for life (v.8). If you overlook that fact, you're NEVER understand why this way of committing adultery ensues and you'll get caught up in the false narrative about "grounds for divorce" which takes a long, long time to explain. That's because "grounds" sidetracks the simplicity of what Jesus actually taught.
Moses allowed divorce primarily because of women caught up in the conflict of their husbands spite as Deuteronomy 24 verse 1 reveals, it was a mercy for the woman. Subsequently God didn’t force them into a life of singleness, He allowed them to remarry. Having a husband allowed them to have the companionship and provisions they would need, so remarriage was graciously allowed by God as verse 2 of that same law reveals. By appealing to the origin which predated the law we understand that the conclusion Jesus gave in Matthew 19:9 (in responding to the Pharisees question / v.3) was not derived from the law itself, but rather from God’s creative design for marriage in the beginning (Matthew 19:4-6,8b).
So we should understand that this way of committing adultery has it's basis in another predicate, where principles of marriage are not sustained because the first marriage ends prematurely.
We should understand Moses and Jesus congruous, not as one opposed to the other. Jesus’ teaching on this issue is pointing out to His covenant people that allowing them to divorce was not without it’s casualty. Something significant about life long marriage is violated in the process. Subsequently causing an inadvertent transgression because the first marriage was not sustained. Jesus words were applicable to Israel's history. When contextually understood He was conveying the inadvertent consequence of divorce being conceded. This He did to dissuade them from putting away their wives (Matthew 19:6).
Under Jesus' teaching the ensuing adultery is multi-factored with divorce being the primal cause. That's because allowing marriages to end was not in keeping with that of God’s lifelong creative design. On the other hand Jesus did NOT prohibit nor criticize remarriage. The law (which represented God's will) graciously allowed remarriage as Deuteronomy 24:2 reveals. Jesus was merely revealing what transpires under those circumstances because the first marriage was not sustained. Divorce is to be understood as a biblical reality. Divorce although antithetical to God's creative design prematurely ends a marriage. Divesting divorce of it's meaning (as some Pastors do) is part and parcel of exaggerating Jesus' teaching on this issue!!
Part of that exaggeration is claiming "remarriage is adultery". If you think "remarriage is adultery" you have not properly followed the counter argument Jesus made against divorce. Your interpretation has added a number of false theories to His teaching. In short you will find yourself claiming Jesus repealed, changed, or abrogated the law of Moses when in TRUTH He merely revealed the consequence of divorce being conceded under the law.
"Remarriage is adultery" is one of the worse misnomers concluded from errant interpretation. A conclusion NOT derived from the biblical precedents to which Jesus referred, but rather from interjecting the belief that remarriage is the villain and shouldn't be allowed (as if God made a mistake by doing so). If that which God allowed by His Grace is thought to be sinful, does not the interpreter make the grace of God to be sin?
It’s imperative Christians understand that Jesus is not speaking negatively against divorce as a concession (as falsely believed by some), but rather negatively about the reason divorce was conceded. The concession itself was not a mistake on Moses part. Jesus was not criticizing Moses, He was being critical of that which prompted the need for divorce. Jesus revealed to the Pharisees that the concession was an accommodation of Israel's hard heart (Matthew 19:8). Hard hearts ultimately were the cause of marriages ending before death, which in turn caused the exclusivity of being one-flesh with one person for life to be transgressed. Thus the "something of significates" within God's creative design for marriage being violated, causing the inadvertent adultery the way Jesus described. There is NO win win in divorce, fidelity for life to one person is transgressed by ending one marriage and marrying another (as Jesus stated).
When women were divorced and remarried they were then bound to there present spouse and not there former. There was NO divorcing there current spouse and returning to their former for "repentance" or salvation sake as FALSELY claimed under the new narrative created by those who add false suppositions to Jesus' teaching.
Hope this helps Christians to understand the retrospective relevance of Jesus teachings to whom He was speaking without the false suppositions added to it. Blessings
Jesus is not referring to Deuteronomy 24:1, but Deuteronomy 22. If the new bride is found not to be a virgin, Deuteronomy 22 allows for divorce if evidence is presented to the elders. If the claim made against the new bride is false, the husband is forbidden from divorcing his wife all his days. Jesus’ remarks on divorce in Mark and Luke make no reference to the fornication exception given in Matthew 5 and 19. Why? Matthew was written to the Jews, who would be familiar with the Torah’s teaching on divorce (Deut. 22). This is the only way Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew does not contradict the Mark/Luke teachings. Not to mention 1 Corinthians 7, which teaches married people not to depart from their spouse. Bottom line - if marriage isn’t for life, then what’s the point. For centuries, people understood this and churches taught this, but now there are few pastors who still teach this.
Amen Chris! MANY churches and pastors/priests today teach this false perception on divorce because they have re-married people before and/or are re-married themselves. Millions of people, including professing Christians would be outraged to find out that marriage is until death do you part, no exceptions - and this is coming straight from the mouth of JESUS. (People need to look at the Original Greek New Testament. Look up Erasmus. He added misleading words into all of the English Translations we see today) Matthew 19:9 has been so misinterpreted for centuries dating back to the 16th century. People forget how fornication was handled back then... God said it Himself that fornicators receive the death penalty. This is why Jesus mentioned fornication in Matthew 19:9. This cause was already handled (with the death penalty) so Jesus had to clear up the rest and say for any other cause it is adultery.
God Bless!
Angela S So many pastors and Christians today seem to have the “permissible divorce exception” from Matthew memorized, chapter and verse, but they never mention Deuteronomy 22, which is the OT law on divorce! And of course when they discuss the topic, they also don’t touch the Mark and Luke passages, since those list no “exceptions.” When the Pharisees questioned Jesus on divorce, Jesus did not change the OT teaching, but affirmed it, rejecting the idea that it was permissible beyond the scope of Deuteronomy 22. The wishy-washy modern Churchianity teaching on divorce never leaves the book of Matthew.
Why on earth would Jesus be referring to Deuteronomy 22 while quoting the words from Deuteronomy 24?!?! Get out of that MADR cult.
You mean this is the only way it fits with confirming your bias. How could a bethrothed woman be caused to commit adultery if she's stoned to death already? Doesn't make a lick of sense.
CHRIS 👍💯💯
Sin >Shame > Pride (or Super Ego) > Sin.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat until DEATH.
OR
Sin > Conviction > Confession > Redemption > Repetence>Obedience>LIFE
Shame is a tool of Satan used to keep us in our sin. Why are you teaching "Shame" as "Grace"?
By His Shame, we are healed? That is disgusting blasphemy.
This was such a blessing thank you
this speaker did not address, the elephant in the house....the ones divorced and remarried....and what course of action should be taken...
Why did you get th ough a divo ce?
are you implying this pastor is divorced...
you seem to have that old catch all phrase, that you could excuse virtually anyone wishing a divorce and remarriage....boy the disciples sure had a reason to be shocked, when they heard of this....
what was the guy with a thesis on divorces name? greg ????
Greg Bahnsen
focus, on the topic, at hand....eh...
It would be good to hear sermons on the original text of apolyo (putting away) and apostasion (divorce) and how new translations and even the King James version have mistranslated this. From my understanding and research, though not in Gods plan, divorce is permissible. So is remarriage. You cant put your wife away (apolyo) unless she has commitedd adultery (porneia). Because she would still be legally married and unable to remarry, thus forcing her to commit adultery. Thus if you put away your wife for any reason (other than sexual intercourse with someone else) she is innocent and must commit adultery because she cant legally remarry while still married to the one who put her out. However she is free to remarry if you give her a written bill of divorce (apostasion). The two words are not synonyms. I wonder how many people have lived unmarried after divorce for fear of breaking Gods law when it appears to me to be a mistranslation or misrepresentation of Christs words. Even King James version doesnt use the correct wording of the original greek text and replaces put away (apolyo) with divorce (apostasion). The newer translations use the two words interchangeably as divorce.
Deuteronomy 24:1-2
24 “When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
That is the correct view. God hated treachery of sending away defenseless wives who couldn't get married again for fear of getting accused of adultery
Search "Bible Hub Greek Text Analysis" in Google for Matthew 5:31, and Matthew 5:32. The word "apoluo'" is not being referenced at all. The original Greek uses "apolyōn" (apolýō), which is a derivative of "apoluo'" but in the context of divorcing, with a letter of divorce, not only putting away.
Matthew 5:31-32 (Greek to English):
It was said also, whoever shall divorce the wife of him, let him give to her a letter of divorce.’ I however say to you that everyone divorcing the wife of him, except on account of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever if her having been divorced shall marry, commits adultery.
This is what is found when searching "Strongs 630" in Bible Hub:
630. apoluó ►
Strong's Concordance
apoluó: to set free, release
Original Word: ἀπολύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apoluó
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol-oo'-o)
Definition: to set free, release
Usage: I release, let go, send away, divorce, am rid; mid: I depart.
630 apolýō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 3089 /lýō, "to loose, release") - properly, to let go; release (discharge), dismiss. This term implies the release (annulment) of an existing bond.
630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner (Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9 - parallels at Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18).
Note: The Bible never contradicts itself and hence "the divorce passages" in the Gospels uttered by Jesus (following on fornication) are not contrary to the lengthy treatment of marriage/divorce by Paul in 1 Cor 6:15-7:16 (which permits divorce on a broad definition of constructive or actual abandonment).
@@ajlouviere202 yes and 1st Corinthians 7 also allows remarriage
@@jameybobamey7343 neither 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:15, nor 1 Corinthians 7:39 contradict the rest of the scriptures that involve this topic. They have to harmonize with one another.
@@ajlouviere202 ok so then it's clear that remarriage is permitted then as noted in 1st Corinthians 7. Thanks for the info, sounds like we are in agreement
There is errors in understanding here
Remarriage, in accordance with Matthew 5:32, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and 1 Corinthians 7:39 while you still have a living covenant spouse is adultery.
www.gospelminutes.org/marryagain.php
@@jameybobamey7343 when you go to "Bible Hub Greek Text Analysis" for Matthew 5:31, and Matthew 5:32, the word "apoluo'" is not being referenced. The original Greek uses "apolyōn" (apolýō), which is a derivative of "apoluo'" but in the context of divorcing, with a letter of divorce, not only putting away.
Matthew 5:31-32 (Greek to English):
It was said also, whoever shall divorce the wife of him, let him give to her a letter of divorce.’ I however say to you that everyone divorcing the wife of him, except on account of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever if her having been divorced shall marry, commits adultery.
This is what is found when searching "Strongs 630" in Bible Hub:
630. apoluó ►
Strong's Concordance
apoluó: to set free, release
Original Word: ἀπολύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apoluó
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol-oo'-o)
Definition: to set free, release
Usage: I release, let go, send away, divorce, am rid; mid: I depart.
630 apolýō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 3089 /lýō, "to loose, release") - properly, to let go; release (discharge), dismiss. This term implies the release (annulment) of an existing bond.
630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner (Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9 - parallels at Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18).
Note: The Bible never contradicts itself and hence "the divorce passages" in the Gospels uttered by Jesus (following on fornication) are not contrary to the lengthy treatment of marriage/divorce by Paul in 1 Cor 6:15-7:16 (which permits divorce on a broad definition of constructive or actual abandonment).
@@ajlouviere202 now you are contradicting yourself arent you? Before you had stated in your comments that divorce was not permitted under the new one flesh covenant. But now you are saying divorce is permitted in 1 Corinthians 7?
Again the same word, aplyon, apoluo, apolyo, all derivatives of the same word are never used to mean divorce. It is used in the context of giving someone a divorce and refers to kicking them out of your household. Nowhere else in the bible could one even make such a leap as to say that the word apoloyo, apolyon, apoluo are to mean divorce. So when it is mistranslated they are absolutely two distinct meanings. Furthermore Jesus only refers to a woman put away, never a man put away. This is further indication that apoluo is not translated as divorce and the scribes of the KJV took liberty and changed the word to translate to divorce. Jesus never divorced the masses he had fed. Two distinct things. You cant marry a woman who has been put away
And if you put away your wife without divorce you force her to commit adultery. Her sin is on you not on her.
@@jameybobamey7343 1 Corinthians 7 is not speaking of divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, or 1 Corinthians 7:15, but is referring to separation. 1 Corinthians 7:39 is referring to those who are widowed, not divorced. Divorce is only mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and indirectly through the wife being married to another man while her husband lives in Romans 7:2-3. For clarification about "apoluo" go to Bible Hub and search the "Greek Text Analysis" for Matthew 5:32 and also search "Strongs 630" there and you will see why "apolyōn" is used instead of "apoluo" since "apolyōn" is putting away with a letter of divorce.
@@ajlouviere202 these are all conjugations of the same verb and it ignores the fact that the same verb is used and never refers to divorce. In Mark 10:11 the word is apolyse. We now know that Mark was likely the oldest gospel and likely most accurate as in closest proximity to Jesus time. Apolyse is used when releasing the prisoner Barabas. In the same way you can send someone away, you can be sent away or you will be sent away, there are different tenses of the same root word apulou which only refers to divorce as the scribes have translated it. The word is a conjugation of dismiss, not a synonym of divorce as the two are distinct words and Jesus uses the two words independently of each other.
you must pay to gain access to prime gospel article on your new web site HOW extremely SAD AND UNBIBLICAL.
Buy the truth and sell it not. give the gospel free on charge..
Don't restrict it so poorer Christian's and unbeliever's can't gain access. This the apostles and Christ did not
victor how do you expect apologia studios to pay the bills?
there are many other Ministries who have allow Christians and unsaved to read their article for free on the web. God will provide if you are sincere.
There is no harm in asking for tithe, help, offering , donations (but not charge and restriction if you don't give any money.)
victor I give money to apologia because I believe they are sincere. You do get what's on UA-cam for free and yet it is not free to produce.
yes I agree but this is where sacrifice of the Christian workers comes in
Greg's teaching on divorce is error I will post you article to read shortly
“Biblical divorce” is an oxymoron
thank you....
In deutronomy 24:1 what does biblical divorce mean
another false teaching on abandonment, as the term used is under bondage or enslaved....not the term bound....a term that the autor had just used.....and by the way, except means one reason....so for two reasons....wrong term and a contraddiction of Matthew.....except...
some woman divorced her husband, because he had gone to a strip club.....hmmm...
another one with some type of message....but what is it....you are all over the place....
sex, outside of the marriage bond is....adultery......not sexual immorality...
abuse is not a reason, for divorce and remarriage....one could separate, or divorce, but the options are to reconcile, or remain unmarried....
What about remarriage?
It's difficult to address in this format but one rule of thumb to remember is that, in scripture, "divorce" does not = automatic freedom for remarriage without sin. People always argue the "exception clause" in Matthew but the no one can argue that ALL OTHER cases of remarriage = adultery.
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to herhusband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while herhusband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Romans 7:2-3)
10And unto the married I command, yetnot 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. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)
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)
@@ajlouviere202 Yeah those are the terms of contract, till death do you part. However a breach of contract no longer makes the terms binding.
@@missinsanelogic ok. So you have breached your "contract", which is actually a new covenant through Christ, and I'm sure you feel it will be Jesus's right to divorce you, just as He does the 5 unwise virgins in the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Is this the way you feel, or would you rather be forgiven?
@@ajlouviere202 you want to ask me questions after you clearly couldn't answer my question
How is Divorce defined in Deutronomy 24:1 ?
Don't be a coward , answer it.
The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32, and Matthew 19:9. However, the wife in Matthew 5:31-32 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. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.
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. But when Jesus died on the cross, he caused the Jews to be 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 law of Moses over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the whole law is no longer possible for those in 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.
The phrase "sexual immorality" being used in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, in place of "fornication", creates conflict with what is written about fornication and adultery in Hosea 4:13-14, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Galatians 5:19-21.
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 the unbeliever, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way they word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 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, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply 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, 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.
The other false claim that is being widely used is that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to a divorced man and a virgin woman who has never been married. This has been taught for some time in churches as to refer to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, including the 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 of 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 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 30:3-7. 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 the first two verses, speaking exclusively to men that have never married. If they were married, they were bound to a wife, but if they never betrothed or married, or if they were widowed, they were not bound. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly about 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 again speaking of a single, never before wed man, of youthful age, with a virgin bride who has become of age to bear children "let them marry." 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 to the man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged) to his wife, 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 means that those among the never before wed in the congregation do well if they choose to marry their betrothed virgin, and those who are also never before married do better if they choose not to, under the current climate. For 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 unlawful 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 is the same biblical record of Matthew 19:1-12, which 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 Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law 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.
could you please validate this premise...
@@philipbuckley759 remarriage after a divorce is adultery. No exceptions.
@@ajlouviere202 wrong. Deuteronomy 24:1-2
24 “When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
@@ajlouviere202 this is based on mistranslation
@@jameybobamey7343 are you aware that the law of Moses was for the Jews and was fulfilled by Christ on the cross?
I will not p ay 4 you and we will not p ay 4 you.Just econcile.
this text you are reading from, it is not the Bible...
Remarriage while your original spouse is alive (if you were their original spouse) is adultery. Repentance requires STOPPING THE SIN and SINNING NO MORE - thus getting out of the adulterous remarriage. We would not say a homosexual marriage is okay if they continue to stay married, neither is an adulterous remarriage okay by staying in it.
Only the book of Matthew contains the "except for fornication" permission to divorce, as only the book of Matthew was specifically written for the Jews and the Jewish culture understood that this "fornication" meant sexual unfaithfulness in the betrothal/engagement period (not after the marriage was consummated by sexual union between the husband and wife). An example of this is shown where Joseph wanted to DIVORCE the mother of Jesus, Mary, before they had consummated their marriage as it appeared that she had been unfaithful as she was pregnant prior to having sex with Joseph.
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together (sexually), she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." - Matthew 1:18-25 KJV
(Jesus speaking) "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (the Greek word "porneia"), causeth her to commit adultery (the Greek word "moicheia") and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." - Matthew 5:31-32 KJV
(Jesus speaking) "I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." - Matthew 19:9 KJV
Note no fornication clause in the rest of the gospels, because it was specifically written to the gentiles which did not have the strict betrothal customs like the Jews:
(Jesus speaking) "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." - Luke 16:18 KJV
(Jesus speaking) "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." - Mark 10:11-12 KJV
The ONLY permission for remarriage is the death of the original spouse:
(Paul speaking) "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. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." - Romans 7:2-3 KJV
Lastly, abandonment by a spouse does not allow remarriage to another. You must either reconcile or stay unmarried.
(Paul speaking) "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage (to perform the marital duties - this does not allow remarriage) in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" - 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 KJV
John the Baptist took the divorce and remarriage adultery so serious, that he lost his head over it via decapitation by Herod:
But when Herod heard, he said, “This is John, whom I beheaded; he has been raised from the dead!” For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” - Mark 6:16-18 NKJV
Of all the laws in the Old Testament, Paul emphasized only four - and abstaining from sexual immorality (which is what remarriage is while your original spouse is alive) is one of them:
(Paul speaking) "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29 NKJV
Staying in an adulterous remarriage can take you to hell:
(Paul speaking) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor ADULTERERS, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE (note, they did not stay in their sinful acts as repentance requires STOPPING THE SIN) some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV
Mistranslation. Please read this:
www.gospelminutes.org/marryagain.php
Yeah you've been brainwashed because you don't truly know All scripture. Study more
@@jameybobamey7343 "put away" means to divorce, why would you write a certificate of divorce if putting away was not a divorce. your argument in the above link implodes on itself. A certificate of divorce acknowledges the divorce. Duh.
@@heymichaelc Duh. Apoluo means put away. It's used in other references throughout scripture. Jesus sent the masses away after feeding them. The same word apoluo is used then. Grab a greek concordance and see for yourself. Jesus did not divorce the masses after feeding them.
Regardless it was fairly common place for a man to send his wife away for no valid reason. She became destitute and if she tried to remarry in order to survive, her husband could easily come and show he was still married to her, which would be a capital offense of adultery. Thus Moses commanded people if they were to disavow their marriage, had to give a written certificate of divorce (apostation).
@@jameybobamey7343 I'm looking at the Greek word (630/apolyse) and it reads "to relieve, dismiss, pardon, to let die or divorce". If your going to separate as you say then why do you need a certificate of divorce? Obviously if your writing a certificate of divorce, it's a divorce. Therefore to draw the correct word out of the Greek word (apolyse) it would be divorce.
I get that you also used an example of God divorcing Israel, but let me ask you, will God divorce any of His church for being unfaithful to HIM. Once saved always saved is what I believe no one can take us from His hand not even ourselves. If you believe this then the number one rule is "repentance" when it comes to divorce, we as the church are to follow Christ's example, and His example is that we forgive 70x7, therefore if true repentance and acknowledgment is shown towards either spouse for their sin, we as Christians must do as Jesus did and forgive the other spouse, except for the case of sexual immorality, this I think is a direct violation of the marriage covenant. If a husband does not provide food, this is not a justification for divorce, if the husband is willing to repent and try, it is the responsibility of the spouse to forgive as Jesus would.
you may wish to check out David Pawsons book....OSAS? in which he states that there are about 80 verses that challenge that teaching....
the exception is fornication, not infidelity....
divorce, is not the issue....one can, but the options are to reconcile, or remain unmarried....and not reconcile, if possible....because if it is not possible, the other option is....remain unmarried...