Please help! Correct me if I'm wrong...

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:21 pm

foc,

First, I should tell you that I am a slow reader, and have learned not to waste time reading posts that are made unnaturally bulky by the redundant repetition of the same sentences half a dozen times in the same posts. You may be as repetitious as you wish in your posts, but I just want you to know that I will not have time to read them (if you want me to do so) unless you can state your new points with some measure of economy of words.

I will try to sift the few new points out of this last post in order to give you a fair reply.

1. You wrote:

"Your view causes a serious problem because it seems to define the REmarriage as the sin instead of what God shows the sin as being...the putting away"

So I take you meaning to be that the divorce is the adultery and the offense toward God, whether there is a second marriage contracted or not. It is not the second marriage that is adultery—else the latter marriage would be invalid in the sight of God, which you say it is not. Your contention seems to be that the second marriage is indeed valid, though the divorce was not.

But Jesus never said that a divorce without a remarriage was "adultery." Wrongful divorce that is never followed by remarriage may be a sin of another sort (i.e., covenant-breaking), but it is never called adultery. In Jesus' (and Paul's) teaching on divorce, there is no accusation of adultery, apart from the case where a second marriage has been contracted (Matt.19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom.7:3; 1 Cor.7:11).

If Jesus was simply saying that the divorcing party was committing a crime (adultery) by divorcing, rather than by remarrying, why does he say that the man obtaining the divorce (the criminal) turns his innocent, jited wife into an adulteress? She has committed no "crime" in being divorced against her will. Her adultery occurs when she illegitimately remarries. And Jesus makes this the plainer when He says that the one who marries her (who did not divorce her) is also an adulterer in the matter (Matt.5:32/ Luke 16:18). It is clearly the contracting of the second marriage that is here refered to as adultery. The divorce itself is never called by that name.

If Jesus merely wanted to say that divorce was some sort of crime, He needn't have used the word adultery, which is a word having specific reference to the act of having a sexual relationship with another person's spouse. Jesus said this happens when the (illegitimate) remarriage occurs—implying that the remarriage is itself a sexual violation of the first (still binding) marriage. If the first marriage were not still binding, it would be impossible for anyone to commit adultery against it.

If a wife commits adultery against her husband (say, she has an affair with someone at the office), this does not in any sense cancel her husband's claim upon her. They have a covenant (contract), which he has never violated, and has every right to expect her to honor. The faithful husband can release his adulterous wife, by divorcing her )Deut.24), or he can hold out for her to return in repentance and to resume the original marriage.

Now, if the State gives a woman or a man permission to commit adultery (that is, to marry a person who is already married to another), the State is acting outside the realm of its competence, since God never ordained governments to license adultery. The second union, in such a case, is not a marriage, in any legitimate sense of that word, since Jesus called it adultery. The license from the State means nothing to God, any more than if it were a license granted to a same-sex couple.

In such cases, the remarriage is adultery, according to Jesus, and is not legitimate. I don't know you, foc, but by the way you argue, my guess is that you are in a second marriage that is affected by this this teaching. Otherwise (if you had no strong incentives to see it your way) I think the teaching of Jesus on this point would be crystal clear to you.

2. You seem to think that, since Ezra records the mass abandonment of sinful marriages, the New Testament would also mention such, if it had occurred. The absence of any such report, you say, is the reason that you "know with certainty" that it did not occur.

I would say that an argument from silence like this tells us little or nothing. If such did occur, would you expect to find it mentioned in the Gospels? There is little said there about the actions of other people than Jesus. What others did in response to the Sermon on the Mount is never even mentioned. Would it be in Acts? Possibly, but there is very little detailed there about the lives of the congregations after their initial springing into existence. Many things they did might have gone without mention (e.g., their mass cessation of dishonoring their parents and of their dishonest business practices, which probably occurred, are not mentioned in Acts). The epistles do not so much describe what people were doing as they give prescriptions for what should be done.

Therefore, any mass exodus from sinful marriages, like the mass exodus from the pagan temples, might easily go unreported in these books, as not being the kind of thing that any of the writers address. The absence of any mention of such a thing, in the New Testament records, can not lead to any firm conclusions as to whether it happened or not.

3. I was not suggesting that Herod's marriage did not have more than one reason for being regarded as sinful. My point was that John's preaching to Herod provides a case of a sinfully contracted marriage being condemned, and by implication, required to dissolve.

4. You wrote:

"Brother steve...would you have a man who divorced his wife unjustly 40 years ago who later remarried and raised a godly family and is sorrowful for his past now rip this family apart...forsaking his wife of decades? Just wanting to know exactly where you stand on that matter...."

"Forsaking his wife of decades" does not put the case quite correctly. If, as I have read Jesus to say, the second marriage is no marriage at all, but adultery, then the question should be phrased "forsaking his mistress of decades." Poor woman! She should have considered this possibility before entering into an adulterous relationship with another woman's husband! Many a man and woman has violated the laws of God, only to find, decades later, that there is still a penalty to be paid for their acts (e.g., the belated penalties imposed on Reuben, Joab, and Shimei).

Your question is put in such a way as to arouse sentimental approval for the permanence of the second marriage. The real question is not whether the marriage is a happy one of long duration, but, rather, Is this marriage sinful in the sight of God?

If a man had robbed a bank (or robbed you) forty years ago, and was now living happily on the stolen money (and even tithing to his church), would you have him break-up his pleasant lifestyle and return the stolen money to its rightful owner? If not, then you and I see morality very differently. I don't believe that the passage of time erases sin. Only repentance (often accompanied by restitution) does. Now, if the bank, in the meantime, has forgiven the robber of the theft, and canceled his debt, then he can go ahead and keep the money. That's the bank's prerogative, not the robber's.

So also, if a man's ex-wife has surrendered her claim on her adulterous husband, by herself remarrying and going on with her life, then the adulterer would still have to repent of his adultery, but there is no possibility of his making restitution in being restored to his first wife. In such a case, it would apparently not be necessary for him to leave the sinful marriage, but only (after repentance) to solemnize it.

Post by **_Allyn** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:49 pm

In essence I accept what Steve has said and this is a very serious question to contimplate by all who may be living in the last example Steve addressed regarding the 40 year relationship. But more then that I am glad with all my heart that grace abounds. God does not require that we trade one sin for another or in this case reject a new commitment after already dishonoring the first. God actually says to not make any vow to start with and these types of examples are exactly why He commands it IMO. But yet we do marry and it is not a sin to do so - according to Paul. But if one does sin we have a God who is eager to forgive us of our sin. Some things cannot simply be undone with out maybe creating a whole new sin. Thus our dilemma. But it is no dilemma at all if we simply from the start avoid the original sin. All easier said then done. Lets face it, we are in the flesh, but in Christ all things are made new.

Post by **_foc** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:43 pm

Steve wrote:foc,

First, I should tell you that I am a slow reader, and have learned not to waste time reading posts that are made unnaturally bulky by the redundant repetition of the same sentences half a dozen times in the same posts. You may be as repetitious as you wish in your posts, but I just want you to know that I will not have time to read them (if you want me to do so) unless you can state your new points with some measure of economy of words.

That is usually the intent...after rereading I think edited just a bit much.
Im going to break my posts up a lot more from this point forward so we can pinpoint specific issues more easily

So I take you meaning to be that the divorce is the adultery and the offense toward God, whether there is a second marriage contracted or not.

Did He not say ' I HATE putting away" ?
That shows where the 'sin' is.

It is not the second marriage that is adultery—else the latter marriage would be invalid in the sight of God, which you say it is not. Your contention seems to be that the second marriage is indeed valid, though the divorce was not.

I didnt say that the divorce wasnt valid, did I ?
Youre reading far too much INTO what is presented.

I never made any claim about the divorce not being valid...
If you read my post I absolutely stated that Christ did not alter the definition of divorce/putting away in any manner.
He simply shows that when we do cast out a spouse for no just cause that, contrary to Jewish belief, an offense exists.

Post by **_foc** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:54 pm

But Jesus never said that a divorce without a remarriage was "adultery."

And therein lies your problem.
You seem to think that the 'sin' here is adultery instead of what the CORE of the matter actually is...frivolous, hardhearted casting out of a spouse who has done no wrong.

Remarriage is a secondary issue entirely.

Wrongful divorce that is never followed by remarriage may be a sin of another sort (i.e., covenant-breaking), but it is never called adultery.

And ?

Malachi 2....what is it that God 'hates' there?
Can you show me where God 'hates' remarriage?
Deut 24:1-4 shows conclusively that He CANNOT elsewise Moses would be a lawless heretic for allowing remarriage after divorce.

In Jesus' (and Paul's) teaching on divorce, there is no accusation of adultery, apart from the case where a second marriage has been contracted (Matt.19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom.7:3; 1 Cor.7:11).

And ?
Again, you seem to think that 'adultery' was the point...it wasnt.
'putting away'...the casting out of an INNOCENT spouse...THAT is what Jesus is condemning as the core problem. That issue was compounded because in most cases they would divorce frivolously solely for the reason of remarrying.

The foundational issue though, is putting away for no just cause...the very same problem Moses faced with them in the desert and tried to regulate if not eradicate.

If Jesus was simply saying that the divorcing party was committing a crime (adultery) by divorcing, rather than by remarrying, why does he say that the man obtaining the divorce (the criminal) turns his innocent, jited wife into an adulteress?

And thats what Ive been trying to explain.
The Jews believed that NO offense existed in this casting out of a spouse to take another.
Jesus shows them that there IS offense in this act and shows them the extent to which it exists.
You add that it is 'perpetual'. The greek does not show any perpetual matter and seems to go out of its way to present that the act is strictly in the present at the time of the divorce/remarriage.

There are very EASY ways in the greek to show an act with ongoing consequence....the writers chose instead to use the Present Indicative form of the words that is the ONLY way in the present form to specifically show that NO ongoing issue exists.

That is a point that not many bother to study out, possibly it is missed, but it is factual

Adultery IS committed when Jesus says its committed.
But your doctrine adds perpetuity to the mix...the text nowhere shows that it is the case and seems to argue agaisnt it.

“Committeth adultery” The Present Indicative deception
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... p?f=5&t=30

Post by **_foc** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:06 pm

If Jesus was simply saying that the divorcing party was committing a crime (adultery) by divorcing, rather than by remarrying, why does he say that the man obtaining the divorce (the criminal) turns his innocent, jited wife into an adulteress? She has committed no "crime" in being divorced against her will. Her adultery occurs when she illegitimately remarries. And Jesus makes this the plainer when He says that the one who marries her (who did not divorce her) is also an adulterer in the matter (Matt.5:32/ Luke 16:18). It is clearly the contracting of the second marriage that is here refered to as adultery. The divorce itself is never called by that name.

Actuallly if your are refering to the man 'causing' her to commit adultery, the form of the word 'adultery' there in Matt 5:32a is not the same form as all the other instances of 'commit adultery'.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... p?f=5&t=29

And again, I do not dispute that when a marriage is thrown aside for 'every' cause that adultery is committed upon remarriage.
What I dispute, and know that you cannot refute as I know what can and cant be presented from scripture on the matter, is that there is any 'ongoing' issue that demands the ending of this new covenant.

As I said before, there is no evidence that those who were in simple remarriages were commanded to end these unions.....nor is there evidence that the divorces were 'invalid'.

Jesus simply defines an offense that is committed (adultery) when this hardhearted putting away happens to remarry someone else.
Ill say again that you are missing the point Jesus is making.

If Jesus merely wanted to say that divorce was some sort of crime, He needn't have used the word adultery,

You do know what 'context' is, Im sure, so are you claiming that Jesus was running around preaching against divorce and remarriage in vacuum where the crime did not exist?

Jesus was dealing with a very specific act of putting out a spouse for no just cause to take another... we see in Josephus this very type of thing with Herod and Herodias conspiring to put away their current spouses to marry each other.

Jesus was dealing with an issue, so your argument doesnt stand because He was dealing with Herods type with the Jews who WERE divorcing to remarry.

If the problem had been ONLY that folks were casting out there innocent spouses to live celebate lives, we can rest assured that Christ would have condemned that as well.
His words simply present what He was dealing with specifically....nothing more, nothing less.

which is a word having specific reference to the act of having a sexual relationship with another person's spouse.

And in Matthew where Jesus tells them that they commit adultery even if they LOOK upon a woman to lust ?
Have they literally committed adultery with this mans wife there?

Adultery is marriage specific, but it does have more depth to it than simply physical sexual sin

Post by **_foc** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:16 pm

Jesus said this happens when the (illegitimate) remarriage occurs—implying that the remarriage is itself a sexual violation of the first (still binding) marriage. If the first marriage were not still binding, it would be impossible for anyone to commit adultery against it.

As i said, you are picking at points instead of understanding the WHOLE issue that starts with God hates putting away.

If a man even THINKS about a woman with lust in his heart he has already committed 'adultery' with her in his heart.
Jesus shows guilt where none was formerly understood.

If a wife commits adultery against her husband (say, she has an affair with someone at the office), this does not in any sense cancel her husband's claim upon her. They have a covenant (contract), which he has never violated, and has every right to expect her to honor. The faithful husband can release his adulterous wife, by divorcing her )Deut.24), or he can hold out for her to return in repentance and to resume the original marriage.

Actually, Steve, if we're bringing Deut to bear here, it shows that ANY reconciliation of that first marriage after remarrying is 'abominiation' to God Almighty.
So I dont see how your views are reconciling the facts here.

Now, if the State gives a woman or a man permission to commit adultery (that is, to marry a person who is already married to another), the State is acting outside the realm of its competence, since God never ordained governments to license adultery.

The second union, in such a case, is not a marriage, in any legitimate sense of that word, since Jesus called it adultery. The license from the State means nothing to God, any more than if it were a license granted to a same-sex couple.

please...lets not get into comparing marriages to same sex unions..apples and oranges.

Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... ?f=19&t=58

In such cases, the remarriage is adultery, according to Jesus, and is not legitimate.

No....that is how YOU interpret it...

I don't know you, foc, but by the way you argue, my guess is that you are in a second marriage that is affected by this this teaching.

I really get sick of seeing this nonsense argument.
If this is the type of tactic you have to pull to keep up, then possibly we need end this here.

For your information, I AM remarried after having divorced my wife for ongoing adulteries on her part and even after many chances she refused to cease her whoredoms and moved in with her lover at which point I decided to divorce.

I had hoped for an intellectual discussion with you, steve, but apparently you are no different than the rest who cannot defend their views adequately and so need to attack the person.

Post by **_foc** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:19 pm

Otherwise (if you had no strong incentives to see it your way) I think the teaching of Jesus on this point would be crystal clear to you.

Well, as I just presented to you your GUESS was entirely erroneous. This teaching affects my personal life in no wise since I accept the exception for precisely how it is intended.

Are you going to discuss this with your hand on the table or are you going to try to take pot shots at my personal life when you run out of material ?
Let me know now because Id rather you delete my acct than deal with these deceptive tactics that wont stick to the FACTS in the matter but instead divert attention onto anything but the fact that they cannot stand against Gods WHOLE word.

His teaching IS crystal clear to me....and I see that your teachings are just like hypercalvism that focuses on ONE aspect of the data while rejecting the theme of the whole.

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:22 pm

foc,

Since you have apparently stated your entire case on this (as the repetition would suggest), and as you do not seem impressed with the validity of my arguments, I will simply have to agree to disagree, and not devote further time to this discussion. I need add nothing to my case, and I am not afraid that, by my withdrawing from the conversation at this point, the strength of my arguments will be lost on any reflective reader.

Post by **_foc** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:35 pm

2. You seem to think that, since Ezra records the mass abandonment of sinful marriages,

Do you have any other reasoning for the events in Ezra 10 ?
Were they ending unlawful unions or not there ?

the New Testament would also mention such, if it had occurred. The absence of any such report, you say, is the reason that you "know with certainty" that it did not occur.

No evidence of mass exodus from remarriages and NO commandment to do so ...yet there is for very specific individuals who WERE 'living in sin' with someone they could not have.

I do not found my beliefs on the omitted prohibtion, it is just one more piece of evidence in a mosiac of evidences that show the whole picture that remarraige after divorce is assumed except where expressly forbidden (such as a true believer deserting another true believer)

I would say that an argument from silence like this tells us little or nothing.

I debate with the legalistic type of person a lot and for the most part Ive noticed that if scripture doesnt say it in black and white that they have a very hard time accepting it.

If such did occur, would you expect to find it mentioned in the Gospels?

I would expect that when Jesus was CONDEMNING remarriage that He would have at least had the sensibility to say 'You must LEAVE these 'adulterous unions' (since you claim that they are not marriages even tho Christ shows clearly 'marry another' and thats exactly what the wording means.

There is little said there about the actions of other people than Jesus. What others did in response to the Sermon on the Mount is never even mentioned. Would it be in Acts? Possibly, but there is very little detailed there about the lives of the congregations after their initial springing into existence. Many things they did might have gone without mention (e.g., their mass cessation of dishonoring their parents and of their dishonest business practices, which probably occurred, are not mentioned in Acts). The epistles do not so much describe what people were doing as they give prescriptions for what should be done.

Paul or Christ absolulely would have made the point clear.
Divorce and remarriage is FAR TO HUGE an issue in the church and in the world for them to just casually forget that these 'adulterous affairs' must be ended...seeing that during those early years it was an epidemic and why it is dealt with so much by our Lord in the gospels.

Therefore, any mass exodus from sinful marriages, like the mass exodus from the pagan temples, might easily go unreported in these books, as not being the kind of thing that any of the writers address.

You 'might' get away with the exodus itself going unreported, altho I personally doubt it given the extent of the problem then.
But there absolutely should be CLEAR commandment to put away these supposed 'adulterous affairs' in scripture.

You teach that its the case that these 'marriages' are to be ended, correct Steve ?
Do you believe yourself that much MORE thorough in your understanding and instruction than Jesus ?...than Paul ?
Are you filling in the blanks that those two men were seemingly too absent minded to remember ?

FOUR gospels recorded for us and not one single mention of ENDING these 'adulterous affiars' that SURELY existed when Jesus came on the scene and you dont find that odd in the least ?

You must understand if I simply cannot buy your viewpoint given the evidence that exists from the whole and the lack of commandment on the matter that those of your doctrines push quite openly.
I hardly think your doctrines have remembered to give commandment where Paul and Christ 'forgot'....

The absence of any mention of such a thing, in the New Testament records, can not lead to any firm conclusions as to whether it happened or not.

I agree.
And it is only ONE SMALL piece of evidence in what I believe

Post by **_foc** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:40 pm

Steve wrote:foc,

Since you have apparently stated your entire case on this (as the repetition would suggest), and as you do not seem impressed with the validity of my arguments, I will simply have to agree to disagree, and not devote further time to this discussion. I need add nothing to my case, and I am not afraid that, by my withdrawing from the conversation at this point, the strength of my arguments will be lost on any reflective reader.

Thats fine Steve ..

I only really get irritated when the discussion is taken from a logical, intellectual exchange to taking jabs at each other.
I very easily fall into that behavoir once it starts and so I prefer that it not start to begin with.
Your personal life, nor mine, have ANY bearing on this discussion whatsoever and do not need to be brought into the discourse at all to argue our points.

Im quite sure that you, nor myself, pulling out of the conversation is of any consequence regarding the validity of our viewpoints. It just comes down to how much time we have to devote to the matter.
I understand entirely if you believe that this will simply go round and round and be entirely fruitless, and I assure you that it will because Ive already seen probably all of the arguments you will offer...as you may well have seen all of mine.

Have a great day, Steve