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

[Guest]

TK,

It would appear that they remain in adultery, choosing their temporal happiness over the kingdom of God. This is just the kind of choice that Jesus may have had in mindwhen speaking about cutting off a hand, or plucking out an eye. Sin can lead to painful consequences. In evaluating this matter, the pain that their sins caused to their abandoned spouses should not be forgotten. Every day that the new marriage remains intact and the former spouses remain at home alone, a heartless crime continues to be perpetuated.

[Guest]

Yes, and I was that spouse many years ago as my husband chose adultery and HE left our marriage...( we were not saved) I am re-married
32 years but I can truthfully say I would have liked my first marriage
to have worked we were well suited so I thought!

My first husband said many years later and after 3 marriages, that
he should of stayed in his first marriage, me...This life is a training ground and many of us were left to raise ourself in a godless home.

God forgives and this is not a sin that cannot be forgiven..

[Guest]

Steve wrote:

It would appear that they remain in adultery, choosing their temporal happiness over the kingdom of God.

Agreed. But when you say this, do you mean they are not "saved" (for lack of a better word) or that they are not being very good disciples? It seems you are stating that as long as they stay married while their former spouses are single, that they are backslidden beyond hope (i.e. they are hellbound).

I don't mean to press you into a corner!

TK

[Guest]

Hi TK,

What would be your understanding of the phrase "can not inherit the kingdom of God?" This is what is twice said of adulterers (1 Cor.6:9-10/Gal.5:19-22). I didn't make-up the morality in the Bible. I only have a commission to communicate it. Believe me, I know how difficult it can be to stay in a difficult marriage, but it is worth it, if that is one of the requirements for entering the kingdom of God.

As for the question of their being "saved," this is a slightly ambiguous category. On one hand, many people use this term to mean escaping hell and ending up in heaven. This is not the full meaning of the biblical term. As time goes by, I am less and less prepared to say who may ultimately end up in heaven, but that is not the only (and possibly not the primary) concern in salvation.

Salvation, to the biblical writers, included being justified, regenerated, filled with the Spirit, and delivered from the bondage of sin so as to live a life that glorifies God. All this, I believe, would be included in the concept of inheriting the kingdom of God--which is never identified with heaven, but is identified with "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom.14:17).

Therefore, while I am not able to say with certainty what degree of disobedience may prevent a person from going to heaven, I do feel that one can say with a high degree of certainty that a person living in disobedience (read, "rebellion") to the King is not in line to inherit His Kingdom, whatever that may entail.

[Guest]

Thanks, Steve, for the clarification.

The reason I am curious about this is that there are quite a number of divorced and re-married people in my church; we even have a "divorce-recovery" program to help people deal with going through a divorce. apparently a number of people have made commitments to follow christ after becoming a part of this program. i know the woman who leads this program; however I do not know if what is being taught is exactly in line with the biblical paradigm. obviously, if there are people in this program who have left their spouses on unbiblical grounds, they likely shouldnt be allowed in the program.

i dont think the average divorced christian has any idea of the potential consequences of their actions, primarily because many churches today preach acceptance vs repentance.

TK

[Guest]

Steve you said:

What would be your understanding of the phrase "can not inherit the kingdom of God?" This is what is twice said of adulterers (1 Cor.6:9-10/Gal.5:19-22). I didn't make-up the morality in the Bible. I only have a commission to communicate it. Believe me, I know how difficult it can be to stay in a difficult marriage, but it is worth it, if that is one of the requirements for entering the kingdom of God

My question is : How than can Jesus say in Matt 12:31 and Mark 3:28-29 only Blaspheming the holy spirit is the only sin not forgiven?

You mean are sins can be forgiven, even when repented of them and we still cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? I though we can because Christ died for us to be able to enter...

[_foc]

1. A man who marries a woman who has been divorced has committed adultery, if that woman's divorce was based on unbiblical grounds (i.e. she left a previous legitimate marriage because she didn't love the first husband anymore).

Yes. Committed against her former spouse upon remarriage.
This is based on the same context that Jesus was dealing with concerning the Jews.
This also is modified by whether her ex remarried or not, but honestly, I think Jesus was dealing more the the 'spirit' of the law rather than the leter.
We may feel we can play what some call the 'waiting' game where we walk out on a marriage for no just cause and wait for them to screw up first, then we think WE are in the clear because they remarried first.
God isnt a fool, He knows the guilty party...check out Numbers 30 for a very clear teaching on that matter)

2. That man is continuously committing adultery by staying married to a woman who was divorced on unbiblical grounds, regardless of whether he repents, is sorry for what he has done, and has asked for forgiveness a million times.

Wrong.
There is no actual evidence that this adultery is perpetual.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... p?f=5&t=30
Jesus is simply showing something moses didnt...that sin is committed in these frivolous divorces. His intent was not to declare any 'state' of sin.
Otherwise, we should see a mass exodus from subsequent marriages in the NT as we see in Ezra....seeing that Paul and Christ BOTH hit on the marriage topic so much

3. Even if her first husband gets remarried and releases her from an obligation to go back to him, this does not legitamize the second marriage because the first marriage was left on unbiblical grounds. (THIS IS A KEY QUESTION IN MY SITUATION.)

Second marriages are legitimate regardless.
The only ones in the NT that are shown as not being are those that are incesuous (ie 'unlawful').
There isnt a single marriage commanded to be ended in the NT simply because it is a REmarriage.
These who are divorced and remarried do, however, have restrictions placed upon them.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... p?f=3&t=11

4. If that man is continuously committing adultery by staying married to a woman who was divorced, the only solution for him is to leave the marriage and file for divorce. He cannot stay married and expect to be considered a disciple of Jesus Christ because he is in an adulterous relationship. Staying in this adulterous "marriage", in other words, is not something that God can forgive (Heb. 13:4).

Since I do not believe in an 'adulterous' marraige, only an 'unlawful' one (ie incestous, etc), I cant answer this question.

5. God did not view this relationship as a true marriage in the first place, but rather as adultery, no matter how long the man and the divorced woman were married, no matter if they have children, a house, cars, home furnishings, and an extended family.

same as above.

6. The man leaving this "marriage" would not be considered the sin of divorce since it was not a legitimate, Biblical marriage in the first place.

In my viewpoint it was legitimate marriage and therefore it is sinful to divorce.

7. The woman in this case is not free to remarry under any circumstance for the rest of her life because she left her first husband and forced a divorce on unbiblical grounds. She can be forgiven, but cannot re-enter another marriage because it would be adulterous.

In the latter times...doctrines of devils....that forbid marriage.
Much scripture is misunderstood and subsequently twisted to create something that the bible doesnt actually show.
All those divorced and subsequently remarried Jews and not a single word about them putting away those marriages....odd

[_foc]

Quite apparently my views are in disagreement with some here. I hope that offering my interpretations on the matter is no offense to anyone in particular.

I would encourage anyone looking for answers to at least check out our MDR studies. Ive got thousands of hours on this one single topic at this point, so there might be something there that may be of some use to someone

[Guest]

foc,

I would like to reply to a couple of your points, though I disagree with more than just these two.

You wrote:

"There is no actual evidence that this adultery is perpetual...Jesus is simply showing something moses didnt...that sin is committed in these frivolous divorces. His intent was not to declare any 'state' of sin. Otherwise, we should see a mass exodus from subsequent marriages in the NT as we see in Ezra....seeing that Paul and Christ BOTH hit on the marriage topic so much."


I am not talking about a "state of sin." I am referring to acts of sin. When a man sleeps with a woman who is in a marriage covenant with another man, he commits a sin. If he does so over a long period of time, he continues to sin until he stops doing so. The reason that remarriage (in some cases) is "adultery" is because (as the word adultery always suggests) it violates an existing marriage. The second marriage is "adultery" because there is an existing previous marriage violated by it. Insofar as this previous marriage remains valid, the ongoing violation continues to be adultery. Therefore, I cannot agree with you that there is no evidence that the sinfulness of the sinful second union is perpetual.

Also, what makes you think there was no mass exodus from sinful marriages as a result of this teaching in the early church? We have no biblical testimony one way or the other.


You wrote:

"Second marriages are legitimate regardless. The only ones in the NT that are shown as not being are those that are incesuous (ie 'unlawful').

There isnt a single marriage commanded to be ended in the NT simply because it is a REmarriage."

I do not know how you can say this. When Jesus says that entering a second marriage is the committing of adultery, that certainly suggests that that marriage is not "legitimate" in God's sight, though it is not referring to an incestuous marriage. When Jesus says that the one entering into such a second marriage "commits adultery," I do not think He is in agreement with your assessment that second marriages are always legitimate.

As for your statement that "There isnt a single marriage commanded to be ended in the NT simply because it is a REmarriage," I think that John's preaching that Herod's marriage was "unlawful" would be an example of one. What did John wish for Herod to do to remedy this "unlawful" behavior, if not cease it? If Herod were to cease having his brother's wife, would this not involve getting divorced from Herodias? What else could John possibly have been requiring?

[_foc]

foc,

howdy steve.

I would like to reply to a couple of your points, though I disagree with more than just these two.

Thats fine.
Other than on my fellowship forum, I expect disagreement on the MDR issue.
Ive spent so many hours submersed in it at this point, that Im quite comfortable with what I believe and have reconciled all the details into a coherant whole.

You wrote:


I am not talking about a "state of sin." I am referring to acts of sin. When a man sleeps with a woman who is in a marriage covenant with another man, he commits a sin. If he does so over a long period of time, he continues to sin until he stops doing so. The reason that remarriage (in some cases) is "adultery" is because (as the word adultery always suggests) it violates an existing marriage. The second marriage is "adultery" because there is an existing previous marriage violated by it. Insofar as this previous marriage remains valid, the ongoing violation continues to be adultery. Therefore, I cannot agree with you that there is no evidence that the sinfulness of the sinful second union is perpetual.

You are assuming, tho, that the first marriage is still intact...there is no evidence from the whole word of God that it is.
Change that one detail and your entire view is altered.

Putting away with the intent to be 'divorced' is precisely what occurs when we do divorce.
Jesus didnt alter that. He simply assigned a 'crime' (sin, or guilt) where none had been shown by Moses in these cases of frivolous divorce.

Jesus in no wise altered the definition of 'divorce' or 'putting away'....He simply showed these hardhearted Jews that even tho they thought they were innocent in doing so, that it wasnt the case...they DID commit a 'crime' (ie they 'commit adultery' even if they believed themselves innocent and their sin was FAR reaching, even drawing in this man who married this woman put away for no just cause).

the first marriage is violated when a new one is covenanted where the former was set aside without just cause....that is all that Christ is saying.
He is not setting forth any 'state' of sin in this new marriage, nor declaring it invalid.
The second marriage isnt 'adultery'....adultery was 'committed' against the former when the new spouse was taken and the former was set aside without just cause.

Christ was dealing with this mindset that a spouse can be cast out and no 'sin' was actually committed...assigning a crime where none existed before because Moses had not declared any 'sin' in Deut 24:1-4 where they were throwing out their wives for no just cause.

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....ie "I hate putting away' (Malachi 1)

Also, what makes you think there was no mass exodus from sinful marriages as a result of this teaching in the early church? We have no biblical testimony one way or the other.

Exactly.

Ezra - MASS putting away of unlawful wives.

Gospels - John the baptist telling Herod he had UNlawfully taken his brothers wife (taking a brothers wife was forbidden even if the divorce were lawful, as Im sure you know)

Paul (1 Corinthians 5) - yet another very clear breach of the law where this man has actually taken his fathers own wife.

You ask what makes me think.
This is what makes me know.
There is VERY clear condemnation in scripture where there are UNlawful marriages.
Are you claiming that so many second marriages could have existed at that time and NO word from anyone anywhere to end them ?

*IF* second marriages were commanded to be ended, based on what I DO see from John, Ezra and Paul, I have no doubt in the least that someone, somewhere would have done the same exact thing Paul did with the corinthain man who actually WAS living in 'sexual sin' with a woman he was not permitted to have.

Yes, I know with certainty that there was no mass exodus from these remarraiges.
Neither Paul nor Christ would have let that huge a matter go unannounced.

I do not know how you can say this. When Jesus says that entering a second marriage is the committing of adultery, that certainly suggests that that marriage is not "legitimate" in God's sight, though it is not referring to an incestuous marriage.

I dont believe it suggests that in the least.
Moses certainly presented that remarriage after any divorce was to be expected.
But Moses did not show that 'sin' was committed in these frivolous divorces....Jesus did.
The whole truth of the matter is not in a handful of verses in the Gospel according to Luke. Its in the WHOLE council of our God and His word.
If Paul can condemn an unlawful union and demand its ending in 1 cor 5, he SURELY could have done the same for this MUCH larger issue of divorce and remarriage at that time.
Yet we see nothing of the sort.
What we DO see is very clear evidence in the case of those UNequally yoked that if that marriage ends that the believer is in no wise in bondage (not a 'slave' thus 'free') to it.

When Jesus says that the one entering into such a second marriage "commits adultery," I do not think He is in agreement with your assessment that second marriages are always legitimate.

I think that He is, honestly.
I think that you have simply misunderstood His intent in that He is assigning guilt to an act that the Jews formerly believed they were guiltless in.
The exception is in Matt 5:31-32...just a few verses before we see Christ also assigning 'sin' where a man even looks at a woman to think about her sexually....another area where they clearly believed themselves innocent, yet Christ presented that there was indeed guilt in the matter.

'committeth adultery' has nothing to do with ongoing sin.
It is simply showing these hardhearted ones that they WERE guilty even if Moses had failed to present as much.
And Jesus shows THESE men the extent to which their hardhearted sin carries.
THAT is His point....not to assign any ongoing adultery over simply remarrying. Thus the reason why we DO see commandment for UNlawful unions to end, while not seeing a word about simple remarriages being ended...they were not inherently 'unlawful' even if entered in to unjustly.

As for your statement that "There isnt a single marriage commanded to be ended in the NT simply because it is a REmarriage," I think that John's preaching that Herod's marriage was "unlawful" would be an example of one.

Absolutely incorrect.
Lets put it this way.
Even if Philip had put Herodias away as per Deut 24:1-4 (ie 'lawfully' even if unfairly), Herod could NEVER have married her as shown in Johns accusation that she was his 'brothers wife'.

Lev 18:16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife. It is your brother's nakedness.

Lev 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

Carrying that even one step futher.
If Philip had even died Herod could not have this woman Herodias who was his 'brothers wife' (Johns ACTUAL condemnation) because taking even a dead brothers wife was unlawful UNLESS his widow was childless. Deu 25:5 Herodias DID have Salome with Philip, so it was 'unlawful' for Herod to EVER take her whether Philip lived or died.

I must go by the actual accusation of John the baptist. I cant add 'becuase of adultery' or whatever it is you want to seem to read into the text there.
John said that it was not 'lawful' that Herod take his 'brothers wife' and so THAT is the point we must harmonize....

and John had said to Herod, It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife. (Mar 6:18 MKJV)

For Herod had laid hold on John, and had bound him, and had put him in prison because of Herodias his brother Philip's wife. For John said to him, It is not lawful for you to have her.
(Mat 14:3-4 MKJV)


John started these accusations well before Jesus even had began His ministry. He accused Herod and Herodias with the law....the same law that Paul used to condemn the man in 1 cor 5.

Lev 18:8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife. It is your father's nakedness.

What did John wish for Herod to do to remedy this "unlawful" behavior, if not cease it? If Herod were to cease having his brother's wife, would this not involve getting divorced from Herodias? What else could John possibly have been requiring?

Because Herodias had a daughter with Philip it was not 'lawful' that Herod EVER have this woman.

You may also be missing the matter that even if Herodias had still been with Philip that its very likely that John would have been after them instead.
It was also 'unlawful' for Herodias to even be married to Philip as he was her own fathers brother.

Lev 18:14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother. You shall not approach his wife. She is your aunt.

Herod was brother to Philip and Herodias father Aristobulus, thus it was not lawful, in all actuality, that EITHER man take her.


Herod and Herodias


As I have said in many places, there is a LOT more to this MDR thing than 'God hates divorce' and 'Committeth adultery'.

We can always take a couple passages and make them say something that they werent meant to say.
Hypercalvinistscan work miracles with Romans and make pretty much ever sin you or I ever commit a direct result of God FORCING us to commit that sin, then condemning us to hell for doing it.

This MDR issue is no different. A handful of passages seem to say one thing, but when taken in context and in harmony with the whole, they clearly show something just a tad different.

Jesus was absolutely declaring that 'adultery' was committed when a person callously and for no reason throws out a spouse and marries someone else.
I agree with that statement.
But where I disagree is that anything shows that He ever intended that it was a perpetual state that would be cause to end a godly marriage 35 years later because of a mistake made nearly 4 decades earlier by someone who just didnt have it together at that point, but is sorrowful for that past presently.

Just as with a man thinking about a woman sexually, Jesus exposes guilt where previously the Jews thought they were guiltless.
When you understand that, then the rest falls into perfect harmony.


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....