A Response to John MacArthur on Remarriage
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 01. 2017
- This is a letter I wrote to my pastor which has been slightly shortened for the video. It argues against John MacArthur’s interpretation of Matthew 5 in his commentary, which my pastor had given me to help explain his own position. I thought I should reply in detail. I respect my pastor and the seriousness with which he takes doctrine, but like most he has been misled about marriage.
I also want to point out, in critiquing MacArthur’s interpretation, that I find him a valuable commentator otherwise, and agree with him on many points. So while I think he’s terribly wrong about the New Testament’s marriage teachings, I read his work a lot myself.
You can find this essay at my holiness and reform website holinessofthebride.com at the bottom of the Covenant Marriage page.
While I did not include the full text of early Christian fathers in this video, you can find one list right here: whatismarriagetonywpiano.weebl... It is ALSO linked to at the bottom of my Covenant Marriage page.
To go directly to the text of this video, go here: www.holinessofthebride.com/wp-...
My book Get Married and Save the World: www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/...
My book Pain, which is about the meaning of suffering and God's solution to it, is right here on paperback and e-book: www.amazon.com/Pain-Thomas-Ac...
I’d be happy to hear from you at: kodeshkallah@yahoo.com
Peace and blessings to you all.
I like your video I say it to but these people don't get it they work in the flesh so far I've met three Pastor kids and all of them believe in re marriage but I tell them Jesus makes it plain and simple you cannot divorce and remarriage I am divorce now and have been living alone 4 years I'm glad I'm not the only one who believes the words of the Bible I pray one day these people will wake up before it's too late God never contradicts his word
Thank you for your faithfulness, brother. The churches are living in sin and are afraid to face up to the Word of God. They have, in part, a man-made religion, which allows them to follow their flesh. Keep working to wake them up. Souls are in the balance. God bless you abundantly in His peace.
Can you remarry your ex wife and forgive her adultery under the New Covenant? @christianup777
Brother in Christ you can get anymore clear than this. I support this view because it's biblical. If God willing I get married I pray my future spouse supports and believes in the same truth. Word of God spoken here moved my spirit to tears my spirit Bares witness that God want us to honor and respect and uphold his Word with the power and grace of the HolySpirit. God bless you my brother. Hope I get to meet you in the kingdom.
I am moved by your love for God's Word and your desire to be faithful to Him. You are God's soldier in the Holy Spirit. Be sure to see that your future spouse is together with you on this and other important divine truths of marriage. There is great peace and harmony between man and wife this way, and marriage becomes a picture of our salvation. Hope to meet you in the kingdom too, brother! if you'd like to connect before then, write me anytime at my e-mail: kodeshkallah@yahoo.com
Shalom.
brother..I also stand in for believing that Remarriage is an act of ADULTERY while a spouse is still alive..I really wanted to ask you some questions about this matter because I have a sister who is involve in a relationship which can be considered as adultery..and another one is quite complicated because it involves two married people living together while their spouses are still alive...
Hello, I'd love to speak with you. I am very glad you recognize the lifelong nature of marriage in God's Word. You can write me at my e-mail below my videos, and I will do my best to help you. Blessings.
@@holinessofthebride1935 I would be glad about it brother...
I was the same as you and the Lord revealed to me that I was living in fornication and I separated, I divorced the woman with whom I have two children and I stayed together for 32 years and I divorced doing God's will and He helped me may I never need sex again HE made me famous through faith and I am happy that I can serve him with a pure heart AMEN
I appreciate the teaching brother.Can you post your references for church father's?
Hi, There are two links beneath the video, one leading to the text and including the references, and another leading to a website which has those references and more. I think that is what you are looking for.
Thanks for this. I like how you went to the early Christian writers. It inspired me to look them up and see if they can clarify some questions I have about other topics.
You're welcome. It is a good idea to see where the early Christian fathers stand on doctrine. There is a great deal of variety in belief among them, but on a number of topics they at least lean heavily towards one doctrine. Regarding marriage the predominant belief was that it is permanent, although I'm sure there were exceptions. This continued on in the western Church literally for several thousand years. In the eastern Church, it seems to have died out over the centuries.
Definitely look them up and study them, despite their imperfections. One thing is for certain, they give a very clear idea of what believing, pious, dedicated Christian faith looks like. These were men of great faith, who were shooting for the mark. They weren't trying to be popular or hip. It is truly refreshing to hear their simple voice, compared to much of the garbage today.
Bless you.
Thank you for this video. is there anyway to enter in contact with you?
Hello Noelle, You're welcome. You can contact me at my e-mail, which is below each video.
It's very hard to find someone who is speaking this. I read 1 Corinthians 7:11-22 and Jesus on divorce and come to the understanding that divorce is acceptable for audltery, but if you choose to leave your spouse for audltery, you stay single or be reconciled.
I have a friend who is marrying a woman who left her husband for audltery, she was unsaved at that time, but she should remain unmarried in my understanding. And if my friend marries her knowing what the bible says he is committing audltery too?
Thank you for your comment, Jamin. The approach you take to understanding the marriage passages is the historical, or early Church view, and I respect it. I take the betrothal view, which does not permit divorce at all, but only refers to an ending of the betrothal period, or a similar annulment for the cause of fornication.
Please warn your friend of the sin he will be committing. I know it's hard, but we are responsible to warn others of sin and the destruction it causes. He should have to face the issue plainly, and learn what the Bible teaches. I have done so many times myself, and there are those who will at the minimum listen. Others will not.
If this woman's previous marriage was a first marriage for her and her husband, then it was a covenant, and it would be adultery to marry her. Both of them would be committing adultery, since in God's eyes she is still married.
Please share the word. More people need to know what the Bible teaches about marriage, and more need to be called to repentance. Feel free to contact me at my e-mail on the video.
God bless you.
@@holinessofthebride1935 I would like to ask a question about a person who got involved with a man, both non believers, he was a Muslim, she has a Christian background but did not practice. They fornicated, he was married and she did not know although she had asked him, when she found out he had lied to her saying that his family forced him to marry the wife and he was not happy and they had separated, however he was still married. She was in her late teens and he was in his late 30s. They lived in different countries, he travelled back left his wife and came to this young girl, she conceived and after she had the baby, he wanted to apply for a visa for her to take her to the country he resided in. Thus, he paid an imam (a Muslim religious leader) to write a marriage certificate for them, there was no covenant no witnesses, but she signed the paper without the presence of any one officiating, (this was illegal and the person was paid to do this, but the document produced were made legal through a means of corruption). Now she travelled with the man to his country, and there was adultery from both the woman and the man, but the man persisted. She was saved after and the man persisted on his cheating, so she filed for divorce (fake document made legal). His first wife is still alive, he then remarried, is she still bound to him? The man had a wife, the document was fake and no covenant, and adultery.
Hi, Thanks for your question. There are a number of details that are questionable as far as how legitimate the marriage was. If this man was already married (and he and his wife did not have a previous living covenant spouse) then it is impossible for any new marriage to be a covenant. Second or third wives are not legitimately married before God. This woman then is free to have a real covenant marriage in the future.
I don't know all the details of Muslim marriages as well, or if both of them married with the understanding that it was for life. Some people would claim the legality issue makes it questionable, but as I see it, as long as the vows are there, and made with the basic necessary knowledge, then legality is only a formality. It's still a marriage before God.
The vows are most essential in making a marriage. Pastor and witnesses are preferential, but not absolutely necessary. If he had not been married, and they had both taken vows, then I'd see it as legitimate despite various problems.
I hope that fully answers your question. There are many complex marriage histories that often need to be examined closely. It would be much simpler if society respected the Bible, and mankind established marriages consistently by God's Word. Man's sin has made it very complicated, but any pastor ought to care to use the time and energy to only accept legitimate marriages.
Be blessed.
@@holinessofthebride1935 Thank you so much for your response, God bless you. There was no covenant, the document was required for processing a visa and the mans previous spouse is living.
Concerning, legality however, where does submitting to the governing authority fall? My thought is that where a governing authority is in place, believers should obey as long as it does not contradict the written word of God. You are right in that if we hold fast to the true word of God, we would not have all these messes.
Hello Bilen, My pleasure. I do not believe it is within the domain of government to define what a marriage is. It may be practically necessary for a nation to regulate it somewhat, but it cannot come up with any definition that would limit vows to God, which are acceptable to God. Two people make marriage vows, and the government is not needed.
MacArthur will not be exempt from the judgement seat. He must answer to God why he misled the people God gave him charge over. Pleasing man by being relevant and telling them what they would rather hear!
Yes, agreed. It is a horrible, and deadly compromise. We need more churches that respect the nature of marriage, teach, encourage, and correct.
Wow!!! So much evidence in such a succinct teaching - Love your style! Please keep posting for people like me. :)
Thank you, brother. I greatly appreciate your encouragement. I wrote this for a pastor where I attended church, and have approached other pastors as well. I care to appeal to the soul in my writing, and also present the evidence in a clear and organized way. I have a great heart's desire to see repentance in the Church. God be with you.
Thank you for the edification! I'm a new believer (wife) married to an unbeliever, so all blessings I receive are like precious pearls to me. I can't find any scripture or teachings on having children with an unbeliever - is this acceptable? He has 2 conditions for me or else he will divorce me: 1) having children, as he wants to be a biological father 2) not take children to church until they are mature enough to make their own decision.
Hello, Sorry to take so long to reply, but the comment went to the possible spam box. It is not the Lord's way for us that we marry with an unbeliever (2 Corinthians 6:14), but if it already done, there really is no basis to reject having children. Childbirth is one of the purposes of marriage and is the natural outcome of the unity of man and wife. Do not reject children.
Naturally, do your best to provide a Christian education and reason with him about taking the children to Church, but he may make it difficult for you, which is one of the problems with being yoked to an unbeliever. Try to help him understand in a gentle and godly way. (1 Peter 3:1-6)
Remember, 1 Corinthians 7:14 also teaches that the unbelieving spouse as well as the children can be sanctified by one believing spouse. So while they may not have faith now, they are in a way set apart for God by your own faith, godly behavior, and the ability to share the knowledge of Christ with them.
I hope that helps. Grace be with you.
Thank you,brother.So much evidence!
I love your style too,,that you speak just evidence,not feelings.Thank you.
MacArtur is Bible scholar.MacArtur speaks mutch ,mutch sermons but mutch is not in bible that Mac Artur says.
His teaching about narrow Way was very powerful to me.
Bless you brother. I truly appreciate the encouragement. If my videos are helpful to your learning, please share them with the brethren, and look at some of the other material I put up. Yes, like you I otherwise find MacArthur helpful, and I have a couple of his books.
Thank you for the Truth as painful as it is. I Love the Lord and I'm willing to give up my marriage and whatever happens happens. I don't want to be separated from my God for Eternity 😢
You're welcome. Keep walking in faithfulness. We need more men and women who will sacrifice their desires for obedience to Christ. God bless you abundantly.
Please pray for God to gv me the strength & courage to do what is righteous in his sight! My spirit is vexed knowing I must end my marriage due to my disobedience. Help me Abba Yah, please I beg of thee. You said never would you leave me nor forsake me! Please help me through this. Help me be that sheep that hears your voice and another I will not follow!
I will pray for you to be strong in the Lord and faithful to Him. If you are married into adultery, then God will give you the grace to separate from that, and remain celibate. If you would like to talk, please write me at the e-mail on my videos. Christ be with you.
They say that there are over 78 scriptures about marriage and one of them say you can get married if the spouse leaves you for another if I only found one that says it's okay true preachers then I know for a fact that I miss read it for I am a widow that seems like the whole world has twice in three marriages
Hello, Edila. Thanks for your comment. There are not 78 Scriptures which give us our marriage doctrine as Christians, even though there are many passages about marriage in the whole Bible. Our understanding is defined by the New Testament passages which teach on marriage, divorce and remarriage. These are Mark 10, Matthew 19 (Matthew 5 is like a shortened version of it), Luke 16:18, Romans 7-1-4, and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39. These are the passages which speak directly on this subject to Christians.
Nearly all churches are compromised on this doctrine. Scripture does not allow you to remarry if your spouse leaves you, Edila. 1 Corinthians 7 allows the believer to cooperate with a divorce forced upon him by an unbeliever, but it never gives permission to remarry. Matthew 19 contains an exception for "fornication," but never teaches you can remarry. The very SAME chapter teaches that to marry her who is divorced is adultery.
Marriage is a bond for life, which is broken only by death. One can remarry after the death of one's spouse, and not before. (Romans 7:1-4, 1 Corinthians 7:39) This is a hard teaching, which is why Jesus recommended celibacy for those who cannot live this way. Marriage now represents Christ and His Church. It's lifelong nature shows us that Christ will never abandon His people, and the Church will persevere throughout the ages, and not return to harlotry.
So if after 10 years of harlotry on the part of my spouse, and finally terminating the marriage when she catagorically refused to stop or get tested for STDs, then another 10 years with her remarried, what then am I to do? Because if your reading of scripture is correct, it seems I would have been better off being hard hearted and killing her the first time I found out about this, because then I would be free to remarry. That hardly seems like something Jesus would want.
Hello, John. It is truly a hard teaching. That is why the disciples said to Jesus: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry" (Matthew 19:10), and why Jesus responded by recommending celibacy for those who could not accept it. It is not up to us to decide what we think "Jesus would want," but it is up to Jesus to reveal His will and up to us to obey it. The will of God, through the plain teaching of Jesus and Paul, is that we remain married for life, and that to take another partner is adultery.
I know it is a hard road John, but I have spoken to people who walked it, and remain faithful to their covenant, even after their spouse has left. I have spoken to those who have been reunited after praying for years, and others who waited until their spouse finally passed away. That is the faithfulness required. Marriage is a bond for life, and is ended by the death of one partner.
Is the story you relate hypothetical, or is that your story John? Was it the first marriage for both of you? Do you remain faithful to it? If that is your story, no matter how tragic, God will give you the power to live in faithfulness and to forgive your partner. If you are trusting in Jesus, you have the power in the Holy Spirit to live as God calls you to live, and God can use you even more mightily as a single person than otherwise. Let yourself depend on the Lord completely and for all things.
Grace be with you.
Holiness of the Bride It was my first marriage, and hers, so that’s a large part of why I respond to these things. Because logically I would be better off killing her. I would then be free to remarry. However I have no desire to be used again by another human being, like I was by her. I admit it is bitter, to reject all woman because my parents and spouse abused me. That bitterness is why I will not advise anyone of this vile marriage permanence baloney. God knew from the beginning how vile people can be to one another, and therefore made a way of escape, by divorce. God permits it. God has requirements in the covenant where if you fail, then either party. EITHER party is free to leave if there is an issue meeting the marital obligation. Both Old and New Testament require the spouse to meet the sexual needs of the other. So I am obligated to meet my former spouse sexual requests, while she is a whore who refuses to get tested for sexually transmitted disease. Nope. That isn’t God’s will. It is plainly tempting fate, and Jesus talked about cutting out a part of your body if it caused you to sin. My former spouse requested I engage in an “open marriage”. Nope. That makes me no better. I’m not interested. I forgive her, but I am never going to ever trust her again. That is why God nowhere requires reconciliation with forgiveness. God requires forgiveness. And I forgive her, and gave her anything she wanted. But reconciliation without her interest in rebuilding trust, NOPE. That is no where required for forgiveness or even required anywhere at all in the Bible. So I am not faithful to a marriage that I terminated to save my life. I have no obligation to her. Our obligations ended with our relationship. Divorce is real. God had one Himself. And I’m not interested in her death. Marriage permanence doctrine however would require me to kill her to remarry. I’ve know people who divorced a person who molested their children. They can’t take that person back either. Again, in this marriage permanence view those people need to be put to death in order for an innocent spouse to remarry. Yeah nope. This is very wrong, and antithetical to God’s love, and God’s very nature.
Holiness of the Bride my other issue with this idea, is that somehow it raises people to a level God can’t reach. People can forgive someone committing repeated adultery, and somehow God cannot forgive this unique sin. And I take massive exception to that idea, because any God I am better than isn’t worth following. The God I service can absolutely forgive. He hasn’t changed. His law hasn’t changed. People haven’t changed, so it’s nonsense to think otherwise.
Hello John, Thank you for letting me know what your situation is. Can I ask if you trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and given your life to Him?
If this was a first marriage for both of you, then you are bound for life. If you are separated you need to either remain single or reconcile with each other. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) Logically, you would NOT “be better off killing her.” That is because it would be an act of murder, and that is evil just as adultery is, and it causes waves of harm. You are “better off” doing what God’s will is for you, as all of us are, even when it is a hard road. When we love God, we learn to love His will also, even when if conflicts with our own. God’s will for us is good.
You tell me in your letter that God “knew from the beginning how vile people could be” and that He “made a way of escape.” Yet these are just your words, and it is not what God has revealed in HIS Word. God teaches us that marriage is a bond for life, that mankind may not separate. To leave your spouse and take another is adultery. (Mark 10:2-12, Matthew 19:3-12, Luke 16:18) We are married for life and only after the death of our partner can we remarry. If we remarry before then we are an adulterer. (Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39)
The flesh wars against the spirit, John. It is your flesh speaking when you refer to the lifelong nature of marriage, as taught in Scripture, as “baloney.” That is human eyes and a human heart looking at a difficult situation, one that involves pain and years of sacrifice, and hating to ever go through something like that. Your resistance is from the flesh. But the spirit is stronger than the flesh, and if you give yourself over to the Lord, He will align you with His will. He will conform you to His perfect image. It is a sacrificial walk, but it is the will of God for us.
You misuse Scripture greatly to come up with some objections which are nowhere in Scripture. You claim that either party is free to leave a marriage if the other fails in a requirement, but the Bible nowhere states this. Where is the chapter and verse which teaches this? The Scripture indeed requires that each spouse show affection to the other. Obviously, if your spouse is departed, you cannot fulfill that. There is no doctrinal problem there. It is a consequence of the separation. You are desperately looking for loopholes for sin.
God does not express His will by having you, John, say - Nope, that isn’t God’s will. He reveals His will in Scripture. What Scripture teaches is far different from what you say, which sounds motivated by anger and bitterness, and not from God’s Spirit at all. I know you have had plenty of pain over this, but you don’t get to speak for God, and you cannot teach others to disobey what He has revealed to us. No amount of loss in your life allows that.
“Cutting off” your hand because of sin has nothing to do with whether you can remarry or not. Nor is it speaking of marriage. It is reasonable to separate from a dangerous person, but that does not require a legal divorce, and certainly does not permit adultery through remarriage. Your spouse sounds like a very wicked woman, but God has reveals His will for people in hard situations like you describe: remain single or reconcile. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) That’s it, John. There are two options, and God can use you mightily and bless you abundantly in either one. Remarriage is not an option.
Divorce is real, okay, but the marriage bond lasts for life, and is ended by death. (Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39) No amount of raging against God’s will or complaining about its difficulty will change that.
No, marriage permanence doctrine would NOT “require [you] to kill her,” since marriage permanence doctrine teaches that you are required to either remain single or reconcile. You can remarry after your covenant spouse passes away. You are just blowing steam.
I find your objection regarding forgiveness of adultery to be specious. It is an unfounded objection. Number one, God commands us to forgive. He even teaches that if we do not forgive, He will not forgive us. If you find you cannot personally forgive a spouse who sins continually against you, you still need to follow God’s command to not commit adultery yourself. God’s command comes above our feelings. Moreover, God does not need to do things just as He requires we do them anyway. God will never forsake His Church, but He will cast sinners into hell, as they rejected the opportunity for forgiveness. You and I won’t cast anyone into hell.
The clear teaching of Scripture is that adulterers, among others living in sin, will not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) Please go read that passage. God forgives adulterers all the time. That is for adultery which is now in the past. The remarried are living in sin, just like those in same-sex marriages, and should not expect forgiveness since they have rejected God by their lack of faith evident in their lifestyle.
Please read the Bible on this subject, and go over the main teaching Scripture about marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the New Testament. What do they say? The question is not - are they hard? Jesus plainly acknowledged they were hard. The question is -- what do they teach?
The ordinary reading of Jesus and Paul do not leave room for the divorce and remarriage doctrine of ministries today. The Church is soaking in sin, is comfortable in sin, and people will say whatever they have to in order to keep justifying it to themselves.
Remain faithful to your covenant, John. Do it out of love for Christ alone. Forgive your spouse. Pray for her. God will give you the grace to do all these things.
Holiness of the Bride I have gone over the teachings on this many times. And it is marriage permanence which changes the Bible. God allowed divorce for a variety of reasons. Because people sin. They break covenants. And I’m not interested in committing murder, even to a sinner. I am however willing to stand aside eating popcorn while their life turns into a mess. Reconciliation isn’t a requirement for forgiveness. Don’t believe me point me to any scripture saying reconciliation is required. To be honest after a lifetime of abuse from parents, sexual abuse, and spouse abuse I’m done. I just want it done. I’m ready to go home. I’m done with legalism, I’m done with people who add to Gods word and take away from it when convenient so it fits your theology.
McArthur also brought up the command that you cannot remarry your former spouse?
It has been a long time since I read his commentary on Matthew 5, and since I wrote this article. I really don't remember. Sorry. Thanks for visiting, Andrea.
Very powerful!
Thank you, brother. We need repentance in the churches from divorce and remarriage.
Yes,powerful and True. I've been recently divorced against my will by my wife who has fallen away from the Lord. I admit I didn't learn or know nearly enough about the Truth of God's word on this subject and sadly I'm learning it all now though apparently too late. Many so called Believing friends have ok'd my divorce and encouraged me to move on. But I realize I made a Covenant for LIFE, and we are married in God's eyes till death regardless of what some earthly court/judge has decided. Thank you for this TRUTHFUL video.
@@philarevolutionarywarriorp8295 Thank you for your faithfulness. It is an honor to meet you. Your example will be a light for others in the same situation. May God bless you abundantly with His peace and grace.
I originally wrote this for my previous pastor -- who I'm sad to say is still unmoved -- but I am very grateful it has reached a good number of people online. I believe in confronting the churches on their compromise on marriage. Our faithfulness is incredibly important.
@@In2theLight Thank you for all that you do, sister. God abundantly blesses your faithfulness.
I was the same as you and the Lord revealed to me that I was living in fornication and I separated, I divorced the woman with whom I have two children and I stayed together for 32 years and I divorced doing God's will and He helped me may I never need sex again HE made me famous through faith and I am happy that I can serve him with a pure heart AMEN
What do people who hold the view like the author do with Jeremiah 3, where God says he gave Israel a bill of divorcement for adultery?
Jeremiah makes it clear that this is not any kind of permanent divorce, and also says that they are still married. Very easy.
Here is the main portion of my answer from my article "From the Beginning it Was Not So"
God Divorced Israel:
Looking for reasons to divorce and remarry can get people well into typology. Since God’s relationship with his covenant people is likened to a man and his wife, can we discern marriage doctrine by looking at patterns in God’s relationship with Israel? Many who excuse remarriage point to the fact that God is said to “divorce” Israel at one point, and then conclude that means we can divorce our spouse, and subsequently remarry. But does this discernment from typology really hold water?
First, let me say, I don’t think we come to doctrine first through typology. We understand doctrine most clearly through the didactic passages, those passages that teach about a doctrine. That’s because teaching passages have a purpose in clearly communicating doctrine, while typology, does not. We find them in Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7, and 1 Corinthians 7. Typology may help to gain insight and help to understand more deeply, but we don’t give the heaviest weight to typology. One reason is that understanding typological patterns is quite subjective, compared to most teaching passages. So one person may say one thing, and others say another thing. It’s kind of loosy goosy. Like poetry interpretation. So I don’t advise giving typology a heavy weight in knowing the New Covenant truth about divorce and remarriage. It’s like the comparison made between marriage and the nature of the Trinity. It’s real and its meaningful, but please don’t discern marriage doctrine straight from what goes on within the Trinity, or discern Trinitarian doctrine through what goes on in marriage. Like other types, metaphors, or comparisons, there is a link, but it’s not meant to be the primary means of teaching us doctrine.
That said, it’s a common argument that since God “divorces” Israel, then we can divorce our spouse and remarry. Some will go so far as to say God divorces Israel and remarries with the Church. People making this argument may point to passages like Jeremiah 3, or like Isaiah 50, which explicitly speak of God’s divorcing His people. Yet did God really divorce Israel in the sense people mean it? In a full and permanent way? I think if we look a few verses down the road, we will have the answer, and put this argument to rest completely.
Jeremiah 3:8 says:
“Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.
That sounds pretty convincing doesn’t it? I guess we’ve got to put our hands in the air and give up. But what does the prophet go on to tell us? Let’s look at verses 12 to 14:
‘Return, backsliding Israel,’ says the LORD;
‘I will not cause My anger to fall on you.
For I am merciful,’ says the LORD;
‘I will not remain angry forever.
Only acknowledge your iniquity,
That you have transgressed against the LORD your God,
And have scattered your charms
To alien deities under every green tree,
And you have not obeyed My voice,’ says the LORD.
“Return, O backsliding children,” says the LORD; “for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
This is very strong, brothers. Not only does God call Israel to return and promise His mercy, but He even says that He is “married” to her. Therefore, we can see that despite the divorce mentioned by the prophet, this is a mere pause or distancing in their relationship. God still has an ongoing marriage. Not only that, but He subsequently promises to restore Israel, as He does many times through the prophets:
“And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.
“Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days,” says the LORD, “that they will say no more, ‘The ark of the covenant of the LORD.’ It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore.
“At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the LORD, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts.
(vs. 15-17)
Much the same is true of the passage in Isaiah, from chapter 50 verse 1:
Thus says the LORD:
“Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce,
Whom I have put away?
Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you?
For your iniquities you have sold yourselves,
And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.
This passage also speaks of Israel as being “put away” or divorced because of her sins.
Yet at the start of the next chapter, God promises Israel comfort and restoration:
For the LORD will comfort Zion,
He will comfort all her waste places;
He will make her wilderness like Eden,
And her desert like the garden of the LORD;
Joy and gladness will be found in it,
Thanksgiving and the voice of melody.
He goes on to speak of the redemption of Israel, as compared to the deliverance from Egypt:
Are You not the One who dried up the sea,
The waters of the great deep;
That made the depths of the sea a road
For the redeemed to cross over?
So the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing,
With everlasting joy on their heads.
They shall obtain joy and gladness;
Sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Seeing this, brethren, can we really take seriously the claim that God “divorced” Israel, so we can divorce our spouse and remarry? Really? The divorce spoken of in Scripture is neither complete, nor final. God remains in relationship with His covenant people, and promises mercy and redemption.
Understood. But God still said he divorced Israel for adultery. The main issue is how can God say he is doing something that is evil....if divorce for adultery is sin. I understood your points....but He still divorced Israel for adultery. That's not disputable
I don’t get the idea you really understood my points. God did not “divorce” Israel in any way we conceive of divorce. It was temporal, and not complete. He then says He is still married to Israel. So how can you suggest divorce is acceptable by this typology when this typology actually shows they are still married anyway?
Being still married is just as plain as day in the text as divorce is. So clearly this is not the kind of divorce that Christians try to find an excuse for, that actually is permanent, and allows another marriage.
God can do MANY things we cannot do. God can take my neighbor's life because of his sin. I cannot take my neighbor's life because of his sin. That's one of my points from the above article -- typology is not how we primarily receive doctrine. it is a bit loosy goosy and how we interpret typology is subjective. Here you demand that God could not do this if it's evil for man to do, but this comparison between man and God does not work, because God does many things we cannot do.
Either way, the prophet says God and Israel are still married. The remnant of Israel (which had always been true Israel) was saved in Messiah, and God promises that "all Israel will be saved." That doesn't sound like a complete divorce to me.
But I'd ask you why you are looking for reasons for Christians to do what God himself says we may not do.
@@holinessofthebride1935 I understood. It's just not really a complete answer.
I believe my answer is quite thorough. How is it not complete?
I was meditating on this passage Mathew : 5-31_32 about 3 weeks ago. While i was meditating this video popped up on my video feed. I totally believe that people have near death expiences and JESUS sends them back to warn people. I totally believe what this person has to say, so its upto you to ask the LORD if its of him.
Title: Hell testimony. The chambers for divorced and remarried people
I hope this video blesses you
Bess you brother.
@@holinessofthebride1935 blessings brother
Why is remarriage adultery? because he or she with whom you have made a covenant of marriage is until physical death do not separate spiritually, and those who do so will be separated from God forever
Some will try to say that because of the fact that the patriarchs had multiple wives and concubines and yet were saved, that we can have multiple wives. My question is.. does polygamy constitute adultery when there is no putting away of the 1st wife (divorcement)? How do you answer the fact that David had multiple wives and yet he kept the law of God?
I hear this from time to time, Otis. However, there is a major distinction between marriage in the Old Covenant and marriage in Christ. God tolerated both divorce and remarriage and polygamy for centuries. That's why righteous men were able to practice it. Yet Christ has explained this was temporal, and that marriage is actually rooted in God's will at creation; that man and woman become one flesh for life.
To take another wife is not adultery because there has been putting away previously, it is adultery because you already have a marriage covenant with your spouse. Therefore, sleeping with another is adultery. Both 1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 7 help lock us in to understanding that the covenant is broken only by death. There are plenty of signs that under the Old Covenant polygamy was a destructive practice, but in the New it is clearly sin, because of the restored marriage order.
@@holinessofthebride1935 Moses tolerated it NOT God.
@@mustardseedist Hello, the two go together, as Moses delivered the commandments and led Israel. For example, we can speak of the law of Moses, but also call it the law of God. We can speak of the books of Moses, even though the Torah is the word of God.
Clearly God tolerated these things up to a point, as they were not judicially punished, and the law allowed them. They may still have had certain bad effects though. When Jesus says, "Moses permitted a man" (Mark 10:4), He is still speaking in terms of the permission in the law of God.
God bless you brother
Bless you. Keep walking faithfully in the Lord.
To understand these scriptures you need to know the context , and study the scriptures in the original language the scripture was written it. Shane Vaughn has an excellent video on this.
Nothing in either the context or the original language lends support to divorce and remarriage. It only strengthens that God does not permit those things.
This view never existed until Jesus came, therefore the fact it suddenly existed after Christ is not by chance. Something new was in fact birthed contrasted to the old view of the law where adultery by death ends a marriage. Jesus's new covenant now required seventy times seventy occurrences of forgiveness and no adulterer was stoned.
Yes, something new has come into existence with the New Covenant. I believe this respect for the lifelong nature of marriage reflects not only the new emphasis on forgiveness, but also the continual nature of the bond between Christ and His Church. The permanent nature of marriage, being until death, pictures the permanent nature of our union with Christ. I believe it also reflects the new revelation of the Trinity, so that with the Trinity now fully revealed, marriage can fully picture its relationships. As far as actual civil law in concerned, I do not see an ending of the death penalty for crimes of immorality. However, we should choose to forgive our spouse's adultery.
I am remarried and have been married before and so has my wife. We have to young children, boys, 7 and 8. We attend church and study the word of God as a family at home twice a week. We were both married when we were younger to our expartners ,I was 20 and she was 20 .both of our relationships only lasted a year. We met one year later when we were 22, and were married at 23. We are both 36 now and truly love the lord. Should we end our marriage and tear our family apart?
Well I think your questions at the end in themselves hold a secret to the answer. You ask if you need to “end your marriage,” but this presumes that two people in adultery have a true marriage to end. You also ask if you need to “tear it apart,” which assumes that ending adultery amounts to the same thing as tearing a family apart. It also implies that children would no longer be able to be with their parents, when in fact they could be with both father and mother regularly. It is just that father and mother have ended their adulterous affair.
I know situations of remarriage are common today, and people treat 20-year-olds as if they are children, but 20-year-olds have real marriages. They are young adults, and when they marry the other, they are bound by God in a union which lasts for life. The man and the woman become one flesh together, and only death can separate that union. Sin does not separate it. Great distance does not separate it. The marriage covenant remains until death ends it.
That means, if your first marriages were the first for you and your spouses, then you still have a marriage covenant with them. You are now living in what the sovereign God of all creation calls adultery. You need to stop living in sin, just as the Bible commands man to do. You have no excuse to continue living in sin. God has provided enough knowledge for man to know the moral law - both Christian and Pagan -- and to know God commands righteousness and repentance. You end your sin by remaining celibate with your spouse, and also by physically separating. You can stay in contact for the sake of the children produced by immorality, and you can both continue to see the children.
It is actually divorce and remarriage that tears a marriage and a family apart. Ending an adulterous affair does not do that, because an affair is not a marriage. I truly feel for the children who come from such unions, but they will be benefited by their parents repenting of sin. They will also benefit from seeing the example of Christians living faithfully, instead of the constant hypocrisy of seeing Christians living however they want, and committing immorality as if it were nothing. Your integrity and faithfulness to God will bless your children greatly, and will bless the Church. God commands you to depart from iniquity, and live holy and righteous before Him.
If you are a Christian, by the way, why do you have a very vulgar screen name? Do you trust in Christ as your Lord and Savior and do you follow Him in your life?
@@holinessofthebride1935 I don't feel the screen name has anything to do with the question. Let's stick to the matter at hand please. I'm quite concerned that if I leave my wife and our home, it will definitely impact our children in a negative way. I know that single parent homes are the leading cause of youth to rebel and turn towards sinful living. What about divorcing my wife, stop having sex and live together only as children of God,like brother and sister?
Have you placed your trust in Christ as your Lord and Savior and do you follow Him?
Your vulgar screen name is relevant to the fact you present yourself here as a Christian, yet you testify by your screen name that you don’t care about living as a Christian. If you don’t care about living as a Christian regarding publicizing disgusting language, maybe you don’t care about living as a Christian regarding marriage. If that’s the case, why do you bother to debate if you don’t care what God teaches in the first place? Your argument becomes insincere. If you are sincerely Christian you separate yourself from corrupt speech, just as you separate yourself from an immoral relationship.
I would have the same concern for the good of children, sure. Yet the God of all creation teaches that to take another spouse is adultery. You already have a spouse, so you are sleeping with someone else. That means you need to repent of your adultery and cease living in it. Your children will not be harmed by your faithfulness to God, and you will both still be able to see them. They will benefit from having parents who openly repent of sin and choose to be faithful. So I find you are inventing a problem here that does not exist. If a man has an adulterous affair, and children are produced, the children do not justify him continuing in his adulterous affair. He still needs to end it.
Some people do choose to live together as brother and sister once they discover they are in sin, but it is better to separate physically and still meet to care for the children. Remain close to one another. It will be an example to others about living faithfully. It will inspire men to respect the marriage covenant. What a change from epidemic divorce and remarriage, to the point you would have no idea that the New Testament teaches what it does. Divorce and remarriage causes much more harm to children than ending immoral relationships does. God commands your faithfulness, and the world needs to see it.
Tickle Shits : she is not your wife....she is your adulterous partner.....it would benefit your children to show them you follow God and set the example for them......
@@In2theLight That's wonderful We must follow the spirit over the flesh, and make those sacrifices. You are a godly example for others in marriage.
Jesus' teaching on divorce is a prime example of how the church has let tradition completely reverse what the Bible says.
Tradition says that divorce is a sin. This tradition can be traced back to the Roman Catholic Church. Most Christians and most churches agree with it: divorce is a sin. They twist the words of Jesus to support this. But what did Jesus really say?
One of Jesus' key teachings on divorce is in Matthew 5:31-32.
I encourage you to set aside tradition for a moment and take an honest look at what these two verses say.
The Context
First, look at the context of Matthew 5:31-32. These two verses are one point of six. The six points illustrate how Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Before making these six points, Jesus states that one jot or one tittle will not pass from the law until it is fulfilled. He also says that anyone who breaks these least commandments and teaches others so is least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:18-19).
Despite these statements, most people think that Jesus changed the law in these two verses, that He destroyed the part that tells people to get a divorce, and that He set up divorce as a sin.
If that is true, Jesus was a liar and He violated His own words.
The First Verse
Look at the first verse: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement" (Matthew 5:31 KJV).
Doesn't this verse imply that some people were putting their wives away without giving them a writing of divorcement?
(Please note that in Greek, "put away" (apoluo) and "divorcement" (apostasion) are two completely different words. It is not correct to translate both as divorce as some Bible versions do. Apostasion is divorce. Apoluo is not.)
What would it be if a man put away his wife but did not give her a writing of divorcement?
The Law
What does the law say about divorce? "...then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it to her hand, and send her out of his house" (Deuteronomy 24:1b).
Does the law say that a husband can put away his wife and they are divorced? No. He must give her a bill of divorcement.
Does the law say that a husband can say, "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee," and they are divorced? No. He must give her a bill of divorcement.
If a husband puts his wife away without giving her a bill of divorcement, are they divorced? No, not according to the law.
This is also true in America. A couple may split up and go their separate ways, but they are not divorced until one of them writes up a bill of divorcement, takes it to court, and the judge signs it.
What Jesus says in these two verses is not against divorce, it is against NOT getting a divorce. He is telling those who were putting away their wives without a writing of divorcement that they are wrong. They must get a writing of divorcement as the law states.
Jesus was validating what the law says, not changing it, not destroying it.
The Second Verse
Look at the second verse: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matthew 5:32 KJV).
(Please note that in this verse, "put away" and "divorce" are the same Greek word, apoluo. It is wrong to translate apoluo as "put away" the first time that it appears in the verse and then as "divorce" the second time. That hides the true meaning of this verse.)
This verse brings sin (adultery) into the divorce picture.
Or does it?
The Greek word for divorce (apostasion) is not in this verse.
This verse is not talking about divorce. It is talking about putting a wife away without giving her a writing of divorcement.
If a man puts his wife away without giving her a writing of divorcement, he is causing her to commit adultery. How can a wife who has been put away, stay faithful to her husband? She can't. She has to cheat on him (which is what adultery is) in some way. Her husband has forced her to commit adultery.
If the wife committed fornication (sexual sin), then the husband putting her away does not cause her to commit adultery because she has already done that on her own.
If a man marries a woman who has been put away by someone else, then he is marrying a woman who is already married and he is committing adultery.
(Please note the sin here, adultery. Adultery is a sin that involves at least one married person. Two single people cannot commit adultery, neither can two divorced people. By mentioning the sin of adultery, Jesus is showing that what He is talking about is not divorce. He is also showing that the practice of putting away a spouse does not end a marriage as divorce does.)
This verse brings sin (adultery) into the "putting away a spouse" picture, not the divorce picture.
The Conclusion
Jesus did not change the law in these verses. He supported it and went a step further by connecting their refusal to get a divorce with adultery.
During this time, the people were not following the law. They were separating from their spouses but NOT getting a divorce. A divorce took too much time and required them to air their greivences in public before a judge. It was much easier to tell the wife to leave and consider the marriage to be finished. But that was not how the law said to do it.
Divorce is not a sin. Ending a marriage without a divorce is. That is what Jesus taught in these two verses.
What will you Do?
You most likely have never heard these Biblical truths before.
Now that you have heard it, what will you do?
Will you accept it as truth and stop considering divorce to be a sin?
Or will you say that your church is correct, ignore what the Bible says, and continue to hold to a position that sets Jesus up as a liar, someone who violates His own words?
The choice is yours. Accept tradition or accept the Bible.
J, This is completely false. It is you who invent a man-made tradition here. The Word of God speaks plainly on this subject, both about the sinful nature of divorce and the sinful nature of remarriage.
The key error you make in this explanation is the claim that to “put away” is not referring to divorce. The word Jesus uses in Greek (apolyo) commonly means to divorce, even if it can be literally rendered as to release. Jesus is speaking of divorce because that is what it means in context. Your claim He only speaks of separating the then marrying again is spurious, and you cannot point anywhere in the text where Jesus says what you say. You would need something like “without writing a bill of divorcement,” which isn’t in the teaching. The same word (apolyo) is also used in Matthew 19, and Luke 16:18.
The Outline of Biblical Usage from the Concordance includes this usage: “used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce her husband.”
Strong’s definition also includes “divorce.”
That’s why in Matthew 5, Jesus uses apolyo in the context of writing a bill of divorcement, and then He uses it again in the subsequent teaching that divorcing and taking another would be adultery. Both speak of real divorce, not simply separation.
Jesus is NOT merely commenting on Moses. He is bringing in the New Covenant, and there are NEW teachings, not the same as Moses. That is why you hear nothing like Jesus and Paul’s teachings on marriage in the entire Torah. It is new and different. This is why Jesus contrasts his teaching with Moses, and establishes New Covenant marriage on something different - God’s will from the beginning in Genesis.
And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’
‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
‘and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
“Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Mark 10:5-9
That broad contrast, and reestablishment on God’s will for man and wife is another reason we know Jesus is speaking about divorce, and not the technicality of whether one wrote a document or not. It is the nature of marriage itself Jesus speaks on. It is for life and man may not separate it. This is a new and different teaching.
If Jesus were only speaking of separating physically, it would fit very poorly with His teaching in Matthew 19 - “what God has joined together, let not man separate.” In contrast to the God-joined nature of marriage, a prohibition of simply physically separating makes little sense. Physically separating isn’t ending a marriage anyway! Jesus is speaking of divorce in Matthew 19 as He is in the other passages
Moreover, we can know that divorce is sin from teachings on the subject in the New Testament, which show its lifelong nature, and sinfulness of remarriage.
For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
Romans 7:2-3
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.
But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:39
The idea that the New Testament only forbids separation plus remarriage is absurd. It explicitly teaches that divorce is binding for life, and we are free to remarry AFTER the death of our spouse. It uses several different Greek words to speak of tearing apart a marriage, each of which has a usage that includes divorce, which is the usage that fits the context.
Every body has an answer. If "we" all believe in the same God, then why are there so many different interpretations. Jesus forgives all sin.
Adrienne, The New Testament speaks many times in explicit language about marriage. That marriage is for life and that we may not remarry is clear. People have a wide variety of interpretations because of the human desire to justify sin, and because of following the tide of tradition. You will even find some people still deny that Jesus is God, but we both know that Scripture makes it clear that He is God. So some people turn from the truth of Scripture for one of their own making.
God forgives all sin in our confession and repentance of sin. He does NOT allow us to remain living in sin. Read Romans 6 on that subject. If God's forgiveness is a pretext for living in sin, then the sodomite, the fornicator, the child molester, or the serial killer can make the same argument. It just doesn't work.
The Christian lives a life of repentance, including repentance from remarriage adultery. If not, then we have no real reason to believe they are a Christian in the first place. We are known by our fruit.
Im not sure any one knows . Its been altered so much..
So is it better to marry than to burn?
Each man should have a wife?
Or fall into fornication by not remarrying?
So.which is it.. Better to have sex in a second marriage. Or be single and fall into fornication?
I don’t know if this is a serious attempt to respond to the video, or to the Church’s historical respect for the lifelong nature of marriage. But I will respond anyway.
I can only guess at the meaning of your first statement, which does not have a clear object. I assume you suggest that the Bible has been changed many times, and is not trustworthy. If this is your belief, it is wrong. We have over ten thousand manuscript and manuscript fragments of the New Testament, and they all teach the same story and teach the same doctrines. You could not get a different religion from any of them. There are a number of variants between the many texts, but almost all of them are very brief and minor. Some are so small they do not change the meaning at all. None of the variants would give us different faith beliefs. Moreover, we have countless quotes of the New Testament from the early Christian fathers. In fact, we have so many quoted passages, we could almost recreate the entire New Testament from them. None of the quoted passages would give us a significantly different document than we have today. Moreover, the New Testament was written very close to the events it describes, so close it makes it the most reliable ancient document we have, by far. If you think we can’t trust it as a source, then we can’t trust any ancient history at all. The New Testament is a reliable book by any measure.
As far as the argument you present, I have never heard anyone mention it before. It is rooted in a common mistake, but one you won’t make if you seek to interpret fairly and consistently. You attempt to find a conflict between two different teachings in Scripture. But anytime someone does that, we are bound to see that no conflict exists. The Bible is a harmonious teaching, and the Holy Spirit who inspired it gives us one seamless truth. You claim that we can’t know what is true since the New Testament teaches that remarriage is adultery, but also teaches that it is better to get married than burn. Does that mean we can choose option two and get remarried, even though it is adultery and adultery is forbidden?
Here is your answer. There is no conflict here for several reasons. Number one, the prohibition on adultery (which remarriage is), is a moral law which applies to all. It is a mandate. The teaching that it is better to marry than burn is not a mandate for everyone in all circumstances to get married, and it applies to single people as the context makes clear. Notice Paul speaks to the unmarried and the widows. A divorced person is not a single person. A divorced person already has a husband or wife. A divorced person is not the topic Paul is speaking on when he advises getting married over burning with lust as a single person.
Do you honestly think that the advice to get married is meant to overrule moral laws? Can a pedophile who burns with lust for children say - well Paul said it’s better to marry than burn, so I guess I’ll marry this 6-year old? Can they feel justified in breaking God’s law too? Can a man who wants sex with animals also call upon this teaching to justify marrying a cow? Of course not. It’s not a mandate for anyone to get married in any circumstances, and it is not justification for denying the moral law. You’ll notice the difference between “you shall not commit adultery” and “it is better.” The phrasing itself should cue you in to the fact they’re not exactly the same kind of teaching.
Your argument is similar to one I occasionally hear which cites Genesis - “it is not good for man to be alone” - as a reason to allow remarriage, despite what Jesus and Paul teach. They think they can just pick that passage and ignore moral teachings as well. But that passage is not a demand for anyone in all circumstances to get married. It is not a mandate. It is just teaching that man is fulfilled in marriage, and woman completes him. Marriage is better for him than solitude. So other than a spiritual calling to a celibate life - which both Jesus and Paul uplift -- marriage is the norm and the good. The teaching that it’s not good for man to be alone no more justifies remarriage than it justifies kidnapping. If you’re alone, it is not a sin. If you take another spouse it is.
So the key is in telling between moral commands to all, and teachings which are general principles, advise, or limited to certain domains. The statement “it is better” is not a moral command to all in all circumstances. Moreover, the divorced already have a husband or wife because they’re still married before the Lord. There is your answer. I don’t know if you are seriously examining this topic, but how we examine any topic in the Holy Scripture ought to inform how we examine all the others. We need to be consistent in how we read and interpret, and we’ll find it gets easier when we are.
2 Timothy 2.15 True preachers will RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD.We must also test everything we are told.We are all human.
I wish I knew the truth before, I can't believe how the so called church is not telling the truth about remarriage and I'm trying to legally get out of my 2nd marriage. I've repented and now trying to unwind my life legally it's very hard and expensive 😢
The church is deceiving millions. Thank you for doing the right thing in the Lord. I hope you can make it happen with peace and understanding between both of you.
@holinessofthebride1935 oh no he don't understand and my family doesn't either they think I'm crazy but I come from a family that is remarriage and divorce and I know they know the truth but not willing to do what I am and that's OK they have to work out there own salvation and I will mine with God's grace and help 🙏
truth, God convicted me of these truths
Praise God. Thank you for standing with His word.
Gods word stands. Till death do us part.
Well done
No need further discussion on that topic. I realise our major difference is the way you use more an Anabaptisr view on the law. I was educated in Herman Riddebos on the sermon on the mount and Jesus' critique of rabanic interpretation of the Mosaic law. You might be better served by examining that issue without focusing upon the marriage issue. All the best
That's fine if you don't want to discuss more. Our major difference is that you wish to ignore the New Testament teachings on this subject and rely on cultural speculation apart from the meaning of the text. That will never work to understand the Bible. Recognizing that the New Covenant is different from the Old is not the "Anabaptist" view, it is the biblical view, and also reflects nearly all of Church history. Let the New Testament speak and there is no room for polygamy.
@@holinessofthebride1935 both the earlier Church Fathers view and Anabaptist approach led to pacificism.. that how I recognise it in your approach since I was a pacificist many years ago. Its the approach that's wrong.. your conclusions just follow out from your approach. That's why I don't find it useful to continue discussion on your conclusions on divorce and remarriage. I find it's too easy to forget God's heart and become legalistic seeking to find something in ppl to change. Thats why the law written upon ones heart by the Spirit is foundational..because love is written there. I hope you are able to reflect upon what we have shared. My position or yours is not important it depends on the manner in which we deal with people.. agape.
For someone who doesn't want to discuss it, you are doing a lot of discussion. The early fathers' approach and the Anabaptist are not the same; and the early fathers were mostly silent on pacifism despite three voices in favor of it, and the earliest Anabaptist churches did not universally practice it. You are trying to dodge the fact that Jesus clearly teaches differently from Moses on this and other points.
Yet you need to see this is natural since the New Covenant is coming in, the Church is being formed, and in a matter of decades, Temple Judaism will be destroyed. A full reading of the New Testament does not allow us to think it is the same as the Old.
It is not "legalistic" to teach and preach what the Bible does, or else you'd be calling Jesus and the apostles legalistic, but I don't think you want to do that. Jesus and the apostles taught people to live in righteousness, and called them to repentance from sin. That is called obedience. It comes along with our faith.
@@holinessofthebride1935 I was just explaining why I'm not continuing. It's your video anyway. Perhaps in future I might post one too
That's fine. Take care.
SEX will lead MANY to the lake of fire. After the rapture of the FEW and the lukewarm left behind, they will show true nature as The Restrainer is taken out and the pestilence comes down. HELL is a choice we make and MANY have made that decision. ALL have numerous chances with a relationship with Father and Brother. There will be no excuses.
I actually need to apologize for the tenor of my previous essay. It probably is a bit too polemic and has too much appeal to emotion. I have been praying for more humility on this matter as I seek the truth. Here are some new thoughts:
One of the oldest churches, the Catholic church, does not allow for divorce and remarriage. Another of the oldest churches, the Orthodox church, does.
Jesus states that divorce and remarriage = adultery 4 times in the Gospels. 2 of those times includes an exception for sexual immorality, 2 do not.
As suggested by the above ambiguity, which causes so much debate within the church, God knew that it might not be good to never allow for divorce, but he also knew that if he spelled it out too clearly that that would be taken advantage of.
The end result is that anyone who comes to faith and is concerned about it, will be extremely careful in their future decisions, and maybe that's the best possible answer. Which means to me I will never have a truly solid answer on whether it is right or wrong. And God in his wisdom does not want me to have such an answer, because then I would take decisions I make in this area of my life less seriously.
Hello Derek, Feel free to use whatever tone you find the Holy Spirit leads you to use. I definitely recommend continued studying on the topic. You seem to think that the Bible isn’t being clear on the doctrine of marriage, but this is far from the case. The Bible is very clear. There is nothing unclear about:
So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
“And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Mark 10:11-12
There is nothing unclear about:
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. Luke 16:18
Nor is there anything unclear about:
A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 7:39
Those are only three among other very clear passages that teach the lifelong nature of marriage, its end in death, and the adulterous nature of a remarriage.
If many people find the Bible confusing on this, it is largely because they don’t want to accept the teaching, because the teaching is very difficult. It would be difficult in their lives, or it would alienate them from their friends. So they portray it as beyond our understanding. It is not.
There is a limited degree of ambiguity in understanding the three words “except for fornication,” but these words can be understood within the bounds of the other clear passages, along with the meaning of the words and the context. One understanding is to take it literally as fornication, and see the exception as speaking of fornication during the betrothal period, or discovered fornication on the wedding night. That essentially makes it an annulment, and agrees with the other clear passages on marriage. The more common way historically, is to understand the words to be referring to adultery, and allowing a divorce, but not one the truly ends the covenant, or which allows for remarriage. This leaves other clear passages intact. If you stretch it beyond that, and if you paint in other desired exceptions, you simply contradict the Bible’s clear teaching. You cannot do that.
Historically, the Church has never been as confused as it is now. The early Church fathers, who represent the first four centuries after Christ, largely believed in no remarriage. It was not the universal teaching, but it was the main teaching of the time. Today’s more liberal views would have been a great oddity in that day.
Here is one collection of early Church thought on divorce and remarriage: whatismarriagetonywpiano.weebly.com/teaching-of-the-church-for-1500-years-about---divorce-and-remarriage.html
The Catholic Church, while painting in an exception for “Pauline Privilege” at some ancient date, was very strong beyond this. However, in the 20th century and beyond, they are for practical purposes liberals, because they allow incredibly liberal annulments, and now they permit people living in adultery to participate fully in the Church, receiving communion. They still sound pretty good on paper, but in practice they’re like liberal Protestants.
The Orthodox Church did not officially allow divorce and remarriage throughout their Church until over a thousand years into Church history. Not that they never made exceptions before that, but that’s how long it took to degrade fully from the early Church understanding. Today I’d call them liberals.
Protestants today are largely liberals, with the exception of some traditional Anabaptists and a few independent churches.
Here is a history of marriage doctrine in the Church that Dan Jennings presents: www.danielrjennings.org/ThisHistoryOfChristianThoughtOnMarriageDivorceAndRemarriage.pdf
I do recommend his book, Except for Fornication. It is free online here: www.danielrjennings.org/except_for_fornication_version_1.pdf
I don’t know if you have listened to my material, but I deal with many of the objections to marriage permanence in some of my videos:
This is the start of one series: czcams.com/video/ZWMa--RJ28Q/video.html
And another: czcams.com/video/DZjihYlu8e8/video.html
Do not doubt in God’s revelation to you. If the Almighty really could not speak clearly to us, nor reveal truth, you could choose whatever doctrine you like. This is not the case. No amount of man’s confusion makes God’s Word any less truthful. The Bible spells out the lifelong nature of marriage, its end in death, and the adulterous nature of remarriage. It does so in plain language, multiple times.
It may seem extremely easy to dismiss what the Bible says, but this leaves countless professed Christians in sin. According to the Lord, it leaves them in adultery, and unable to come into the Kingdom. That is serious. God did not leave us wanting. He did not leave us not knowing if we were brazen sinners or not. Spend time with this subject, and I believe you will find the same thing that I do, and that the bulk of the early Church did. Christians today treat marriage as temporary and they must repent.
@Holiness of the Bride So I think one of the things that makes me so frustrated is that I was an asterisk christian, not very serious, when I got married. I bought the whole "I accept Jesus so I'm saved" idea, without ever really reading my bible. same with my wife.
I grew up with parents who are happily married, and believe VERY strongly in marriage---at least if kids are involved. I held the same views. My marriage was not good, and had some severe issues, which lesser men would have divorced for far sooner. I endured for 13 years, until my ex wife cheated. I wasn't perfect either. But, I did get help and things improved between us---all due to my own efforts, no thanks to my ex who never wanted to go to therapy. OR continue going to church.
Within 3 months of each other, both my spouse AND my sister's spouse cheated on each of us...
My parents exerted ENORMOUS effort to try to keep my sister's marriage together because she has two children. I on the other hand, had no children. So they let it go without even asking us to get therapy.
I did search for and find Matthew 19:9 at that time, and thought, admittedly carelessly: "welp, I'm good to go here."
Fast forward to now, over the past year I've built up my faith, having struggled with agnosticism/atheism my whole life yet peripherally being interested in Christianity---I never dismised it, and was always fond of it.
What I'm learning is, at least from folks taking the stance you do, is that this is one singular "gotcha."
Now one of my most dearly held ideals of my life, namely having my own family, will damn me to hell (supposedly).
Yet---not a single person taking your stance has plucked your eye out or chopped your hand off---how do you harmonize the two passages such that one is taken 100% literally and the other isn't?
And you believe you have a monopoly on the truth with your interpretation despite basically half the church feeling there may in fact be extenuating circumstances under which remarriage can be permitted? The orthodox church is not a liberal church by any stretch of the imagination. They don't ENCOURAGE remarriage.
I need to add another very personal detail which makes my case strange, and something the bible can hardly comment on.
We never had sex without a condom. Was the marriage truly consummated? Folks have trouble believing me when I tell them this fact, but with God as my witness, I was 100% disciplined with my ex wife in this area. (the reason being, she decided she never wanted kids, didn't want the pill and also never learned to drive, which I saw as a logistical prerequisite for having a family and sharing responsibilities) We never had actual flesh to flesh sex. Did we have a single flesh union? The bible could not comment on this because the technology simply was not there.
Oh and another thing. If fornication really just refers to premarital sex (edit: er, premarital sex with someone else) making divorce okay (edit: sorry not okay, just permissible), that'd make nearly every modern marriage divorceable without a second thought. My wife had one partner before me but I was alright with that because it was before I was with her. Oh but it's JUST the engagement period? Would have been nice if Jesus made that clear---but he didn't, so now as modern people it has become this incredibly obscure translation issue that is apparently a trap door to Hell.
I don't buy it.
It's like, now that I'm trying to be serious with my faith, I want a second chance at life BEFORE death as well as after death. I also want to be able to participate in bringing children up in the church, in our shattered culture. But half the church is telling me I can't participate because I screwed up. The other half emphasizes the grace message. I just don't believe that the fire and brimstone half necessarily has the whole truth. One thing I love about the orthodox christians is that they see scripture humbly, as a "mystery." they never claim to have the 100% most accurate interpretation. And it IS a mystery. It's not a list of rules to follow to get into heaven. Not exactly, anyway.
There is only one exception for divorce, fornication period. The guilty partner can never remarry. If he does he is in adulterous marriage.
Sure, except fornication is something which occurs before marriage. So that is a separation during the betrothal period, or due to discovered fornication on the wedding night.
In Mat 5:31-32 Jesus did not take you out of the Mosaic Law to put you back into it. Those who say that Jesus was only referring to unknown pre-marital sex of a betrothed/engaged partner when using the Greek word “porneia” (sexual immorality) is doing precisely this, putting you back under the Mosaic Law and not allowing for remarriage after adultery.
Mat 5:31 “It has been said” Jesus referring to those under the Mosaic Law. Divorce under Mosaic Law was given because men’s hearts were wicked and thus Moses gave women permission to remarry after they were divorce because they could not take care of themselves in society without a man’s support. However, in the O.T women could not remarry/go back to their previous husbands.
Mat 5:32 “But I tell you” Jesus referring not to the Mosaic Law, but to all men (not just the Jews), God’s original plan for marriage. Permission to divorce for sexual immorality. Once the covenant is broken by a sexual act in relation to your wife/husband or engaged partner, the other innocent spouse is free to either forgive and reconcile, break off the engagement, or divorce with the option of remarriage. Although prayer, repentance and forgiveness should be sought before a divorce. If you marry someone who is divorce unbiblically then you are committing adultery.
Think about it. If I knew I could divorce my wife for her sexual misbehavior but yet not be able to remarry someone else, then why would I consider divorce in the first place. Why would I want to become sexual inactive for the rest of my life because of my wife’s sexual misbehavior? Duh.
Mat 5:32 Jesus uses the word “whosoever” which means everyone, all, or of any kind, not limiting to. Thus, not speaking just to the Jews as some will try to play this legalistic card on you. Yes, Jesus was audibly speaking to the Jews but addressing all of mankind in his rebuke.
Mat 5:32 “fornication” (porneia in Greek) used may times in the N.T. Generic word covering different types of sexual immorality. Not a “oh I did not know you were not a virgin when I married you” only word.
The word ‘porneia’ there from which we get the term pornography, refers to either: 1) prostitution; 2) incest, or if it is used more generally 3) all sorts of sexual abberations including beastiality, incest, prostitution, pedophilia, and adultery. The word for adultery is ‘moixeia’ and it is found already in the same context in Mt. 5.27. ‘Porneia’ is a different word with a wide range of deviant sexual meanings, and it is never used to mean pre-marital misbehavior by itself.
Jesus is not referring to the Mosaic Law anymore (“it has been said”). He is speaking to the Jewish leaders in the present sense (“but I tell you”). Please don’t let others put you back under the Mosaic Law in their legalistic interpretation of Mat 5:31-32.
There is only one exception as Jesus stated: sexual immorality by the other spouse and the obvious other …… death.
Number one, no one has claimed that we are still under Moses. It is your reply that puts us there, since you defend divorce and remarriage, a practice Moses permitted. In fact, you do so according to one common interpretation of Jesus’ day - that one could divorce and take a new wife for adultery. So you are right along with a common understanding of the law of Moses right there. You are out of line with Jesus.
Some of what you say about Matthew 5 is certainly correct. Jesus is taking us to NEW territory, and out of Moses in our understanding of marriage, as well as in revealing that marriage is truly binding for life. This will fit in with the coming New Covenant, which is more closely aligned to God’s will and will reveal within it salvation in Christ and the Church, as well as the nature of the Trinity - both of which intertwine with marriage. As you say, He is also speaking of universal truths, not only of necessities of the Hebrew people.
You err primarily in claiming that the exception for fornication is for any kind of immorality. The exception clause here and in Matthew 19 refers to porneia, or fornication. A study of the word in the Bible and in exterior Greek literature shows the common meanings of the word refer to prostitution and to fornication as we understand it today - sex before marriage, or outside of marriage. Dan Jennings’ book “Except for Fornication” does a good job of documenting what the common usages of porneia are. A usage that is very broad, such as adultery or incest - is a very rare usage of the word. So if we take the common meaning of the word in context, it refers to fornication before marriage. This fits in better with the understanding that Jesus speaks of ending the betrothal period, or discovered pre-marital fornication on the wedding night. This fits with the context of the Gospel of Matthew, which is written to a Jewish audience which would have understood the exception for fornication more clearly. It does not appear in the other marriage teachings in Mark, Luke, Romans, or 1 Corinthians.
However, even if you thought that porneia can refer to an exception for adultery during marriage, and permit divorce - as many early Christian fathers did - you STILL do not have a permission to remarry. That’s because the NT teaches explicitly many times that to take a new spouse is adultery, and also that that the marriage bond, being for life, is ended only by death. The very same passage that teaches the exception for porneia - Matthew 19 - also teaches that he who marries her who is divorced commits adultery. Mark 10 teaches that the man who sends away his wife and marries another commits adultery, and so does a woman who does the same. Luke 16 teaches that the man who sends away, and the woman who is sent away, commit adultery if they remarry. Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 teach that to take another spouse while yours still lives is to commit adultery. 1 Corinthians 7 teaches that if you are separated from your spouse, you either remain single or reconcile. Those are your two paths. That means even an understanding of “fornication” that includes adultery doesn’t allow you to take multiple spouses. That option is out, because it is sin.
Interestingly, while you deny you remain in Moses, you are giving a common Mosaic teaching - that one can take a new spouse because of the adultery of your partner. This was a common teaching of the day from the school of Shammai, and nearly any Jew would be familiar with it. Jesus merely would have been repeating what they had heard before, If what you say is true. But then how would He be taking us into new territory then? And why would the apostles have reacted with shock in Matthew 19 and said - it is better not to marry? Why would Jesus have recommended celibacy for those who found this teaching impossible. That is a radical response in Matthew 19 if Jesus is simply reiterating a teaching most people were common with. But that’s NOT what Jesus was doing. He was taking us into new territory, for the New Covenant, in which our marriages are binding for life, representing Christ’s everlasting presence with His Church, and His Church’s endurance through the ages. One who divorces his spouse, and takes another, commits adultery. He already has a covenant. He already has a spouse. Therefore, he cannot take another.
I realize you claim to allow only ONE exception, while others allow two or many, but in almost every case this is what I’ve found: people who claim one or two exceptions really believe there are many more. Let me ask you this: IF remarriage is adultery for any reason besides adultery, do you believe that people who remarry because their partner walks out should be called to repentance, be under church discipline, be unable to receive communion, teach, or hold offices in the church? What about people who do so because their spouse was mean to them, was violent, was put in prison, or because they found themselves terribly unhappy. Should these people be treated by the church as bold sinners should - be kept from full participation, kept out of teaching or leading positions, formally corrected, and removed if they do not repent? What is your answer? You see, that’s what a Bible church would do with a Christian living a polygamous lifestyle, a sodomite lifestyle, or anything similar. Would you do that for those living in adultery, according to your interpretation?
Lastly, considering that YOU are interpreting the law, and seeking to tell people what it really means, you are being “legalistic.” You believe in the law, believe it should be rightfully understood, believe it should be lived by. Since that’s the case, you should not hurl that word as a pejorative towards those you disagree with. If used that way it is a petty, unoriginal, ministry cuss word. Plus you are a hypocrite because you do the same thing. What you really mean is that you disagree with someone. You don’t mean there is something wrong with obeying God’s commands, and of course the Bible never says there is. According to the Bible, caring about the law is good, and you show by your actions you believe it to be good as well. So drop the ministry cuss words.
I believe if you reevaluate this doctrine, with an open mind and in prayer, you will see that same as I do, and the same as the bulk of the early Church did. Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings are plain on this subject, however difficult they sound. Marriage is a bond which is by nature for life, and is ended by death. If you depart from your spouse and take another, you commit adultery. This is very plain language in Scripture, and if it weren’t such a difficult teaching, so many Christians would not be going to every possible means to deny it. God will have mercy on the Church, and will bless His people immensely, when His people depart from their sins, and cease practicing adultery shamelessly and continually before Him. The Church is rightly judged for its immorality, and must repent, return, and be faithful. God help us all.
@@holinessofthebride1935 Let me make it simple. Mat 19:9
Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.
Jesus gives permission to marry another in the case of sexual immorality. If you remove (except for sexual immorality) it reads this: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”
Without the exception clause we cannot remarry. Add the exception clause and you can clearly see there is permission for remarriage. (for adultery, incest, homosexuality and the like). However, the person you remarry must also be free of past unbiblical divorces.
So, your statement Jesus only given us permission to divorce and not remarry is not accurate.
Also, it does not matter how “rarely” a word is used as to its authenticity in scripture and has no bearing on its meaning in scripture. It also does not matter as to why the other gospels left out the exception clause. For there are numerous examples of the gospels not harmonizing with each other on same subject matters. Matthew was written to a Jewish Christian audience, not a Jewish audience. The Jews Matthew are writing to are Christians.
When Jesus uses the word “whosoever’ in Mat 5:32 it means everybody, not limited to a certain sect. This also applies to unbelievers. Unbelievers who remarry outside of the “sexual immorality clause” are also committing adultery. John the Baptist lost his head over speaking out against unbelieving Herod having his brother’s wife. Mark 6:18 “it is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife”. Lawful meaning the “Law of God”, not the secular law. Herod was committing adultery with his brother’s wife. The ten commandments were written for all, not just those who believe in God. Also, when Paul says, “stay in the situation in which you were called” (1 Cor 7:20) it means the condition in which we are when we are called by God. However, a couple living in adultery (marriage wise) prior to being called by God is still considered adultery after being called by God. Becoming a Christian does not nullify your current state of sin. However it does demand repentance. and the cutting off thereof.
So, all your attempts to put Matt 5:32 back in the Deuteronomy as far as (sex before marriage) just does not hold any weight. The only reference Jesus made back to the O.T concerning the “exception clause” was in regards to “you have heard it was said”(Mat 5:31) speaking on what Moses permitted at the time because of hard hearts. Jesus clearly sets everyone straight on the matter of divorce and remarriage in our time “but I tell you”.
Mat 5:32.
Let me make it simple for you as well, and point out again basic things you are missing:
The Bible does not contradict itself. It is ALL the Word of God and it is all truth. Jesus and Paul both teach that to take another spouse is adultery, and in situations with no named exceptions. Jesus teaches that it is adultery both for the man, and for the wife, to send away the other and remarry. (Mark 10) He teaches that both the one who sends away and who is sent away commit adultery if they remarry. (Luke 16) Nothing in Matthew 5 overrules that.
We commonly accept the ordinary meaning of a word, unless there is a reason to use a very rare usage of that word. YOU are demanding we insert a very rare usage of fornication - meaning any kind of sexual immorality -- into Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 when there is no reason to do so, and it would force contradiction upon the text. The ordinary meaning suffices - that is fornication before marriage. It harmonizes with the individual text of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, and it agrees with the other marriage passages. It would have made good sense to the Jewish audience, be they believer or unbeliever. Claiming that you can divorce and remarry for adultery after marriage has begun, however, is in contradiction to multiple passages.
You are doing your best to hyper focus on Matthew 5, so you don’t have to look at the abundant evidence elsewhere that supports that you may not take a new spouse. Matthew 19 itself supports this, both in teaching that he who marries the divorced woman commits adultery, and also by the ending, which makes no sense if Jesus is only repeating a common interpretation of His day. Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 both teach that the marriage bond is until death, and only after death can you remarry.
I have no problem with the fact the teachings on marriage apply to all. I agree. You are the one who is interpreting through Deuteronomy, since you still believe a marriage can be broken, and a new one made with a new spouse, because adultery has occurred.
So it is your belief that Christians who have remarried beyond your one alleged excuse - adultery - are to be called to repentance, and that church discipline applies to them? Is that what I am to understand from your comments on the “remain as you are” passage?
How does the ending of Matthew 19 fit into Jesus merely repeating one of the common teachings of His day? If He was simply giving Shammai’s interpretation, why the shocked response by His disciples, saying it would be better not to marry? Why then recommend celibacy for those who cannot keep this hard teaching? That’s an awfully big deal to make over one of the well known 1st century teachings?
No matter how you splice it, you’re going to find the same thing: looking for an excuse for divorce and remarriage demands one force Scripture into contradiction. The teachings on this subject are lengthy enough, and many enough, that we know remarriage is not an option since it is sin. Try as hard as you like you cannot avoid that. The Church needs a radical change of living, that includes repentance from this terrible sin, and a true commitment to the covenant of marriage, and the God who made it from the beginning. We are, excluding repentance, not remarkably unlike the world.
@@holinessofthebride1935 The Greek word "porneia" meaning illicit sexual intercourse including incest and adultery (sexual immorality) is a generic word when it comes to many types of sexual immorality, including incest, beastality, adultery, pedophilla, homosexuality, and the like. It does not limit itself to the unmarried or betrothed, as some would argue that it does. Just because the word adultery has its own Greek translation, does not mean that adultery is not included in "porneia" meaning. That would be like saying the word lust has its own Greek translation but can't fall under the meaning of sin. Here's why.
In 1 Thessalonians Paul writes a letter to the church. In 1 Thess 4:3 it is God's will that you should be sanctified, that you should avoid sexual immorality (porneia) that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable. Is Paul just speaking to those who are unmarried because he used the Greek word "porneia"? Of course not. However according to your false doctrine Paul is only speaking to the unmarried.
In Eph 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality (porneia), or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. Once again Is Paul just speaking to those who are unmarried because he used the Greek word "porneia"? Of course not. However according to your false doctrine Paul is only speaking to the unmarried.
In 1 Cor 5:1 a man has his father's wife (adultery/incest). However, it is also called sexual immorality "porneia". Once again “porneia” is not limited to the unmarried or betrothed as understood in the Jewish culture as you argue that it does.
So, to claim that when Jesus used the Greek word "porneia" (sexual immorality) in Mat:19 and that it only pertained to the unmarried or betrothed is not in line with the whole council of God's word. And in Matt 5:31 Jesus uses the word "whosoever" (meaning all, or of any kind), not just limiting to the Jews in attendance as some have suggested.
So yes there is an exception clause in Matt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication “porneia”, (illicit sexual intercourse including incest and adultery) causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. If a spouse has committed sexual immorality (breaking the marriage bond) the other innocent spouse has available to them the option of divorce and remarriage, however the spouse making the claims must be free of past sexual immorality themselves.
Also, in Matthew 5:31 “the Sermon on the mount” Jesus is speaking to his disciples and crowd, (a mix breed of people) again he uses the Greek word “porneia” in dealing with sexual immorality. In this Sermon on the Mount is Jesus only speaking to the Jews? No, he is speaking to all in attendance not just the Jews.
The premarital doctrine that your pushing when it come to sexual immorality just does not fit with the rest of scripture and the full council of God’s Word.
No, the most common usages of porneia refer to fornication or prostitution. To try and use it to refer to adultery or a hammered flat kind of immorality would be a rare usage. It is also used in distinction to the word for adultery multiple times in the New Testament alone, such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 6:4. And Galatians 5:19.
You want it badly to refer to many kinds of immoral sexual acts, but a married person engaging in them commits adultery as well, so they can be fairly called that in context. A married man who sleeps with another man is also an adulterer.
Anyone who would like to see an overview of the word’s uses in the NT, the Septuagint, or external Greek literature should have a look at Dan Jennings’ book, which is available here:
www.danielrjennings.org/except_for_fornication_version_1.pdf
You are trying to stick a rare usage of the word where the ordinary one suffices. That’s a bad reading. It also places the Bible in contradiction to itself, which the ordinary reading does not. You should see a major problem with that.
You bring up several passages which do not prove your point as to its meaning. The 1 Corinthians 5 passage can be understood as fornication as well, since this is likely not a blood family member. Ephesians 5:3 does not prove your point at all either, since the audience includes the unmarried, so Paul is free to mention fornication. You have the same problem using 1 Thessalonians 4:3. He can speak of fornication in a mixed audience if he desires. What rules says he cannot?
You are reading what you desire into it. Read Dan’s overview of the Greek usages in the NT, Septuagint, and external Greek literature. It will do you much better than a small handful of NT passages, some of which are not clear.
Jesus is speaking to a largely Jewish audience when He gives His teaching. It is possible it is mixed, but His primary audience during His earthly ministry are Jews. It is after the resurrection that the Church goes heavily to the Gentiles. The Gospel writer Matthew is also writing toward a Jewish audience, as nearly all scholars agree, which goes a long way to explain why we see it in Matthew and nowhere else. You ignore that fact as well. However, the teaching certainly applies to Gentiles as well, but would not have been as easily recognizable. If they have the same custom, then it easily applies to them. Therefore, there is no problem with the word “whosoever” being used. You are inventing a problem where there is none.
I do not “push” the premarital doctrine, but I present it along with the historical approach. I believe either one harmonizes with the other NT marriage passages. Claiming that one can live in adultery does not harmonize with them, but is a mere justification for sin.
In Matthew 5 and in Matthew 19 Jesus teaches that marriage is joined by God and that man MAY NOT break it. He furthermore teaches that he who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (vs. 9) The exception present is for fornication, but even IF you desire to read it as adultery, you are not left with a permission to take a new spouse, since your covenant lasts for life. This is clear throughout the NT teaching passages on marriage, which you ignore.
“A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
“For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:39
So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.”
Romans 7:2-3
So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
“And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Mark 10:11-12
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Luke 16:18
Please respond to my request for an explanation of the ending of Matthew 19: If Jesus is only reiterating one of the most common rabbinic teachings of His day - that one can divorce AND remarry for adultery - then they the shocked response by the disciples, who say it is better not to marry if this is true? Why the need to recommend celibacy? Jesus is obviously taking us into new territory. According to you, He’s just giving a normal Jewish teaching, which could have been heard in the covenant of Moses as well. That is nonsense.
I also previously asked for this confirmation, due to your ambiguous earlier reply:
Do you accept that a person remarried for reasons BEYOND your one alleged excuse, should be called to repentance by ministers in the church? Should church discipline be applied to them? Should they be kicked out if they continue in sin? This is what the average Bible church would do with someone living in a sodomite marriage. Do you apply it to remarriage adultery, at least as you define it? Yes or no?
Do not reply without answering the two last points.
too early to judge please learn more biblical contextual interpretation because your critiques are not based on the logic and analytics coherence in the whole text that John Macarthur preached.
The response above is based primarily on each facet of MacArthur's interpretation of Matthew 5 in his commentary.
I suggest that MacArthur desperately needs to return to study the context. Like many who decide to go liberal on a specific teaching, he will latch onto one phrase here or there, and try to claim this totally controls the context, to the point of ignoring everything the text following it says.
The context of these passages strongly supports that marriage is for life, and is breakable only by death. If you refer to his common context argument in Matthew 19, I respond to that in the video above. It is on pages 10-12 at the essay here: www.holinessofthebride.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/John-MacArthur-Response-Letter-Marriage.pdf
I also respond to it in my newer essay (which I’ve not yet put on video) on pages 17-18: www.holinessofthebride.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/More-Answers-to-Objections-to-the-Permanence-of-Marriage-FINAL.pdf
R .c . Sproul , John Mac Arther talks about remaarriage again in three biblical cases studies in all bible , please stop discuss without full information about all bible
This essay is not meant to respond to every last false teaching MacArthur has given on marriage. Just listen to the beginning to see its purpose. The essay focuses on Matthew 5 from his commentary, while also referencing Matthew 19 heavily. If you go through the rest of my articles and videos you will see I deal with all the other passages.
Why don’t YOU start by remembering that the words from Jesus’ own was that not a stroke of the pen would pass from the law until it was finished. LOL. YOU don’t have extra authority to teach contrary to what Jesus Himself said. He did not change the law. The Pharisees abused the law. They plainly asked Jesus if a man could divorce his wife for ANY reason. The law did not permit divorce for just ANY reason. Jesus didn’t change a jot of the law. He plainly told us that.
Brook, I have heard similar ideas before from others
confused about the covenants. I’d like to give you a fairly thorough answer
here. I have authority to teach as long as I am in harmony with the Word of
God, which I am regarding the change between covenants, as well as the lifelong
nature of marriage. These are taught in the Holy Bible, and were believed from
the earliest era of the Church.
You are starting with a wrong presumption and you are coming
to a bad conclusion based on it. The New Covenant is NOT LIKE the Old. Jeremiah
in his prophecy of the New Covenant teaches this, and Jesus Himself plainly
transcends certain teachings, both regarding marriage and vows. In Matthew 19
alone, the words of Jesus contrast His teaching with Moses, and give a teaching
which is never found in the Torah. Moreover, He roots that teaching in Genesis,
speaking of the Mosaic statute as being given only because of the hardness of
Israel’s heart. His answer is not reliant on the phrase “for any reason” as he
speaks broadly of the nature of marriage, declares it unbreakable by man, and
calls remarriage adultery. Moreover, Jesus gives the exact same answer in Mark
10, in which the question is not about divorcing “for any reason.” The agreeing
passages in Luke 16, 1 Corinthians 7, and Romans 7, also are not responding to
divorcing for “any reason” either, so you cannot limit Jesus’ statement for all
those reasons.
Also, Jesus Himself was plainly bringing in a new order. He
spoke of the old people being cast away, and a new people coming in for the
kingdom. He spoke of a whole new order both with fasting, and with new
wineskins and new wine. Also, you need to read the abundant teachings in the Epistles,
AFTER the New Covenant has come in at the cross and resurrection. They teach
that many aspects of Mosaic law are not mandates in the New Covenant. They
speak of days and foods as being a matter of personal conscience. They say that
the Mosaic Covenant is “passing away” and even speak of a “change in the law,”
which you flat out deny here. They teach that some laws were types and shadows,
and that they are of “no value” in sanctification. The law was give “for a time”
until Messiah. Now we continue with the universal aspects of the law, but the
temporal and the nation aspects, we are not mandated to do.
It is interesting that those who deny that the New Covenant
is different can only repeat the same single teaching about a “jot or tittle”
not being changed, while ignoring the enormous wave of evidence through the
whole New Testament that things are different from Moses. The Word of God does
not contradict itself. This teaching you bring up is understood in harmony with
the rest for two main reasons. Number one, Jesus gave it before the New
Covenant had come in, and was living under Temple Judaism. The prophecies were
not yet fulfilled. Secondly, we recognize that the universal aspects of the law
are still with the Christian, as the Mosaic law contained certain aspects
unique to national Israel, and certain which were temporal. So the Gentile does
not need to live uniquely as a Jew, and the temporal aspects pass away. Yet the
Christian still has the eternal law of God. This is perhaps best illustrated in
Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19, as He roots the truth in Genesis and creation,
and limits the teaching of Moses to a condition, that of Israel’s hard heart.
He takes the universal OVER the temporal.
Therefore, the New Testament itself, many times over, refutes
your claim that there is no change in the law. There certainly has been with marriage,
if you take Jesus’ words at face value.
Moses gave his teaching for a purpose to Israel. Jesus’ teaching
is different. In fact, the very ending of Matthew 19 confirms what most
Christians have believed since early Christianity - that Jesus gives a very
hard teaching. The disciples say it would be better not to marry, and Jesus
says that some must become eunuchs for the kingdom. This makes zero sense if
all He had taught was the same as under Moses. If He had only given the common
interpretation of His day, that one can divorce and remarry for adultery, that would
have been a NORMAL thing to hear. But Jesus gave a very different teaching, one
that teaches marriage is unbreakable, and the disciples immediately recognized
how hard it was compared to Moses.
You need to study these passages again, as well as study the
whole topic of the law and the covenant in the New Testament. Take your time.
@@holinessofthebride1935 Grace to you HOTB
I'm not sure Brooke believes Christians are under the Old Testament. I think she is only pointing out the fact that when Jesus spoke to the issue of divorce and remarriage He was speaking to those who were. The New Testament didn’t begin until Pentecost. The Old Testament existed until then. It’s a matter of chronology and those who ignore the point in time for Jesus’ teaching (as well as to whom He was speaking) often conclude Jesus change the law of Moses. I think Brooke is pointing out the fact that Jesus Himself stated that He didn't come to do that. Thus Jesus didn’t make any changes in the law, He merely explained to His covenant people WHY and HOW they were committing adultery. This way of committing adultery had escaped their understanding (as it has for most today). Thus most Christians today create their own theories to explain Jesus’ teaching.
EVERYTHING Jesus said to Israel was relevant to them historically. Miss the retrospective relevancy of Jesus’ teaching to Israel and you’re off pushing some “abrogation” theory. This is very common for those who think Jesus did away with divorce. “Abrogation theories” creates an argument in the mind that was NEVER set forth by Jesus. Thus “abrogation” theorist spend a lot of time trying to get others to believe that Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage changed divorce and remarriage reality or possibility. This is where and why I disagree with them (or you).
I can believe EVERYTHING Jesus said within the context He said it and NOT believe the false suppositions of “abrogation”. In other words they are entirely unnecessary for a proper understanding of Jesus teaching and worse they create deception. By interjecting “abrogation” into Jesus’ teaching they miss the whole point Jesus made to Israel and instead create a whole new argument NOT even in the bible. “Abrogation” theorist believe Christians are supposed to believe Jesus changed divorce and remarriage reality. Again this is where and why I disagree with them (or you).
There is NO Old and New Testament difference in the outcome of divorce and remarriage. In other words when divorce and remarriage occur they are real and effective events in both Testaments, understand? No one has to or should believe Jesus changed the reality of divorce. To do so alters and subverts the whole course for this issue. What would happen to your view if you understood Jesus and Moses congruous?
I can tell you this, it would expose your suppositions as false and thus limit your view to the actual history of the bible. Blessings
Hello Neal, Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your
thoughtfulness about this subject, both the doctrine of marriage and the change
of the covenants. Sure, I agree, Brooke did not specify her exact position, but
she used some common language and arguments of those who think we need to
follow Moses, so I addressed the subject broadly.
Jesus was preparing
the way for the kingdom, quite clearly, even before His crucifixion and resurrection,
and before Pentecost. That is why we see Him giving kingdom teachings,
including those which are clearly different from Moses, such as with marriage.
True, some call that an “interpretation” of the law, but IF it’s an
interpretation, it’s not just of Moses, but of the whole of Scripture, and
functionally speaking changes Moses.
Jesus Himself contrasts His words with Moses, and then teaches
something which is distinct from what had been taught. There is really no
getting around that. Jesus did not explain “why and how” they were committing adultery,
and Moses had never taught that they were. He reveals newly to them God’s
intention at creation, and shows that marriage cannot be broken. If it cannot
be broken, then if we take another spouse it is adultery. The disciples’ shock
at the end of this teaching shows this is something new, and not a mere
interpretation, as Shammai and Hillel had offered.
I have never heard of
“abrogation” theorists, but I have an idea what you mean. Jesus is bringing in
something new brother, and this already starts during His ministry, and grows
after His resurrection. There will be change. If you simply let Jesus’ words
speak for themselves, and respect the local context as well, you will see that
marriage is binding in its nature, and we may not take other spouses. That is
also true of Paul’s words which are in harmony with the Lord. One does not need
“theory” to do that. It is plain in the teachings themselves.
The New Covenant is different from the Old, something
prophesied as early as Jeremiah, and stated explicitly in the New Testament. Jesus teaches Moses on marriage was an accomodation and did not reflect God's will from the beginning. The NT
came in in phases, from Jesus’ kingdom teachings, to the post-resurrection
Epistles, to finally the death of Temple Judaism in 70 AD. There may be a doctrinal
growth from the Gospels to the Epistles, but it is a harmonious growth, as the
New Covenant comes in phase by phase.
You suggest there are not differences between the Old and
New Testament teachings on divorce and remarriage, but why would you say this in
light of the many differences in other areas? It is not some odd suggestion
that the teachings would be different, but rather is plain in the teachings
themselves and is in harmony with the fact we have changed covenants. Now there
IS continuation in that God has always hated divorce, and that He taught that
man and wife become one flesh at creation, making Moses basically an accommodation
to Israel’s sinfulness. That basic truth is present in both. But the explicit teachings
and how they function in our lives clearly differ. The only way to call that a differing
“interpretation” of the law is to recognize Jesus is interpreting ALL of
Scripture, and not just the Law of Moses. Then the idea of interpretation fits.
On other levels, it is a change.
Do you believe that divorce and remarriage is permitted today
as under Moses, or do you think it never was permitted under Moses? I think if
you examine Scripture, you will find that neither position holds true. Look at
the words of Jesus and Paul, and there is little doubt about that.
Peace be with you.
Holiness of the Bride
I understand the difference in covenants. One, being the covenant given to the Israelites and of which Jesus completely and perfectly obeyed himself. Which is the law he is speaking of in the gospels. The other of grace, which comes after the death, burial and resurrection. Yes I am reformed. No I do not follow a Torah religion.
Holiness of the Bride
The law of Moses was still in effect when Jesus spoke. He said “think not that I have come to destroy the law”. He spoke directly to issues and abuses of the law. Grace is after his resurrection. That is the new covenant.
Just like the scripture says “in the last days men will be forbidden to Marry”
Well here we go !!!
Oh I see. So men who forbid a man from marrying another man are signaling the last days too?
and when I quote the truth of scriptures.. they will respond with sarcasm in an attempt to bate me into a pathetic argument. 🤣🤣
It's called turning your argument around, because your argument completely falls apart, and you are seen for the hypocrite you are. YOU forbid others to marry as well.
You had a poor argument to begin with.
it is forbidding to marry, not remarry....
Something is not right!!! I was married and my ex wife committed adultery got pregnant and before the divorce was final had a second kid. I'm remarried and my first spouse is still alive my second wife got saved in 2011 prayed for a husband and told me that what she prayed for im it. I'm the man that fit what she asked for. We both were talking about having kids and she said she wanted twins then my wife aunt told us the Lord said we would have twins and my wife did not tell her about the conversation we had. Shortly after that a member of the church who lives out of town came to preach one Sunday and after his sermon told us that he thought to himself we would have a child then said the Lord spoke to him and said... no that we will have twins and he has no knowledge of what my wife aunt said or me and my wife conversation.
You are correct that something is "not right." What is not right is the common Christian excuses for making difficult marriage situations go away. There are no excuses for sending your wife away and taking another. According to the New Testament taking another spouse is adultery. That's in the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament also promises that no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God.
The Bible teaches that one thing ends a marriage -- death. When your partner has died, you are free to marry another, only in the Lord. That is the plain teaching of Scripture. Therefore, I have to warn you that you need to repent of your current lifestyle, since it is sin before the Lord. If your wife still lives, God's will is that you either remain single or reconcile with your wife. That is the word of the Lord.
I'm sorry if you have not heard that before, but I am only presenting the teaching of the Bible, one that reflects God's intention for marriage from the beginning of creation. Did you watch the video? Please do and digest each of its points. It explains the relevant Scripture passages, and also answers various objection.
Christians need a serious change of lifestyle, and must repent of their own sins. Marriage is a lifelong covenant, and man may not separate it. May God guide you with grace.
By the way, since you profess the Lord, the suggestive name you use on CZcams is very inappropriate.
I wonder why you maintain that the sermon on the mount was a correction on the Mosaic law and not the rabbinic interpretations? That an Anabaptist position.
I don't know if "correction" is the best word, but some teachings are clearly transcending what came in the Mosaic Law. I suppose one could call it an "interpretation" in the broadest possible sense," but if so, it is one that clearly brings in changes.
This is most clear in divorce and remarriage, as well as with vows. The New Covenant was in the process of being brought in, and as a covenant, it is not the same as the old. Some things indeed change, just as they did with sacrifices and certain ritual law.
In the case of marriage, Yeshua brought it back to God's original purpose at creation, which was different from what was in Moses. Some things in Moses were temporal, and some things were a concession to wicked-minded people.
I hope that provides a clear answer.
@@holinessofthebride1935 Are you aware that Moses had 2 wives? A Cushite (Numbers 12) and Zipporah the Midianite. Josephus , perhaps from some oral history, says the Cushite wife he had while still an Egyptian "prince" and she returned to him later in life after he had married again. Question. Was Moses an adulterer? And if Jesus was teaching that why wasn't he accused of it by his enemies? Im poking you to think
You did not listen to my answer at all, nor have you address the points I made. God accommodated to remarriage in the law of Moses due to Israel's hardness of heart. He also permitted polygamy for some time. This is hardly a secret. We are dealing with the NEW Covenant, which obviously has differences with the Old, as is present in Jesus' words, as well as all over the Epistles. Jesus restored us to God's original intention with marriage. He says so.
a speech read, is really boring to listen to...
@Hildafunk's World when people insult, there's truth that they can't deal with of course.
There's truth in this reading thou
The issue of adultery is very gender-specific. Adultery is sexual relations with another man's WIFE. It is the woman who is commanded to remain single or be reconciled. It is the woman who is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
While the man is commanded not to divorce his wife, nowhere does it state that a married/ divorced man cannot marry a never-married lady. The only repercussion for a married man who marries a never-married lady is that he cannot be in a leadership position in the church.
If a WOMAN divorces and leaves, a man can remarry. There is no biblical law stating he should remain single or reconciled. And if he lives in a country where he can marry more wives, he need not "remarry", he can just marry more. Even Jesus uses 10 virgins and 1 bridegroom to explain his relationship with the church. Jesus would never use something he considers a sin/ an abomination to depict his relationship with the church.
If a MAN divorces and leaves, he cannot remarry, and the woman cannot remarry, but she remains single or be reconciled.
God himself stated that he gave David Saul's WIVES (because Saul was dead) 1st Chron 12:7, when David took another man's wife (while the man was alive) all hell was let loose in heaven.
The bible warns that men (married and single) should be careful about being one-flesh with prostitutes 1st Corinth 6:16, meaning that a man can be one flesh with multiple never-married women, but a married woman cannot be one flesh with another man.
In Matt5:28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh, on a WOMAN to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart. In original Greek translations, the word "WOMAN" is actually "WIFE".
So the rule about remaining unmarried or reconciled is for the female gender only.
Note: I am female. I do not like the scripture's stand on gender-specific remarriage rules but we are called to be holy and not happy.
Note: I am open to considering other views backed up with scripture. If anyone has scripture showing that a man whose wife leaves/divorces should remain single or reconcile, I would be extremely happy to have that.
No. That is completely false. The issue of adultery is not gender specific in the New Testament. I respond thoroughly to this objection in this video. It is objection number 4:
czcams.com/video/_89pMIoBQbw/video.html
Here is the text of the reply:
Only the Woman is Bound for Life:
An objection you will hear only occasionally is the claim that the New Testament marriage teachings are limited by gender. They will very foolishly claim we need to, “Follow the Pronouns” to understand marriage. Since certain teachings do indeed mention a woman and not a man being divorced, they conclude that the man may remarry, at least in some circumstances. While the Follow-the-Pronouns objection comes in some variants, one of the commoner ones it to say that a man who has been divorced by his wife is not bound to her, and can remarry, since the Bible does not explicitly mention this one situation. Others may claim more broadly that somehow women are bound in general, and men are not. Either way, one of the reasons you hear this objection infrequently is because it is one of the worst, and many would be embarrassed to make it. Since I have dealt with these people before, and at length, I want to include a response.
There is not a limitation by sex on what the New Testament teaches on marriage. Both man and wife are bound for life, and neither man nor wife may remarry. The gender objection rests heavily on the fact that the NT doesn’t mention every possible divorce and remarriage situation, so there must be certain situations that fall outside of its coverage. Yet the NT does not need to mention every possible situation, since the truths it gives make clear that the teaching is broad, is for everyone, and covers both sexes. The reason why some of the teachings specifically mention a man sending away a wife, or a wife being bound for life, is because men divorcing wives was the much more common situation. Few women in that day initiated divorce, and it would have been much harder for them to get by without their husbands. The Bible is speaking to the normal situation of the day, although at times it DOES speak to both genders.
Marriage being fully binding for both sexes makes sense of the covenantal nature of marriage. A covenant in general is binding on both parties. It also makes sense of why remarriage is called adultery; this term applies since if one of the partners takes another partner, they commit adultery because they are already married to someone else. There is consistent logic there. It is the lifelong covenant that does not allow remarriage. In contrast, if one assumes a man can take a new partner (at least in some situations) and a woman cannot, it becomes arbitrary to call the act of remarriage adultery. If there is not really a binding covenant, then a woman remarrying is certainly not adultery either. Neither one is adultery. Yet if there is a covenant, it is adultery for both partners. That means the covenantal sense behind marriage teaching would get destroyed, where a unique situation for the divorced man demands that special rules now apply to covenants. Suddenly they only function one way. Where does that come from, if not wishful thinking? I must add though, that’s no stranger logic than the argument that the “innocent party” in adultery can remarry, but the other sins if they do. Both claims destroy any consistent covenantal logic behind New Testament marriage teachings.
We can know that we don’t need to “follow the pronouns” first because Jesus speaks directly to the nature of marriage BEFORE He mentions the woman being divorced in Matthew 19. He also speaks to the nature of marriage in Mark 10. He establishes that God’s will at creation is different from the teaching in Moses, and that what God has joined together in marriage, man may not separate. These are truths which transcend gender, or the mention of the wife in the teaching He subsequently gives in Matthew 19. He mentions this general truth before He mentions the wife.
We can also see that various teachings in the New Testament mention both sexes. In Mark 10, Jesus says that both man and wife commit adultery if they divorce their spouse and marry another. 1 Corinthians 7 specifically teaches both man and wife not to depart from their spouse. Luke 16:18 speaks of both the man sending away and the woman being sent away committing adultery if they remarry. If all of these mention BOTH sexes why should we assume there is a limitation by sex in the NT marriage teachings? It makes little sense.
One final test would be that in one passage we see that both genders are mentioned, and in another passage teaching the same principle, only one is mentioned. That proves we cannot assume that one gender is intended in the doctrine and not the other. For example, if Mark 10 speaks of both man and wife committing adultery if they remarry (vs. 11-12), and Romans 7 speaks only of the woman committing adultery (vs. 2-3), we can understand that the mention of only the wife at times does not limit it to only the wife. Both spouses are mentioned elsewhere. The same is true when we see 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 -- which teaches that neither man or wife may depart from their spouse - and also see that only the wife is said to be bound in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The Holy Spirit does not limit us to gender when He at times only mentions one sex in these teachings. He is speaking to what was the normal, by far most common situation of the day.
That means that while it’s true not every single divorce situation is mentioned in Scripture, we confidently know that men may not remarry just as women may not remarry. We can know this through the broad teaching on the nature of marriage that Jesus gives, prior to mentioning one gender. We can know it from the fact that both man and wife are mentioned in multiple situations. We can know if from the fact that passages teaching the same doctrine at times use one sex, and at times both. Moreover, claiming the lifelong marriage bond only applies one way violates any consistent understandings of covenants. The argument by gender is a poor attempt to justify remarriage, even if only in limited situations, and seems to be wishful thinking on the part of the guys out there. Some of you reading this likely have not heard that argument before, but I want you to be aware of it, and benefit by knowing why it is so poor. We don’t just follow the pronouns when we read the Bible. We follow all the other words too.
The repentance people fail to realize that they cannot remember every sin they committed and therefore cant repent of all of them. We are saved and kept by God's grace through the finished work of Jesus Christ. You wanna serve the taskmaster of the Law, so be it, but remember, you better keep all of it perfectly. Christ died sinless to atone for our sins. He paid the full payment in all regards. We are perfected and justified in him. We don't live righteously because we are afraid....we live empowered by the grace of God to do right....and don't forget that Jesus also said that if you even look upon a woman lustfully you have committed adultery....we are all adulterers....praise God for the blood of Jesus!!
So this is the best you can do “red pill”? Because people sin in their minds it is acceptable to live in sin, and commit the most vile, immoral sins of the body? That is atrocious logic and biblical interpretation. Just because people sin in their minds does NOT mean you can live in adultery continuously, without repentance. The adulterer needs to repent, or face hell, according to the Holy Scriptures.
Speaking of sins of the mind, both Jesus and apostle John say that hatred in the heart is akin to MURDER! (1 John 3:15, Matthew 5:21-22) Does that mean that Jack the Ripper can profess to be a Christian and just continue to murder women? Can HE say - as you do! - my sin’s alright since everyone is sinning in their head anyway? That is preposterous! Do you really believe what you are saying in your heart of hearts?
The fact that sin of the mind is possible does not mean you can sin continually in the body without repentance. In fact, it is sin in the mind that LEADS to sin in the body. It is the inner self from which outer sins flow. (Matthew 15:18-20)
Moreover, the NT Scriptures point out sins of the BODY as being especially dangerous, when they teach:
FLEE sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
1 Corinthians 6:18-19
And it is sins of the body which are shown to be reason to kick the believer out of the congregation, because of their seriousness and their threat to the entire group:
deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened.
1 Corinthians 5:5-7
You have no business trying to justify adultery, and the God who sent His Son to die on the cross rebukes you for it.
[continued below]
Speaking of the sin of adultery specifically, the Bible teaches that the adulterers WILL NOT INHERIT the kingdom of God. The very same book many try to misuse to claim the Christian may live in sin - the book of Galatians - teaches THIS:
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things WILL NOT INHERIT the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6 teaches the same thing regarding adultery and other sins:
Do you not know that the unrighteous WILL NOT INHERIT the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Not only does this passage teach that adulterers are bound for hell, but it reminds us that all these sins are in our PAST. They were part of our unregenerate life. Now that we are alive in the Spirit, and made a new creature, we no longer live that way. We live for righteousness. We leave sin behind.
The fact that we are saved by grace through faith does not mean we can just keep on sinning. That is as anti-biblical and anti-Christian as you get. You cannot rip a little slice out of the New Testament and ignore the rest. In fact, the very new birth that we have, and the very grace that Galatians speaks of, ensures that we desire to live for righteousness, and depart from sin. (Romans 6)
Salvation by grace through faith exists in total harmony with a regenerate nature that hates sin and leaves it. The person who professes Christ, but lives in sin, is warned over and over again in the New testament of suffering and hell. Jesus himself warns the lawless “Christian” that they are not actually His children as they profess to be:
“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Matthew 7:22-23
Christ also teaches separation from sin, and warns of hell for those who do not separate themselves:
“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched-
“where
‘Their worm does not die,
And the fire is not quenched.’
Mark 9:43-44
Christ furthermore warns the churches of Revelation of punishment for their sin, and commands them to repent:
“And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.
“Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.
“I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.
Revelation 2:21-23
Virtually the entire New Testament teaches obedience and repentance. The Gospels teach it, Acts teaches it, the Epistles teach it, and Revelation teaches it. I have cited only a few passages, but there are many more. Do not think that a man may live in adultery, and then claim freedom to do it because he is a Christian. That is satanic. The Bible refutes that idea over and over, and specifically warns adulterers of hell.
Remarriage is adultery, and those who live in it need to repent, remaining single, or if possible reconciling with their actual spouse. Being saved by grace does not mean you can live in sin, and if you sincerely desire to live in sin continually, it is nothing more than a sign you do not trust in Jesus AT ALL. You are not a believing one.
It is a hard walk, but Christ walks it with us. He bears the burden with us making it possible. He gives us the power and the grace to leave sin in the past. Ask for the grace and the Lord will give it to you, for your loving Father will give His children what they ask for. You are free from sin and death now, and free to live for righteousness. That is the power of Messiah in you. No born again child of God lives in adultery.
@@holinessofthebride1935 go ahead and continue with your works salvation...trying to mix grace and works. Yours is a life of dos and donts and thats even beyond adultery. You twist the words of tbe Bible and insult the finished work of Calvary. You think you are going to inherit heaven by what you do. You lead others astray. Satan waa a master at quoting Scripture as well, but he was a liar in the process...
Red Pill, You are truly lost and confused and do not know the Christian faith. You need to return to the Bible on your knees. I have cited the words of God for you on this subject - they teach obedience to God, repentance from sin, and they warn believers of suffering and hell for their sin. They teach we are made a new creature that lives now for righteousness, and leaves sin behind in the past. That is the Word of the Lord.
I do not trust in my deeds, as you falsely accuse me of. When did I say that? I trust in the finished work of Christ. And what did that finish work accomplish? It paid for my sins, and it made me a new creation. The Christian has a new heart in him and has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Because of the cross and resurrection to life, the Christian now lives for righteousness, and is being conformed to the perfect image of Christ. What you do is you stop at the payment for sin, and forget the resurrection and the Holy Spirit in us.
Consider it indicative of your falsehood that Galatians - the very same book many misuse to encourage lawless Christians -- itself warns sinners of HELL. As I cited above, Galatians teaches that adulterers and other sinners WILL NOT INHERIT the kingdom of God. There is your salvation by grace for you, Red Pill. It comes with warnings for those such as you.
No one will know God’s word by slicing out the few passages that appeal to them and burning the rest. We receive the WHOLE counsel of God’s Word, not merely the most pleasant parts. Scripture completely refutes your claim that the Christian can live in sin. I have shown you that from many passages, and you just ignore those Scriptures. Why? Are you living in sin yourself? Do you have close loved ones living in sin?
If it sounds too good to be true, Red Pill, it probably is. The “carnal Christian” is a lie. And remember: Jack the Ripper could keep on killing if he followed a philosophy such as yours. It is truly satanic. Christ himself answers your claim that a Christian can sin continuously - Christ teaches that the sinning person does not know Him at all. He is a worker of lawlessness, and NOT a Christian. The Christian is born new, and lives to glorify God.
Repent of your wicked false teaching, and return to learning from the Holy Scriptures. Christ rebukes you.
@@redpillrevolution6066 We are not "all adulterers" dude! Speak for yourself!! And yeah, we are to RESPOND to the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus said "do the things that show that you have repented from your sins"... He didnt say that grace and forgiveness was a reason to continue in it...
John Macarthur is a false teacher. He sound well learned and expounds much of scriptures, but he's not called by God. No untruth or falsehood is of God. The Spirit of God is the spirit of truth who guides Christ's people into all truth. But this man and his boys teach that remarriage is allowed even when the spouse is alive.
Mat God judge these deceivers sooner
Thank you for your comment. MacArthur is very compromised by accepting divorce and remarriage, as are many other preachers. He can be extremely on target when it comes to other doctrines though.
The pressure to accept remarriage is very strong, and I believe that's the main reason so many pastors go that way, while still remaining biblical in other arenas. It is giving the people what they want, which tragically helps destroy them.
The Church needs to confront this sin, and repent, or it will never be the light it is meant to be on this earth.
@@holinessofthebride1935
They prefer the honour of man to the glory that God bestows those who fear Him.
I don't believe these men are truly of God. No one born of God filled with the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, will teach a lie.
"But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in 1destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not" (2Pet. 2:1-3).
Mainstream churches and pastors with big and loud online profiles like John Macarthur will never address this issue. Rather they suppress the truth and support the error. They pretend to be among Christ's flock, but they are NOT His sheep. "My sheep hears my voice" says Jesus!
This is why God has raised men and women like you in this last hour of the Church age whom He's using to fight back, and at the same time, warn the adamant and the rebellious of the wrath to come.
Divine wrath is coming against these wise and the prudent pastors who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18)
I’m going through this at this moment! I few yrs ago I was convicted about this matter & like many, my itching ears listened to & found ways to not face it. I’ve been convicted once more recently im spirit is vexed! I’m so scared to face it! I need to speak with my husband about it & my fear has a grip on me! I’m scared he won’t understand. Knowing our souls are at risk how can I still procrastinate? I have taken God’s grace & mercy for granted! I hv often felt unsure of my salvation even though I’m trying to be obedient to God’s commands. I believe this why I’ve been unsure , among other sins. I’m living in continual adultery. Please pray for me that God gives me the strength & courage to repent & turn away from my sins! So many are being led astray because not many are preaching this truth!
Pharisee
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
--Jesus, the "Pharisee"
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.
Apostle Paul, the "Pharisee"
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Jesus, the "Pharisee"
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 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.
Apostle Paul, the "Pharisee"
"put away" means to separate NOT Divorce - and there's NO DOUBT about that. So OF COURSE you commit adultery if you remarry - you also commit bigamy, this was a VERY common practice at the time - you should know, your fellow Pharisees at the time encouraged it