What the Early Christians Believed About Divorce and Remarriage
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2015
- Interested in learning more about what early Christians believed? Visit thehistoricfaith.com where you will find online courses and community that will strengthen your love-faith relationship with Jesus Christ and His kingdom.
The Historic Faith is a project from Sattler College in partnership with Scroll Publishing.
Study Companion: Coming Soon
A century ago, it was extremely rare for a non-Christian-let alone a Christian-to obtain a divorce. Today, so-called Bible-believing Christians divorce one another just as frequently as does the world. The reason is that the Church has abandoned Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.
In this message, Bercot looks at the New Testament teachings on divorce and explains how those passages were applied by the early Christians.
Well this settled it for me. I can't get remarried and that's OK. my husband put me through a lot including contracting HIV and he doesn't want to see me anymore. Sad because the only thing is I want him to know Christ so please pray for him. Thanks
In a similar situation with my wife, my heart goes out to you. Mad as heck at the Calvinists telling people they can D&R and still be saved.
Yes it's heartbreaking
so so sad ..am sorry focus your eyes on Christ
I've nothing else I want to do! I live for Christ now. I've no way to know all God will or won't do but I trust Him.
thats tough Tanuur. my wife walked away from me in adultery, and is also completely unsaved.
i did not get hiv from her thankfully. I also do accept the fact from scripture that all remarriage is adultery.
What I don’t get is this. If Jesus limited the unclean thing of deut24 back to porneia, instead of the wide ‘for any reason’ of the pharisees, then why was the woman of deut24 allowed to remarry? Porneia was death penalty under Mosaic law.
This is the most accurate and complete teaching on this subject I have found so far. Completely in agreement with the scriptures.
Thankful to God for Him answering prayer about what the early church believed on this. For clarification, would you share with me about remarriage for the husband who's wife was unfaithful? Would the husband be able to remarry, though he is now divorced? Would not that keep him from re-marriage? Would not the one to marry him be committing adultery by marrying a divorced man, though he was not the one who committed the sexual immorality which led to his divorce? Looking forward to hearing back from you. May the Lord bless!
BINGO - I was thinking you had to have made one on the Subject, and indeed so. Love your lectures Brother. Shabbat Shalom :)
The title lawyer approach is helpful in this exception clause, however, unfortunately David Bercot hasn't actually followed it in this case at all.
“It also used to be said that ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce’. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of unfaithfulness is making her an adulteress. And whoever marries the woman who has been divorced also commits adultery." (Mat 5:31-32)
What does the text actually say? WHOEVER divorces his wife, except on the grounds of unfaithfulness ....
This is a legal ruling and it covers the cases that fit the ruling: where the husband divorces his wife not on grounds of unfaithfulness.
This legal ruling is silent on the case where: the husband divorces his wife on the grounds of unfaithfulness. He doesn't say that it is or is not adultery, or that it causes her to commit adultery, he does not say it is or is not permitted or required. The case is not touched whatsoever. It is excluded by definition.
What, then, is the point of the exception? It is rhetorical: Jesus is addressing a particular case where a husband divorces his wife when she had not been unfaithful to him. Here is a woman who is innocent of sexual immorality. But he, the husband, is causing her guilt. How? The title lawyer will say that the text does not explain how. However, the bible student will suspect that it has something to do with her subsequent remarriage, since that case is discussed next (and some of the early Christian writers actually make this point). This is not just a new legal ruling, it includes some explanation as to what this ruling is based on: the practice of divorcing wives not for unfaithfulness, but in order to marry others, made even the innocent woman breach the original marriage. (If you think about it, this reasoning focuses on the unlawfulness of taking another man, which a wife must not do, whereas a man taking another wife was not adultery if polygamy is allowed, i.e. even under the standard of the law of Moses.)
'And whoever marries the woman who has been divorced also commits adultery.' The title lawyer approach will treat this as an independent clause, a separate legal ruling covering all marriages to divorced women. If the man who marries the divorced woman commits adultery, who is he committing adultery against? Her husband. So the divorced woman is also committing adultery against her husband too. And this explains the prior case where the divorced woman was caused to commit adultery quite nicely.
'I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.’ Treat this as a legal ruling and interpret according to the title lawyer approach. Again this is a legal ruling that applies to the facts and scenario as stated. 'ANYONE who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality ...' It does not provide any ruling on cases where a man divorces his wife for her guilt of sexual immorality.
Again there is a rhetorical reason for the exception clause. The context is a test on the question of the permitted grounds for divorce. It appears that the questioners-debaters of Jesus were in favour of 'any reason' divorces. Jesus rejects the question and insists that 'what God has joined together, let no one separate.' That is to say, Jesus already gave his ruling against divorce regardless of cause. And he gave already his reasoning and evidence for that ruling. Not to be deterred, they countered with the law of Moses which gave a case ruling that included a divorce and grounds for a divorce. Jesus responds by telling them about their any reason divorces: they were not remedies for adultery but sanction for adultery.
But elsewhere we see a broader legal ruling about divorce and remarriage: ‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.' (Luke 16:18). Here this ruling has no contextual qualification whatsoever, it is just a 'saying' wedged in by Luke where he felt he had some space to include it. There is no reason to think that any qualification or exclusion is implied. So we can take the title lawyer approach to it: It says that 'ANYONE who divorces his wife and marries another ...' It applies to ANYONE who does those two things, the title lawyer would have to read it accordingly. There is no exception implied by the texts in Matthew into the text in Luke (Or Mark).
Logically we have the following form:
If X and not Y
then A (Mat 5:32A)
If X and not Y
then Z (Mat 19:9A)
and
If X
then Z (Luke 16:18A)
'And not Y' in Mat 5:32A is not redundant, because we can see that:
If X and Y
then not A
is true. If a wife is already guilty of adultery, divorcing her on that grounds and causing her to take another man does not make her an adulteress: she already was one.
Necessarily 'and not Y' is logically redundant, however, in Mat 19:9A. This is why 'and not Y' is excluded from Luke and Mark.
hillaryfamily Excellent comment. It then fits with God never changing. He put Israel away for a time but she is always His wife. He grafted in the Gentiles to be His Bride and will turn to Israel again in Revelation.
The person who marries me ( a divorced man from a wife who committed adultery against me) would be committing adultery against her. There is no Scripture exception for remarriage in the new testament, even in Matthew. Luke's version has no such exception for divorce. Nor does Mark, or Paul.
IMO, God doesn't even recognize the legal divorce, regardless of the circumstance. All marriage after divorce is adultery.
[Mat 19:5-6 NKJV] [5] “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? [6] “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
If we're one flesh, how can another flesh be added while the other is still living? Also notice Christ's warning. "Let not man separate"
God does not recognize divorce. In his eyes I am still in a one flesh union with my adulterous wife.
Some insight into what the early Christians believed about the sanctity of marriage may also be found in The Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I think I remember where a group of early disciples of Christ made a binding covenant with each other to never divorce, or do other things to sin against Christ. I just don't remember the page and chapter.
Matthew does clear up the issue, with the example of Joseph, and Mary......one has to go to a great extent, to ignore this clear teaching, of the text....
Mat 5:32 KJV - 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.
please can you make a video about why David and Salomon and many others never had any issue about having multiple wives.
it seems you can have as many as you want, but you cant divorce them ;-)
Are there other 'illicit sexual relations" to address, too? What about the rampart fornication today? Does God ever sanction "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationships, even if they are so-called faithful, steady relationships, in the eyes of man? Is it still good for a young man not to touch a woman? I grew up in this kind of acceptable culture.
evidently it is not the divorce that is the issue, as Paul says that if one divorces the only two options are to remain single, or reconcile....and not reconcile, if possible....so it is the remarriage.......and God is not looking for someone else, to marry....
OK before leaving him I was angry because of his unfaithfulness so even me I started doing same thing as he was doing for revenge it was relaxing but that time I didn't know what else. to do after that I quit that's where I left him but I didn't stop doing this act until of late when I converted to Christianity ..but this was not my wish he pushed me in fact I risked my life a lot by living with this man because of aids God is merciful am well and healthy
context plays a part, of translation....que....is what, in Spanish, but can be translated to that, depending, on the context.....so in any translation, to ignore this is to be lost in the translation....
I need clarification which may be in another video, but I heard you say that a husband whose wife is still alive can get remarried and it is not adultery. So you are saying that it is gender specific.? I don't see it because women, though they were never married, who marry the divorced man are certainly convicted by the Holy Spirit that it is adultery. Are you saying these women who married a divorced man should not be concerned? The first marriage for the man is still one flesh until he dies or his wife dies.
Hi. I listened to this again today and I heard you say no remarriage period. So maybe you address this in another video, but Hosea was not to divorce his repetitively adulterous wife. In the Old Testament adultery for a wife meant she could be put to death. Death would end the one flesh union. God divorces Israel, but she is always His wife. God's divorce does not end His marriage with her. For 1 Corinthians 7:11 a direct command from the Lord, why didn't God repeat the exception? I found the early church writings interesting. You didn't mention John the Baptist being murdered for saying Herod was living in adultery with Herodias who was still one flesh with her husband. It is kind of surprising that they killed John instead of killing Philip. I agree that if the Holy Spirit told a man to divorce his unrepentant and consistently adulterous wife, he is still to love his wife and remain free to receive her back if and when she repents. We don't know for sure about the woman at the well, but if she went back to her first husband hopefully he had not remarried and would receive her back. Remarriage is ongoing adultery. Yes, the church is completely apostate and antinomianism.
If a man is physically beating his wife and refuses to change, I will advocate her leaving him, no matter what the Bible says. A woman leaving an abusive husband is not a salvation issue.
Hi Stephen. There is allowance for separation but not for divorce or remarriage.
Stephen Mac She might leave him, but not divorce him, and definitely not marry someone else
The Nee Testament says A wife may not seperate from her husband (even if He does not Obey Gods word) and that if she does (presumably in ignorance to this command) then she must reconcile with her husband and if he will not allow this she must remain single until he does allow it or until he dies.
So no a woman may not biblically seperate from her husband.
the premise....of a more detailed account is countered by the audience, of Matthew is different than Luke or Mark......
I knew as soon as the NKJV was the basis for this presentation the subject of ...sexual immorality...would pop up...and the question is why the change, from fornication, to sexual immorality...and what is the difference between fornication and adultery, and does not this expression sexual immorality put a different interpretation on the subject...
Fornication is whoredom/harlotry. A woman who commits it is a whore and a man who commits it is a whoremonger. Adultery implies married people are involved in whoredom. It starts even with the desire to have another person's spouse as your own (Matthew 5:28). I hope this helps.
Holiness Preacher....What I have studied, is that the Greek word IS the same as fornication, and it applies to the betrothal pd ,for Jewish people, as the example of Joseph and Mary clearly show. The exception is not found in Mark or Luke, bc they were to the Gentiles, and they would not have understood that application.
Philip Buckley..Yes it does. Definitley.
Repent ObeyJesus I agree with you. There are several good books about all remarriage being adultery and one is called "Except for Fornication". I also have 70+ videos in a playlist on divorce and remarriage adultery.
Philip Buckley for divorce alone from one witness. Look at Christ's words on marriage. He makes no exception for remarriage. If a man marries a divorced woman, he's committing adultery even if the divorce met the exception clause.
If a woman marries me, a divorced man she is committing adultery.
And my divorce met the often used exceptions used in the church today. My unbelieving wife cheated on me, and filed divorce.
what is the point of the story of Joseph and Mary.....
one has to ask, why four gospels, if they were not destined for a difference audience.....
Finally!!!!!
not under bondage is not akin to not being bound......
divorcing, to remarry....where in the text text can one validate this....it sounds like an argument from silence, or ignorance...a fallacy....
so are you saying that a woman can not divorce her husband....Biblically.....
I left my husband because of women after that I didn't stay faithful still we don't live together anymore ..now what will happen if I will want to get married as for now am saved person my life in Christ now ..can you tell Me because I don't want to miss heaven please please answer me ..now I don't do those sins of sleeping with men
+ Ann Wanjiru 1 Cor 7: 10 and 11 say that if a woman leaves her husband she must remain unmarried or reconciled. The one flesh union is still in existence until death of the spouse. It was violated by adultery, not ended by adultery. And, if you remarry then you cut off any chance for reconciliation and forgiveness of his adultery. Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy.
Anyone who remarries after divorce commits adultery. Adulterers cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Ask God for grace to obey his word and keep your eyes on things above, not on things of the earth like so many are doing today. God bless you.
Stay unmarried unless your husband dies until you pass away, then you will not be committing adultery. Actively release any unforgiveness you have for him or anyone else and pray for him. If you cant do this on your own. ask God for his grace in this matter, so you can release any unforgiveness. GBY
the other question would be what would one do, if they found themselves married to a divorced woman....one who did not have a Biblical reason, for her divorce...
God never permits us to divorce, but it is still happening, sometimes very necessarily. Regardless, Jesus laid it down straight, black and white, clear cut, in Luke 16:18. Remarriage is not at all an option for divorcees.
this does not address the question of one....having found themselves married to a divorced person....should that one remain in that marriage....even though the bible calls it adultery...
Matthew 5:32 .... and whosoever marries her that is DIVORCED committeth adultery.
What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
so would you suggest divorcing this person....
Philip Buckley I can only say,If you have been made to understand what the scriptures say about marriage to a divorced person, then do not ignore what the Spirit is leading you to do. I have seen it time and time again, where someone is given a truth by God in his word, and they struggle with it, not wanting to obey. He stops them right there, no longer giving them anymore insight into his word, until they choose to obey. I have seen people sit in one place spiritually, and slowly fade into darkness, in disobedience toward God, not wanting to accept his word; and then I have seen where a person eventually chooses to obey the word of God, and they are lifted up and out of their darkness and blessed immensely for it, and are growing in Christ, being a light to others. You need to decide which path you will take.
I was a divorced and remarried person. I ended the adulterous remarriage, and I too have been blessed beyond what I could have imagined. There is NOTHING, or NO ONE worth turning against God almighty.
one says you cant, no way, and the other says you can......so what is up with that......sounds like a contradiction or a false teaching....and neither is a good option..
Amen
no one would believe.....where does this come from as it is a teaching, so evidently some do think this, and use the story of Joseph and Mary as an example to attempt to prove this point....
you didn't speak of David and Bathsheba.
God did judge them by the death of there first born, however , David did not put Bathsheba away but stayed with her.
Now does that mean David committed adultery with Bathsheba the rest of there days?
Hi Brian. That is a good question. My understanding is that we look to Jesus' kingdom laws concerning his governance of marriage and divorce rather than the Old Testament. It is interesting to note that in this particular situation, Bathsheba's husband Uriah was no longer alive in which case she would be released from the one flesh bond. The circumstances surrounding the situation were certainly awful but in the end, due to David's sin she was freed from her marriage with Uriah.
no because David killed her husband so he was free to marry her
What is interesting to note, after their son Solomon, did they have any other children together? or rather, did they ever come together to conceive any other children, I wonder?
Brian Washburn- Good point. So, do you murder your lover's spouse to get into good graces with God? I realize this is a difficult topic. I'm very interested since my ex wife left over 12 years ago and remarried, I'm still single. I think the Lord gives grace and those of us who try to hold our ex's to the letter of the law will get run over by opportunities to live a happier life. The Church leaders need to preach the truth, but how does one go back and fix the past, not happening. We all have to move on. God Bless
So there is no divorce or remarriage allowed ever,.....unless you kill the first husband by murder, then its allowed. Faulty argument.
you dont have to repeat the statement.....teach the Bible....eh...
where are you getting your information on porneia......as sexual immorality and why did the KJV use fornication......
one would have to ask.....what is sexual immorality, as sex, out of the marriage covenant, is......adultery, end of story......so, once again....you go against your own principles of interpretation.....by using an incorrectly translated document...
sex, of any stripe, out of the marriage covenant....is it not adultery.....end of story..
Early christian writings are not scripture, and are to be rejected. “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 tim 3:15 to teach people based on men is vain worship
Hi Melissa. This is an interesting argument that is made quite a lot. The argument is that the early Christian writings are not Scripture but rather are teachings of men (human beings) and therefore cannot be trusted and should be entirely rejected. The argument is interesting because those who make this assertion are themselves men (human beings). If we are to follow this line of reasoning then an early Christian writer could also justifiably say the same thing; they could say that the belief of those who make this assertion cannot be trusted and should be entirely rejected because these are the teachings of men. In point of fact, the beliefs of those who make this assertion are based simply on their interpretation of Scripture in the same way that the beliefs of the early Christians were based on their interpretation of the same Scripture. Ultimately what is occurring is two different interpretations of the same Scripture, and so the question becomes: whose interpretation best fits the Scripture itself? Humbly, if I am to say that my interpretation is correct and yours is incorrect because your interpretation is not Scripture but is rather a teaching from men, then I improperly elevate my interpretation of Scripture to the level of Scripture itself.
Just because they're not scripture doesn't mean we must reject them. Bercot says early on that the scriptures are our early authority. Patristic writings can help us interpret them when there is doubt. Sort of like early commentaries.
Melissa, you are right about not putting teachings of men before scripture.
However it is remarkable that the church unanimously interpreted scripture in the same way as presented in this talk: no divorce and no remarriage.
The first trace of any teaching promoting the idea that a divorced person could remarry is from the XVI century (from the writings of Erasmus of Rotterdam - a humanist philosopher and a catholic priest, and from Henry VIII an English king who split the Church of England from the Catholic Church over this very issue: he wanted to divorce his wife - from whom he didn't get kids- and marry another.... needless to say the church would not allow neither the divorce nor the remarriage)....so the church for 16 century interpreted things in a certain way....unanimously.
That may not have the same weight as scripture but it would be silly to just ignore that and say - oh well 20 century later we simply know better, the rest of the church mis hav got it all wrong...
the NKJV translates pornea to sexual immorality.....what is up, with this...
as this was published in 1982, way long, after Erasmus is said to have changed this, from fornication and having been promoted by Luther....so it looks like we are off to a bad start....
is clearly for a Jewish Christian audience living within the immediate proximity of the homeland itself. is the most Jewish of all the .