Satterfield - Evans Debate Pt.1 - Marriage Divorce and Remarriage 2003 - CofC
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2012
- The Propositions are as follows:
1. The Holy Bible teaches that an alien sinner in an adulterous marriage may repent of sins (including adultery), be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (including adultery) without dissolving his or her last marriage contracted before baptism, and be saved eternally.
Affirm: Jack Evans, Sr. Deny: Phillip Satterfield
2. Biblical repentance requires that an alien sinner in an adulterous marriage must dissolve his or her marriage before being baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
Affirm: Phillip Satterfield Deny: Jack Evans, Sr.
First night was held at the Macland Road Church of Christ in Marietta, Georgia
Second day was held at the Westend Church of Christ in Atlanta, Georgia
I am for Sir Jack Evans because he is preaching the truth.
Teach Bro. Evans
The divorce God doesn't condem you its remarrying while your ex wife or ex husband are a live remarriage is only possible by death
matt 19:9 says the innocent can remarry
Based on the first pastors proposition. King herod would be able to keep his brothers wife as long as he gets baptized ......smh ?????? In or out covenant ... Adultery is Adultery and must be properly repentant of. Why is Adultery the only sin these people say one gets to continue in after baptism ?? someone please explain this to me. This is a grave error..grave. "Repent and be baptized" Not be baptized and repent and keep the same sin you are repenting of. This is confusion .. If anyone agrees with the first pastor. Please explain why Adultery is a sin that has the exception of continuing in even after baptism ? A fornicator must cease, a drunkard must cease, a homosexual must cease...BUT an adultery must not? GOD FORBID ! Error on the first pastors behalf.
@@cooltkll it really doesn't
@@deangelok7269 it really does
@@cooltkll explain. Because I'm aware once you make an covernant it's till death
If you've committed MURDER can you go back and RESURRECT the murdered ? NO but a MURDER CAN BE SAVED. He/she can REPENT of their sin (MURDER) and stiil be saved. Also GOD NEVER, NEVER, N E V E R condoned HOMOSEXUALITY married or not. I am proud that Brother Evens is man enough and God fearing enough to preach the truth.
So divorce and remarriage to God is simply two people who made a life long commitment to each other and are simply, not getting along. So, one of them decides I can get along better with this other person so I will go be with this person for the rest of my life, instead of the one I have MADE a life long COMMITMENT to. What divorce and remarriage means is that you can not keep your word. Your word is no good.
I tell you the truth, it is also a heart problem. It shows that a person will put their desires before God. If people knew God, they would know that it is not always comfortable walking this walk, if not mostly. God Bless. Also I can vouch, my wife divorced me and I still decided to walk for God and desired to remain single until the coming of the Lord. Not that I choose but by faith God is being put before my desires. His will, His way, His Life.
Now we have theThe Bible, that we can study for ourselves. (The New Testament had not been written at that time). That's why it's an individual Affair we study the word, we go to church, and we can confirm with the word of God, if the preacher is telling the truth or lying.
People want to make the “remarriage “ the sin, when I read that it “Divorce “ that God hates, so then how can we demand that a person gets a divorce if they want to obey the Gospel? We are adding to God’s plan of salvation by telling people they must divorce their spouse before they can obey the Gospel. It’s the Divorcing that has to be repented of…. If a person stops divorcing their spouses, then the “remarriage “ part isn’t even an issue.
Two options if marriage doesn't work that is to reconcile or stay unmarried meaning alone and you can't marry again until one of you have died the divorce papers don't end a marriage it's still ongoing
It's remain UNMARRIED or be reconciled. But it takes two to reconcile right? What if the other person has move on, what advice would you give to the person who is burning in lust?
@@justkeepnitreal4198 there is no provision, for this, in the Bible....the only option, is to remain single...
@@philipbuckley759 the instructions is given in the text (1cor 7:7-9). Marriage is to avoid fornication (1cor 7:2) and adultery in the mind which is a sin. God gives mercy to those who have needs friend. Just read Matthew chp12. You rather have sacrifice than mercy and God desires Mercy rather than sacrifice. No one has yet to show instructions nor have anyone given an example of individuals commanded to divorce/leave a second marriage. You are forbidding to marry 1tim 4:3. 1cor 7:11 the wife who puts away her husband is commanded remain UNMARRIED why? Because 1cor 7:7-8 Paul just stated he wishes ALL UNMARRIED and widows would remain as he was UNMARRIED. But if she can't CONTAIN (1cor 7:9) reconcile. If her husband has remarried or rejects her, that doesn't mean she no longer has a need. 1cor 7:28-29 God gives mercy to those who struggle in the flesh. Yes it's the sin of adultery which is a one time sin but God gives mercy to whom he desires and you have no say so in the matter.
@@justkeepnitreal4198 remain unmarried or reconcile to husband. Not EX husband.
Only death breaks the covenent.
It means remain single or reconcile.
You right
*Remarriage after Divorce while 1st Spouse Lives = Adultery* Romans 7:2-3
Adulterers Do Not Inherit the Kingdom of God: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Unless they Confess and Forsake: Proverbs 28:13; Luke 13:3
No
it would be interesting to know how many marriages have been disolved, due to this issue....
I was wondering that myself. I really feel for the children of a marriage ordered to be dissolved over this.
This debate was before Same-Sex marriage was legal. Apply the same doctrine. If a man marries another man before he becomes a Christian
, then gets saved, does he have to divorce his husband? His sins, (past present and future) have been removed. A homosexual marriage is not more sinful than an adulterous marriage.
good point....
Same sex marriage has never been biblical. This comparison is totally irrelevant as a marriage is between a woman and a man.
Lol
The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel.
The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death.
The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15.
Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife.
Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15.
Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16.
The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions.
The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24.
Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.
it seems that if the idea that a baptism changes adultery into non adultery...then all should be remarried....because the marriage...s...before baptism is or are not valid...
Baptism doesn't change adultery to non adultery but washes away the sin. Remarriage is renewinga one time sin not a continuous sin. What scripture shows that remarriage is a continuous sin? The scriptures shows divorce is a one time sin even though individuals live in a divorce state. You wouldn't tell a divorce individual the only way to be forgiven for the sin of divorce is to get marry by to your husband. You guys can't give one scripture nor an example of people being instructed to divorce if they were remarried. You guys are teaching doctrine of devils FORBIDDING TO MARRY 1tim 4:1-3. I need a scripture showing remarriage is a continuous sin or A command that a person can't remarry or people being commanded to divorce if remarried. Either would do.
@@justkeepnitreal4198 that is like saying homosexual marriages are not continuous.....just confess the ....sin....and continue in your homosexual relationship..
A woman in Deuteronomy was considered defiled after being another man's wife.
1 Corinthians 7:27-28 Forget the Law of Moses in Mathew 19:9 Romans 15:8 King James version
It's frustrating when the person your debating misquote you and puts words in your mouth. Satterfield is doing just that.
What safer remarriage are or staying single When separated
This topic really only has one question that needs to be answered. Can a NT christian be forgiven for adultery, which is the divorcing of a spouse then marrying another person? The answer is simply, YES. The problem with Satterfields theology as well as other misinformed erroneous brethren is that they have inadvertently classified adultery as an UNPARDONABLE SIN thereby creating another STATE other than LOST(Alien Sinner) and SAINT( justified believer) which teaching isnt found anywhere in Scriptures that adultery is a STATE of sin. In the OT the penalty for Adultery was to be "put away" meaning stoned until death. God can forgive while NOT requiring restitution for sin(s).
Deut 24
I hear your statement....and say....heresy....end of story..
Ezelkiel 23:27 debunks the statement held at 2:06:01 and 2:07:07
Let me get this straight.. Phillip Satterfield was married to Ellen Satterfield and Now is married to TLS on October 13, 2016 ???? Was Fornication involved to dissolve the first marriage???? Are you practicing what you preach Phil????
Yes She cheated on him poor guy is probably the worst thing that could happen to a man
Hello yes he did remarry. he was in a big depression at the time, and since then we are getting a divorce even tho i love him and he love me but it need to be done because he is getting back close to god as he once was.
Baptism is not a law, but the gift of the Holy Spirit which is given when true repentance happens. The Holy Spirit will not abode in a heart that continues to love and serve sin. Baptism is the gift of the Holy Sprit. It is not an act that is done, but a gift that is received.
bible.com/114/act.8.14-16.nkjv Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
+Paul Woodard Nice!
In the book of Acts Peter baptized in the name of Jesus, and we also get baptized in the Holy Ghost.
We recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit when we are baptized.
too much human reasoning from the first pastor..i couldn't even understand him.
Please read Exodus 22:16. Fornication is when a woman marries a man who didn't take her virginity. Thank you!
When you know God himself hates something. Then you know their is nothing you can say or do to justify doing what your creator hates. Just admit you know better, because you do. There are two types of Christians when it comes to this topic. The ones who abide and are willing to suffer based on the word. And those that will follow their own selfish hearts in order not to suffer. I will be praying for all of us. Because God loves everyone of us. In all sincerity, may God bless each and every one us.
Peter baptized in the name of Jesus', in the book of Acts.
it is too bad there is not a comprehensive teaching on this subject....too many aspects are left out...for example what if one finds them selves married to a non Biblical divorced person....should they end this....marriage...
Philip Buckley Yes! God's law applies to ALL men, if they are "Biblical" or not..."Whosoever" covers everyone! (Matthew 19:9)!
I understand that....the question is what does one do, if married to a divorced person....should one end that .....marriage....ergo, are they living in adultery....
Philip Buckley no they are not
The answer is yes, and jay what verse is there to support you thinking? Matt 19 is clear.
Ernesto López when you study your bible keep everything in context can you tell me what Jesus means when he speaks of the eunuchs in the next couple verses?
Stephen W. Wilcox in reference to Jesus in Matthew 5:31,32 says “He has in this passage of Scripture, abrogated the Moses allowance for divorce and remarriage, which allowed the woman to remarry after divorce if she wished to do so (Deut. 24:1-4).”
The abrogation supposition imagines Moses as the villain for divorce by allowing it against God’s will. That’s why it’s referred to as “Moses allowance for divorce and remarriage.” Stephen imagines Jesus opposing and reversing this concession thereby abrogating it. Then in this make believe world divorce and remarriage becomes ineffective at that point. The imagination takes you any where you want to go with this issue, unlike scripture, it has no bounds. By claiming Jesus abrogated the divorce concession Stephen has positioned himself to believe other supposition. He believes that marriages no longer end.
“Indissoluble marriage” advocates are so bent on defining the adultery of divorce and remarriage with their definition, they fail to see the simple reality that adultery can occur another way. For them Jesus is no longer describing an adultery that’s a result of divorce and remarriage but rather an adultery that results from the absence of these events. Do you see the difference? Can you see how the word of God can be altered by adding information to it? Can you see how Jesus’ teaching on divorce is changed by ignoring His very words? Words have meaning, when you mentally discard them as Stephen does you have changed “the means to an end.” You have altered the very factors that resulted in the conclusion Jesus made.
Stephen’s propositional statement (above) contains an important fact that most views on this issue acknowledge, the divorced were allowed to remarry (Deut. 24:2). Both divorce and remarriage were legally binding. Thus they were not in violation to the law that governed Israel. This acknowledgement allows us to begin from a mutual understanding and biblical precedents. Remarriage was tolerated, had legitimacy, was a binding marriage and divorce actually dissolved the first marriage. These realities must be deconstructed in order to postulate the idea of “indissoluble marriage” Stephen propagates. Stephen’s way of doing that is by convincing us that Jesus “abrogated the Moses allowance for divorce and remarriage.” Abrogation is added to scripture and the sequence of events that result in the adultery Jesus described is altered. Divorce and remarriage from Stephen’s perspective are no longer real realities as Jesus spoke of them. Consequently Stephen is putting forth the belief that unlike in the Old Testament divorce and remarriage no longer occurs, is ineffective and therefore no longer changes the marital status of those involved.
To affirm this let’s look at some propositional statements advocated by Stephen. Let’s look at where supposition leads. By contrast remember that Jesus’ teaching doesn’t advocate the following (below) convictions if understood within it’s original context. We would then have every reason to oppose the following illusions (below) masquerading as Truth. The “abrogation supposition” is the theory that Jesus abolished the Old Testament divorce concession which in turn made divorce impossible.
Stephen Wilcox, a prominent pastor in the Permanence of Marriage Movement reiterates these propositional statements by believing the “abrogation” supposition. He is summarizing the position of some early Church leaders in his message, “Restoration of Christian Marriage”. So these propositions represents what he believes also.
* “Death alone terminates the marriage covenant”
* “Marriage survives remarriage and precludes it”
* “Marriage is a lifelong covenant that will never be invalidated by God while both parties live”
* “A marriage is for life. No matter what a spouse turns out to be, or how they may act, what they do or don’t do, or
the sins they commit, the covenant remains fully in effect. A remarriage while a former spouse lives is not marriage
at all, but sinful adultery. God does not divide the one flesh relationship except by physical death”
* “It is necessary therefore to warn those who have remarried while a former spouse lives that they are in a continuing
state of adultery according to the scriptures, and must repent of it by confessing that sin and vacating that
relationship”
While Stephen should be admired for defending the sacredness of marriage it is imperative that you understand the difference between what he is postulating and what Jesus actually said. Stephen is actually claiming the opposite of both Christ and scripture. All because he imagines Jesus doing something He didn’t do. It is imperative that you remain objective when interpreting scripture. There are ramifications for altering the words of Christ. Stephen’s conclusions will cause a conflict between Jesus and Moses, between Old Testament and New. This should be a hint that something is amiss.
In contrast to Jesus, Stephen creates the illusion that the adultery of divorce and remarriage is not the adultery of divorce and remarriage, it’s that simple. He doesn’t differentiate between the adultery Jesus describes and the adultery of being unfaithful while married. If you actually end up concluding the opposite of what Jesus said, you pervert the text. If you believe Jesus abolished divorce, you thereby have been programmed to believe the conclusions advocated by Stephen above. It sets you on a trajectory of claiming all the propositions stated by Stephen as if they were true. The bottom line is, Stephen and all who think like him have came to their conclusions by adding to God’s Word. This is no different than the Pharisees who opposed Jesus. By adding their rules to the law of Moses, they made the law more stringent for others and more lenient for themselves.
I writing this in hope the reader will gain an understanding of the issue of divorce and remarriage from it’s chronological unfolding. This way of interpreting this issue will be different from those who pick out a New Testament verse and builds a new starting point from it. The new starting point often causes the interpreter to dismiss relevant factors in biblical history that wouldn’t support their conclusion. This is why “abrogation” becomes necessary. If you’re going to make claims the bible doesn’t make you have to convince others that former factors found in the bible have changed. Simply put, a right interpretation must maintain biblical truth as it flowed from Moses to Jesus to Paul. To have an understanding of this issue as it historically unfolded is paramount. To understand Paul’s teaching on this issue we must properly understand Jesus who spoke before him. To understand Jesus we must maintain Old Testament truth set forth by Moses. Paul speaks to what Jesus spoke of and Jesus speaks to what Moses spoke of. We should never believe they contradicted each other. The right interpretation will maintain truth from Moses to Jesus to Paul.
Conversely, some have concluded from Jesus’ teaching that “remarriage is adultery” and therefore must be repented of. How? By divorcing their present spouse. Their suppositions create a conflict with biblical precedents because Moses spoke of remarriage as the marriage to whom one was obligated. Therefore a harmonious interpretation of all the biblical writers on this issue cannot be achieved if one is allowed to add (false) suppositions to what Jesus said. These suppositions come from rewording the words of the Lord so that there is no difference between the adultery Jesus described and the adultery that was punished in the Old Testament. While adultery always speaks of infidelity, it does not always transpire the same way. Nor was the culpability for this transgression placed on the women who was divorced by their husband. Therefore you must be open to a view that defends what Jesus actually said over against false supposition. Please note...
I’m not arguing against the fact that adultery ensues because of divorce and remarriage, although I do believe there are extenuating circumstances given by Jesus and Paul. I’m arguing for HOW Jesus describes the adultery and the PROPER response to it. I’m arguing for a congruous view of Old and New Testament, no need to make them contradict. No need to try to convince others that Old Testament truths are not relevant to New Testament understanding. I believe if you follow a chronological unfolding of this issue you will properly understand Paul’s New Testament instruction in 1 Corinthians 7. If you don’t, then others will tell you what Paul meant in the vacuum of biblical history and the introduction of extra-biblical suppositions.
Most Christians don’t know why adultery follows divorce. It just doesn’t make sense because of their fixed definition for it. They believe adultery only occurs within marriage. That fixed definition doesn’t allow them to grasp that Jesus reveals that adultery entails more than being unfaithful while married. Therefore many of them have come up with theories such as “indissoluble marriage” or “still married in God’s eyes” or “a marriage covenant can’t be broken” or “the one-flesh union can’t be separated except by death” in order to explain the ensuing adultery. None of these theories follow the actual words of the Lord for He is describing the premature end of a marriage, the separating of the one-flesh union, and the consequence of covenant breaking, all which are true in God’s eyes. In God’s eyes scripture is true the way it reads. Don’t let anyone fool you by saying that scripture reads one way but “in God’s eyes” it’s another.
(Continued in the reply thread).
The aforementioned theories are ways for some expositors to explain the ensuing adultery. It is imperative that you (the reader) realize that once you create a supposition, particularly a false one, that supposition will have deceptive ramifications. False suppositions change biblical perception and takes the mind into ideas that are a figment of the imagination. The whole conflict among Christians is an argument for or against figments of the imagination created by those (like Stephen) who believe Jesus did something He didn’t do. For example, if anyone can convince a divorced and remarried individual they are not actually divorce and remarried, their mind will automatically default to the idea of “indissoluble marriage”. This will create the illusion that they are still married to their first spouse and therefore they are “in God’s eyes” merely having an affair to which they should end. The first supposition produced the need for another and then postulates a suppositional remedy, one must “divorce to repent” (DTR) of the “affair.” All of this would be rational if the supposition is true. Get the picture?
You may be one who follows that reasoning. If so, you need to understand the opposite view of believing that divorce and remarriage are effective events that actually change the marital status of those who experience it. You need to understand that Christ’s conclusions are based in a real and effective divorce and remarriage, conversely Stephen’s conclusions (above) are based in the belief that divorce and remarriage is ineffective, see the difference. One interpretation flows out of the Old Testament and is in harmony with it, and the other puts you on a collision course with the Old Testament.
The DTR camp teaches that Jesus “abrogated/abolished” the Old Testament divorce concession in order to explain how adultery ensues from Jesus’ teaching. The irony is “abrogation” is a supposition itself. They interject abrogation into the text because they need someway to defend their belief that adultery only occurs within marriage (their fixed definition for adultery). Following that SUPPOSITION they teach that divorce is no longer possible (another supposition). Most of them will qualify that belief by saying “in God’s eyes” (another supposition) divorce is no longer possible. Consequently they have created the mental illusion that marriage is indissoluble or the idea of “indissoluble marriage”.
But the truth is, that was not Jesus’ argument at all. Jesus specifically spoke of an adultery that was the result of divorce and remarriage, not the imaginary absence of those effective events. It is imperative that you realize the distinction between the views and HOW they drawn there conclusions. This post is to help you discriminate between the two. So the relevant question for you to consider is, does the adultery Jesus described happen because divorce and remarriage is now ineffective?
DTR suppositions are actually changing the very facts in which Jesus describes this manner of adultery. They miss a very important detail in Christ debate with the Pharisees (Matt.19, Mark 10). In that dialogue Jesus makes a retrospective indictment against Israel for causing this manner of adultery. By insisting on the right to divorce Jesus reveals to His covenant people that they were transgressing God’s design for marriage. I will speak more on this later.
If you overlook the fact that Israel had been committing this manner of adultery since their insistence on divorce, you will then see it as something new, as if Jesus caused it by something He did. You will miss the fact that this adultery was caused by hard hearts hundreds of years before the coming Christ. The theory of abrogation actually alters what Jesus revealed to Israel and it’s historic relevance to them. If you omit it’s historic relevance to Israel you will then try to explain it some other way. This is where suppositions arise, the expositor is not able to account for this adultery in the Old Testament. That oversight will then present the need for the expositor to explain the adultery, thus they formulate the aforementioned suppositions.
Explaining the adultery other than Jesus’ description is the origin of the conflict in Church history. Don’t read any further until you process that. If you want to understand why Christians have multiple interpretations about the Lord’s teaching, you must understand what your conclusion would be with and without false suppositions. You must realize the difference “abrogation” makes. The relevant question for all is, is the adultery of divorce and remarriage (as described by Jesus) something new to the New Testament? If not, then all the theories that produces the “divorce to repent” supposition are deception. All the propositions reiterated by Stephen (above) is a figment of his and early church fathers imagination. The result of the mental deception exacerbates divorce and destroys established families. Therefore some Christians have produced a remedy for this adultery that is not only extra-biblical, it is anti-biblical. No one in all of scripture taught those remarried to repent of their marriage, no one.
Let me pause to say that I know I’m not going to change the mind of the hard line legalist. But for those who are striving to objectively understand and explain this issue, seeing “indissoluble marriage” as false will eliminate the need to postulate other suppositions. Once false suppositions are exposed, there will be no reason to advocate that established families should be dissolved or the “divorce to repent” supposition itself. The best way to keep from following false suppositions is to realize that Jesus was addressing an age old problem. He reveal to His covenant people Israel that they caused this manner of adultery by insisting on the right to discard their wives. This manner of adultery is not something new, nor was there a new remedy issued by Christ or any other New Testament Author. There was no actual conflict between Jesus and Moses. These representatives of God should be interpreted congruously.
In the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees, Jesus uses the phrase “from the beginning it was not so” to explain the WHY of the adultery He describes, it had nothing to do with the abolishment of divorce. It had everything to do with the reality of an effective divorce. In context Jesus was explaining to Israel that their hard hearts (by insisting on divorce) yielded this manner of adultery. Do you understand if you remove an effective divorce from Jesus’ description you are changing what He described? Are you seeing what supposition (if believed) does to this issue?
In context Jesus used the phrase “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8) to prove to the Pharisees that divorce is foreign to God’s idea for marriage. The DTR camp instead claims that Jesus by using that phrase took us back to the time before divorce and then and there abolished it. From supposing on that phrase they claim Jesus abrogated the Old Testament divorce concession, a supposition itself. Do you (the reader) understand that false suppositions are figments of the imagination being defended as TRUTH? Do you understand that these suppositions are foundational to the “divorce to repent” deception? Do you understand there is no abrogation of the law of Moses in Jesus’ teaching?
Jesus’ counter argument against those who were defending divorce for every reason (Matt. 19:3) was an appeal to their calloused conscience (harden heart). He revealed to them that divorce staged one to commit adultery by default, defaulting on God’s creative design for marriage (Matthew 19:4-6,8b). Jesus explained that marriage sets forth the obligation to CLEAVE (v.5), therefore having an obligation of lifetime fidelity. In other words when a man and woman enter into marriage they are inherently obligated to a lifetime of fidelity to each the other. What would happen if they did not fulfill that obligation?
(Continued in the reply thread).
The simple truth Jesus revealed to Israel was that the obligation of exclusive intimacy is violated by divorce and remarriage. The catch 22 is that divorce and remarriage transgresses the principle of exclusivity inherent in marriage, thereby causing the adultery in the manner Jesus described. This is the dilemma it caused Israel then and the Church today. But the dilemma turns into an enigma when biblical precedents are dismissed by believing remarriage is no longer possible. Or to put it another way, by believing this adultery occurs because the first marriage “survived divorce”.
In the Patriarchal society of Israel men were causing their wives to commit adultery by defaulting on the principle of cleaving as explained by Jesus and “the law of her husband” as explained by Paul (Romans 7:2b). These women inadvertently but consequently violated these obligations set forth in marriage. Jesus makes no indictment against the innocent party whatsoever. There was an innocent party and they inadvertently were defiled because of unloving husbands (Deut.24:4).
Unlike DTR advocates, Jesus’ criticism focused on divorce not remarriage. Remarriage was graciously allowed for women put away by their husbands (Deut. 24:2). Unfortunately there is an unintentional consequence even for the innocent party. But we have every reason for practical purposes to discriminate between the innocent and guilty party!! That’s because Jesus does exactly that. Jesus indicts the men in Matthew 5:32 with the culpability of their former wives transgression. “causeth her to commit adultery” (KJV) or “makes her the victim of adultery” (NIV) is an indictment against the former husband.
Instead of focusing on Christ criticism of divorce, DTR advocates instead choose to focus on remarriage causing the adultery, so therefore “remarriage is the adultery”. But the origin of the problem according to Jesus was hard hearts insisting on divorce (Matt.19:8) and according to the text divorce is what Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for (Matt.19:6). Conversely by adding their suppositions DTR has built a case against remarriage. There is no prohibition (another supposition) for remarriage in Jesus teachings. God’s covenant people were not required to remain companionless because of the consequent defilement and adultery. One must maintain the chronological facts in order to properly understand Paul’s divorce and remarriage restriction later (1 Cor. 7:10,11). While there is a New Testament circumstance where remarriage is prohibited, that restriction is proven unique and not uniform when understood within context as well as the biblical truth that remarriage had been graciously allowed (Deut. 24:2).
Historically women, particularly Jewish women had little to no divorce rights but were not forced to endure life without a husband. If you do not start from the biblical base point that remarriage was allowed, 1 Cor. 7:11 will be understood as some uniform rule for every circumstance (even though Paul addresses different ones). Reading that verse void of biblical history and other textual factors will only produce an absolute prohibition not sustainable by knowing all the biblical facts.
It is imperative that Christians do not overlook the fact that Jesus described an adultery specifically caused by divorce, not the imaginary absent of it. Do you understand if one omits the retrospective indictment against Israel for causing this manner of adultery, they will then account for the adultery some other way? The DTR camp does exactly that and consequently creates a whole new dimension (enigma) for this issue not even in the bible. Can you be convinced from supposition that repentance requires more for this adultery in the New Testament than it did in the Old? Do you understand that no one in scripture but Moses speaks to an “after remarriage” solution? Do you realize there is no New Testament instruction to “divorce to repent?” Do you now understand that the DTR supposition is predicated on false suppositions itself? The “divorce to repent” supposition is a deceptive lie predicated on deception itself. When we understand Moses and Jesus without these false suppositions we have every reason to believe that divorce and remarriage produced both a transgression and a transference of marital obligation. That would be the harmonious conclusion of believing both Jesus and Moses.
Questions for the reader,
* How do you account for this manner of adultery?
* How do you explain the adultery caused by divorce and remarriage?
Why are these two questions important? Because if your premise is false your conclusion will be also. If you do not understand that adultery is not limited to “infidelity within marriage” you will not differentiate and you will end up opposing the Lord on this issue.
* Does your explanation affirm or deny the retrospective indictment against Israel?
* Do you understand that Jesus was telling Israel they had been committing this manner of adultery ever since they insisted on divorce?
Why are these questions relevant? Because if we understand that the adultery Jesus describes is not something new we have no ground to change biblical precedents. Precedents where remarriage was allowed even though it inadvertently caused a shameful consequence. Precedents where remarriage was a binding marriage.
* Are you able to differentiate between this way of committing adultery from that of infidelity within marriage?
* Do you understand that the abrogation/abolishment supposition changes what Jesus actually said?
* Do you understand that the abrogation/abolishment supposition changes when this adultery began?
* Do you understand that the abrogation/abolishment supposition changes how Jesus describes this adultery?
* Do you understand that the abrogation/abolishment supposition changes why this adultery occurs?
* Do you realize the abrogation/abolishment supposition is a deceptive lie (even if unintentional)?
All Christians believe that divorce is nothing to be cavalier about it. But divorce is a reality in God’s eyes today just like it was for Moses, Jesus and Paul. We can not make up suppositions to explain it away or to fix it, we will only become more legalistic than Christ. Repentance will then require more in the new Testament than it did in the Old, we will then impose on others a repentance no one in scripture required.
Any supposition can be defended from the bible if the text is isolated from biblical history. This is why you must maintain a chronological understanding of the facts as they unfolded. Anyone can refer to a passage of scripture to defend their supposition, but few people actually harmonize it with biblical precedents. “divorce to repent” fabricates a burden on the mind that exceeds the bible, that’s where and why I disagree with it. That conviction is built around false supposition and deductive reasoning as I’ve proved, not a chronological unfolding of biblical history and truth. “divorce to repent” exacerbates divorce and destroys families. Adding transgression to transgression is not the answer. We must maintain the biblical truth that once remarried, individuals are in a binding marriage in God’s eyes to which they should honor. Any supposition to the contrary is just that.
@@nealdoster8556 I think according to all of the viewpoints I have heard and studied through scripture that what Jesus was condemning was the hardheartedness of men just putting away their wives without a bill of divorce. Thus Jesus said to put away and remarry was adultery because just putting away without a divorce certificate meant they were still legally married. The exception clause in my opinion means that they CAN PUT THEM AWAY AND REMARRY "IF" it was an illegitimate marriage to begin with. "porneia".MATT19.
@@nealdoster8556 I also believe that Jesus did not change the law on divorce and remarriage, He just took them back to God's intent before sin entered the world. Now that men were hard hearted, he allowed Moses to put in place a provision to protect those women because a woman would probably have to make herself a prostitute to survive in those days if she didn't have a husband to provide financially.
@@jasonroberts4177 Grace to you Jason
The interpretation you spoke of is derived from those who create a different narrative by suggesting that two Greek words in that text are not both speaking of divorce. Supposedly one is and the other is not. They are making a hypothetical argument from those two words at the expense of the text itself.
It is clear in the back and forth dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees that they are using both terms in relation to the procedure of divorce (Matthew 19, Mark 10). The words are NOT being use over against each other (as in the false narrative) but rather in conjunction with each other to speak of the two step procedure. Both words are used in relation to divorce, as is the case throughout scripture.
Using the terms as if one is not speaking of divorce formulates a scenario where Jesus is criticizing Israel for "sending away a wife without a certificate of divorce". Unfortunately that does not follow the narrative at all. It doesn’t follow the back and forth dialogue. It actual creates a false narrative that suggest Jesus isn’t speaking about the consequence of ending a marriage (divorce). It eliminates divorce from the text which is the very point Jesus is making about why this way of committing adultery ensues.
The problem with teaching that apolyō is merely separation is that you will find yourself at odds with the original question asked by the Pharisees to Jesus (Matthew 19:3). The historical debate of that time was not about lawful grounds for separation but rather lawful grounds for divorce. It seems clear within the context that apolyō and chōrizō (v.6) are used in conjunction with each other and they are both speaking of divorce.
Chōrizō describes the separating of the one-flesh union understood to be dividing that which God had joined together. “Joined together” refers to the one-flesh union. “put asunder” refers to the dividing of that union by divorce. While apolyō means “put away” it’s clear in this text that the Pharisees and Jesus are using it technically to speak of divorce.
If your view is believed then Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for wanting to know all the reason for divorce becomes non-essential to the text because (supposedly) it is not talking about ending a marriage anyway. Ironically your interpretation misses the counter argument the Lord made against it in (Matthew 5:31). As a matter of fact it inverts that very point.
In that text Jesus is making the point that “Doing the paper work” or "issuing a writing of divorcement” (v.31) won't keep one from transgressing the obligations set forth by the first marriage (v.32). While the example of a wife merely separating and then remarrying would result in adultery, it changes the reason for the rebuke Jesus leveled at the Pharisees. He makes a reference in Israel history when their ancestors insisted on the legal right to divorce. The force of His words is to reveal to them what the concession caused or the ensuing outcome of supplanting one spouse for another.
The answer to the enigma divorce causes is to understanding that it causes both a transgression and a transference of marital responsibility as the end result. The simple truth Jesus revealed to Israel was to say that if their marriage is not sustained they will go on to transgress the intrinsic obligation of exclusive intimacy when they remarriage. The catch 22 is, divorce and remarriage formed another husband wife relationship which transgressed in principle the exclusivity set forth by the first marriage. Thus causing the adultery the way Jesus described.
Divorce and remarriage produced both a transgression and a transference of marital obligation. This is the dilemma it caused Israel then and the Church today. Blessings
That is why our Lord said to count the cost. That is why all are called but few are chosen. That is why few be there that find it. The path is narrow. Not everyone who calls Lord, Lord will inter in. Marriage is not instituted as a christian rite. It was from the beginning, before Mosaic Law. Before Duet. 24. Before the christian age. One man, one women. Until death do you part. One flesh consummated covenant with God. If you leave your first marriage and marry another, that's from your point of view, God does not recognize it as a marriage, only Adultery. Therefore if you repent and put her away, then you are not divorcing said person because in Gods eyes you were never married. Just committing sin. In the Bible, marriage is always from the 1st marriage perspective never from a second and so forth. The only account for remarriage is for the death of the spouse and only in the Lord. Let Gods will be done.
1 Corinthians 6.9 to 11....adultery, before having been saved...
If it was okay for me to stay in an adulterous marriage, then why was it not right to continue to drink my coffee Brandy, and get drunk and smoke my cigarettes and Curse everybody out. I had to stop that, but I didn't have to stop sleeping with the two men, I committed adultery marriages with, and don't for get fornification.
What about being baptized in the Holy Ghost, then you will have power, to become Witnesses for Jesus Christ, and then you will be able to be led by the spirit of God when you go out, and witness to people. You got to catch a fish before you can skin it. Always tell people, to study the word of God; because the word of God is our mirror. We grow in Grace and knowledge. And some people are babes in Christ Jesus, they are on milk; and they are not matured enough to eat solid food. It took years before I found out about adultery marriage. And had been filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) I would read about adultery in the Bible but I would Overlook it, because I was not convicted at that time by the Holy Spirit. I just gotten out of a 25-year adultery marriage. And God was still using me, to witness to others, casting out demons, praying with people for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, also fasting, and studying his word and praying. And delivered me from going to clubs, delivered me from alcohol, and I had a really bad habit smoking cigarettes, he delivered me from that right away. And I was in my second adultery marriage, and stay married to him 25 years, and you could not have told me I wasn't saved , and I was the most miserable person. And my family thought I was wrong, for leaving this man,I had no children by him. The Holy Spirit blessed me to come out of this sin, and now He is showing me other things I need to be delivered from, that is my heart. He still needs too continue, to work on other things in my heart that's not of him. And he alone will get the glory, old habits are not easily broken, but the love of Jesus Christ knows how to dig out the root, because when you break a limb off of the tree it will grow back, but when the root is Dugout it's gone, ain't nothing the devil can do with it. Study (the book of Acts in the King James version Bible) when God started his first church. The Holy Ghost is the new wine, and he will get you drunk, when He comes on the inside, of you you will have a supernatural Glorified experience in Him. The Holy Ghost, is the living in water.
I didn't hear the debate even though I'm an ex church of Christ minster, however I've never read the term, "adulterous marriage," in the New Testament. A marriage can be enacted on adultery, but never no mention of an adulterous marriage. Also there is no command, no comment, no example of anyone being told to leave their spouse upon obeying the Gospel, that can be found in the New Testament. IT just isn't there.
@@martin9410 there are other doctrines....the trinity, and that word, is not in the Bible....
Philip Buckley read my previous last two sentences and don’t evade the point I was making.
So brother Sutterfield after preaching this long extensive debate on no remarriage while the first spouse lives, has now been remarried since 2016??!! Doesn't this prove that brother Evans won!?
no, that doesn’t mean he won. That mean he’s only human. I’m in a mistake. Also he is getting a divorce because he knows it’s wrong.
@@latashasatterfield5792
How do you know he is getting a divorce?
To be honest, I believe that the laws the speakers law down are supported by Scripture, but I do not believe that the blood of Christ cannot cleanse the bonds of flesh that existed before. If God can join them, then his blood can cleanse them.
NIV not inspired version...
so u r saying the kjv is
@@cooltkll did I say anything about another translation..
@@philipbuckley759 u said this
Philip Buckley
3 years ago
NIV not inspired version...
I have heard of this a lot and I have a question...what will happen to the individuals who remarry after their former spouse had committed adultery therefore resulting in a divorce? No disrespect but I believe you can remarry after these circumstances but I really would like to get opinions from you all who believe so strongly in it.
adultery does not constitute a divorce ...only death from one spouse allows you to be frre from that moral law of God to yourr spouse.. remember thevows you made before GOD AND GOD WILL HOLD YOUR VOWS...THIS ISVERY UNFOTTUNATE FOR SOME US BUT BECAUSE OF UNDISCERNED TEACHERS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT NUMBERS. AND NOT WITH THE TRUTH...OF GOD...PRAY BROTHER AND PRAY FOR STRENGTH ..cuz I know how difficult it is to be without a our wifes....because they are still our wives therefore they are living in adultery before God....
Someone else’s sin is t license to sin that makes zero sense
@@robertgivens9479What bible do you read? In the New Testament Jesus clearly states that you can only divorce for the reason of infidelity!
Boy these new age doctrines you want a debate call me
remarriage is adultery, repent
Matthew 18:6King James Version (KJV)
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Romans 7:1-3
Luke 16:17-18
Mark 10:2-12
Matthew 19:10-12
1 Corinthians 7:39
Malachi 2:16
Genesis 20:3
Hebrews 13:3-5
Matthew 19:4-8
Ephesians 5:22-33
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Matthew 5:33
Matthew 19:9
Matthew 5:31-32
Deu 24 shows that a woman is twice divorced. No adultery in the second remarriage. No adultery that caused the first divorce, either. Otherwise, she wouldn't have been allowed to remarry, but she would have been stoned to death. Penalty for adultery is death, not remarriage. And, the second divorce was not the fault of the wife. It was all due to the fact that the husband didn't like her very much.
Now that we have the word "divorce" out of the way, "put away" is NOT equated to divorces. "Put Away" is ONLY for adultery. But, divorce happened just because the husband didn't like the wife. So, the conclusion SO FAR is that divorce is OK for any reason. "PUT AWAY" has ONLY one reason. Adultery.
Notice HOW the wording is put in the following:
Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Notice the words "LET HIM". That shows that put away is not the same as divorce. So, what happens if one PUTS AWAY, but does NOT give her a writing of divorcement, huh? THAT IS MY POINT.
If you PUT AWAY, BUT don't give her a divorce paper, you are causing her to commit adultery. And Jesus gives the example in the following (From the above Matthew 5:31-32 reference):
PUT AWAY WIFE MARRIES A DIVORCED MAN.
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.
We call that BIGAMY in the secular world. Some read the passage as the woman being divorced, all due to the fact that the passage reads, "her that is divorced". But if you dissect the sentence, the woman is the one who is PUT AWAY, not divorced, but the one who she married IS divorced.
And therefore, it is that reason alone that I think that people choose to equate "PUT AWAY" with the word "DIVORCE".
Now, SEE HERE:
PUT AWAY, NOT DIVORCED
Isaiah 50:1
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
And, if you look in the book of Ezra Chapter 10, you will find PUT AWAY without divorce. This is ANNULMENT, NOT DIVORCE.
So, are we really going to preach that if she gets remarried, that she is going to hell? Really? Are we really going to tell her to “repent” because she is “in sin”, in “rebellion”, judge her for adultery, kick her out of the church? All because someone in orthodox misunderstood the position of Jesus? How many women of the Christian world have been condemned unjustly by so-called men of God, men of the cloth, educated men with the title of Dr.? Of those, how many will repent to those women for making their life miserable for telling them that they are going to hell, just for being remarried? I spend a lot of time on a spiritual abuse blog, and these kind of things go on in our church’s.
chapmaned24
This does not line up w/Romans 7:1-3,1 Corinthians 7:39,Luke 16:18,Mark 10:11-12. Your point could be well taken by someone who wants to get remarried since you use a lot of scripture but i dont agree
Why there was divorce no one knows, that is the writing of. I suggest it was given to spare the woman of death. Jesus said it was not like this from the beginning, it was not so, but for the hardness of your hearts(Mark 10:5) We are called not to put it asunder(Mark 10:9),marriage. I dont think divorce and put away are different. I feel the divorce papers was to spare the stoning(my opinion)
First husband
if you think it was because he didnt like her, the text does not support that. It does reveal she was found to have uncleanness. Which translated from the Hebrews is ervah and is used by the KJV translators to mean nakedness the majority of the time. now, what this means is hard to tell exactly. But, it would suggest a serious issue, probably fornication(Leviticus 18:6-9), probably lines up with Deut 22:13-20, the woman was found not to be a maid/virgin, or perhaps cheated on the engaged spouse. There is no guarantee that the marriage was any different than in deut 22:13-20. Note that in Deut 22:13-20 that if the woman was found not guilty of the accusation than that man was never allowed to put her away. Why this is important, i feel that nowhere in the Bible does it say out and out that you are allowed to divorce/put away anyone after a marriage has been consummated. If that is the case, its till death (Romans 7:1-3), Which would be why Paul says that marriage is based on death according to the law(romans 7:1). When Paul says law he is def referring to Deut 22/24/Adam and Eve.
2nd
Deut 24 does reveal why the 2nd husband put her away, he had hate toward her, The same word used in Hebrew there for hate is the same word used in Deut 22:13, which if related to that marriage situation.
It does say she may remarry in (Deut 24:2) after the the divorce papers. Its does not say its ok though. I feel this passage in Deut 24 tells us a couple things. That A. the woman was defiled for her doings, which is a serious matter before Christ (Revelation 3:3-6,Matthew 15:18-19,Revelation 21:27). B. that the first spouse was not allowed to take her back, even though the latter husband died.
This is not an easy matter to solve, keep in touch on it if you want to further discuss. Jesus said we have to take up our cross if we want to be His. I dont feel this is a gender argument. Men are under the same rules
Raffaele C
The point is, Deuteronomy 24 allowed for divorce AND remarriage. That was the Law. It was not opinion of Moses, it was the Law of Moses. That means that God is the one who ordered it, not Moses. And we all know that based on 1 John 3:4, that sin is BIBLICALLY defined as Transgression of the Law. Therefore, there is NO SIN in remarriage.
And the point that I am making is that "PUT AWAY" is NOT equated to divorce. In a "PUT AWAY", there is only ONE reason, and that is adultery. Therefore, in the FIRST scenario in Deu., the conclusion is that "UNCLEANNESS" is NOT equated to adultery.
There is NO "PUT AWAY" in Deuteronomy 24 what so ever. The topic is ONLY divorce.
Isaiah 50:1 mentions BOTH
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
There is NO divorce in Isaiah 50, but there is a put away.
Therefore, in Matthew 5, a put away wife married a divorced man. It was lawful for the man to be divorced and remarried. But it was not lawful for that man to marry a put away woman, because she is still married to her husband that put her away.
So, NOW take that to 1 Cor 7. It does line up.
Ed
chapmaned24
In both Matthew 5/19 Jesus uses the Words "put away" and "divorce" interchangeably. I see no difference. He said it was the hardness of their heart that Moses gave this precept. He said since the beginning it was not so, 2 become 1 flesh, that sounds like its till death.
Now, you make a good point about sin being a transgression of the law, that said, Jesus could not go against what He said in the law, Thats why He explained the fornication clause for divorce/putting away. It does reveal that a person can remarry anywhere in scripture. We draw that conclusion based purely on context. Context is great, but in this case we have no foundation. matthew 5/19 does not support remarriage. It supports divorce/putting away for fornication, thats all it says. That does line up with the law, remarriage does not.
it should be noted that the Pharisees were not even asking if they could remarry, they only were asking about the grounds for divorce. Which Jesus made a important distinction between fornication and adultery, which would line up with Deut 22/24. uncleanness/not being a maid
In Deut 24 i dont see how you can say for sure that the woman was allowed to remarry. It says that she "may" remarry. because naturally people "may" sin. But the outcome of the situation is what we should learn from. She was defiled, and even the death of the 2nd spouse could not render her innocent to go back to the first husband. If she was defiled after the 2nd husband, what was she after the first husband? If she was not defiled after the first husband, she was deemed defiled after the remarriage. It has to be one way or the other, neither or which lines up with anything Jesus said as being grounds for remarriage. What changed within the scenario between the 2 spouses, certainly not the divorce papers changed her defilement? She was guilty both times. Notice also how the marriages always count, even if divorce papers are used. The former husband was still called a husband, thats how it reads. Thats why it must be till death (Romans 7:1-4,Deut 22:19), or else you are in adultery.
1 Corinthians 7 has a lot of text. It does end with till death. I don't think Paul would contradict himself a whole chapter on the topic and then say in V39 that it was till death. And contradict Romans 7:1-4
Raffaele C
No, they are not used interchangeably. And that is my point. I already said that a PUT AWAY wife married a divorced man in Matthew 5. That was the example, and in secular world, that is called bigamy. Again, put away is not an interchangeable word with divorce. Did you not read Isaiah 50:1 that I provided? That shows that a put away spouse is not divorced. Therefore, there is no way that it is interchangeable. Not a chance. Bottom line, it is not a sin for a divorced person to remarry. Next, you said that you don't see how I can say for sure that the woman was allowed to remarry by saying that it states "may". Did you not read verse 3? Verse 3 makes it clear that the example is that she did indeed remarry. Verse 3: " And if the latter husband...". That shows a remarriage. Next, you mention the word "defilement". Why? I did not see the word defilement. There is no guilt anywhere. Where do you get defilement? From uncleanness? Really? Leviticus 13 describes unclean, and it can be as minor as a SCAB, or leprosy, etc. Where do you get defilement? But, MY POINT is that after one divorces their spouse, they cannot remarry THAT PARTICULAR spouse after a remarriage to someone else...THAT is the defilement. But a simple remarriage is NOT defilement. Again, see verse 3 in Deu 24, that it shows a remarriage, not a "may". The word "LATTER" tells me that she remarried. Conclusion, again, there is no sin at all in a remarriage. Put away is not divorce. It is not used interchangeably. However, I will concede that it has been taught for a very long time that it is. And because of that, remarried people are kicked out of the Catholic church, which is another way of saying that anyone who gets remarried is going to hell. And yet, Jews are allow to remarry and it is not a sin? Something is fishy going on in the Christendom world if they teach that remarried people's destination is hell, and yet, it is not a sin in Deuteronomy 24. You got some pretty nutty doctrine there, buddy.
Ed
Mr satterfield initial arguments just proved Mr Evans right..
no he didn’t he only proved he is human
Dr. Evans' premise statement is incorrect. All men are NOT amenable to Gods moral law. His reasoning is that's the reason an alien sinner is a sinner at all. The problem is that if an alien sinner did follow all of Gods moral laws, would they be saved? The answer is NO, therefore ONLY Gods people are subject to His moral law. There is NO MORALITY outside God because if there were, an athiest could be made right with God. God doesnt have a universal MORAL law that ALL men are subject to. God ONLY asks alien sinners to OBEY his commands which will bring them into covenant relationship with Him.
Next, there is no such thing as a state of adultery or an adulterous state for Saints. Theyre ONLY two states, Sinner or Saint. Sinners sin and Saints sin however God requires separate things from them both to be reconciled to Him.
LASTLY, divorce and re-marriage are NOT unpardonable. The Bible makes it clear that there are no unpardonable sins EXCEPT during the time JESUS was on earth therefor God can forgive for ANY sin. This isnt a difficult topic Scripturally. It ONLY becomes difficult when people have axes to grind by wanting others to suffer for sins of which God has forgiven.
In Matthew 5 Jesus said that whosoever looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. In other words, his ways are higher than the law itself. If under he law of Moses people were allowed to divorce and remarry my question would be if this allowance also condemned them to hell? And if divorce is what God hates then why are these people telling people to divorce their present spouse?
if 1 divorces for non adultery & remarry....that marriage is not recognize in GOD sight
Not true! Especially since adultery includes even looking in lust at another person other than the spouse. IF not recognized then Jesus would have not referred to 5 husbands with the Samaritan woman at the well. Why did he include the man she was living with who was not her husband? He would have said he is ALSO not your husband and would have referred her back to her first husband or would have told her to remain single or unmarried. Under your doctrine more grace was given under the law when these men of God had multiple wives and were also having sex with the handmaids, than today! Think also about the fact that IF God does not recognize a remarriage then how can adultery be committed if it is not recognized? The adultery is when a person remarries unlawfully UNDER THE LAW. So the 2nd or more marriage IS recognized which is how the adultery is being committed in those cases.
Divorce for the sake of the state, but in God's eyes technically you're not married. It's adultery
@@simonegraham1781 When the woman at the well met Jesus why did Jesus tell her she had 5 husbands? You can only be called a husband or wife if you're married. Also, how do you reconcile Deut 24:1-5?
I Mean that Yeshua made it CRYSTAL Clear He was Not teaching His new Testament Doctrine back under the Law of Moses Period. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 yet You folks go over in Mathew chapter 5-7 and FALSELY claim he went beyond the Law of Moses which would have been a Sin to do so and teach His new testament doctrine. Read what Yeshua said about that. John 6:38 I am not Doing My new testament will but God the Fathers Old Covenant Will John 7:16, My Doctrine NOT MINE, but God the Fathers Old Testament Will. After Yeshua resurrection He Made it CRYSTAL Clear He was Granted All Authority to teach all of His New testament will. Mathew 28:18-20 John 16:12-15 Acts 1:3 it is RIGHT Here not back under the Law He was teaching all of HIS new Testament Doctrine .Why do You think they were STEADFASTLY in ONLY the APOSTLES DOCTRINE. Acts 2:42 Mathew-John before Yeshua Death is Not Yeshuas Doctrine or the Apostles Doctrine. John 7:16 verses 2 John 9-11. Paul through Yeshua made it Crystal Clear Former old Covenant Jews were not to Acknowledge Yeshua back under the Law of Moses in the Flesh. 2 Corinthians 5:16 king James version. By flesh He did not mean Yeshuas Physical Birth but His Covenant Birth of Circumcised the 8th day which made Him a JEW. In the New Covenant there are no Jews, but under the Law of Moses Yeshua was a Jew He came to save only Jews still under the Law of Moses. Galatians 4:4-5 Romans 15:8 King James version Mathew 4:23 Mathew 10:5-6 Mathew 15:24 John 4:22 the Old Testament Good news of Israels old testament Fleshly Kingdom was taken away from them at Yeshua death .Mathew 21:43 Yeshua Spiritual Kingdom was not of the old testament world of Israel. John 18:36. It is a Sin to follow Yeshua in 2 different Covenant ages. When Yeshua said it is Finished He meant the Law of Moses is over With, and the perfect sacrifice for sin is Completed. John 19:30. You Cannot preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL Than The APOSTLES. Mathew-John before Yeshuas death was ANOTHER GOSPEL for Jews only Period. this is the truth.
abide in the calling...you are living in sin....continue....ref...homosexual marriage..a simple miss interpretation of this passage....abide in your calling....
so if one is in a homosexual marriage....they can keep that marriage....and live in that relationship...
Philip Buckley It would also mean that John the Baptist was wrong for calling out Herod taking his brother's wife lol
Having sex in your anus (butt hold ) is a sin, that's where your poo comes out. That is of the devil and it is filthy. Women are also Letting Men do that to them. And women laying on top of one another and the things that they are doing to one another, and using filthy tools. Saying that a man is on the inside of them those are demonic spirits that have possessed God's people and some of them are coming out of it. Men and women bodies are made different and that's the way God made the physical body, and that's what he intend, for women to reproduce, and have a menstrual cycle every month, which causes cramps and is filthy. And women get used to it, and tolerate it until it is time to stop. I believe birth control cause a cancer, because some women still get pregnant on birth control, and it could be causing deformity as well in a baby. Adultery is in the Commandments: Thou shalt not commit adultery. We can meditate on it and let it get in a heart and become a desire and that's a sin, if we act on it, or we don't act on it. Because the devil will tempt we just got to learn how to catch it soon and rebuke him and use the word of God against it. Thank you for the truth. The church do not want to preach on marriage and the boys because they feel like they will lose members and money. And some preachers and Deacons etc... don't think anything is wrong with it, because a lot of them are doing it. And I'm guilty of it as well, as long as I've been in the church I have not heard anybody preach on it they give in encouragement to people that have been divorced. That's as far as it go with people in the church. Thank God for this church.
I debate with my son about the Bible, when it comes to the truth and sin. The truth will make us free.
Have y'all been filled with the Holy Ghost ( Acts 2:4 and chap 10) because I've had this experience in the Holy Spirit. He is our teacher...
First, the Jews taught that only man can divorce his wife. The State of Israel and Orthodox Jews have been teaching this almost exclusively since the Torah. But, no one has asked why did they teach 'only man' can initiate the divorce. Then after you have answered that question the next two come into play. Does those reasons mean anything to us Believers today? And can we see it taught by Jesus speaking about the Law and Paul to believers. Yes! Mark's account was written to what Jesus said in private and this gospel was written to the Gentiles (they already had women divorces the Jews did not). Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:10-11 a woman can not remarry after she separates from her husband (as it was not lawful according to the Jews for a woman to put away her husband according to Scripture). And this is why the later part of that verse in 1 Cor. 7:11b does not say the man must "remain unmarried or be reconciled to his wife." You can read my ebook for free at www.smashwords.com/books/view/664951
Michael Sayen with all due respect if you have not obeyed the Gospel of Jesus Christ you need not reply first you must be added to Church by Christ before you understand what great division this is causing in the Church
about "division" when we don't have the truth, or don't understand it, we are susceptible to division. Like the Corinthians. In 1 Cor. 7:10-16 there were those who thought they were to divorce the unbelievers because of Ezra 10:3, but others who thought that even if the unbeliever wanted the divorce, we were commanded not to given them the divorce by Deut. 24:1. Paul came to "set the record straight". I wish to do the same things. As far as not obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am not sure of what you are talking about, but repentance is always before forgiveness. And any sin, I have repented of awhile ago (that I am aware of).
Michael Sayen are you a Christian?
Michael Sayen truly I didn't mean to tag your name in my comment but maybe God did ...my meaning of obeying the Gospel is have you been obedient to the belief that Christ died buried resurrected mark 16:16 because I kind of like to do some setting straight myself
The Book of Acts is clear. Not all believers who were saved spoke in tongs or prophesied. But, prophecy is the greater of the two gifts, and alone would show a special infilling of the Holy Spirit.
Pastor sutterfield is right, it is even in the Ten Commandments, thy
shall not not commit adultery, it can be in your heart and it's a sin, without even committing it. God never changed sin not to be sin. Brother Satterfield you are speaking the truth. Brother Evans, seems like he is angry. Water baptism does not save a person, it is a symbol just like a marriage ring. Having faith in Jesus Christ is what saves us, Jesus told the woman that was caught in adultery, not to commit that sin again. You cannot isolate scripture, and take it out of context. God said he hates adultery, so brother Evans, is really saying now God is saying he's okay with it. In any case he changed his mind about all sin. Really having more than one wife or husband is polygamy, and we say it's a sin for a man to have five or six wives living in the house with him, and that's against God law and man's law, but when we have three or four wives or husbands there's no difference. We divorced, and we're just having them one at a time. So how can we put the man down, for having four or five wives living in the house with him, how then will the church Witness to them, about salvation.
Amen, I agree with you.
CZcams money - Jigmé - Squeesie - Philippe .. Et le grand , le fameux , le gigantesque JHON CENNAAAAAA !!! ...............C pas déjà dis ?? #MDR17
God did not give us free will. He gave us the (choice) of free will. Choose right and live, choose wrong and die.
“As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.”
Psalms 103:12 KJV
Once you obey the gospel, you become free of all your past sins.
No one can hold your pass sins against you.
God has forgave and forgot
“And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”
Hebrews 10:17 KJV
If a person was guilty of adultery before they have been baptized for the remission of their sins. They are no longer guilty after baptism.
No man can give back sin to anyone which God have made righteous.
A righteous man can be married.
Have a problem with that you can argue with God. But he won’t know what you are talking about.
Man can not tell God who he will give grace and who he will not.
“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
Romans 9:15 KJV
Traveling Wilbert God is clear in Scripture about marriage. GRACE is no excuse to sin and go against His Word.
"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!" Romans 6:15
Traveling Wilbert
to receive forgiveness one must admit and forsake the sin....
Divorce and remarriage is wrong period for believer or unbeliever it's a covenant Matthews 19.9 is for the engaged Jewish custom married people can't comit fornicatiion but bit engaged can cause they aren't fully married I left a marriage that I was in for 3 years and she was divorced because infedelity and I believed it was ok but the hilt spirit taught me other wise I seperated from her this year even tho it hurts it's just not worth it to loose your salvation cause you are lonely God is our comforter nothing is impossible for us to endure glory to God!
antonio gutierrez jr marriage wasn't worth it to lose your salvation?? What bible are you reading?
"How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" 1 Corinthians 7:16
No excuses to leave a spouse. Period! And not this one you state. I do know no one will stay in a physically abusive marriage. Pray. Die to the self. It will hurt but God is powerful and bigger.
Amen
Say it as loud as you want to but if you tell people they can marry after a divorce for any reason you leading people astray. Read Romans 7:3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
so an individual, with a homosexual marriage is allowed to keep that marriage, after having been baptized...
GOD never recognize that marriage so it aint a marruage
as with the person who has divorced, and remarried....
unless it was for adultery matt 19:9
Philip Buckley God does not recognize homosexual marriages (Matthew 19:4-5 cf. Genesis 1:27)!
7Springscofc 8326294032 call concerning this matter
so when they made a vow before God until desth do us part i guess they didnt mean it ...so i guess God will be ok eith thst....NOT SO...SIR.
Okay let's start with Christian Jesus never said nothing about Christian it's too liberal of a word Christianity is only mentioned three times in the Bible and that's it Jesus said go out and make disciples which means student and Jesus is our teacher wake up people quit being so dang lazy open your Bible and read it which I know you guys don't or you wouldn't be sitting there second of all Jesus said makes it clear let no man separate the only one that can separate for remarriage is God himself and that's through death plane and simple you don't need part one and part two on that they these preachers ought to be politicians because everything they say is a lie they don't go with what Jesus taught they worship their father the devil wake up become a disciple learn on your own you're going to stand before Jesus and you're going to say well my pastor said and she's going to say so what that ain't what I said wake up or live in the time of deception
God will never ask anyone to commit a sin in order to be right with him. If you are on your 60th marriage God recognizes that marriage and if you come to God and repent he is faithful to forgive. A husband and wife can not commit adultery. Therefore getting a divorce (which God hates-SIN) is foolish requirement. Read your bible.
if the relationship is adultery....then that relationship, regardless of what culture calls it...needs to be terminated...
@@philipbuckley759 Bible verse?
If God call the second marriage adultery then how can u stay in it. Didn't the scriptures says that no adulterer or adulteress will enter his kingdom. Didn't u read that
@@maunder01 God calls a second marriage adultery
@@simonegraham1781thank you for your message Simone. Can you please show me the verses supporting your conclusion.
why does the church of Christ use a perverted bible such as the so called New King James Version of the bible which cannot even prove that Jesus Christ was faithful unto death and teaches in Titus 3:10 to reject a divisive man, Jesus said I am not come to bring peace but division. etc, etc. This is very troubling to me and so many others in the church.
It just proves that man is not to perform baptism any more. The true baptism is done by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit will not make the mistake of baptizing a person that does not have a heart of repentance.
???? Philip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch without having the authority to pass the Holy Spirit on to others. Baptism by water is required Mark 16:16, Rom 6:1-6
Baptism by water was only a symbol of what was to come.
LUKE 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
ACTS 1:4 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
"Ye" meaning the apostles. Not us. The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. They received the Holy Spirit and were able to pass it on to others. We aren't baptized with the Holy Spirit. What does he tell the apostles to do? Bapize Mark 16:16, Matt 28:18-20. With water? Yes Rom 6:1-6
Paul Woodard Hmmm...interesting, since John was speaking to many of the Pharisees and Sadducees when he said "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"
Friend, baptism by emersion of water was a foreshadow of things that were to come after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
Remember the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus. Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water AND of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the FLESH is flesh; and that which is born of THE Spirit is spirit."
Being born of water is the natural birth by the womb. Jesus clarifies that when he says "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." Even Nicodemus understood this, because he asked how a man can enter into his mother's womb a second time.
The first birth is of water; by the womb. The second birth is of the Spirit of God.
So, you see that it is required of all of us to also be born of the Spirit of God, or we shall not enter into the kingdom of God.
Ok. If that is the case, then why is EVERY conversion in Acts through baptism? bible.com/114/act.2.37-38.nkjv Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
When they asked Peter, "What shall we do?", he responds, "repennt AND BE BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"
Baptism is for the remission of sins.
Check out Acts 8 and the Ethiopian Eunuch.
bible.com/114/act.8.36-38.nkjv Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
WATER BAPISM IS ESSENTIAL