Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Divorce and Remarriage (The Exception Clause)


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, Saved41199 said:

i did give you biblical evidence. You chose to ignore it. 

No you did not.

You made a vague reference to Ephesians 5 and you implied that if a man fails to obey the commands of God in Ephesians 5 that it allows for divorce. that is not biblical evidence that is you adding something and reading something into the text that it doesn't say.

You also reference "except it be for fornication", which I dealt with and addressed in the first post. I gave examples of how this phrase does not have to mean if a man commits sexual sin during the marriage union. You ASSUME that it refers to adultery and you actually are the one ignoring the cultural customs of that day, fornication before marriage was legitimate grounds to end the betrothal period in the Jewish culture and context and would be considered as such. Even if MOSES wrote and allowed for divorce, it doesn't even say GOD did allow it, we are not under the law, and NT Christians should not have hardness of heart. I can hardly see God approving a decision made out of hardness of heart.  Let me remind you what Jesus said: 

6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The NT is clear, a woman is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. 

for you to say that the references in Matthew allow an NT Christian to divorce for sexual sin, would be to violate the character of God and several plain passages in the scriptures. 

My questions give you ample opportunity to explain your position and they are great opportunities to defend your position. 

Making two vague references to passages and forcing them to say what they do not say, is not "biblical evidence".

You did not deal with a single one of the points I made in the original post. 

Your replies have little to no substantial argumentation. 

 

 

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Does “Not Under Bondage” Mean Divorce Is Permitted?

The word rendered “bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.”

Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness (note the allusion of 1 Cor. 7:5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai. The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action. Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action] and is not bound [present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:

Yet if (assuming such should occur) the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure has occurred] enslaved ....

Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the Christian was not in it even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the saint was married (and is) to him, hence, the bondage is not the marriage!

Let the reader substitute the word “marriage” for “bondage,” giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e., “has not been married, and is not married”) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as the marriage itself will be apparent.

First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much as some wish that it were so.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/683-what-is-the-meaning-of-not-under-bondage-1-cor-7-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." - 1 Corinthians 7:15

 

This teaches that the Christian is not obligated to share their bed with the departed if they're not reconciled.  No popping in for a quick visit to satisfy one's need and then leaving.  You might ask me where I got that but do not remember.  Either from the pulpit or Way of Life or the old Baptist Challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

Hi, looks like all of you have studied the topic more than I have, so I won't say too much.

My first thought when reading the OP and a few of the responses was, Jesus won't devorce us, but God DID devorce Israel.

Secondly, wasn't Joseph engaged to Mary, not Married?

Thirdly on Hosea, The LORD overlooked all sorts of imorality of the wives beause it wasn't as important as spiritual imorality.

Ho 4:12 My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused [them] to err, and they have gone a whoring from under their God.
Ho 4:13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof [is] good: THEREFORE your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.
Ho 4:14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery:

Fourth, Any man who as much as looks at another woman the wrong way is an adulterer, so it isnt an uncommon sin, and all have sinned, and isn't that the point of the discourse in Matt, which is summed up as 'be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect', if you want to keep the Law that is, but until you reach that lofty hight, you will need to learn to recieve and walk as a sinner in Grace.

Fifth, If God suffred Divorce under Law, would Christ not suffer it even more so under Grace?

 

Edited by Rab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's always difficult to have this conversation since there are 3 basic positions

1. No Divorce under any circumstance
2. Divorce is allowed for Fornication
3. Divorce is allowed for any reason

There are many passages, but the two key passages are found in Matthew and 1 Corinthians, which have already been referenced above.

Jesus said "Except for Fornication". - To understand this passage, one must understand Jewish Marriages. We have an "Engagement Period" today in which a ring is given, but no vows are given. In Bible times, Joseph and Mary were Espoused according to Luke and Married according to Matthew. Is this a contradiction? Luke is looking at it from a physical standpoint and Matthew the legal. Joseph and Mary were "Legally married" as they were espoused to each other. However, they had not consummated the marriage yet which is why Luke uses the word "Espoused Wife". During the Espousal period, a couple are legally married and it is during this time if one were to "Cheat" on the other, God allowed the divorce. It is important to notice that Jesus used the word "Fornication" instead of "Adultery". During the Espousal period, if one "Cheated", it would have been "Fornication". However, once the marriage is consummated, it is no longer "Fornication", it is now "Adultery".

1 Corinthians is a little more difficult to explain, but I will deal with that one later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would like to post a 4th position through scripture that has nothing to do with Fornication.

1 Corinthians 7:12-15 (KJV) 
12  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 

This "exception clause" is for those that are saved either before or after marriage, and if the spouse is refusing to believe, wants nothing to do with the Christian beliefs and lifestyle and refuses to abide in them, but says "either your God goes, or I go"; then you as the saved are not under bondage to the marriage vow.

Edited by 2bLikeJesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

I would like to post a 4th position through scripture that has nothing to do with Fornication.

1 Corinthians 7:12-15 (KJV) 
12  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 

This "exception clause" is for those that are saved either before or after marriage, and if the spouse is refusing to believe, wants nothing to do with the Christian beliefs and lifestyle and refuses to abide in them, but says "either your God goes, or I go"; then you as the saved are not under bondage to the marriage vow.

I will get into this passage at some point. Unfortunately, I do not have time right now.

The key to any doctrinal discussion is one understanding - Scripture cannot contradict Scripture and Jesus cannot go against Scripture. Notice the below passage. Jesus said "But from the beginning it was not so." Also notice "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

These two key phrases mean that God never intended divorce in any circumstance and that Jesus restated it.

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 12:32 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Matthew 19:4-8 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

The Apostle Paul would never under inspiration contradict God or Jesus. So when you are looking at 1 Cor. you must keep this in mind. Often times people take one verse to prove a point. You must use all Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 9/19/2018 at 8:52 AM, Pastorj said:

The Apostle Paul would never under inspiration contradict God or Jesus. So when you are looking at 1 Cor. you must keep this in mind. Often times people take one verse to prove a point. You must use all Scripture.

Exactly, and this is why the doctrine of marriage is found in 1st Corinthians 7 and not Matthew for the New Testament Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Exactly, and this is why the doctrine of marriage is found in 1st Corinthians 7 and not Matthew for the New Testament Christian.

The doctrine of Marriage starts in Genesis and goes throughout. The Apostle Paul would not contradict Jesus or the Old Testament. That is bad doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Pastorj said:

The doctrine of Marriage starts in Genesis and goes throughout. The Apostle Paul would not contradict Jesus or the Old Testament. That is bad doctrine.

I'm not sure we disagree.  However, things said by Paul contradict things said by Jesus until taken in context.  But I'll stand by my statement that if one wants to know what God's plan for marriage is in this age, it's to be found in 1 Corinthians 7.  Of course, other things related to marriage are found throughout the scriptures

 

Edited by swathdiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

 

On 8/30/2018 at 9:24 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Does “Not Under Bondage” Mean Divorce Is Permitted?

The word rendered “bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.”

Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness (note the allusion of 1 Cor. 7:5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai. The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action. Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action] and is not bound [present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:

Yet if (assuming such should occur) the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure has occurred] enslaved ....

Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the Christian was not in it even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the saint was married (and is) to him, hence, the bondage is not the marriage!

Let the reader substitute the word “marriage” for “bondage,” giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e., “has not been married, and is not married”) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as the marriage itself will be apparent.

First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much as some wish that it were so.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/683-what-is-the-meaning-of-not-under-bondage-1-cor-7-15

I thought this was worth re-quoting. I think it refutes the notion that 1 Cor 7 allows remarriage.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
19 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 

I thought this was worth re-quoting. I think it refutes the notion that 1 Cor 7 allows remarriage.

Jordan,

Your interpretation goes contrary to Jesus, therefore is wrong. I will find some time this week to go through 1 Cor. 7. Just been busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

Jordan,

Your interpretation goes contrary to Jesus, therefore is wrong. I will find some time this week to go through 1 Cor. 7. Just been busy.

Actually I think my position harmonizes with Christ, if you divorce and marry someone else you commit adultery, with the exception that you already mentioned earlier of fornication during the betrothal period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...