quote:

Greetings


quote:

The Christian has NO laws regarding divorce that we must obey.


Truthfully we don't

1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me,
KEY IS ....but I will not be brought under the power of any.

OK so then being brought under the power of any... is a spiritual issue,

What does civil law have to do with the things of the spirit?

quote:

quote:

What I have tried to know is whether remarriage is a marriage approved by God and secured by a covenant.


Just as marriage is an everlasting covenant... so is bibical remarriage

quote:

(benelchi's Quote)

quote:

But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written, where it is said, "A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth," and "So then if while her husband liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress," not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by law, and written.

quote:

(benelchi Quote) Here are some quotes from the Early church:


But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour will say, that when Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress," He also gave permission to put away a wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, "Because he found in her an unseemly thing," is to be reckoned as the same as fornication on account of which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood. For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the bill of divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her husband; "but from the beginning it hath not been so." After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress." But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour forbids any one to put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication. In either case there appears to be something monstrous, whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would acknowledge to be impious. I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress." For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, "when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;" and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress. But as to whether her being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes any defence of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from the simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether there is a ground of defence or not for such husbands in the case of such false steps, you will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in regard to the difficult questions raised by us on the passage. And even he who withholds himself from his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away,--for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins.


Also from the same commentary on Mathew Origin said this:

But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written, where it is said, "A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth," and "So then if while her husband liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress," not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by law, and written.

Note that in this passage that Origin, while expressing his disagreement, acknowledges that others leaders in the early church disagreed with him on this point. Additionally, he states that likely reason was that the alternative to permitting this marriage would have been worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

Arguments from silence are of course doubtful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Showmethetruth

What I have tried to know is whether remarriage is a marriage approved by God and secured by a covenant.

Just as marriage is an everlasting covenant... so is bibical remarriage
LG

quote:

(benelci's Quote) "The Saviour then commanded, 'What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,' but man wishes to put asunder what God hath joined together, when, "falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding," not only to commit fornication, but 'to marry,' he dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the providence of God. Let these things then be said, keeping in view what is expressly said concerning the male and the female, and the man and the woman, as the Saviour taught in the answer to the Pharisees.", Origen.


Note that he acknowledges that the original marriage covenant is irrevocably broken.

quote:

The false doctrine that permits a man/woman to divorce and remarry this-side-of-death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice



That the death on the cross was given for all sin even the one of divorce.

quote:

(benelchi Quote) "Now, when we saw that some who have been married twice may be much better than those who have been married once, we were perplexed why Paul does not at all permit those who have been twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities; for also it seemed to me that such a thing was worthy of examination, as it was possible that a man, who had been unfortunate in two marriages, and had lost his second wife while he was yet young, might have lived for the rest of his years up to old age in the greatest self-control and chastity. Who, then, would not naturally be perplexed why at all, when a ruler of the church is being sought for, we do not appoint such a man, though he has been twice married, because of the expressions about marriage, but lay hold of the man who has been once married as our ruler, even if he chance to have lived to old age with his wife, and sometimes may not have been disciplined in chastity and temperance?


But, from what is said in the law about the bill of divorcement, I reflect whether, seeing that the bishop and the presbyter and the deacon are a symbol of things that truly exist in accordance with these names, he wished to appoint those who were figuratively once married, in order that he who is able to give attention to the matter, may find out from the spiritual law the one who was unworthy of ecclesiastical rule, whose soul did not find favour in the eyes of her husband because there had been found in her an unseemly thing, and she had become worthy of the bill of divorcement; for such a soul, having dwelt along with a second husband, and having been hated by such an one, can no longer, after the second bill of divorcement, return to her former husband. It is likely, therefore, also, that other arguments will be found by those who are wiser than we, and have more ability to see into such things, whether in the law about the bill of divorcement, or in the apostolic writings which prohibit those who have been twice married from ruling over the church or being preferred to preside over it. But, until something shall be found that is better and able by the excessive brilliancy of the light of knowledge to cast into the shade what we have uttered, we have said the things which have occurred to us in regard to the passages." Origen


And here Origen acknowledges that Scripture teaches that a spouse who has remarried cannot return to their former spouse while explaining why he believes that a person who has remarried cannot serve in leadership. Note that Origen says "We were perplexed why Paul does not permit those twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities", If Origen believed that all second marriages were continuous adultery, it is hard to imagine how he could have recognized that some who had been in second marriages could be "better than those who have been married once"

quote:

(Quote benelchi) "He goes not on to what lies before Him, until He have well cleared out the former topics. For, lo, He shows us yet another kind of adultery. And what is this? There was an ancient law made,7 that he who hated his wife, for whatever kind of cause, should not be forbidden to cast her out, and to bring home another instead of her. The law however did not command him simply to do this, but after giving the woman a writing of divorcement, that it might not be in her power to return to him again; that so at least the figure of the marriage might remain. For if He had not enjoined this, but it were lawful first to cast her out, and take another, then afterwards to take back the former, the confusion was sure to be great, all men continually taking each others' wives; and the matter thenceforth would have been direct adultery. With a view to this, He devised, as no small mitigation, the writing of divorcement." Chrysostom


Here Chrysostom argues that allowing a spouse who had remarried to return to their former spouse would be a direct act of adultery.

quote:

(benelchi Quote) "What I am about to say may sound novel but after all it is not new but old for it is supported by the witness of the old testament. If she leaves her second husband and desires to be reconciled with her first, she cannot be so now; for it is written in Deuteronomy: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Wherefore, I beseech you, do your best to comfort her and to urge her to seek salvation. Diseased flesh calls for the knife and the searing-iron. The wound is to blame and not the healing art, if with a cruelty that is really kindness a physician to spare does not spare, and to be merciful is cruel." Jerome

Here Jerome acknowledges the early churches belief that a former spouse cannot return after they have remarried.


Again, no one disputes that the early church almost unanimously rejected remarriage; however, what is clear from their writing is that they were far more compassionate towards those who had remarried (even though they believed the remarriage was sinful), and they never advocated for divorce as a means or sign of repentance.

Ask yourself this, if those pushing this false doctrine continually demonstrate dishonesty in how they represent the beliefs of the early church, dishonesty in how the present Scripture, etc... Why believe them when the teach this false doctrine?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Showmethetruth

Yes, I am quite aware that John the Baptist was not Jesus Christ.

If the Law and the Prophets were until John, and "since that time" the kingdom of God was preached, wasn't John preaching principles of the kingdom of God and not the law?

Didn't Jesus say (Mat 11:11) “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist"? I would say his credibility is good.

quote:

wasn't John preaching principles of the kingdom of God and not the law?

quote:

I would say his credibility is good.

quote:

Deut was about man and wife
Jer 1 was about God and Israel, Judah
Act 17 was about the ignorance of worshiping other Gods.

The suffering he spoke about He is talking about persecution. Persecution due to being Christian.

quote:

Or what other explanation do you have for Him choosing this scripture and saying they say that such a wife must not return to a first (covenant) husband

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Or what other explanation do you have for Him choosing this scripture and saying they say that such a wife must not return to a first (covenant) husband

There is actually a very easy explanation for why it says "They say." The KJV translators were not the best Hebrew translators and they occasionally made mistakes. This is one of those clear examples where there is a mistake in the KJV translation. Let's begin by looking at the actual text of this verse.

לאמר הן ישׁלח אישׁ את־אשׁתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאישׁ־אחר הישׁוב אליה עוד הלוא חנוף תחנף הארץ ההיא ואת זנית רעים רבים ושׁוב אלי נאם־יהוה׃

The first two words 'לאמר הן' form the phrase translated "they say" in the KJV version; however there are several significant problems with this translation. First, there is not the expected verb/noun agreement. Hebrew verbs are conjugated and must agree with the subject in both number and gender and in this case because the pronoun is 3rd person feminine plural it should be 'תאמרנה הן' if "they say" was really what was intended but here the verb is in the infinitive form. Second, pronouns in Hebrew are used with a much wider semantic range than they are used in English. They are used quite frequently to express the meaning of "this", "these", etc... Third, the feminine pronoun is used here; in Hebrew a masculine pronoun can be used inclusively to refer to a group of both men and women, but a feminine pronoun can only refer to women; clearly the context would not allow for a reference to ONLY women. Last, this phrase ends with the another phrase 'נאם־יהוה/declares the Lord' which strongly indicates that these are the words of the Lord. Last we have the interrogative 'הלוא/if not' that indicates a rhetorical question that refers back to the previous phrase. Because of these grammatical and contextual issues, the translation of "they say" has been rejected by every translation other than the KJV and the NKJV; they have much more accurately communicated the actual meaning of this phrase i.e. "saying this" rather than "they say"

ESV Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? declares the LORD.

KJV Jeremiah 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

NASB Jeremiah 3:1 God says, "If a husband divorces his wife And she goes from him And belongs to another man, Will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot with many lovers; Yet you turn to Me," declares the LORD.

NET Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and becomes another man's wife, he may not take her back again. Doing that would utterly defile the land. But you, Israel, have given yourself as a prostitute to many gods. So what makes you think you can return to me?" says the LORD.

NIV Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers-- would you now return to me?" declares the LORD.

NKJ Jeremiah 3:1 "They say,`If a man divorces his wife, And she goes from him And becomes another man's, May he return to her again?' Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; Yet return to Me," says the LORD.

NLT Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces a woman and she goes and marries someone else, he will not take her back again, for that would surely corrupt the land. But you have prostituted yourself with many lovers, so why are you trying to come back to me?" says the LORD.

NRSV Jeremiah 3:1 If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not such a land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the LORD.

TNIV Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers-- would you now return to me?" declares the LORD.

YLT Jeremiah 3:1 Saying, 'Lo, one sendeth away his wife, And she hath gone from him, And she hath been to another man, Doth he turn back unto her again? Greatly defiled is not that land? And thou hast committed whoredom with many lovers, And turn again to Me, an affirmation of Jehovah.

In other words, you have build an entire theology on a translation mistake!

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Or what other explanation do you have for Him choosing this scripture and saying they say that such a wife must not return to a first (covenant) husband

There is actually a very easy explanation for why it says "They say." The KJV translators were not the best Hebrew translators and they occasionally made mistakes. This is one of those clear examples where there is a mistake in the KJV translation. Let's begin by looking at the actual text of this verse.


In other words, you have build an entire theology on a translation mistake!

quote:

ORIGINAL: contend4christ


Benelchi, it still seems the point stands depending on the last part of the verse you posted is translated accurately. Can you explain the differences between the translations saying Gods desires them to return and the verses essentially saying it is Israel wanting to return, because those are to totally different things. One of the translation methods is actually changing the meaning of the scripture. The NKJV still has the second part with the same meaning, some translations have it saying essentially don't you know Israel you have had your chance, why are you trying to return when you know you cant. I don't picture the lord telling them they cant return because when Jesus came he seemed to still be pulling for them. However I would be interested in the explanation of the differences in the translations of the last part of that verse as you explained the beginning if have the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

(benelchi's Quote)

quote:

But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written, where it is said, "A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth," and "So then if while her husband liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress," not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by law, and written.

Heth and Wenham quote this same passage; here is their version:

Already contrary to Scripture certain church leaders have permitted remarriage of a woman while her husband was alive. They did it despite what is written: ‘A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives’ (ICor. 7:39) and: ‘She will be called an adulteess if she lives with another man while her husband is alive’ (Rom. 7:3). However, they have not acted entirely without reason. Probably this condescension has been permitted out of comparison wit greater ills, contrary to the primitive law reported in Scripture.

Heth and Wenham add their comment:

Despite saying three times that their action was contrary to Scripture, Origen admits that they may have had pastoral justification for their actions: it was a means to avoid greater evils.

Pastoral concessions are not the Gospel of God.

The Gospel was repeated by Origen three times ... that is the point.

Origen refers to I Cor. 7:39 and Rom. 7:3

quote:

ORIGINAL: pd57

a few issues here as I've been researching some of the questions.

1. Translations to meaning in English. The word used is porniea which has many definitions in english. (1 word for word is insufficient to express meaning)
2. word NOT used is moichea. which is more precise to mean aldultery.
3. why did he use porniea & NOT moichea? (if only exception is aldultery)
4. why is translated different in almost every instance throughout the different english translations?
5. is the only exception for SEX and nothing else?

So if only for extramarital SEX, as long as a spouse does not cheat on you they are 'allowed' all kinds of abusive to the marital relationship and divorce would be a sin? Someone that holds you captive in bondage of a marriage that really is not any kind of loving relationship on any level with anyone is bound to that unrelenting, abusive, non-changing staus for life? (Hey, as long as they don't have sex with anyone else, anything goes)

How is that the purpose and end result of a morally perfect God who wants us ' to be perect as our Father in heaven is perfect'? Where in other places we are told about drunkards, idolaters, perverts, thieves, etc. etc. 'not to even eat with such a person. Yet in a 'failed marriage', too bad stick it out for life. That is slavery to an evil person in an evil relationship that is fraudulent from the start in some cases. That just doesn't even sound remotely reasonable on any level!