Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
That is not correct either. That supposes that divorce prevents him from remarrying. Not what the scriptures teach.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
How would you refute this argument?
- Thread starter MiddleEastMissionary
- Start date
MiddleEastMissionary
New Member
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Luke 16:16-18
MiddleEastMissionary
New Member
Porneia (illicit sex) in this context is reffering to 2 things,
1. bethrothal period (see Joseph putting Mary away when he finds her pregnant--he wasn't permitted to sleep with her prior to the marriage, hence her pregnancy proves porneia occured. The porneia exception and Joseph putting mary away is only in Matthew's gospel, so they wouldn't say jesus was contradicting his own father to prohibit divorce/remarriage.)
2. Also the right to divorce a marriage where one of the parties is a divorcee.
Otherwise all remarriages would be valid: If post marital adultery is the grounds for divorce, and marriages without grounds are adultery, all remarrages would be permitted. That's not what Jesus disciples heard:
...His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Matthew 19:10-12
Not 1 church or church father allowed remarriage after divorce until the 16th century, Luther prohbited Henry VIII remarriage after divorce (offered bigamy instead, Henry refused.) the largest Protestant church, Church of England, didn't allow remarriage ceremonies until 2002 (Just ask Charles III). Presbyterians amended the Westminster confession in 1955 to allow more remarriages.
MiddleEastMissionary
New Member
Considering I spent all morning writing this from books I have had on my shelf for years I don't know whether to be insulted or take it as your forfeiting.
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
Very few people here will take what "church Fathers" have said to hold much weight.
Even the "church Fathers" of Yeshua's day were wildly wrong on their beliefs. Why? Because they were walking after men's traditions and not keeping Yah's Commandments as given to us through the prophet Moses.
So, did the disciples think that Yeshua was giving them a hard thing to do? Based on what they said, yes. But, did they understand it the way you think they did? Maybe? What is your proof of their understanding. They did not clarify what they thought he was teaching them.
So, for many of us, myself included, we revert back to the teaching of Yah's ways as given to us through Moses knowing that ANY prophet, including Yeshua, could not teach contrary to it or they would by definition be a false prophet.
There’s a great book on divorce, remarriage and polygyny that has been read by some of us on this site. I would encourage you to read it and then show your friend. The author has even been a speaker at a Biblical Families retreat. He has made some YouTube videos as well.
Rather than trying to read a bunch of our messages and reply like buckshot, you might want to read and then come back for input.
“As a student at Trinity I entered into a spirited debate with Norman Geisler in the field of Christian ethics over the subject of whether or not the laws of God conflicted in a fallen and finite world. He contested that God’s absolutes did conflict and I argued that they did not...”-William Luck
Porneia is prohibited sexual acts, it’s an umbrella term that covers all the sexual sins in the Bible.
More reasons to read William Luck’s book. He has a great approach that is very easy to read and digest. Here is his basic approach.
“This book has unashamedly gone to the Old Testament to learn what God thinks of marriage, divorce and remarriage. The principles we find there are still relevant to today. Marriage was intended to be permanent. Divorce was either a control of hard-hearted husband (Exodus 21) or permitted to them so that their rejected wives would be protected from further abuse (Deut. 24:1-4). Divorce was also a punishment for wicked partners (wives) who strayed (Hosea). Remarriage was permitted for the divorced innocent, who would then have their needs met (Deut. 24). The guilty were required to confess, repent, and restore (Hosea). All of those things were taught and have not passed away.”
“This book has unashamedly gone to the Old Testament to learn what God thinks of marriage, divorce and remarriage. The principles we find there are still relevant to today. Marriage was intended to be permanent. Divorce was either a control of hard-hearted husband (Exodus 21) or permitted to them so that their rejected wives would be protected from further abuse (Deut. 24:1-4). Divorce was also a punishment for wicked partners (wives) who strayed (Hosea). Remarriage was permitted for the divorced innocent, who would then have their needs met (Deut. 24). The guilty were required to confess, repent, and restore (Hosea). All of those things were taught and have not passed away.”
I believe the new covenant is made to both Israel and Judah, both described and brides of God in Ezekiel 23.
if you wrote this yourself, then i was wrong, but that's worse. you're arguing lines that have been answered
According to the Gospels and the Prophet Malachi - at least some men definitely abused the power they were given in terms of divorce. Today, the tables have been turned against a lot of the men in the western world. I doubt husbands on this forum have this problem, but outside of Biblical Marriage it's now the wives that are abusing the power that the state gives them. That won't last forever, of course. There will be another paradigm shift back to truth, justice, and righteousness. However, at least according to the ages before us, there usually is some type of judgement before a paradigm shift occurs. The flood is an example. Plagues of Egypt and cleansing of the Holy Land. Assyrian conquest. Babylonian conquest. Other nations were also judged during that time. The Jews were then allowed to return, and there was at least some return to righteousness to prepare the way for Messiah. Rise of Rome. Fall of Jerusalem. Fall of Roman Empire. Gentiles receiving and accepting the gospel. Gentiles growing in blessings and population. Gentiles polluting the gospel over time. Wickedness growing among the gentiles. What follows next is always judgement. That's where we are at (IMO). Can it stopped? Sure, because YAH is gracious. But it requires a massive repentance, and a return back to His Living Word. I don't see that happening. I think the future of a nation is in its youth, and the youth have the tables stacked against them. Things like the internet and social media don't help.
MiddleEastMissionary
New Member
My position has been that polygamy is allowed, just no divorce, no exceptions, that's my opponents view on divorce also, he just disagrees on polygamy. I don't know if you agree, but as an exercise, if you did, does this argument still work if no divorces are valid?
So did the Creator sin by issuing a certificate of divorce to one of his wives (Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim/10 lost tribes):
Isaiah 50:1
This is what the LORD says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.
How about, as an exercise, make up anything you want, and then say, "does the argument still work if False is claimed to be True?"
Building upon error is -- let's see, we heard this somewhere -- like constructing on a foundation of sand.
Methinks that most folks have the wrong idea about Yeshua's statement that it was because of the hardness of our hearts that Moses permitted divorce... they take it as some sort of a concession because He just knows we're going to sin anyway... This is problematic, theologically, to me. It doesn't seem coherent. Why not just make prostitution and abortion legal, then, since folks are going to do it anyway and at least if it is legal, then it isn't sin...
No, I think divorce is like another matter: The general trend in Scripture, as I read it, is that killing one's kids is not okay. Yet, there is a passage which instructs on taking a rebellious son to the elders to be put down. Why? Because, as my mind reasons, there are some situations that are worse than killing a particular individual... such as allowing them to live. Does God hate oxen? If He did, why are we instructed to not muzzle them whilst they tread the grain? Yet, an ox that thrusts and is not properly restrained against killing folks must be put down. So, I think what Yeshua was really saying was that some people are so hard-hearted against even their spouse that to force the other party to remain married to them (In certain, hard, specific circumstance - not just for any reason), divorce (which He hates) is permissible because there are other things which are worse.
For example: Joseph: Knows Mary is pregnant. Knows he didn't do it. Who are the witnesses she committed adultery against her betrothal? There can be none. Who is to say he didn't do it? He is his only witness. She, being an honest woman would probably have vouched for that much at least, but not that she had sinned against him. Let us imagine, now, however, that it wasn't Joseph and Mary. Let's say it was Reuven and Naomi. Reuven's little blue pills haven't been effective for a year. He's not been able to get it up, as it were. Naomi winds up pregnant somehow anyway. So, he knows he didn't do it. Yet, what can he prove in a Torah court? What did he witness? Did he catch her in the act? Will it be his word against hers?
I think, in such a case, or others, there is cause for Reuven to say: "Well, I can't prove I didn't impregnate you, but I KNOW I didn't. Get thee gone, woman!"
In such a scenario, is God permitting divorce, say, because He knows Reuven is going to be a hard-hearted asshole who just wants to trade Naomi in for a newer toy? Or is it because people like Naomi are hard-hearted enough to create situations from which there needs to be a righteous way out?
We know someone who's wife wanted permission to commit adultery after he was disabled. Obviously, her vows meant nothing.....and divorce seems far superior to other outcomes that happen in the world.
How far would she have gone to be "free" we don't know....
..but in India I have heard there are 300 dowry killings a year in New Delhi alone, where women are murdered because the man doesn't want her....but wants to keep the money/substance she came with.
What makes marriage work is the parties caring (real love) about each other and loving and honoring YHWH in their lives and relationship.