Divorce: The Sin Preachers Nod & Wink At

If me and my wife ever get a divorce I’m just not gonna get married again. It’s that simple.

Why is it so hard to say, biblically I shouldn’t have married my second wife. I was wrong and she was too. I didn’t want to be alone the rest of my life and it was wrong for me to marry her.

Is it that hard for people to admit when they are in the wrong?
 
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

There’s really no need to twist and manipulate verses, dig back to the Old Testament days of Moses and bring up the issue of multiple wives and property rights, etc. We have verses in the NEW TESTAMENT and actual quotes by JESUS on the matter.

Again, y’all can get upset with me and get emotional about the topic, but the Bible is very clear. Divorce is sinful, but in the event a divorce occurs, remarriage is forbidden (possibly with the “exception clause” mentioned earlier). Anything else is adultery. Marriages sometimes fail. Follow the example of Dr. Charles Stanley and stay unmarried. Anything else is living in sin. Don’t like that? Get mad at God.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I have very thick skin and rarely have I ever been offended on the fighting forum and that was years ago.

Would you care to point out where you disagree with Phil, using his own language or citations from the article?
Click to expand...
I’m more interested in the words of Jesus, not Phil.

Can you authoritatively show me a verse that says that the “adultery” has an expiration date? If not, let’s not begin questioning the wisdom of God.
 
DoctorDuck said:
You are allowed to defend yourself, biblically and legally speaking. And I know where you’re going with this now and the solution is, you may divorce but not get remarried. That’s the key: no remarriage is permissible unless it meets the “exclusion clause.”
Click to expand...
Be careful here. You're not being as insightful as you may think. When Christ says, 'Them of old time,' in the passages from which you are deriving your draconian rules for marriage... Is He speaking of Moses and the Prophets? Or is He speaking of the rabbis and rabbinical tradition?
 
DoctorDuck said:
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

There’s really no need to twist and manipulate verses, dig back to the Old Testament days of Moses and bring up the issue of multiple wives and property rights, etc. We have verses in the NEW TESTAMENT and actual quotes by JESUS on the matter.

Again, y’all can get upset with me and get emotional about the topic, but the Bible is very clear. Divorce is sinful, but in the event a divorce occurs, remarriage is forbidden (possibly with the “exception clause” mentioned earlier). Anything else is adultery. Marriages sometimes fail. Follow the example of Dr. Charles Stanley and stay unmarried. Anything else is living in sin. Don’t like that? Get mad at God.
Click to expand...
In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter warns about unlearned men who twist the scriptures to their own destruction and that includes taking scripture out of context. In 1 Corinthians chapter 7 Paul goes on and expounds on things Jesus never addressed in the flesh.

In Verse 12, Paul boldly supercedes a command given by God through Ezra to the Jews (Ezra 10:11). The Christian is commanded not to divorce a non-Christian spouse, as long as the latter is willing to remain in the marriage. To the rest. Those things not covered by the instruction of v. 10-11 are what Paul is addressing. Paul received his apostleship not from men (as Matthias did) but directly from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1). He was saved too late to be an “eyewitness” of the resurrection so Christ revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-5), so he is speaking here as an apostle with authority.

In verses 13-15 Paul talks about a believing woman who is abandoned by an unbelieving husband, and states clearly that such a woman is not under bondage or enslaved in that situation. Physical abuse would also be covered when he says, “if he be pleased to dwell with her.” Any man who abuses his wife obviously isn’t pleased to dwell with her.

Verse 8. Unmarried...widows. “Unmarried” is a term used four times in the NT, and only in 1 Corinthians (cf. v. 11, 32, 34). This verse makes it clear that the unmarried and widows are distinct. Verse 11 identifies the divorced as the “unmarried” to be distinguished from “widows (v. 39-40; single by death) and “virgins” (v. 25, 28; never married). Each use of “unmarried,” then, refers to those formerly married, presently single, but not widowed. They are the divorced. It is likely these people who were formerly married wanted to know if they, as Christians, could or should remarry. Even as I. Paul was possibly a widower, and could here affirm his former marriage by identifying with the unmarried and widows. His first suggestion is that they stay single because of its freedoms in serving the Lord ( v. 25-27, 32-34). Cf. Anna in Luke 2:36-37.
 
Last edited:
Ekklesian said:
Be careful here. You're not being as insightful as you may think. When Christ says, 'Them of old time,' in the passages from which you are deriving your draconian rules for marriage... Is He speaking of Moses and the Prophets? Or is He speaking of the rabbis and rabbinical tradition?
Click to expand...
ah...I'll just cut to it...

Scripture testifies that it is better to separate than to stay united to an odious spouse. To say a woman is bound to a churlish man, or that a man is bound to an odious woman merely because neither moved out or slept with someone else is to lay a burden upon them worse than any legalism conceived of any Pharisee. At least the Pharisee is constrained by the concession God gave through Moses.

Just as Jesus' 'resist not evil' doesn't mean in all circumstances, (One cannot be loving his neighbor if he stands idly by while his neighbor is vicitmized.) Neither is He giving these conditions concerning divorce to mean in all marriages.

By 'Them of old time,' He means the rabbis of old. We know this because He said, Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy...Yes, they heard it said, but no one has ever read it in the Law.

The rabbis, whose traditions made the law of none effect, turned Moses's 'bill of divorcement' into licentiousness.

But what did Jesus say to the woman at the well? "Thou hast had five husbands." Not one husband and four boyfriends. And He didn't say "husband" lightly. He didn't call the man she had at the time her husband.
 
Ekklesian said:
ah...I'll just cut to it...

Scripture testifies that it is better to separate than to stay united to an odious spouse. To say a woman is bound to a churlish man, or that a man is bound to an odious woman merely because neither moved out or slept with someone else is to lay a burden upon them worse than any legalism conceived of any Pharisee. At least the Pharisee is constrained by the concession God gave through Moses.

Just as Jesus' 'resist not evil' doesn't mean in all circumstances, (One cannot be loving his neighbor if he stands idly by while his neighbor is vicitmized.) Neither is He giving these conditions concerning divorce to mean in all marriages.

By 'Them of old time,' He means the rabbis of old. We know this because He said, Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy...Yes, they heard it said, but no one has ever read it in the Law.

The rabbis, whose traditions made the law of none effect, turned Moses's 'bill of divorcement' into licentiousness.

But what did Jesus say to the woman at the well? "Thou hast had five husbands." Not one husband and four boyfriends. And He didn't say "husband" lightly. He didn't call the man she had at the time her husband.
Click to expand...
Aren’t we going in circles? So, in a nutshell, divorce might be deemed acceptable in some instances, but is the remarriage deemed acceptable? That’s the whole point….
 
DoctorDuck said:
I’m more interested in the words of Jesus, not Phil.
Click to expand...
That sounds pious, but Phil’s cited authority and exegesis was the Bible too, unless you are once again seemingly pitting Paul’s inscripturated word against the red letters?
DoctorDuck said:
Can you authoritatively show me a verse that says that the “adultery” has an expiration date? If not, let’s not begin questioning the wisdom of God.
Click to expand...
By your legalistic logic those who are remarried should be subject to church discipline and excluded from communion unless they divorce. I am not able to see the Biblical course of reasoning that leads to that conclusion, but if you actually believe that’s what Jesus was commanding, well, ok, go with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top