This sermon was preached by R.C. Sproul at Saint Andrew's Chapel in Sanford, Fla. Hear more from his series in the gospel of Mark: th-cam.com/play/PL30acyfm60fWpFiMnbLmGb8WD5YXXOAxX.html
@@dh605x Romans 7:1-3 7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. So if u are trying to live according to Christian biblical values its a sin of adultery, if not and I are living of the world, then get married as much as I want. But eternal life to me is more important than things of this life/world. Thats a personal choice we all have to make!
@@donnag.3611 What is impossible with man is possible with god! If a couple repents and forgives each other, and turns to the lord for his help in restoring their marriage, is he going to say to them, no, the marriage is beyond repair? Or is he going to repair it? What do you think?
so excellent thank Lord that this mans voice still carries out into the world. although you have taken him to heaven since 2017. Your word is indeed the living word. Praise your name Lord and thank you for your servant now departed.
I had to repent and come out of being married to a divorced man because his covenant, first wife is still living. All three parties are believers. I just simply believe Jesus said you are permitted to divorce because of the hardness of your heart but not to remarry or you go into adultery or you cause the innocent spouse who might go and marry another to commit adultery. Just too plain for me. I quit listening to men on matters such as this and asked the Holy Spirit for guidance. I listen to what the written words of my Savior are, they have the final authority for me. When it clearly states that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom, I fear that possibility more than anything, I want to please my GOD and see JESUS and live with HIM forever. It's not worth taking a chance to believe misunderstandings of all kinds of Bible scholars. The thing is we still love each other but Jesus has to be first. So single I will be till HE comes or I go by way of the grave. We both are old.
Yes l am with you on this matter I too am in a situation that l cannot marry another, while my husband had been in adultery for years, it may seem good for him now but eternity awaits all sinners unless he repents and turns to the Living God Jesus Christ alone
You're right to look to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Just one problem with your post: In what passage of the Written Word does God define an adulterer as someone who is in a second marriage following a divorce? Part of being "wise as serpents" is recognizing false teaching. If you listen to ding dongs that tell you "if you do X, you lose your salvation", and you live in fear because of it, then you're already losing the battle. The Marriage Permanence Doctrine is false teaching and it can be proven false fairly easily. False teachings in general tend to rely on a few key verses stretched way out of context while minimizing or ignoring verses that don't support the doctrine. I've heard those who support the Marriage Permanence Doctrine twist and distort verses in a manner worthy of a George Orwell novel. Incredibly, some even claim that the Book of Matthew was "written for the Jews" in an attempt to sidestep the "exception clause"! I myself am a divorced man for reasons I won't get into here. I sought a divorce only as a last resort when no other remedy was possible. I made it very clear back then that I would intend to remarry if divorce was unavoidable. Under those circumstances, I could certainly do that. I would recognize no doctrine that claimed I was obligated - biblically or otherwise - to either put up with the deal-breakers that destroyed the marriage or be condemned to celibacy for the rest of my life. I don't do celibacy, and that is that.
@@dh605x it's interesting that no one speaks of David who had many wives..likely wrong ..is a token figure of new testament faith and resides in the kingdom of God.
I had to get divorced, the abuse was too bad and I ran away with a broken nose but I never remarried but life had been very difficult for me financially but God has always pulled me through.
I would love to hear a few sermons and messages on being single and never have gotten or been married for whatever reason. I know other friends who for whatever reason were never in the position to get married and have a spouse and family and 'do' what the majority of the population have done and strive for. Being middle aged, it's not something I pine or ache for, but still a little bewildering as to what 'family' looks like and entails when you have no family or extended family left to be a part of. I sure do miss this wonderful saint of a man of God not being with us... One day we will meet!
I am single…never married…I have heard a lot of people argue the justification of remarriage after divorce…I still can’t justify in my mind the words that say…if you marry someone who is divorced, you are committing adultery…this where I have to just stick to my conscience and not date or marry someone who is divorced…
Grace to you You are starting from the presupposition that Jesus was prohibiting remarriage, are you not? Why not interpret Him instead with the biblical fact that remarriage was graciously allowed following the divorce concession as the law of Deuteronomy 24 verse 2 reveals? As a matter of fact there is NO prohibition for remarriage following divorce until many years after Jesus' teaching on this issue. If one follows biblical chronology instead of randomly selecting scriptures to build their view they will understand Paul's prohibition in 1 Corinthians to be unique, NOT uniform!!!!!!! In Jesus' response to Pharisees He choose to reveal the byproduct of the divorce concession (Matthew 19:8), instead of answering the 'lawful grounds for divorce" question. In that verse Jesus is making the point that divorce is antithetical to God's lifelong design for marriage. Thus by ending a marriage prematurely the one-flesh with one person for life principle in verses 4-6 is staged to be transgressed, that's because remarriage was allowed under the law. Subsequently that obligation intrinsic to marriage isn't sustained, causing the individuals involved to commit adultery against their former spouse (Mark 10:11). Jesus wisely made a counter argument against divorce, there is NO prohibition for remarriage in His teaching. The paradox for Jesus' teaching can be understood if Christians accept the fact that remarriage was graciously allowed under the law following the divorce concession, but being one flesh with one person for life is transgressed circumstantially. Blessings
@@nealdoster8556 Jesus tells us very clearly in Luke 16:18 & Mark 10:11-12 KJV that “whosoever” marries someone divorced is in adultery (paraphrased so please read verses). In Roman’s 7:2 & 1 Cor. 7:39 KJV we are told that a woman is bound to her husband till death. In Romans 7:3 KJV we are told if a woman marries a man while her husband is still living she shall be called an adulteress… (paraphrased read verse). In Galatians 1:8-9 KJV we are told that if anyone preaches a different gospel than what we received in the Word of God let them be accursed (paraphrased read verses). You telling another person Jesus is ok with the getting married to someone divorced, while there one flesh spouse is still living, is blasphemy and you need to repent. God is Holy, just and righteous and what He calls sin will stay sin and not be justified as anything other than sin. I pray you sit with God and ask Him to reveal His truth to you.
That’s wise @who……only marry one that has never been married or has had a spouse that has died, it will save you a world of pain. Watch Voddie Bauchams message on this topic as he has your perspective with scripture to back it up. I love RC but disagree with him on this.
If you read the scripture in context it has to do with the guilty party who committed the fornication/adultery, that is and was put away. He/She cannot re-marry. For the innocent party, he/she can re-marry , but one cannot marry one that is and was put away due to fornication/adultery. Or it will make him/her an adulterous.. The old testament law, adultery/fornication is punishable by death through stoning.
Why add burden to God’s people? If an unbeliever departs, our brothers and sisters are not under bondage. And if a believer insist on departing despite church involvement, we are to treat him/her as unbelievers. The sad part about many churches today is that they do not involve in the discipline to save marriages yet add burden on spouses who have been abandoned. And to those who have been remarried, please stay married and do not sin again by divorcing the 2nd time. God gave you a second chance like Peter.
Another profound indephet teaching on this very disputed subject in the church at large. I must say I agree w/Dr. Sproul's position, it could not have been done better!
You should really watch David Pawson's videos on the subject. Way more logical by a known Bible scholar. He had many more years of experience. He answered all aspects. Whether or not he was correct God only knows.
Do you really believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has permitted his bride to continue to do something that he hates in the new covenant? If that's the case, then the new covernant isn't new
There's a question that I would have liked to ask Dr. Sproul. But since he's with the lord anyone who agrees with his teachings on the subject of divorce and remarriage can answer the question. Why is our marriages to the lord can be restored after committing Adultery and violating the trust that is at the very heart and foundation of our Union with him when we depart by backsliding, but can't be restored when we do the same to our spouses? Why would he restore a marriage to himself and not a marriage between a husband and wife? We also need to understand that our marriage to our spouses are not only physical, but spiritual as well.
Oh it can be. In his teaching he was just saying it is permissible. I understand it completely and thank God for His revelation on this. God in Christ Jesus wants restoration above all things. Restoration to Him and restoration with each other. A marriage that can't be restored from adultery is saying that adultery can't be forgiven. It certainly can! God would want the adulterous partner to repent and be restored back to good treatment of their spouse. He wants people healed and set free.
Marriages CAN be restored after adultery. I've seen people take their spouses back. However, there is work that must be done to rebuild trust after adultery, and not all spouses are willing to do that work. Some people tell themselves that just saying, "Sorry" is enough and poof! everything goes back to the way it was and the one they cheated on is automatically required to take them bak. They do not wish to go through counseling, they resist putting any kind of accountability structure into their lives, they won't give a full accounting of what they have done - they basically have no insight to the fact that restoration of a marriage is a process and they have no interest in going through that process. A man to whom a family member of mine used to be married was actually bold enough to proclaim that he could go out and have his fun (his word for commit adultery as many times as he wanted) and he knew that his wife had to take him back because God said that Christians have to forgive (this happened to a family member of mine). God doesn't accept phony repentance (meaning you mouth the words "sorry" knowing full well you plan to go sin again because when you're done having fun you can say "sorry" to God again). In the same way, human beings are not required to accept phony apologies and resume living with somebody who has purposed in their heart to keep breaking the marriage covenant until they finish having their "fun." BTW, sometimes we really do reap what we sow. One day, God decided to let the physical condition of that man's heart match his spiritual condition. The man I mentioned in the above paragraph developed early heart disease and died prior to age 40 of a heart attack.
Grace to you Garvin Your question starts from a false presupposition about Pastor Sproul's position (as far as I can tell). Great observation by sjg comment above.
10% divorce rate in the U.S. in 1910. What happened? Well, the culture lead the church instead of the church leading the culture. Over and over in the Old and New Testament, we see that obedience is at the heart of a believer's love for Jesus. I worry that we have redefined loving others into letting them do what their heart directs them to do. "Follow you heart" people say. The problem with this is that Jeremiah 17:9 says that the "heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Adam and Eve followed their heart in the garden and look where that got them. I don't want to be alone anymore than the next person, but the person I wanted to marry was divorced with a living spouse. What am I to do? Go for it, and hope for the best when it comes time for one of us to die, or secretly hope that her first husband dies before either of us? You can see how ridiculous this can get. At the same time, I am in agreement with Sproul when he says we don't want to burden our brothers and sisters in Christ when God gives them freedom. It is to me by far the toughest biblical issue probably because it has affected me personally and the woman involved in my situation showed me an incredible amount of grace and mercy for my own rampant and hidden sexual immorality. And yet Romans 2:11 reminds us that God shows no partiality, and 1 Corinthians 14:33 says God is not the author of confusion so this area is not meant to be as difficult as we make it to be. May God give us wisdom James 1:5 to commit to the narrow path, regardless the cost.
So how do you explain my “husband” of 26 years who divorced me to marry a Christian woman he met on a dating site? When I asked him how he could be on a dating site while married to me he told me he divorced me in his heart years ago thus that’s why he can date. This man was raised in the mission field with parents who are both pastors. The judge granted him the divorce because I wouldn’t sign the papers. He told the judge I was holding him hostage in marriage and was in denial it was over. He’s been remarried five years now. He also does mission trips with her. He tells our kids his FAITH in the Lord grows everyday and that his second wife is the one from the Lord. TWO of our children are divorced and their marriages lasted only ONE year. Sadly, none of our four kids serve the Lord. The father has NO issues with all he’s done telling me Jesus’s grace covers his sin which was to divorce me.
@@vaquera9368 When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, they chose to cover their sin in figleafs. This is the perpetual problem of humanity. We choose to clothe ourselves in a garment of our own man-made righteousness. And we create a Jesus of our own making- a Jesus that talks the way we talk, a Jesus that acts the way we act, a Jesus that dresses like we dress, etc. The problem with this Jesus is that this Jesus doesn't shine in the darkness because it's not the real Jesus. Many self-professing followers of Jesus think they are following the real Jesus because they cover their sin with religious acts, and in the process, they make peace with their sin in the name of religion. As someone who walked in this level of spiritual blindness and admittedly still is prone to it, it is extremely dangerous and will damn the self-professing believer to hell. I believe these are the people who will be expecting to enter into glory with Jesus, but will be told to depart from Him at final judgment. Based on Jesus words in Scripture (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9, Mark 10:10-12, Luke 16:18) your husband has committed adultery. I pray for the sake of his soul and the woman he married that he repents. As to what that repentance ought to look like, I'm honestly not sure. There are biblical arguments/verses to be made to create a conclusion to support either outcome (for him to leave the second marriage or to stay in it and try to honor Jesus), but if in his heart he thinks God approved of the divorce and that he hasn't sinned in doing what he did, he is worshipping a Jesus of his own creation and that Jesus will not shine in the darkness for Him. I feel for your children because divorce is a generational curse and it affects 3 to 4 generations. I'll be praying for you and your children. Love them as a mother but don't condone their sin. I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth on this, and if I am mistaken, that He will throw out what needs to be thrown out. Blessings!
@@vaquera9368I'm so sorry to hear of your husband's betrayal. Romans 7:2-3 & 1st Corinthians 7:39 both Jesus command and Paul's exorting believers that to divorce and remarry while a covenant spouse is still alive is a continuous state of adultery. I will be praying for God's grace and mercy over you and your family. And that your husband and his affair partner come to REPENTANCE. Blessings always your Brother in Christ!
You said that this thing is getting clearer in your head. If so, then, you should be able to answer these questions for me. (1) How can the new covenant be new when divorce, a practice from the old covenant is still allowed, especially when that practice was never the Lord's will? (2) why, after commanding husbands to love their wives as Christ has loved his bride, and wives to submit themselves to their husbands as unto the Lord, does he still allow divorce? Why, after such a command? (3) If the hardness of the heart was the root cause of divorce, why is it then, that divorce, a practice of the old covenant, is still performed after the hardened heart was replaced with the new heart?
Brother sproul believes that if the guilty spouse repents the innocent spouse is now obligated to receive that spouse as a brother or sister in Christ, but not as a spouse because God gives provision for ending the marriage if the trust that is at the very heart and foundation of the marital union Is violated. But what brother sproul had'nt realized about the bride of Christ, is that whenever we backslide it means that we have departed and have gone Ahoring after the the Gods of this world committing Adultery violating the trust that is at the very heart and foundation of our marital union with the lord. But instead of divorcing us he said I am married to the back slider
The thing is... there was no formal marriage in the Roman Empire at Paul's time. Couples that were living together for a year or so were considered "married". Most of the people early Christians were teaching to were Roman slaves. I wonder how a person without any legal rights who was possibly sexually abused frequently must have thought about Christian teachings with regards to marriage? What do you think?
I love Dr Sproul and have benefitted from his teachings, but I disagree completely on his last point on not forgiving the spouse seeking reconciliation. To say they now need to be received as a brother or sister in Christ only after repentance is a stretch.
This is how I understood it. The innocent spouse ought to forgive(hence able to receive him/her spouse as a brother in Christ). But the innocent spouse shouldn't be told by her church that beyond forgiving it is a must to take back the spouse/restore the marriage. Can she be encouraged to rethink his/her decision with biblical counseling? Yes. But s/he shouldn't be told(it's mandatory)the marriage has to be restored. Before God she has not sinned by divorcing. People really guilt trip people whose consciences are clear before God. Forgiving is a must. Restoration of a marriage coz of adultery is not.
No. Everyone who divorces is NOT a liar. When people marry, they are expressing what their intent is. When one other person breaks the covenant, the other party may choose to respond the way God responded when Israel broke the covenant that existed between Israel and God. You perhaps recall the covenant God made to Isreal and how Israel ultimately broke it. God then divorced Israel (see Jeremiah 3). To say that everyone who divorces is a liar is to say something about God, who is divorced, that I would NEVER say.
God instituted marriage, and it's remarkable that in the second chapter of Genesis, there's a statement that Jesus later quoted and that Paul references as fundamental. Genesis 1 says, "God made male and female." Genesis 2 states that it's "right for a man to leave his own family, to leave his parents and to cleave to his wife." The word "cleave" is powerful; it signifies being glued to his wife, sticking and staying attached to her for as long as they both shall live. This sets the standard for the relationship between male and female as intended by God: one man married to one woman for life.
desertion, by an unbeliever, and anyone deserting is considered, or at least treated like an unbeliever....this does not refer to the marriage bond...but the individual....
When a marriage & man and a woman come together for the first time saved or not ,marriages are honorable amongst all, and anything outside of that relationship unless the spouse has passed away he is or she is considered adultery, and then the Bible says no Adulterer will enter the kingdom of heaven
When Moses conceded divorce to hardhearted men he did so for peace sake, just like Paul in 1 Cor.7:15. When Jesus made a reference to this fact (Matthew 19:8) He was not criticizing Moses (as claimed by some), He was actually being critical of hardheartedness. Jesus’ following remarks “but from the beginning it was not so” (8b) revealed to the Pharisees that divorce was foreign to God’s creative design for marriage(4-6). This masterfully exposed the calloused hearts of the Pharisees for wanting to divorce their wives for all kinds of subjective reasons and it revealed to them that they were transgressing God’s will for marriage by prematurely ending it. Divorce then causes an inadvertent consequence for remarriage. In the sermon on the mount Jesus revealed to His covenant people Israel that by divorcing their wives (which were allowed to remarry Deut. 24:2) they were causing them to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). In the Patriarchal society of Israel men were causing their wives to commit this manner of adultery, that is to commit adultery by defaulting on “the law of her husband” set forth by marriage itself (Romans 7:2b) KJV. Because marriage sets forth the responsibility of lifetime faithfulness, divorce and remarriage will transgress that obligation. Jesus revealed to Israel the consequences of prematurely ending a marriage. In the Patriarchal society of Israel men who initiated divorce were the ones guilty of the ensuing adultery of their former wives when they remarried (Matthew 5:32). This adultery was not the adultery of being unfaithful while married which was punishable by stoning. This adultery happens exactly how Jesus describes it in the text. These TRUTHS are overlooked by “divorce to repent” (DTR) advocates (those who teach that the divorced and remarried should divorce). Jesus is directly speaking of an adultery that’s a result of prematurely ending a marriage. He is not speaking of an adultery that’s a result of Him abrogating (as they claim) the law of Moses. The abrogation supposition changes (adds to) the dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus. By adding to God’s word it perverts the text. It changes the perception of when this adultery began, how and why the adultery occurs and to whom the adultery was relevant. For most DTR advocates this adultery begins as a result of believing Jesus abolished the Old Testament divorce concession. Thus they believe Jesus changed divorce possibility or made divorce impossible and therefore the teaching of Jesus (for them) is applicable going forward. In other words Jesus’ teachings is not applicable to whom He was speaking historically. It becomes applicable by adding the abrogation supposition, understand? This oversight and addition to Jesus’ teaching is the ground work for even more suppositions that are legalistic in nature. Particularly the “divorce to repent” supposition itself, for they are claiming divorce is necessary for salvation sake. The perception that Jesus changed marriage to being indissoluble is what drives those who advocate DTR. They believe this adultery to be the same as that punished in the law of Moses. But the truth is this adultery was not punished throughout the Old Testament. The adultery Jesus describes happens after the first marriage ends and because it ends prematurely (before death). If one overlooks the retrospective application of Jesus’ words, they cannot account for this adultery in the Old Testament. Therefore they have to account for it some other way, How? By believing abrogation. I cannot over emphasize the problem suppositions cause for this issue. Take a fresh look a the comment threads on any site that deals with divorce and remarriage. You have a spectrum from the licentious all the way to the legalist. But my point is, if you believe abrogation or the abolishment of the divorce concession, you will arrive at the legalistic end of the spectrum. Thankfully there are balanced perspectives also. One way of having a balanced perspective on this issue is recognizing supposition. That’s because supposition drives supposition. For example the false supposition of abrogation produces the false supposition of indissoluble marriage. That false supposition produces the false belief that divorce is no longer effective. That false supposition produces the false belief that the adultery Jesus described is happening in the first marriage. That false supposition produces the false belief that remarriage itself is the adultery, etcetera. If that false supposition is believed, wouldn’t you then suppose that God would want you to repent of your marriage if the marriage itself was the adultery? That’s what DTR advocates are telling those who are remarried. They believe a divorced and remarried person is still married to their first spouse or some would say they are still in a one-flesh relationship with the first spouse. Consequently they READ INTO Jesus’ teachings the idea of “indissoluble marriage” or “indissoluble one-flesh union.” These ideas for them explain the ensuing adultery but they don’t realize they have changed how Jesus described this manner of adultery nor to whom it was relevant. They have overlooked the retrospective indictment Jesus was making against those who divorced throughout the Old Testament. By believing Jesus made the husband/wife relationship indissoluble, they imagine the adultery to be occurring in the first marriage and see remarriage as merely one long case of adultery. By changing Jesus’ words to fit their suppositions they have changed how this manner of adultery occurs from that which Jesus described. Their suppositions misconstrue Jesus’ words, but it all starts when biblical precedents become irrelevant by believing abrogation. Precedents where remarriage resulted in a binding marriage even though it caused a shameful consequence. My post have primarily opposed DTR. That’s because their suppositions have caused so much confusion for this issue by creating a whole new dimension not even in the bible. Their suppositions are a contentious issue for Christendom today while not even being part of New Testament dialogue. Supposing a remarried individual is still married to their first spouse causes much confusion for this issue. My heart goes out to those who are victimized by DTR which exacerbates divorce and destroys families. Conversely, if Jesus’ words are understood contextually He would be understood to be speaking retrospectively about what hard heartedness caused Israel. When this adultery is understood to be happening in the Old Testament the abrogation supposition is proven a lie. Therefore this manner of adultery is not something new, not something happening in the first marriage, thus not that adultery. Therefore not the adultery described by abrogation. We then should realize that biblical precedents were not abolished. When we understand Jesus did not contradict Moses, Moses and Jesus can be and should be read harmoniously. We then understand that even though a shameful consequence occurs because of divorce, remarriages were binding marriages to be honored as such. I should emphasize that both Jesus and God knows that the inadvertent shameful consequence that women experienced when remarried was the fault of their husbands for divorcing them (Matt. 5:32, Deut.24:4). I want to say here that there is often an innocent party in divorce today. I see God’s grace in allowing remarriage in the Old Testament and I’m not for keeping people out of marriage except if they are within the New Testament circumstance in which Paul prohibited it. I want to reiterate my main points in short propositional statements so as to expose supposition. *Miss the retrospective relevance Jesus made to His convent people Israel about adultery and you will account for adultery some other way. DTR does exactly that. *Add abrogation (or the idea) to Jesus’ teachings and you are poised to believe marriages no longer end. *If you believe marriages no longer end you will also believe that the adultery that occurs in remarriage is the same adultery that was punished. *If you believe in indissoluble marriage you will believe in perpetual adultery. *If you believe in perpetual adultery for those remarried you will advocate the “divorce to repent” supposition. *If you advocate the “divorce to repent” supposition you will be legalistic. *If you add rules to the bible for salvation sake, then your own salvation is suspect because you are perverting the Gospel. A legalist by definition is one who adds rules to the bible for salvation sake.
An adulterer is a person committing a continuous act. If what imply is true then all Christians who were ever engaged in a wrongful divorce is headed to hell, which is wrong. All liars go to hell too, that doesn’t mean all who has lied will go to hell. There is a thing called God’s forgiveness
@@nickwadson5731 I read your entire comment (struggled with the terms a bit) however I have been so worried that I was condemned to hell for my remarriage. Thanks for sharing.
@@p01236-g You just said that adulterers are people who continuously commit adultery. You just answered your own question. If someone perished for being a liar that means they didn’t stop lying, or they didn’t repent. Cause you can’t repent from a sin if you keep doing it. But if you lied once that doesn’t make you a liar if you STOPPED LYING. I can’t call you a liar if you don’t lie any more the same way the Bible says Paul WASNT a murderer because he didn’t murder anymore. They said he WAS a murderer implying he’s not one ANYMORE. Why? Because he stopped murdering.
@@Bebornagain12345 It would stand to reason by your own, that if a person did remarry another that the issue 'under God' is obsolete in that case. If so, they should divorce again as the marriage is illegitimate to you. Therefore divorce is no sin in such circumstances?
Sproul disregards the consistent position of the Catholic church concerning Jesus' words here. On the contrary, he uses "Church" to refer only to Protestant churches because it is Protestant communities which have NEVER been able to agree on what Jesus' words mean here. So much for the perspicuity of scripture! I'm glad this confusion in Scripture is over a trivial, minor thing like MARRIAGE!
This teaching comes from a humanist Erasmus who created the exception clause. So unbiblical and heresy that the reformation created. Erasmus added a Greek word to change the meaning in Matthew 19:9. He didn’t mention clearly that forgiveness is required. The strong indication a person is saved. Years back I wrote to RC Sproul and showed him with the evidence on the exception clause was false. He could not refute what I showed him and returned my letter saying he was on a sabbatical. True story.
I would be careful with the application of this principle. We aren't called to martyrdom for its own sake. There should be some greater good accomplished. Continuing to suffer abuse does not honor God. And for what? So there wouldn't be the scourge of mankind known as divorce? To some in certain Christian circles, divorce is one of those bogeymen right up there with alcohol, short skirts, secular music, and other forms of "immoral" pastimes that are demons to be driven out. Matt 7:22 is where Jesus says what He thinks of such people.
Suffering doesn't always mean physical abuse, there maybe some emotional mental distress, but all that comes with life. God expects for you to honor your vows, not to run are look for an easy way out when things become difficult or hard. Marriage is not something that should be enter into lightly. It is better not to make a vow, than to make it and not keep it, not my words but his. It troubles me and saddened me that people can take something so sacred and holy as marriage and discard it so lightly. Marriage was introduced by God in the beginning. I know and love the testimony of those who waded through the difficulties of marriage and I know those after a few years and twenty decided to bale out because of what they wanted, became more important than what God wanted. I don't know about you but I found that all those that choose to live Godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 2 timothy 3:12 and yes even in your own household, many marriages have experienced it and even separated for a while, just to see this God work out a miracle in their lives hallelujah 🙌. No I'm not advocating anyone to suffer life threatening abuse, but the gospel is not meant to be a feel good gospel but a transforming one. God bless you 🙏 ❤️
@@endtimesuponus789 With all due respect, it sounds like you don't really understand marital vows. "For better or for worse" is supposed to mean "no matter what life throws at us". It does not mean "no matter what evil you do to me". There's a big difference between "when things become difficult or hard" and "he hit me again". Anyone who violates their marital vows by being abusive, neglectful, faithless, etc is committing fraud. In just about every agreement, contract, covenant, etc between people, an instance of material fraud could possibly void the obligations of the defrauded. Marriage is no different. God is not unjust - He provides recourse for those who have been defrauded. Those who insist abused or neglected spouses stay married to such worthless bums are making an idol out of marriage itself.
Understanding what the Bible REALLY says about divorce is almost impossible unless you're familiar with Hebrew terms and concepts absent in Christianity, such as 'Agunah'. Time and again, I've found that Christian pastors often miss the true teachings of the Bible on this topic. I highly recommend Dr. Eitan Bar's short book, "Christian and Divorced: What the Bible REALLY Says About Divorce & Remarriage." He is a Jewish-Christian fluent in Hebrew. After reading about 20 different books on the subject, this one stands out as the best. I was even an early reader of it.
I would really enjoy a follow-up in this sermon regarding remarriage after divorce. As I do agree that dirvorce is only permissible if there was sexual immorality, but the subject regarding marriage after divorce is hugely debated amongst believers.
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.
Except for fornication. (Engagement) Period for jews. Mark and Luke don't mention any acceptions. We are gentiles.And remarriage is omly for death of a spouse.Period.Believe it or Not
@@BibleProphesy1969 you can separate, but not remarry. 1 Corinthians 7:10 - 11 "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife."
@@BibleProphesy1969 you can separate, but not remarry. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife."
When is says that Moses permitted or allowed divorce does not mean that it was approved. It´s like when the unbeliever wants to leave... let him /her leave. But it is not God´s will. It is just that you can not physically force a person to stay where they don´t want to stay. Moses was NOT saying the God says: ´It´s OK, go ahead. ¨ No ... it is not okay but people do what they want and sin against the Lord.
Does anybody here advocate for reconciliation in marriage if the cheating spouse repented and has changed their ways? And their track record is now proven to be on the straight and narrow path?
Yes. I actually forgave my husband when he had an affair three years into our marriage. Twenty six years into our marriage, he divorced me to marry a Christian woman he met on a dating site. He forced the divorce in court. So, I believe he never repented from his first affair at all based on things he later expressed.
@@vaquera9368 and ask your self, how Christian is that "Christian" woman??? Hmmm 🤔🤔🤔... God bless u dear... Its a blessing to remain single and give your life to the Lord, Jesus never cheats on us!
No, I don’t. If adultery occurred, then the marriage vow is broken already. You are free to leave your spouse. Jesus does not put pressure on the innocent spouse to stay in that case. But you can forgive, however forgiveness doesn’t equal reconciliation in marriage. It’s really up to the spouse who was cheated on.
I was really shocked of RC his teaching Jesus taught no remarriage he gave one exception for divorce but not for a marriage and that’s what the disciples interpret to him saying in Matthew 19 verse nine that’s what the early church interpreted that’s what the church fathers interpreted for 1600 years and then RC Sproul says something about a wife not forgiving a repentant husband has he forgotten all the times God has taken back Israel when they repent of their spiritual adultery this is insane how far he can miss it
He said "I wouldnt".. I myself, if my ex husband turned his life around, I would remarry him. But I gots to see his fruits. Not just because he says so.. But I'm good by myself. Just God, myself, and my 2 daughters. The Lord provides... that's all I need. Amen.
@@MMAGUY13 thank u. Well yes we deserve a second chance. Specially if hes the father of my children too. My daughters loveeee their dad and he lovveeeesss them.
@@djm7038 Your wife as much as she like to can’t trade you in for someone younger richer nicer and whatever else. Evil world evil woman and shame on the church Who condones it when Christ told a story throwing so called Christian’s in hell he won’t condone it Christ said it’s adultery that’s the end the story I don’t care what the church says
@@Ch3rishtheday I'm not sure how to sorry..I think the title is David MacArthur divorce and remarriage. Another one is Divorce and remarriage David Pawson..good but probably not popular..I myself have not married so I was interested in the subject because of course alot of Christian men are divorced.
Here's another dimension the the divorce problem. That is what if there's children involved. And the adulterers wife is the unbeliever. Knowing that in a custody "battle" the wife will be the one that will almost gaurenteed to win custody. There are several variables that create more question than the articulated answer can satisfactorily address.
To all the Brothers and sisters who have approved of divorce guess what? The Devil is very approving of divorce. There isn't anyone who has approved of divorce more than him.
Yeeep, I’ve been studying Bible last 6 months with original Hebrew context, and guess what? Found out no marriage in heaven is a hellinzed belief from second century, death also doesn’t end a marriage LOL everyone LOVVVESSS to use Roman’s 7:2, but that waisnt Paul talking about marriage, he was using marriage under law of Moses as a example saying like death ends a marriage under the law (law of Moses) we are freed from law of sin under Christ, all evil all lies all the devils word’s because devil HATES everything god made. People remarry because they wanna live lawlessly and don’t like Bible saying otherwise
@@TechCody113 Question: if the hardness of the heart is the root cause of divorce, didn't the lord solve the problem by replacing the hardened heart with a heart of flesh?
Marriage is an institution that was established by God an one that is meant to last for life, and the Devil knows it. However, it is the devils will and purpose to destroy it. And to complete his plans he is using our own leaders to end marriages by allowing the people of God to divorce.
"No civil, legal, religious, cultural, or state divorce is valid in the eyes of God. This includes all human divorces that have taken place on planet Earth since Adam and Eve sinned. Not a single one of them severed the one-flesh union of a lawful marriage. They all took place without God’s permission. They were all unilateral decisions, as they are to this day, and will be to the end of time."
I love your teachings. You have so much wisdom. However, for this one I wish that you had mentioned abuse even if it is not specifically mentioned in the passage. I wouldn't want someone to stay in an abusive marriage when they are continually being harmed and I don't believe Jesus would want that either. And i don't believe if they end their marriage and eventually remarry that God considers it adultery.
"Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate." I love RC. But, I believe he got this one wrong. God hates divorce. This is why the modern American church and American society as a whole is in such a terrible state. Marriage is meant to be a picture of the Gospel, the union between Christ and His Bride. Yet, we treat it so casually. We abandon Biblical authority. You heard it right there at the end of his sermon. "The church needs a large group of counselors to determine whether a person should get divorced or not." Is Scripture not enough to guide us in this? Apparently not. Our hearts are still too hard to hear exactly what Jesus says in this passage.
@John Cameron you notice that the reading from here in Mark doesn't mention sexual immorality. Neither does Luke. Only in Matthew. Note that Matthew was written to the Jews. Mark and Luke to the gentiles. It was important for Matthew to include this so called "exception clause" because Joseph planned to put away Mary because he thought she had committed fornication during their betrothal. They were not technically married yet, so it would not have been inappropriate for him to leave her. Obviously, the angel filled Joseph in. The betrothal period was still so serious that a divorce or putting away still had to take place. Mark and Luke don't allow this exception because gentiles had no such betrothal. Once you are married, there is no divorce and remarriage while the spouse is still alive. R.C. also misses it when he discusses Deuteronmy. Also talking about the betrothal period. Paul also makes it clear that if husband and wife part, they are not to remarry but work toward reconciliation or stay unmarried. Marrying another while the spouse is still alive is adultery.
@@maunder01 I'm afraid you aren't really grasping what really happened there or perhaps even the true depths of God's love. He took Isreal back over and over again. He's never broken his covenant and He never will.
@@Souper19 lan l have grasped God's love. Divorce is not sin. God can not sin. For Christians to state every divorce is a sin is contradictory. God is the judge. He knows each situation and heart. We can rest in that.
@@maunder01 you are 100% correct that God cannot sin. Where i was going with that was that God has not ever divorced Israel. Your example is invalid. God has never broken his covenant. He made a promise, and although he told them he was giving the certificate of divorce for their idolatry, he commanded them back several times. He wouldn't stay angry forever. He was faithful even though his bride wasn't. He doesn't leave his bride. There was no divorce.
What a.confusing message, the doctrines of men. mixed with some truth, the quote that the wife should treat arepentant husband as a brother is beyond belief and just shows how much man is willing to undermine/ wrest the clear teaching of Jesus Christ - A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives but if he be dead she is free to marry to whom she will but only in the Lord 1 Cor 7 :39.
@@leonseva4980 what's so confusing? The Lord is allway's willing to forgive us and receive us back unto him self whenever we depart. So why mustn't we do the same with our spouses, after all, he promised to take away the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.
This is one of the biggest dilemmas we have in Christian life. What to do with a family when we discover they are in remarriage adultery? Break up the family? Or not? If not , are they in judgement and in the practice of sin?
here is the situation. I see it this way. God wants us to be married Divorce was not his plan BUT sin comes into the mix. Getting remarried is adultery but if the couple confesses and repents God can honor that remarriage. If God Can forgive David's adulterous marriage why can't he forgive others? Jesus said at the well "you have been married 5 times and the one you are with now is not your husband" he didn't say you have a covenant spouse and the 4 others are your lovers. Jesus recognized each remarriage. Paul said one you marry and divorce if you remarry or the other person remarried and you two become single again you can't go back. I'm paraphrasing. but all these point that God recognizes a new union has formed each time. Paul also talked about the scrambled egg doctrine. Once things are done they can't be undone. So Paul says just go on from that point on. Once you make a new family it would be a sin to breakup that family to join the other. Commiting one sin doesn't fix a previous one. instead it just adds sin on top of sin. The Pharisees here and there are many of them Jesus hated them so much he turned tables in the temple and mocked them any chance he got. They will add confusion they say it is a continuous sin of adultery. But I don't beleive it to be. it would be more like a one time incident. God can forgive adultery and remarriage are not the unforgivable sins.
@@luv2uallday1 I take a more direct approach and fear God on this one. If you are in adultery. Stop it and rectify the situation as far as it is possible to build peace. Never live in, regard or practice sin lest God not hear your prayers and you forfeit your salvation. Never choose vain lust over obedience to the Lord. In our remarriage adultery teachings , I have debunked each assertion and exemption clause loophole your cite. David sin has horrific lasting consequences. Israel was divided, his son dead, and His adultery partners Son, Solomon lost his salvation and is in hell due to polygamy and being led astray. Anyone who would affirm or regard adultery in remarriage will not be welcome in fellowship but encouraged to repent. We must end this perverted evil practice in the church! I have a zero tolerance for it and will rebuke and expose it the rest of my days.
@@luv2uallday1 Grace to you "Remarriage is adultery" is one of the worse misnomers concluded from errant interpretation. A conclusion NOT derived from the biblical precedents to which Jesus referred, but rather from interjecting the belief that remarriage (of it's on) is the villain and shouldn't be allowed (as if God made a mistake by doing so). If that which God allowed by His Grace is thought to be sinful, does not the interpreter make the grace of God to be sin? Under Jesus' teaching the ensuing adultery is multi-factored with divorce being the primal cause. That's because allowing marriages to end was not in keeping with that of God’s lifelong creative design. On the other hand Jesus did NOT prohibit nor criticize remarriage. The law (which represented God's will) graciously allowed remarriage as Deuteronomy 24:2 reveals. Jesus was merely revealing what transpires under those circumstances because the first marriage was not sustained. Divorce is to be understood as a biblical reality. Divorce although antithetical to God's creative design prematurely ends a marriage. Divesting divorce of it's meaning (as some Pastors do in their liberal interpretation) is part and parcel of exaggerating Jesus' teaching on this issue!! Part of that exaggeration is claiming "remarriage is adultery". If you think "remarriage is adultery" you have not properly followed the counter argument Jesus made against divorce. Your interpretation has added a number of false theories to His teaching. In short you will find yourself claiming Jesus repealed, changed, or abrogated the law of Moses when in TRUTH He merely revealed the outcome of divorce being conceded where remarriage was graciously allowed. We should understand Moses and Jesus congruous, not as one opposed to the other. Jesus’ teaching on this issue is pointing out to His covenant people that allowing them to divorce was not without it’s casualty. Something significant about life long marriage is violated in the process. Subsequently causing an inadvertent transgression because the first marriage was not sustained. Jesus words were applicable to Israel's history. When contextually understood He was conveying the inadvertent consequence of divorce being conceded. This He did to dissuade them from putting away their wives (Matthew 19:6).
Interesting reading the comments . Nothing like the self righteous folk who know more than anyone else lecturing and denegation others with home they disagree. That right there is probably the biggest turn off of unbelievers to becoming a Christian. Makes me sick.
I agree with everything you except for your interpretation of the Greek word "porneia." I say this not because I know better, but because a large number of solid pre-20th century commentators, along with the KJV and Geneva translaters, take it to mean the act of adultery where fornication has taken place with another outside of marriage.
Romans 7:2-32 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. Mark 10:11-12 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Matthew 5:27-28 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:31-32 31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” Luke 18:18-20 18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” 1Thess 4:3-5 3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; Mark 7:20-23 20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come-sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” Matthew 15:17-20 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” Proverbs 5:18-23 18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 A loving doe, a graceful deer- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love. 20 Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife? Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman? 21 For your ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all your paths. 22 The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare them; the cords of their sins hold them fast. 23 For lack of discipline they will die, led astray by their own great folly. 1 Corinthians 7:10-17 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Proverbs 6:20-35 20 My son, keep your father’s command and do not forsake your mother’s teaching. 21 Bind them always on your heart; fasten them around your neck. 22 When you walk, they will guide you; when you sleep, they will watch over you; when you awake, they will speak to you. 23 For this command is a lamp, this teaching is a light, and correction and instruction are the way to life, 24 keeping you from your neighbor’s wife, from the smooth talk of a wayward woman. 25 Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes. 26 For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread, but another man’s wife preys on your very life. 27 Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? 28 Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched? 29 So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished. 30 People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. 31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house. 32 But a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself. 33 Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away. 34 For jealousy arouses a husband’s fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. 35 He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse a bribe, however great it is.
Romans 7..What if someone is divorced then..they are no longer married..so Romans 7 is not talking about divorce but only the situation of someone not divorced.
@@joolspools777 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.
Never teach that there are exemptions in the Bible for divorce. This is absolutely false. Marriage is until death do you part. If you divorce and remarry…. You do not marry, but commit adultery. The only exemption is in the context of the Jewish Gospel of Matthew where if one fornicated in a betrothal dedication (as was assumed in the account of Mary found to be with child and Joseph) he could have justly put her away and divorced and therefore remarried. So what? Every person and couple who you know is divorced and remarried are living in adultery and in the practice of it. This is bashed on Galatians, they are not inheriting the Kingdom of God. Pastors who remarry and teach the exemption clause loopholes are in danger of hell too. Because again they practice it even as they are one women men. Wise up on this we must
The woman at the well had been married 5 times and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. Jesus did not tell her to return to husband #1, #2, #3, #4 or #5. Certainly ONE of those previous husband's was still living. He also didn't condemn her to hell. Why did He stop and offer her "living water" if her choices already doomed her soul? Because they didn't. If He can offer salvation to a 5 time divorcee then maybe we need to do the same.
@@Happinessisachoice2023 false pretext. Jesus was being rhetorical in his statement about her live in fornication partners. Calling them “Husbands” when they were nothing of the sort. There was never any indication that that woman repented, confessed her sin, nor forsook her sinful life of fornication…. Likely prostitution. We can never make the fool’s mistake of reading too much into the text. This is especially the case when pro divorce teachers should use such a passage to strengthen their rotted position that Jesus affirms a women to have multiple husbands. Talk about teachers being caught with their pants down! It is a sick failure. There will be hell to pay for this gross error.
Didn't Pastor Sproul say that Duet.24 did not refer to adultery and then say that Jesus took the Pharisees back to Duet.24 and concluded that the exceptive clause did refer to adultery? If he said those things, why didn't he explain why Matt.19 didn't use the word for adultery to describe adultery or why the law of stoning that governed in Duet. no longer applied in Mark or Matt?
Understanding Jesus' teaching within it's historic CONTEXT! The Pharisees posed a loaded question to Jesus about lawful grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:3. Mark 10:2). The law on the other hand did not give grounds for divorce, it merely regulated it having conceded divorce to hardheartedness as Jesus affirms in Matthew 19:8. Instead of getting caught up in the "lawful grounds for divorce" argument of that time Jesus circumvented that argument by appealing to what marriage was suppose to be. He appealed to God’s creative design for marriage in the origin (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). By God’s design marriage was to be lifelong, because of hard hearts it was allowed to prematurely end. Accepting the tension that creates is part of understanding the divorce dilemma. That's because Jesus is contrasting divorce conceded over against marriage created for life (v.8). If you overlook that fact, you're NEVER understand why this way of committing adultery ensues and you'll get caught up in the false narrative about "grounds for divorce" which takes a long, long time to explain. That's because "grounds" sidetracks the simplicity of what Jesus actually taught. Moses allowed divorce primarily because of women caught up in the conflict of their husbands spite as Deuteronomy 24 verse 1 reveals, it was a mercy for the woman. Subsequently God didn’t force them into a life of singleness, He allowed them to remarry. Having a husband allowed them to have the companionship and provisions they would need, so remarriage was graciously allowed by God as verse 2 of that same law reveals. By appealing to the origin which predated the law we understand that the conclusion Jesus gave in Matthew 19:9 (in responding to the Pharisees question / v.3) was not derived from the law itself, but rather from God’s creative design for marriage in the beginning (Matthew 19:4-6,8b). So we should understand that this way of committing adultery has it's basis in another predicate, where principles of marriage are not sustained because the first marriage ends prematurely. We should understand Moses and Jesus congruous, not as one opposed to the other. Jesus’ teaching on this issue is pointing out to His covenant people that allowing them to divorce was not without it’s casualty. Something significant about life long marriage is violated in the process. Subsequently causing an inadvertent transgression because the first marriage was not sustained. Jesus words were applicable to Israel's history. When contextually understood He was conveying the inadvertent consequence of divorce being conceded. This He did to dissuade them from putting away their wives (Matthew 19:6). Under Jesus' teaching the ensuing adultery is multi-factored with divorce being the primal cause. That's because allowing marriages to end was not in keeping with that of God’s lifelong creative design. On the other hand Jesus did NOT prohibit nor criticize remarriage. The law (which represented God's will) graciously allowed remarriage as Deuteronomy 24:2 reveals. Jesus was merely revealing what transpires under those circumstances because the first marriage was not sustained. Divorce is to be understood as a biblical reality. Divorce although antithetical to God's creative design prematurely ends a marriage. Divesting divorce of it's meaning (as some Pastors do) is part and parcel of exaggerating Jesus' teaching on this issue!! Part of that exaggeration is claiming "remarriage is adultery". If you think "remarriage is adultery" you have not properly followed the counter argument Jesus made against divorce. Your interpretation has added a number of false theories to His teaching. In short you will find yourself claiming Jesus repealed, changed, or abrogated the law of Moses when in TRUTH He merely revealed the consequence of divorce being conceded under the law. "Remarriage is adultery" is one of the worse misnomers concluded from errant interpretation. A conclusion NOT derived from the biblical precedents to which Jesus referred, but rather from interjecting the belief that remarriage is the villain and shouldn't be allowed (as if God made a mistake by doing so). If that which God allowed by His Grace is thought to be sinful, does not the interpreter make the grace of God to be sin? It’s imperative Christians understand that Jesus is not speaking negatively against divorce as a concession (as falsely believed by some), but rather negatively about the reason divorce was conceded. The concession itself was not a mistake on Moses part. Jesus was not criticizing Moses, He was being critical of that which prompted the need for divorce. Jesus revealed to the Pharisees that the concession was an accommodation of Israel's hard heart (Matthew 19:8). Hard hearts ultimately were the cause of marriages ending before death, which in turn caused the exclusivity of being one-flesh with one person for life to be transgressed. Thus the "something of significates" within God's creative design for marriage being violated, causing the inadvertent adultery the way Jesus described. There is NO win win in divorce, fidelity for life to one person is transgressed by ending one marriage and marrying another (as Jesus stated). When women were divorced and remarried they were then bound to there present spouse and not there former. There was NO divorcing there current spouse and returning to their former for "repentance" or salvation sake as FALSELY claimed under the new narrative created by those who add false suppositions to Jesus' teaching. Hope this helps Christians to understand the retrospective relevance of Jesus teachings to whom He was speaking without the false suppositions added to it. Blessings
Nobody can marry a woman that has been put away for any reason, or let her therefore be reconciled! Why Lord? Because her husband is still alive! 1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Mark 10:1-12 makes no mention of fornication, or adultery, yet this video is a teaching on divorce for the supposed cause of adultery. No wonder the church has a divorce and remarriage epidemic.
He clearly points to the parallel verses in Matthew for this reference and then deals with the pornea clause. He even lightly discusses the interpretation of the Greek word. It’s near the end of the sermon. He also covers the abandonment clause from Corinthians. This is a thorough introduction on the discussion of Christian divorce.
If I am already divorced and remarried, how do I repent? What should I do to make it right in God's sight? The options for repentance in this situation include leaving your current partner and reconciling with your original partner if possible. If reconciliation with your original partner is impossible, you should remain single. You have a difficult decision to make-you can either continue to live with your current partner for the rest of this life or choose to live with Jesus for all eternity, but you can't do both.
The woman at the well had been married 5 times and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. Jesus did not tell her to return to husband #1, #2, #3, #4 or #5. Certainly ONE of those previous husband's was still living. He also didn't condemn her to hell. Why did He stop and offer her "living water" if her choices already doomed her soul? Because they didn't. If He can offer salvation to a 5 time divorcee then maybe we need to do the same.
The solution you advocate comes from a random selection of scripture paradigm which either ignores or is ignorant of the biblical facts chronologically. You are taking the Apostle Paul's instruction (for a specific circumstance) which came many years after the teaching of Jesus (on the subject of divorce) and reading that instruction as if it was uniformly taught for every situation. Conversely by following the biblical facts chronologically you would realize how unique it is in God's Word to prohibit remarriage for those divorced. If we follow the biblically facts chronologically we also have biblical precedents to guide our interpretation of any given passage so that we can avoid false presupposition for interpreting 1 Corinthians 7:11 as if it was stated in a vacuum.
Dear Brother Sproul... have you heard about the argument of Joseph and Mary? They had not consumated their marriage but even when engaged were considered married. So that is why Jospeh used the word ¨divorce¨ when he was going to put Mary away. Fornication. bcz he thougt she committed ¨fornication¨ so this exclusion clause when we look at it at the time of history and the place (Israel) the context.. that was alright before God but now people use this excuse to divorce if their partner commits ´adultery¨ ... .. If i am wrong about this intrpretation please help me.
You are correct regarding Joseph and Mary. You are also correct that people today are trying to use the word fornication in Matthew 19:9 to mean adultery so that they can divorce and remarry. We live in a wicked and adulterous generation. If people divorce their covenant spouses and marry another while their covenant spouses are alive, they are committing adultery (Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18 and Romans 7:2-3). Only death breaks the marriage covenant (Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39).
@@godgavemeeyestosee Hello dear believer... thank u so much for confirming what i wrote. so so few believe it... and it they do that means if they remarry then if their next spouse is unfaithful they can divorce and remarry ... as many times as their spouse is unfaithful... so many are carnal and selfish and don´t want to be along but the Lord, our precious loving Lord fills that emptyness so much more than any spounse ever could. He truly is all we need.
@@alicia4him1 Jesus is enough for His followers because He is the one who supplies all our needs according to His riches in glory if we love and trust Him. May our great God and Savior continue to bless and keep you.
this guy is off....forgiveness is always at the heart, of the Christian message....and by the way an example, of fornication, in Matthew.....Joseph and Mary....
@@sovereigngrace9723 read the account of Joseph seeking to put away Mary, or divorce her, when he found out that she was pregnant....at that time a divorce was required to break an engagement....so that would indicate, once one is fully married, this so called exception would no longer be valid....
@@philipbuckley759 I’d disagree with that logic… just because Joseph wanted to divorce Mary doesn’t mean that it was because he was about to lose the window of availability to leave an adulterer. Would you get married to someone who you thought fornicated prior to marriage? I think this was just self interest. Not a fear of being locked into a marriage.
Couldn't agree with you more Yeshua permitted divorce but not remarriage as long as the former spouse is living, otherwise you and the new spouse would be in adultery. We know no fornicators or adulterers (2 different words and meanings) will enter the kingdom of God. Very serious, charge by the Messiah.
Correct two very different words which is why the alleged “exception clause” does not apply to married couples because a married person cannot commit fornication
The Lord didn't permit divorce. he had commanded by the Apostle Paul, that a husband is not to divorce his wife, she's to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.
@@jessyjonas4988 I will like to answer your question with a question. Why is the lord always willing to to forgive us and receive us back unto him self whenever we turn away and depart. Shouldn't we do the same for our spouses, after all we're people after God's own heart and furthermore he did promised to take away the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.
@@jessyjonas4988 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 says we are to reconcile with our spouse or remain unmarried if we are separated/divorced from him/her. Marriage is a covenant until death (Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39).
Wrong. The word in Matthew 19 9 is fornication. This only applies in the Jewish betrothal period, as was the situation where Joseph thought Mary had committed fornication. Romans 7 1-3 makes it clear that in MARRIAGE only death can end it. No get out...but separation is permitted by Paul which might be needed for safety reasons. Read the KJV in Matthew 19 9. After death of one of the spouses remarriage is permitted. Very clear.
If the exception clause means adultery why did Jesus not use moicheia instead of porneia? And why is the exception clause in Matthew only and not in Mark or Luke.
So I wonder if you are saying that divorce does not exist. I guess that you are assuming that God does not acknowledge the existance of divorce, I am not sure. Jesus acknowledged the existance of divorce twice in Matthew 19:9 and again in Matthew 5:32. You say that you live by those verses, but then you later add and you say that there is no such thing as divorce, when Jesus explicitely mentions the existance of divorce in both passages. Divorce exists. Moses permitted divorce, and Moses permitted remarraige. Jesus forbid divorce, and Jesus forbid remarraige (after divorce). Jesus added a very small, tiny window of exception only, to divorce and remarry, and He was very explicit and clear about the exception: "except it be for sexual immorality" on that part of THE WIFE. Jesus specifically used the term "wife," as opposed to the terms "fiancee" or "betrothed," or "engaged." "Wife" means "a married woman," not an "engaged woman," or a "betrothed woman." I agree with you totally 100 percent that there is no exception to divorce and remarry for the woman, or for the wife. That is what Jesus said when He said, "whosoever marries her that is divorced commiteth adultery," but then again, we once again see that Jesus acknowledges, one more time, the existance of divorce, one more time . The word "divorce" means "dissolve a marraige." Marraiges are dissolved every day. Most all of the marraiges that are dissolved in this day and age are "put asunder," (the words of Jesus) without the permission of God (that means that those divorces are a sin). Yet divorces still exist. Finally, in Romans chapter 13, Paul taught that judges and magistrates and law enforcement is put in place to keep order in the world, and to punish evildoers that transgress those laws put in place by God (such as polygamy, for example, which is illegal), that God establishes. Jesus did not say that divorce does not exist, He said that in almost every case that divorce is a sin (adultery).
Jesus allows for divorvce but you cannot remarry while your spouse lives (Roman's 7:2-3, 1COR7:11) and if you remarry your in adultery ( Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18) and Matt 32:5, 19:9 say except for fornication...meaning the engagement period. Fornication is different that adultery look it up. Jesus uses 2 different words here. You take a vow/covenant before God to death do you part. Man might allow a divorce but your still married in God's eyes until death.
Can I get a divorce if my spouse commits adultery? Never! Can I get a divorce if my spouse is abusive to me? No! Can I get a divorce if I no longer love my spouse? Absolutely not! Can I get a divorce if my spouse has abundant me? No, you can't! So, under what circumstances can I get a divorce? Absolutely none. The Bible is absolutely clear; only death can't dissolve a marriage In God site! Our only option is to separate from our spouse and stay single. If things get better between our spouse and us soon, we can get back together! (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Bible. But what about the exception in Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-9? There is no exception in Matthew’s gospel: Once you are married, you are married for life. The exception in Matthew has nothing to do with people who are already married.
I want to see a church where the pastor would remove an unlawfully married couple who refused to actually repent of their adultery. That would be just BOOM!!!
But why can nobody marry the woman that has been put away? Why is someone called an adulterer if they marry the woman that has been put away? The answer is, the women's husband is still alive.
Yes, because the woman's husband is alive, the man who marries her is an adulterer. Also, when the divorced man remarries, the woman who marries him is an adulteress.
What is a man like me supposed to do. I divorced my ex last year for not one, not two, not even three, but more commissions of adultery. Am I, a man who is faithful to Jehovah, to be condemned to be alone all the rest of my years? I am not faultless, I have my own sins, but my divorce was not a matter of course but a matter of faith. What should a man like me do? I want earthly love. I want a wife. Am I cursed?
@@p01236-g under the old covenant it would have been the will of the father that this man makes a public example of his wife. But under the new it is the fathers will that he forgives her. He's not to make a public example of her nor divorce her like he did under the the old instead, He's to forgive her and with the help of the Lord be reconciled to her even if she had departed. The Lord had commanded by the Apostle Paul that a husband is not to divorce his wife even if she departs the, lord said that she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. 1Cor7:10-11. If we don't forgive others of their trespasses neither will the father forgive us of ours. Matt 6:15. If this brother doesn't forgive his Adultrous wife of her trespass neither will the father forgive him of his which is not forgiving his wife of hers.
@@garvinsmith4555 these were verses given to me when my husband was cheating with multiple women. Pretty abusive. He always blamed me for his sin. Where was the Church during all of this after I approached them? Hiding. Too messy. Not their business. Only my father and brothers handled it. He was unrepentant. At what point does the church declare the marriage “dead“ if they won’t even get involved? Church governance matters. Not just on adultery and divorce but many other things. The church needs to be in people’s business. And that should be a conviction to us all.
@@MrsJFJSorry for the late response! Did the Lord say to you, none of my business when you turned to him? Was he in hiding too? Turning to your father and brother for help suggest to me you never turn to the Lord! Or trusted him!
Are we not going to talk about what Jesus said about adultery? He set the standard higher! But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28 Adultery is a heart issue at its root.
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.
If the church preached the gospel to the world instead of spending time divorcing each other and showing the world that christs love and forgiveness doesn't work more would get saved. Marriage is a picture of salvation and once saved always saved to get divorced pictures loss of salvation. Anyway speaking from experience, my wife hated christianity and finally divorced me even though the only crime i commimted was i loved jesus and wouldnt fight or argue with her not once lol, she hated the fact that i kept sharing the gospel. Everyone i know knows i loved her though our divorce
Divorce is wrong for the church unless the person is lost then they are free to leave, no other sin is too big to be forgiven, consider how God forgave all our sins we should forgive as he forgave us. This preacher is a false preacher on marriage he is giving permission for divorce
Regarding the Matthew was for the Jews comment, Matthew 28: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations (Grk. ethnos; Gentiles), baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them (all nations, ethnos, Gentiles) to observe ***all things whatsoever I have commanded you:*** and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Everything Jesus said in Matthew was/is for the nations, ethnos, gentiles. (As well as Israel).
@@katyaonuoha7290 Corinthians was written by the same guy who also claims to have known 500 witnesses for the resurrection of Jesus but can't name a single one of them, wasn't it? Hmmmm.... I would take his writings with a mountain of salt. ;-)
Setting aside any extenuating circumstances that might allow remarriage without committing the (inadvertent) adultery, let me ask a few questions in regard to a contextual interpretation of Jesus teaching on this matter. How do you feel about the Old Testament women who were allowed to remarry after being repudiated (divorced) by their husbands (Deuteronomy 24:2)? Do you distain them? Jesus revealed that these women were caused to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). Would you say that they shouldn't remarry then? What would you do if you were divorced and God graciously allowed you to remarry? Would you remain single and celibate or would you remarry? That's the paradox presented in God's Word. Hope that helps you understand the divorce dilemma better. Blessings to all
Remarriage was graciously allowed for women put away by their husbands (Deut. 24:2). Unfortunately there was an unintentional consequence even for them. But we have every reason for practical purposes to discriminate between the innocent and guilty parties of divorce!! That’s because Jesus does exactly that. Jesus indicts the men of Israel's Patriarchal society with the culpability of their former wives transgression (Matthew 5:32). “causeth her to commit adultery” (KJV) or “makes her the victim of adultery” (NIV) is an indictment against the former husband. The former husband CAUSED her to commit adultery in the manner Jesus described. Do you understand where Jesus places the blame for this way of committing adultery? When Deuteronomy 24 is properly understood God prohibited the men of that Patriarchal society from reconciling with their former wives because they were the one’s responsible for her inadvertent transgression (v.4). By divorcing their wives they were releasing them with the right of remarriage. From a congruent knowledge of Moses and Jesus’ teaching you should be able to determine that divorce and remarriage caused both a transgression and a transference of marital obligation. One marriage ended and another one was constituted. Therefore marital obligations were transferred to the present spouse. Divorce and remarriage supplanted one spouse for another. This is the context for Jesus' teaching on the matter. Don't follow someone who tells you more divorce is God's will for you!! Honor your present marriage. It is never referred to as an "adulterous relationship" in God's Word. Jesus revealed to Israel that divorce caused them to commit adultery against their former spouse when they remarried (Mark 10:11). Yes, there was a negative consequence to terminating the first marriage, that was Jesus' point. He gave them a reason to stay married, but He nor anyone else in scripture required the present marriage be dissolved. That is the remedy of a legalistic thinker. One who doesn't look to biblical history where remarriage resulted in a binding marriage, but rather makes up a new requirement based on the false teaching that the first marriage wasn't dissolved. That just happens to be the very opposite of what Jesus said. The fact that this way of committing adultery was the inadvertent consequence of a marriage ending prematurely did not changed the fact that divorce and remarriage were effective events in God's Word. After remarriage a woman was responsible to her present husband, not her former. Her former husband was not allowed to reconcile with her (Deut. 24:4). In God's Word remarriage had both lawful and moral obligations. It resulted in a subsequent covenant of marriage to which those who entered where bound. No one but Moses gave instruction to an “after remarriage” circumstance, understand? Don't follow those who make up new requirements for repentance. Divorcing one's present spouse only results in MORE unfaithfulness. Read Moses and Jesus' teaching congruous, not as if Jesus opposed Moses. Blessings
Grace to you Proves you have totally misunderstood Jesus' teaching on this issue. For if you properly understood Him you would realize you are her present living husband. You have embrace way to many false suppositions on this issue. Blessings
In the name of lord, What gospel did jesus preached?? The true gospel talks about the kingdom of lord, !!! Luke:4:14." I must preach the kingdom of god to the outher cities also. For I was sent for this purpose" Jesus purpose is only preach the true gospel(not his resurrection). Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." He is referring to something truly revolutionary. He means that with his own coming to earth, God’s saving rule and reign has come near in a way that’s never happened before in all of human history.(nor the cross) Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people. He preaching only true gospel of lord. Remember, not this bible and not about Jesus. Luke9:2,, and he sent them to preach the kingdom of God,,,,, Luke 16:16,,, "Since that time, the Goodnews of the kingdom of God is being Preached". There's only one true Gospel, that is the Kingdom of God.All Churches in the world have Preached the Wrong Gospel. Mathew 24:14.,,,, And this Gospel of the Kingdom (not the Bible, not Jesus, Not his resurrection, nor the Cross)will be proclaimed throughout the World as a testimony to all Nations, and then the End will come. Remember,, I'm the First Witness, And I will Diclair that True Gospel, and Preached the World, to the Testimony to all Nation.And then, the End will come. The Seventh Verse?? Will be Coming Soon. This is from,,,,,,,,,,, Son of Man.
I know I should not, but I am bored so I will entertain it. In what ways are the gospel of The Kingdom distinct from The gospel of Christ's crucifixion, death and resurrection? Please provide explanation and scriptural support.
I Cor 7: 15-16 does not permit re-marriage. Bandage here means enslaved. In vs 10-11 we clearly see that either believer may not re-marry....... And why would the church allow a member who is not born again?
that is an age-old lame pro divorce talking point. I debunked it in my video. Jesus was rhetorical when he called her previous partners "husbands" when they were not. There was no indication that she was saved or repentance in then encounter as much as we try to make inferences
Claiming to have "debunked" something you disagree with is an OVER statement on your part when in fact you merely inverted the meaning of Jesus' words to get to your interpretation. You claim "Jesus was rhetorical when he called her previous partners "husbands" Conversely, the literal meaning of "husband" would mean this woman had been married 5 times and now shacking with a 6th man she wasn't married to. Thus Jesus made a purposeful distinction between the man she was presently living with over against 5 men who she HAD actually been married to. If your "rhetorical" theory was true, there would be no reason to make a distinction at all. Have you ever considered interpreting Jesus' teaching on divorce without changing the meaning of His words?
@@nealdoster8556 interpretation is why there are so many cults and fake religion. Was Jesus being literal when he said “take the plank out of your own eye…” was it a literal plank he was taking about? Wise up and never cherry pick passages to seek allowances for the horrific sin practice of remarriage adultery. It can lead to violence. A man who would dare move in on another man’s wife could get himself shot/killed, never mind exemption clauses.
@@SaanichtonMinistries You responded outside of the text under discussion and about a situation totally different. We all agree there were times Jesus used metaphors to relay a certain truth. But I have never heard anyone use the illustration you did to justify stripping Jesus' words (to the woman at the well) of there actual meaning for the sole purpose of rejecting the truth those words reveal. Do you realize that there is NO place in God's Word where the text is actually claiming that marriages can't end until death? While I realize there are several passages often set forth by your camp to suggest the "indissoluble marriage" theory, none of them is actually making the claim itself. The interpreter has to read that idea INTO those text in order to even believe it's suggesting the idea. If "indissoluble marriage" was true why didn't any inspired writer just come out an say marriages can't end until death. The truth is, that's NOT a biblical argument, it's a figment of your imagination. Denying the reality of divorce in God's Word is the VERY cause of your false interpretation of Jesus' teaching on the matter. "fake religion" is also created by those who add their own ideas to God's Word, right? Particularly when someone cherry picks what they take as literal and what words they choose to change to the opposite meaning for the sole purpose of sustaining their false presuppositions. Just imagine all the alterations one could make to God's Word if they practiced your hermeneutic. It's one thing to help Christians navigate a bad situation, it's quite another to make that situation worse (for them) because the interpreter overlooked the simple point Jesus made about divorce.
one can divorce regardless of the repenting, of the wayward spouse.....where does the expression, for better, or worse come in.....it seems that this speaker, wants for better, but not worse to be in the vows....
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This sermon was preached by R.C. Sproul at Saint Andrew's Chapel in Sanford, Fla. Hear more from his series in the gospel of Mark: th-cam.com/play/PL30acyfm60fWpFiMnbLmGb8WD5YXXOAxX.html
What about in the case of domestic violence and abuse ?
@@brucevidito4923 that’s a break of a covenant...
@@brucevidito4923 divorce not remarriage... Romans 7:1-3 KJV... The sin is remarriage
@@jeremylynn8631 What's wrong with remarriage?
@@dh605x Romans 7:1-3
7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
So if u are trying to live according to Christian biblical values its a sin of adultery, if not and I are living of the world, then get married as much as I want. But eternal life to me is more important than things of this life/world. Thats a personal choice we all have to make!
God is in the restoring business. There is no marriage that he can't restore once the couple is willing to forgive each other.
Both people have to agree to restore the marriage.
Ive been through this when the worldly ways get into the others mind...change is hard
Marriages that are full of abuses usually can NOT be restored!
@@donnag.3611 What is impossible with man is possible with god! If a couple repents and forgives each other, and turns to the lord for his help in restoring their marriage, is he going to say to them, no, the marriage is beyond repair? Or is he going to repair it? What do you think?
Exactly, but the two of you have have to be willing, not just one.
You must not be familiar with the toxicity of covert narcissists.
so excellent thank Lord that this mans voice still carries out into the world. although you have taken him to heaven since 2017. Your word is indeed the living word. Praise your name Lord and thank you for your servant now departed.
God Help us All. Have Mercy Upon our Souls
I had to repent and come out of being married to a divorced man because his covenant, first wife is still living. All three parties are believers. I just simply believe Jesus said you are permitted to divorce because of the hardness of your heart but not to remarry or you go into adultery or you cause the innocent spouse who might go and marry another to commit adultery. Just too plain for me. I quit listening to men on matters such as this and asked the Holy Spirit for guidance. I listen to what the written words of my Savior are, they have the final authority for me. When it clearly states that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom, I fear that possibility more than anything, I want to please my GOD and see JESUS and live with HIM forever. It's not worth taking a chance to believe misunderstandings of all kinds of Bible scholars. The thing is we still love each other but Jesus has to be first. So single I will be till HE comes or I go by way of the grave. We both are old.
Yes l am with you on this matter
I too am in a situation that l cannot marry another, while my husband had been in adultery for years, it may seem good for him now but eternity awaits all sinners unless he repents and turns to the Living God Jesus Christ alone
You're right to look to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Just one problem with your post:
In what passage of the Written Word does God define an adulterer as someone who is in a second marriage following a divorce? Part of being "wise as serpents" is recognizing false teaching. If you listen to ding dongs that tell you "if you do X, you lose your salvation", and you live in fear because of it, then you're already losing the battle.
The Marriage Permanence Doctrine is false teaching and it can be proven false fairly easily. False teachings in general tend to rely on a few key verses stretched way out of context while minimizing or ignoring verses that don't support the doctrine. I've heard those who support the Marriage Permanence Doctrine twist and distort verses in a manner worthy of a George Orwell novel. Incredibly, some even claim that the Book of Matthew was "written for the Jews" in an attempt to sidestep the "exception clause"!
I myself am a divorced man for reasons I won't get into here. I sought a divorce only as a last resort when no other remedy was possible. I made it very clear back then that I would intend to remarry if divorce was unavoidable. Under those circumstances, I could certainly do that. I would recognize no doctrine that claimed I was obligated - biblically or otherwise - to either put up with the deal-breakers that destroyed the marriage or be condemned to celibacy for the rest of my life. I don't do celibacy, and that is that.
Jesus did not permit divorce Moses did.. Jesus clearly stated that..
What about my children; the children of divorced parents. If I leave my remarriage? This is heartbreaking to think
@@dh605x it's interesting that no one speaks of David who had many wives..likely wrong ..is a token figure of new testament faith and resides in the kingdom of God.
I had to get divorced, the abuse was too bad and I ran away with a broken nose but I never remarried but life had been very difficult for me financially but God has always pulled me through.
RC I love you so much. Rest in heaven with our lord Jesus 🙏
I would love to hear a few sermons and messages on being single and never have gotten or been married for whatever reason. I know other friends who for whatever reason were never in the position to get married and have a spouse and family and 'do' what the majority of the population have done and strive for. Being middle aged, it's not something I pine or ache for, but still a little bewildering as to what 'family' looks like and entails when you have no family or extended family left to be a part of.
I sure do miss this wonderful saint of a man of God not being with us...
One day we will meet!
Amen to all that God has ordained in His holy mighty wisdom in love for us.
I am single…never married…I have heard a lot of people argue the justification of remarriage after divorce…I still can’t justify in my mind the words that say…if you marry someone who is divorced, you are committing adultery…this where I have to just stick to my conscience and not date or marry someone who is divorced…
Grace to you
You are starting from the presupposition that Jesus was prohibiting remarriage, are you not?
Why not interpret Him instead with the biblical fact that remarriage was graciously allowed following the divorce concession as the law of Deuteronomy 24 verse 2 reveals?
As a matter of fact there is NO prohibition for remarriage following divorce until many years after Jesus' teaching on this issue. If one follows biblical chronology instead of randomly selecting scriptures to build their view they will understand Paul's prohibition in 1 Corinthians to be unique, NOT uniform!!!!!!!
In Jesus' response to Pharisees He choose to reveal the byproduct of the divorce concession (Matthew 19:8), instead of answering the 'lawful grounds for divorce" question. In that verse Jesus is making the point that divorce is antithetical to God's lifelong design for marriage. Thus by ending a marriage prematurely the one-flesh with one person for life principle in verses 4-6 is staged to be transgressed, that's because remarriage was allowed under the law. Subsequently that obligation intrinsic to marriage isn't sustained, causing the individuals involved to commit adultery against their former spouse (Mark 10:11).
Jesus wisely made a counter argument against divorce, there is NO prohibition for remarriage in His teaching.
The paradox for Jesus' teaching can be understood if Christians accept the fact that remarriage was graciously allowed under the law following the divorce concession, but being one flesh with one person for life is transgressed circumstantially. Blessings
@@nealdoster8556 Jesus tells us very clearly in Luke 16:18 & Mark 10:11-12 KJV that “whosoever” marries someone divorced is in adultery (paraphrased so please read verses). In Roman’s 7:2 & 1 Cor. 7:39 KJV we are told that a woman is bound to her husband till death. In Romans 7:3 KJV we are told if a woman marries a man while her husband is still living she shall be called an adulteress… (paraphrased read verse).
In Galatians 1:8-9 KJV we are told that if anyone preaches a different gospel than what we received in the Word of God let them be accursed (paraphrased read verses). You telling another person Jesus is ok with the getting married to someone divorced, while there one flesh spouse is still living, is blasphemy and you need to repent. God is Holy, just and righteous and what He calls sin will stay sin and not be justified as anything other than sin. I pray you sit with God and ask Him to reveal His truth to you.
That’s wise @who……only marry one that has never been married or has had a spouse that has died, it will save you a world of pain. Watch Voddie Bauchams message on this topic as he has your perspective with scripture to back it up. I love RC but disagree with him on this.
best not to marry. save yourself the pain and being condemned to hell by these religious zealouts if yourmarriage falls apart.
If you read the scripture in context it has to do with the guilty party who committed the fornication/adultery, that is and was put away. He/She cannot re-marry.
For the innocent party, he/she can re-marry , but one cannot marry one that is and was put away due to fornication/adultery. Or it will make him/her an adulterous..
The old testament law, adultery/fornication is punishable by death through stoning.
Why add burden to God’s people? If an unbeliever departs, our brothers and sisters are not under bondage. And if a believer insist on departing despite church involvement, we are to treat him/her as unbelievers. The sad part about many churches today is that they do not involve in the discipline to save marriages yet add burden on spouses who have been abandoned.
And to those who have been remarried, please stay married and do not sin again by divorcing the 2nd time. God gave you a second chance like Peter.
Another profound indephet teaching on this very disputed subject in the church at large. I must say I agree w/Dr. Sproul's position, it could not have been done better!
If you want to hear a treatment done more thoroughly and "better". See John Piper on divorce and remarriage.
You should really watch David Pawson's videos on the subject. Way more logical by a known Bible scholar. He had many more years of experience. He answered all aspects. Whether or not he was correct God only knows.
Do you really believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has permitted his bride to continue to do something that he hates in the new covenant? If that's the case, then the new covernant isn't new
A very profound and sound teaching! To God be the glory on your account, bro Sproul.
There's a question that I would have liked to ask Dr. Sproul. But since he's with the lord anyone who agrees with his teachings on the subject of divorce and remarriage can answer the question. Why is our marriages to the lord can be restored after committing Adultery and violating the trust that is at the very heart and foundation of our Union with him when we depart by backsliding, but can't be restored when we do the same to our spouses? Why would he restore a marriage to himself and not a marriage between a husband and wife? We also need to understand that our marriage to our spouses are not only physical, but spiritual as well.
Amen. Alot of people cannot come yo the understanding of this because of the hardness of their hearts
Oh it can be. In his teaching he was just saying it is permissible. I understand it completely and thank God for His revelation on this. God in Christ Jesus wants restoration above all things. Restoration to Him and restoration with each other. A marriage that can't be restored from adultery is saying that adultery can't be forgiven. It certainly can! God would want the adulterous partner to repent and be restored back to good treatment of their spouse. He wants people healed and set free.
This is a great question! I do not agree with his teachings on this but your comment is thoughtful and makes sense to me.
Marriages CAN be restored after adultery. I've seen people take their spouses back. However, there is work that must be done to rebuild trust after adultery, and not all spouses are willing to do that work. Some people tell themselves that just saying, "Sorry" is enough and poof! everything goes back to the way it was and the one they cheated on is automatically required to take them bak. They do not wish to go through counseling, they resist putting any kind of accountability structure into their lives, they won't give a full accounting of what they have done - they basically have no insight to the fact that restoration of a marriage is a process and they have no interest in going through that process.
A man to whom a family member of mine used to be married was actually bold enough to proclaim that he could go out and have his fun (his word for commit adultery as many times as he wanted) and he knew that his wife had to take him back because God said that Christians have to forgive (this happened to a family member of mine). God doesn't accept phony repentance (meaning you mouth the words "sorry" knowing full well you plan to go sin again because when you're done having fun you can say "sorry" to God again). In the same way, human beings are not required to accept phony apologies and resume living with somebody who has purposed in their heart to keep breaking the marriage covenant until they finish having their "fun."
BTW, sometimes we really do reap what we sow. One day, God decided to let the physical condition of that man's heart match his spiritual condition. The man I mentioned in the above paragraph developed early heart disease and died prior to age 40 of a heart attack.
Grace to you Garvin
Your question starts from a false presupposition about Pastor Sproul's position (as far as I can tell).
Great observation by sjg comment above.
Thanks a bunch for this wonderful video, God bless us all in our married life.!
10% divorce rate in the U.S. in 1910. What happened? Well, the culture lead the church instead of the church leading the culture. Over and over in the Old and New Testament, we see that obedience is at the heart of a believer's love for Jesus. I worry that we have redefined loving others into letting them do what their heart directs them to do. "Follow you heart" people say. The problem with this is that Jeremiah 17:9 says that the "heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Adam and Eve followed their heart in the garden and look where that got them. I don't want to be alone anymore than the next person, but the person I wanted to marry was divorced with a living spouse. What am I to do? Go for it, and hope for the best when it comes time for one of us to die, or secretly hope that her first husband dies before either of us? You can see how ridiculous this can get. At the same time, I am in agreement with Sproul when he says we don't want to burden our brothers and sisters in Christ when God gives them freedom. It is to me by far the toughest biblical issue probably because it has affected me personally and the woman involved in my situation showed me an incredible amount of grace and mercy for my own rampant and hidden sexual immorality. And yet Romans 2:11 reminds us that God shows no partiality, and 1 Corinthians 14:33 says God is not the author of confusion so this area is not meant to be as difficult as we make it to be. May God give us wisdom James 1:5 to commit to the narrow path, regardless the cost.
It's a long but familiar story. The water was cool when the frog was first placed into the pan. Now the water is at a rolling boil.
Hollywood is in our homes, if God doesn't call us up soon we will only get more sinful
So how do you explain my “husband” of 26 years who divorced me to marry a Christian woman he met on a dating site? When I asked him how he could be on a dating site while married to me he told me he divorced me in his heart years ago thus that’s why he can date. This man was raised in the mission field with parents who are both pastors. The judge granted him the divorce because I wouldn’t sign the papers. He told the judge I was holding him hostage in marriage and was in denial it was over. He’s been remarried five years now. He also does mission trips with her. He tells our kids his FAITH in the Lord grows everyday and that his second wife is the one from the Lord. TWO of our children are divorced and their marriages lasted only ONE year. Sadly, none of our four kids serve the Lord. The father has NO issues with all he’s done telling me Jesus’s grace covers his sin which was to divorce me.
@@vaquera9368 When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, they chose to cover their sin in figleafs. This is the perpetual problem of humanity. We choose to clothe ourselves in a garment of our own man-made righteousness. And we create a Jesus of our own making- a Jesus that talks the way we talk, a Jesus that acts the way we act, a Jesus that dresses like we dress, etc. The problem with this Jesus is that this Jesus doesn't shine in the darkness because it's not the real Jesus. Many self-professing followers of Jesus think they are following the real Jesus because they cover their sin with religious acts, and in the process, they make peace with their sin in the name of religion. As someone who walked in this level of spiritual blindness and admittedly still is prone to it, it is extremely dangerous and will damn the self-professing believer to hell. I believe these are the people who will be expecting to enter into glory with Jesus, but will be told to depart from Him at final judgment. Based on Jesus words in Scripture (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9, Mark 10:10-12, Luke 16:18) your husband has committed adultery. I pray for the sake of his soul and the woman he married that he repents. As to what that repentance ought to look like, I'm honestly not sure. There are biblical arguments/verses to be made to create a conclusion to support either outcome (for him to leave the second marriage or to stay in it and try to honor Jesus), but if in his heart he thinks God approved of the divorce and that he hasn't sinned in doing what he did, he is worshipping a Jesus of his own creation and that Jesus will not shine in the darkness for Him. I feel for your children because divorce is a generational curse and it affects 3 to 4 generations. I'll be praying for you and your children. Love them as a mother but don't condone their sin. I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth on this, and if I am mistaken, that He will throw out what needs to be thrown out. Blessings!
@@vaquera9368I'm so sorry to hear of your husband's betrayal. Romans 7:2-3 & 1st Corinthians 7:39 both Jesus command and Paul's exorting believers that to divorce and remarry while a covenant spouse is still alive is a continuous state of adultery. I will be praying for God's grace and mercy over you and your family. And that your husband and his affair partner come to REPENTANCE. Blessings always your Brother in Christ!
Thanks much Ligonier for sharing this one. This thing in my head getting more clearer now to me, biblically. Godbless you.
You said that this thing is getting clearer in your head. If so, then, you should be able to answer these questions for me.
(1) How can the new covenant be new when divorce, a practice from the old covenant is still allowed, especially when that practice was never the Lord's will?
(2) why, after commanding husbands to love their wives as Christ has loved his bride, and wives to submit themselves to their husbands as unto the Lord, does he still allow divorce? Why, after such a command?
(3) If the hardness of the heart was the root cause of divorce, why is it then, that divorce, a practice of the old covenant, is still performed after the hardened heart was replaced with the new heart?
Brother sproul believes that if the guilty spouse repents the innocent spouse is now obligated to receive that spouse as a brother or sister in Christ, but not as a spouse because God gives provision for ending the marriage if the trust that is at the very heart and foundation of the marital union Is violated. But what brother sproul had'nt realized about the bride of Christ, is that whenever we backslide it means that we have departed and have gone Ahoring after the the Gods of this world committing Adultery violating the trust that is at the very heart and foundation of our marital union with the lord. But instead of divorcing us he said I am married to the back slider
There I still no provision for "remarriage" here. Paul also taught that they can separate, and remain single, or reconcile.
Read 1 Cor. The one sinned against can remarry.
@@FakeCokeCan where does it say they can remarry?
The thing is... there was no formal marriage in the Roman Empire at Paul's time. Couples that were living together for a year or so were considered "married". Most of the people early Christians were teaching to were Roman slaves. I wonder how a person without any legal rights who was possibly sexually abused frequently must have thought about Christian teachings with regards to marriage? What do you think?
@@FakeCokeCan Read it again. Here is Paul giving permission to remarry - or even uses the term.
I missed that @@jeremyjeremy8795 I'm on hols so will reply later.
I love Dr Sproul and have benefitted from his teachings, but I disagree completely on his last point on not forgiving the spouse seeking reconciliation. To say they now need to be received as a brother or sister in Christ only after repentance is a stretch.
This is how I understood it.
The innocent spouse ought to forgive(hence able to receive him/her spouse as a brother in Christ). But the innocent spouse shouldn't be told by her church that beyond forgiving it is a must to take back the spouse/restore the marriage. Can she be encouraged to rethink his/her decision with biblical counseling? Yes. But s/he shouldn't be told(it's mandatory)the marriage has to be restored. Before God she has not sinned by divorcing. People really guilt trip people whose consciences are clear before God. Forgiving is a must. Restoration of a marriage coz of adultery is not.
So everyone who marries, then divorces is a liar? Didn’t we say till death do us part in the presence of God.
No. Everyone who divorces is NOT a liar. When people marry, they are expressing what their intent is. When one other person breaks the covenant, the other party may choose to respond the way God responded when Israel broke the covenant that existed between Israel and God. You perhaps recall the covenant God made to Isreal and how Israel ultimately broke it. God then divorced Israel (see Jeremiah 3). To say that everyone who divorces is a liar is to say something about God, who is divorced, that I would NEVER say.
God instituted marriage, and it's remarkable that in the second chapter of Genesis, there's a statement that Jesus later quoted and that Paul references as fundamental. Genesis 1 says, "God made male and female." Genesis 2 states that it's "right for a man to leave his own family, to leave his parents and to cleave to his wife." The word "cleave" is powerful; it signifies being glued to his wife, sticking and staying attached to her for as long as they both shall live. This sets the standard for the relationship between male and female as intended by God: one man married to one woman for life.
We"ve all committed adultery in our hearts. So I dissagree with a hardened heart that goes 9n to marry someone else....
desertion, by an unbeliever, and anyone deserting is considered, or at least treated like an unbeliever....this does not refer to the marriage bond...but the individual....
When a marriage & man and a woman come together for the first time saved or not ,marriages are honorable amongst all, and anything outside of that relationship unless the spouse has passed away he is or she is considered adultery, and then the Bible says no Adulterer will enter the kingdom of heaven
When Moses conceded divorce to hardhearted men he did so for peace sake, just like Paul in 1 Cor.7:15. When Jesus made a reference to this fact (Matthew 19:8) He was not criticizing Moses (as claimed by some), He was actually being critical of hardheartedness. Jesus’ following remarks “but from the beginning it was not so” (8b) revealed to the Pharisees that divorce was foreign to God’s creative design for marriage(4-6). This masterfully exposed the calloused hearts of the Pharisees for wanting to divorce their wives for all kinds of subjective reasons and it revealed to them that they were transgressing God’s will for marriage by prematurely ending it. Divorce then causes an inadvertent consequence for remarriage.
In the sermon on the mount Jesus revealed to His covenant people Israel that by divorcing their wives (which were allowed to remarry Deut. 24:2) they were causing them to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). In the Patriarchal society of Israel men were causing their wives to commit this manner of adultery, that is to commit adultery by defaulting on “the law of her husband” set forth by marriage itself (Romans 7:2b) KJV. Because marriage sets forth the responsibility of lifetime faithfulness, divorce and remarriage will transgress that obligation. Jesus revealed to Israel the consequences of prematurely ending a marriage. In the Patriarchal society of Israel men who initiated divorce were the ones guilty of the ensuing adultery of their former wives when they remarried (Matthew 5:32).
This adultery was not the adultery of being unfaithful while married which was punishable by stoning. This adultery happens exactly how Jesus describes it in the text. These TRUTHS are overlooked by “divorce to repent” (DTR) advocates (those who teach that the divorced and remarried should divorce). Jesus is directly speaking of an adultery that’s a result of prematurely ending a marriage. He is not speaking of an adultery that’s a result of Him abrogating (as they claim) the law of Moses. The abrogation supposition changes (adds to) the dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus. By adding to God’s word it perverts the text. It changes the perception of when this adultery began, how and why the adultery occurs and to whom the adultery was relevant.
For most DTR advocates this adultery begins as a result of believing Jesus abolished the Old Testament divorce concession. Thus they believe Jesus changed divorce possibility or made divorce impossible and therefore the teaching of Jesus (for them) is applicable going forward. In other words Jesus’ teachings is not applicable to whom He was speaking historically. It becomes applicable by adding the abrogation supposition, understand? This oversight and addition to Jesus’ teaching is the ground work for even more suppositions that are legalistic in nature. Particularly the “divorce to repent” supposition itself, for they are claiming divorce is necessary for salvation sake.
The perception that Jesus changed marriage to being indissoluble is what drives those who advocate DTR. They believe this adultery to be the same as that punished in the law of Moses. But the truth is this adultery was not punished throughout the Old Testament. The adultery Jesus describes happens after the first marriage ends and because it ends prematurely (before death). If one overlooks the retrospective application of Jesus’ words, they cannot account for this adultery in the Old Testament. Therefore they have to account for it some other way, How? By believing abrogation. I cannot over emphasize the problem suppositions cause for this issue. Take a fresh look a the comment threads on any site that deals with divorce and remarriage. You have a spectrum from the licentious all the way to the legalist. But my point is, if you believe abrogation or the abolishment of the divorce concession, you will arrive at the legalistic end of the spectrum. Thankfully there are balanced perspectives also.
One way of having a balanced perspective on this issue is recognizing supposition. That’s because supposition drives supposition. For example the false supposition of abrogation produces the false supposition of indissoluble marriage. That false supposition produces the false belief that divorce is no longer effective. That false supposition produces the false belief that the adultery Jesus described is happening in the first marriage. That false supposition produces the false belief that remarriage itself is the adultery, etcetera. If that false supposition is believed, wouldn’t you then suppose that God would want you to repent of your marriage if the marriage itself was the adultery?
That’s what DTR advocates are telling those who are remarried. They believe a divorced and remarried person is still married to their first spouse or some would say they are still in a one-flesh relationship with the first spouse. Consequently they READ INTO Jesus’ teachings the idea of “indissoluble marriage” or “indissoluble one-flesh union.” These ideas for them explain the ensuing adultery but they don’t realize they have changed how Jesus described this manner of adultery nor to whom it was relevant. They have overlooked the retrospective indictment Jesus was making against those who divorced throughout the Old Testament. By believing Jesus made the husband/wife relationship indissoluble, they imagine the adultery to be occurring in the first marriage and see remarriage as merely one long case of adultery. By changing Jesus’ words to fit their suppositions they have changed how this manner of adultery occurs from that which Jesus described.
Their suppositions misconstrue Jesus’ words, but it all starts when biblical precedents become irrelevant by believing abrogation. Precedents where remarriage resulted in a binding marriage even though it caused a shameful consequence. My post have primarily opposed DTR. That’s because their suppositions have caused so much confusion for this issue by creating a whole new dimension not even in the bible. Their suppositions are a contentious issue for Christendom today while not even being part of New Testament dialogue. Supposing a remarried individual is still married to their first spouse causes much confusion for this issue. My heart goes out to those who are victimized by DTR which exacerbates divorce and destroys families.
Conversely, if Jesus’ words are understood contextually He would be understood to be speaking retrospectively about what hard heartedness caused Israel. When this adultery is understood to be happening in the Old Testament the abrogation supposition is proven a lie. Therefore this manner of adultery is not something new, not something happening in the first marriage, thus not that adultery. Therefore not the adultery described by abrogation. We then should realize that biblical precedents were not abolished. When we understand Jesus did not contradict Moses, Moses and Jesus can be and should be read harmoniously. We then understand that even though a shameful consequence occurs because of divorce, remarriages were binding marriages to be honored as such.
I should emphasize that both Jesus and God knows that the inadvertent shameful consequence that women experienced when remarried was the fault of their husbands for divorcing them (Matt. 5:32, Deut.24:4). I want to say here that there is often an innocent party in divorce today. I see God’s grace in allowing remarriage in the Old Testament and I’m not for keeping people out of marriage except if they are within the New Testament circumstance in which Paul prohibited it. I want to reiterate my main points in short propositional statements so as to expose supposition.
*Miss the retrospective relevance Jesus made to His convent people Israel about adultery and you will account for adultery some other way. DTR does exactly that.
*Add abrogation (or the idea) to Jesus’ teachings and you are poised to believe marriages no longer end.
*If you believe marriages no longer end you will also believe that the adultery that occurs in remarriage is the same adultery that was punished.
*If you believe in indissoluble marriage you will believe in perpetual adultery.
*If you believe in perpetual adultery for those remarried you will advocate the “divorce to repent” supposition.
*If you advocate the “divorce to repent” supposition you will be legalistic.
*If you add rules to the bible for salvation sake, then your own salvation is suspect because you are perverting the Gospel.
A legalist by definition is one who adds rules to the bible for salvation sake.
An adulterer is a person committing a continuous act. If what imply is true then all Christians who were ever engaged in a wrongful divorce is headed to hell, which is wrong. All liars go to hell too, that doesn’t mean all who has lied will go to hell. There is a thing called God’s forgiveness
@@nickwadson5731 I read your entire comment (struggled with the terms a bit) however I have been so worried that I was condemned to hell for my remarriage. Thanks for sharing.
@@p01236-g You just said that adulterers are people who continuously commit adultery. You just answered your own question. If someone perished for being a liar that means they didn’t stop lying, or they didn’t repent. Cause you can’t repent from a sin if you keep doing it. But if you lied once that doesn’t make you a liar if you STOPPED LYING. I can’t call you a liar if you don’t lie any more the same way the Bible says Paul WASNT a murderer because he didn’t murder anymore. They said he WAS a murderer implying he’s not one ANYMORE. Why? Because he stopped murdering.
@@Bebornagain12345
It would stand to reason by your own, that if a person did remarry another that the issue 'under God' is obsolete in that case.
If so, they should divorce again as the marriage is illegitimate to you.
Therefore divorce is no sin in such circumstances?
Sproul disregards the consistent position of the Catholic church concerning Jesus' words here. On the contrary, he uses "Church" to refer only to Protestant churches because it is Protestant communities which have NEVER been able to agree on what Jesus' words mean here. So much for the perspicuity of scripture! I'm glad this confusion in Scripture is over a trivial, minor thing like MARRIAGE!
This teaching comes from a humanist Erasmus who created the exception clause. So unbiblical and heresy that the reformation created. Erasmus added a Greek word to change the meaning in Matthew 19:9. He didn’t mention clearly that forgiveness is required. The strong indication a person is saved. Years back I wrote to RC Sproul and showed him with the evidence on the exception clause was false. He could not refute what I showed him and returned my letter saying he was on a sabbatical. True story.
How many more things wrong about the Bible because of humanist who wrote it confuses everyone and call it the word of GOD.
Christianity is not a feel good gospel. There are times that we must suffer that the will of God might be so (KJV. 1Peter 3:17).
Amen!
Amen
I would be careful with the application of this principle. We aren't called to martyrdom for its own sake. There should be some greater good accomplished. Continuing to suffer abuse does not honor God. And for what? So there wouldn't be the scourge of mankind known as divorce?
To some in certain Christian circles, divorce is one of those bogeymen right up there with alcohol, short skirts, secular music, and other forms of "immoral" pastimes that are demons to be driven out. Matt 7:22 is where Jesus says what He thinks of such people.
Suffering doesn't always mean physical abuse, there maybe some emotional mental distress, but all that comes with life. God expects for you to honor your vows, not to run are look for an easy way out when things become difficult or hard. Marriage is not something that should be enter into lightly. It is better not to make a vow, than to make it and not keep it, not my words but his. It troubles me and saddened me that people can take something so sacred and holy as marriage and discard it so lightly. Marriage was introduced by God in the beginning. I know and love the testimony of those who waded through the difficulties of marriage and I know those after a few years and twenty decided to bale out because of what they wanted, became more important than what God wanted. I don't know about you but I found that all those that choose to live Godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 2 timothy 3:12 and yes even in your own household, many marriages have experienced it and even separated for a while, just to see this God work out a miracle in their lives hallelujah 🙌. No I'm not advocating anyone to suffer life threatening abuse, but the gospel is not meant to be a feel good gospel but a transforming one. God bless you 🙏 ❤️
@@endtimesuponus789 With all due respect, it sounds like you don't really understand marital vows. "For better or for worse" is supposed to mean "no matter what life throws at us". It does not mean "no matter what evil you do to me". There's a big difference between "when things become difficult or hard" and "he hit me again".
Anyone who violates their marital vows by being abusive, neglectful, faithless, etc is committing fraud. In just about every agreement, contract, covenant, etc between people, an instance of material fraud could possibly void the obligations of the defrauded. Marriage is no different. God is not unjust - He provides recourse for those who have been defrauded. Those who insist abused or neglected spouses stay married to such worthless bums are making an idol out of marriage itself.
Understanding what the Bible REALLY says about divorce is almost impossible unless you're familiar with Hebrew terms and concepts absent in Christianity, such as 'Agunah'. Time and again, I've found that Christian pastors often miss the true teachings of the Bible on this topic. I highly recommend Dr. Eitan Bar's short book, "Christian and Divorced: What the Bible REALLY Says About Divorce & Remarriage." He is a Jewish-Christian fluent in Hebrew. After reading about 20 different books on the subject, this one stands out as the best. I was even an early reader of it.
I would really enjoy a follow-up in this sermon regarding remarriage after divorce. As I do agree that dirvorce is only permissible if there was sexual immorality, but the subject regarding marriage after divorce is hugely debated amongst believers.
David Pawson. Has an amazing teaching on this , however I would lie if I said it was an easy teaching. Godbless.
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.
There were 3 grounds for divorce
Death-Romans 7
Fornication- Matt. 19
Desertion- 1 Cor. 7:15
@@myraride9563 how can a married person commit fornication?
@@jeremyjeremy8795
Easy the word fornication in it's purest Hebrew meaning includes adultery
Except for fornication. (Engagement)
Period for jews. Mark and Luke don't mention any acceptions. We are gentiles.And remarriage is omly for death of a spouse.Period.Believe it or Not
Marriage cannot be undone; when you're married, you’re married for life; only death can undo it!
What happens when you are in an abusive marriage, should you stay until you get killed?
There ya go . That is the exact same impression I get from reading the scripture. IT’s radical! Most cannot accept it.
@@BibleProphesy1969 you can separate, but not remarry.
1 Corinthians 7:10 - 11 "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife."
@@BibleProphesy1969 you can separate, but not remarry.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife."
Untrue !
When is says that Moses permitted or allowed divorce does not mean that it was approved. It´s like when the unbeliever wants to leave... let him /her leave. But it is not God´s will. It is just that you can not physically force a person to stay where they don´t want to stay. Moses was NOT saying the God says: ´It´s OK, go ahead. ¨ No ... it is not okay but people do what they want and sin against the Lord.
WOW ! THAT WAS GOOD 👍 REALLY GOOD 👍 HALLELUJAH
Does anybody here advocate for reconciliation in marriage if the cheating spouse repented and has changed their ways? And their track record is now proven to be on the straight and narrow path?
Anybody that knows the bible, and loves Jesus! Yes anytime you can reconcile is always what God wants! The word tells us so!
Yes. I actually forgave my husband when he had an affair three years into our marriage. Twenty six years into our marriage, he divorced me to marry a Christian woman he met on a dating site. He forced the divorce in court. So, I believe he never repented from his first affair at all based on things he later expressed.
@@vaquera9368 and ask your self, how Christian is that "Christian" woman??? Hmmm 🤔🤔🤔... God bless u dear... Its a blessing to remain single and give your life to the Lord, Jesus never cheats on us!
@Shadow11 that’s a Catholic view.
No, I don’t. If adultery occurred, then the marriage vow is broken already. You are free to leave your spouse. Jesus does not put pressure on the innocent spouse to stay in that case. But you can forgive, however forgiveness doesn’t equal reconciliation in marriage. It’s really up to the spouse who was cheated on.
Excellent wisdom
Well said! Thanks 🙏 for that.
I was really shocked of RC his teaching Jesus taught no remarriage he gave one exception for divorce but not for a marriage and that’s what the disciples interpret to him saying in Matthew 19 verse nine that’s what the early church interpreted that’s what the church fathers interpreted for 1600 years and then RC Sproul says something about a wife not forgiving a repentant husband has he forgotten all the times God has taken back Israel when they repent of their spiritual adultery this is insane how far he can miss it
He said "I wouldnt"..
I myself, if my ex husband turned his life around, I would remarry him. But I gots to see his fruits. Not just because he says so..
But I'm good by myself. Just God, myself, and my 2 daughters. The Lord provides... that's all I need. Amen.
@@claudiafavela7183 I’m so happy if he repents you would take him back and that’s exactly how Jesus treat you good girl Claudia
@@MMAGUY13 thank u. Well yes we deserve a second chance. Specially if hes the father of my children too. My daughters loveeee their dad and he lovveeeesss them.
Notice he didn't deal with vss. 11-12. See John Pipers teaching on divorce and remarriage. Much deeper treatment of the subject.
@@djm7038 Your wife as much as she like to can’t trade you in for someone younger richer nicer and whatever else. Evil world evil woman and shame on the church Who condones it when Christ told a story throwing so called Christian’s in hell he won’t condone it Christ said it’s adultery that’s the end the story I don’t care what the church says
This is so good.
Fornication was the grounds for divorce with Mary and Joseph. Not the word adultery.
This would shock most so called churches.
John MacArthur has a 2 part video on divorce which is very good.
@@joolspools777 Would you be able to provide a link? I would love to hear this.
@@Ch3rishtheday I'm not sure how to sorry..I think the title is David MacArthur divorce and remarriage.
Another one is Divorce and remarriage David Pawson..good but probably not popular..I myself have not married so I was interested in the subject because of course alot of Christian men are divorced.
Here's another dimension the the divorce problem. That is what if there's children involved. And the adulterers wife is the unbeliever. Knowing that in a custody "battle" the wife will be the one that will almost gaurenteed to win custody. There are several variables that create more question than the articulated answer can satisfactorily address.
man you just toe the traditional line.....abandonment is not a ground of divorce.....not being under bondage is not akin to not being bound....
Why many sadness, hate, violence, families breakdowns and financial costs.
sin....and hardness of heart....
sexual immorality, in a marriage is usually called adultery.
Not always
@@johnborland7865 when.....
@@johnborland7865 realy.......when........
To all the Brothers and sisters who have approved of divorce guess what? The Devil is very approving of divorce. There isn't anyone who has approved of divorce more than him.
So true.
Yeeep, I’ve been studying Bible last 6 months with original Hebrew context, and guess what? Found out no marriage in heaven is a hellinzed belief from second century, death also doesn’t end a marriage LOL everyone LOVVVESSS to use Roman’s 7:2, but that waisnt Paul talking about marriage, he was using marriage under law of Moses as a example saying like death ends a marriage under the law (law of Moses) we are freed from law of sin under Christ, all evil all lies all the devils word’s because devil HATES everything god made. People remarry because they wanna live lawlessly and don’t like Bible saying otherwise
@@TechCody113 Question: if the hardness of the heart is the root cause of divorce, didn't the lord solve the problem by replacing the hardened heart with a heart of flesh?
@Garvin Smith what you mean?
@@TechCody113 The clarity of a person's writing reveals their clarity of thought. I'm unsure of your point but not your scholarship.
Marriage is an institution that was established by God an one that is meant to last for life, and the Devil knows it. However, it is the devils will and purpose to destroy it. And to complete his plans he is using our own leaders to end marriages by allowing the people of God to divorce.
Great message. Thanks for the video and God bless.
"No civil, legal, religious, cultural, or state divorce is valid in the eyes of God. This includes all human divorces that have taken place on planet Earth since Adam and Eve sinned. Not a single one of them severed the one-flesh union of a lawful marriage. They all took place without God’s permission. They were all unilateral decisions, as they are to this day, and will be to the end of time."
I love your teachings. You have so much wisdom. However, for this one I wish that you had mentioned abuse even if it is not specifically mentioned in the passage. I wouldn't want someone to stay in an abusive marriage when they are continually being harmed and I don't believe Jesus would want that either. And i don't believe if they end their marriage and eventually remarry that God considers it adultery.
"Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate." I love RC. But, I believe he got this one wrong. God hates divorce. This is why the modern American church and American society as a whole is in such a terrible state. Marriage is meant to be a picture of the Gospel, the union between Christ and His Bride. Yet, we treat it so casually. We abandon Biblical authority. You heard it right there at the end of his sermon. "The church needs a large group of counselors to determine whether a person should get divorced or not." Is Scripture not enough to guide us in this? Apparently not. Our hearts are still too hard to hear exactly what Jesus says in this passage.
@John Cameron you notice that the reading from here in Mark doesn't mention sexual immorality. Neither does Luke. Only in Matthew. Note that Matthew was written to the Jews. Mark and Luke to the gentiles. It was important for Matthew to include this so called "exception clause" because Joseph planned to put away Mary because he thought she had committed fornication during their betrothal. They were not technically married yet, so it would not have been inappropriate for him to leave her. Obviously, the angel filled Joseph in. The betrothal period was still so serious that a divorce or putting away still had to take place. Mark and Luke don't allow this exception because gentiles had no such betrothal. Once you are married, there is no divorce and remarriage while the spouse is still alive. R.C. also misses it when he discusses Deuteronmy. Also talking about the betrothal period. Paul also makes it clear that if husband and wife part, they are not to remarry but work toward reconciliation or stay unmarried. Marrying another while the spouse is still alive is adultery.
@@Souper19 God divorced Israel.
@@maunder01 I'm afraid you aren't really grasping what really happened there or perhaps even the true depths of God's love. He took Isreal back over and over again. He's never broken his covenant and He never will.
@@Souper19 lan l have grasped God's love.
Divorce is not sin. God can not sin.
For Christians to state every divorce is a sin is contradictory.
God is the judge. He knows each situation and heart. We can rest in that.
@@maunder01 you are 100% correct that God cannot sin. Where i was going with that was that God has not ever divorced Israel. Your example is invalid. God has never broken his covenant. He made a promise, and although he told them he was giving the certificate of divorce for their idolatry, he commanded them back several times. He wouldn't stay angry forever. He was faithful even though his bride wasn't. He doesn't leave his bride. There was no divorce.
Whoever abandons wife/husband and remarries another, is no different than Judas.
One thing that we all should agree is that it was a man (Moses) that came up with the idea of divorce not God.
What a.confusing message, the doctrines of men. mixed with some truth, the quote that the wife should treat arepentant husband as a brother is beyond belief and just shows how much man is willing to undermine/ wrest the clear teaching of Jesus Christ - A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives but if he be dead she is free to marry to whom she will but only in the Lord 1 Cor 7 :39.
Oh, that's nothing. Just wait until you sit in that lake of fire. That's when the real fun begins. ;-)
I have some skin in this subject, so I have been searching for the truth for many years. I agree with you, very confusing preaching.
@@leonseva4980 what's so confusing? The Lord is allway's willing to forgive us and receive us back unto him self whenever we depart. So why mustn't we do the same with our spouses, after all, he promised to take away the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.
This is one of the biggest dilemmas we have in Christian life. What to do with a family when we discover they are in remarriage adultery? Break up the family? Or not? If not , are they in judgement and in the practice of sin?
here is the situation. I see it this way. God wants us to be married Divorce was not his plan BUT sin comes into the mix. Getting remarried is adultery but if the couple confesses and repents God can honor that remarriage. If God Can forgive David's adulterous marriage why can't he forgive others? Jesus said at the well "you have been married 5 times and the one you are with now is not your husband" he didn't say you have a covenant spouse and the 4 others are your lovers. Jesus recognized each remarriage.
Paul said one you marry and divorce if you remarry or the other person remarried and you two become single again you can't go back. I'm paraphrasing. but all these point that God recognizes a new union has formed each time.
Paul also talked about the scrambled egg doctrine. Once things are done they can't be undone. So Paul says just go on from that point on. Once you make a new family it would be a sin to breakup that family to join the other. Commiting one sin doesn't fix a previous one. instead it just adds sin on top of sin.
The Pharisees here and there are many of them Jesus hated them so much he turned tables in the temple and mocked them any chance he got. They will add confusion they say it is a continuous sin of adultery. But I don't beleive it to be. it would be more like a one time incident. God can forgive adultery and remarriage are not the unforgivable sins.
@@luv2uallday1 I take a more direct approach and fear God on this one. If you are in adultery. Stop it and rectify the situation as far as it is possible to build peace. Never live in, regard or practice sin lest God not hear your prayers and you forfeit your salvation. Never choose vain lust over obedience to the Lord.
In our remarriage adultery teachings , I have debunked each assertion and exemption clause loophole your cite.
David sin has horrific lasting consequences. Israel was divided, his son dead, and His adultery partners Son, Solomon lost his salvation and is in hell due to polygamy and being led astray. Anyone who would affirm or regard adultery in remarriage will not be welcome in fellowship but encouraged to repent. We must end this perverted evil practice in the church!
I have a zero tolerance for it and will rebuke and expose it the rest of my days.
@@luv2uallday1 let me know if you want to discuss this further:)
Yes.
@@luv2uallday1 Grace to you
"Remarriage is adultery" is one of the worse misnomers concluded from errant interpretation. A conclusion NOT derived from the biblical precedents to which Jesus referred, but rather from interjecting the belief that remarriage (of it's on) is the villain and shouldn't be allowed (as if God made a mistake by doing so). If that which God allowed by His Grace is thought to be sinful, does not the interpreter make the grace of God to be sin?
Under Jesus' teaching the ensuing adultery is multi-factored with divorce being the primal cause. That's because allowing marriages to end was not in keeping with that of God’s lifelong creative design. On the other hand Jesus did NOT prohibit nor criticize remarriage. The law (which represented God's will) graciously allowed remarriage as Deuteronomy 24:2 reveals. Jesus was merely revealing what transpires under those circumstances because the first marriage was not sustained. Divorce is to be understood as a biblical reality. Divorce although antithetical to God's creative design prematurely ends a marriage. Divesting divorce of it's meaning (as some Pastors do in their liberal interpretation) is part and parcel of exaggerating Jesus' teaching on this issue!!
Part of that exaggeration is claiming "remarriage is adultery". If you think "remarriage is adultery" you have not properly followed the counter argument Jesus made against divorce. Your interpretation has added a number of false theories to His teaching. In short you will find yourself claiming Jesus repealed, changed, or abrogated the law of Moses when in TRUTH He merely revealed the outcome of divorce being conceded where remarriage was graciously allowed.
We should understand Moses and Jesus congruous, not as one opposed to the other. Jesus’ teaching on this issue is pointing out to His covenant people that allowing them to divorce was not without it’s casualty. Something significant about life long marriage is violated in the process. Subsequently causing an inadvertent transgression because the first marriage was not sustained. Jesus words were applicable to Israel's history. When contextually understood He was conveying the inadvertent consequence of divorce being conceded. This He did to dissuade them from putting away their wives (Matthew 19:6).
Interesting reading the comments . Nothing like the self righteous folk who know more than anyone else lecturing and denegation others with home they disagree. That right there is probably the biggest turn off of unbelievers to becoming a Christian. Makes me sick.
I agree with everything you except for your interpretation of the Greek word "porneia." I say this not because I know better, but because a large number of solid pre-20th century commentators, along with the KJV and Geneva translaters, take it to mean the act of adultery where fornication has taken place with another outside of marriage.
Romans 7:2-32
For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.
Mark 10:11-12
11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 5:31-32
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:15-16
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”
Luke 18:18-20
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
1Thess 4:3-5
3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;
Mark 7:20-23
20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come-sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
Matthew 15:17-20
17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
Proverbs 5:18-23
18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 A loving doe, a graceful deer- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love. 20 Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife? Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman? 21 For your ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all your paths. 22 The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare them; the cords of their sins hold them fast. 23 For lack of discipline they will die, led astray by their own great folly.
1 Corinthians 7:10-17
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
Proverbs 6:20-35
20 My son, keep your father’s command and do not forsake your mother’s teaching. 21 Bind them always on your heart; fasten them around your neck. 22 When you walk, they will guide you; when you sleep, they will watch over you; when you awake, they will speak to you. 23 For this command is a lamp, this teaching is a light, and correction and instruction are the way to life, 24 keeping you from your neighbor’s wife, from the smooth talk of a wayward woman. 25 Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes. 26 For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread, but another man’s wife preys on your very life. 27 Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? 28 Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched? 29 So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished. 30 People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. 31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house. 32 But a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself. 33 Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away. 34 For jealousy arouses a husband’s fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. 35 He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse a bribe, however great it is.
Romans 7..What if someone is divorced then..they are no longer married..so Romans 7 is not talking about divorce but only the situation of someone not divorced.
Do you know if Romans 7 still applies if there is a divorce?
@@joolspools777 do a word study.....this type of argument goes on, and on....
@@joolspools777 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.
Never teach that there are exemptions in the Bible for divorce. This is absolutely false. Marriage is until death do you part. If you divorce and remarry…. You do not marry, but commit adultery. The only exemption is in the context of the Jewish Gospel of Matthew where if one fornicated in a betrothal dedication (as was assumed in the account of Mary found to be with child and Joseph) he could have justly put her away and divorced and therefore remarried.
So what? Every person and couple who you know is divorced and remarried are living in adultery and in the practice of it. This is bashed on Galatians, they are not inheriting the Kingdom of God. Pastors who remarry and teach the exemption clause loopholes are in danger of hell too. Because again they practice it even as they are one women men. Wise up on this we must
The woman at the well had been married 5 times and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. Jesus did not tell her to return to husband #1, #2, #3, #4 or #5. Certainly ONE of those previous husband's was still living. He also didn't condemn her to hell. Why did He stop and offer her "living water" if her choices already doomed her soul? Because they didn't. If He can offer salvation to a 5 time divorcee then maybe we need to do the same.
@@Happinessisachoice2023 false pretext. Jesus was being rhetorical in his statement about her live in fornication partners. Calling them “Husbands” when they were nothing of the sort. There was never any indication that that woman repented, confessed her sin, nor forsook her sinful life of fornication…. Likely prostitution. We can never make the fool’s mistake of reading too much into the text. This is especially the case when pro divorce teachers should use such a passage to strengthen their rotted position that Jesus affirms a women to have multiple husbands. Talk about teachers being caught with their pants down! It is a sick failure. There will be hell to pay for this gross error.
So if your interpretation of Jesus' teaching contains falsehoods which you don't repent of, are you going to hell for lying?
Didn't Pastor Sproul say that Duet.24 did not refer to adultery and then say that Jesus took the Pharisees back to Duet.24 and concluded that the exceptive clause did refer to adultery? If he said those things, why didn't he explain why Matt.19 didn't use the word for adultery to describe adultery or why the law of stoning that governed in Duet. no longer applied in Mark or Matt?
Understanding Jesus' teaching within it's historic CONTEXT!
The Pharisees posed a loaded question to Jesus about lawful grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:3. Mark 10:2). The law on the other hand did not give grounds for divorce, it merely regulated it having conceded divorce to hardheartedness as Jesus affirms in Matthew 19:8. Instead of getting caught up in the "lawful grounds for divorce" argument of that time Jesus circumvented that argument by appealing to what marriage was suppose to be. He appealed to God’s creative design for marriage in the origin (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b).
By God’s design marriage was to be lifelong, because of hard hearts it was allowed to prematurely end. Accepting the tension that creates is part of understanding the divorce dilemma. That's because Jesus is contrasting divorce conceded over against marriage created for life (v.8). If you overlook that fact, you're NEVER understand why this way of committing adultery ensues and you'll get caught up in the false narrative about "grounds for divorce" which takes a long, long time to explain. That's because "grounds" sidetracks the simplicity of what Jesus actually taught.
Moses allowed divorce primarily because of women caught up in the conflict of their husbands spite as Deuteronomy 24 verse 1 reveals, it was a mercy for the woman. Subsequently God didn’t force them into a life of singleness, He allowed them to remarry. Having a husband allowed them to have the companionship and provisions they would need, so remarriage was graciously allowed by God as verse 2 of that same law reveals. By appealing to the origin which predated the law we understand that the conclusion Jesus gave in Matthew 19:9 (in responding to the Pharisees question / v.3) was not derived from the law itself, but rather from God’s creative design for marriage in the beginning (Matthew 19:4-6,8b).
So we should understand that this way of committing adultery has it's basis in another predicate, where principles of marriage are not sustained because the first marriage ends prematurely.
We should understand Moses and Jesus congruous, not as one opposed to the other. Jesus’ teaching on this issue is pointing out to His covenant people that allowing them to divorce was not without it’s casualty. Something significant about life long marriage is violated in the process. Subsequently causing an inadvertent transgression because the first marriage was not sustained. Jesus words were applicable to Israel's history. When contextually understood He was conveying the inadvertent consequence of divorce being conceded. This He did to dissuade them from putting away their wives (Matthew 19:6).
Under Jesus' teaching the ensuing adultery is multi-factored with divorce being the primal cause. That's because allowing marriages to end was not in keeping with that of God’s lifelong creative design. On the other hand Jesus did NOT prohibit nor criticize remarriage. The law (which represented God's will) graciously allowed remarriage as Deuteronomy 24:2 reveals. Jesus was merely revealing what transpires under those circumstances because the first marriage was not sustained. Divorce is to be understood as a biblical reality. Divorce although antithetical to God's creative design prematurely ends a marriage. Divesting divorce of it's meaning (as some Pastors do) is part and parcel of exaggerating Jesus' teaching on this issue!!
Part of that exaggeration is claiming "remarriage is adultery". If you think "remarriage is adultery" you have not properly followed the counter argument Jesus made against divorce. Your interpretation has added a number of false theories to His teaching. In short you will find yourself claiming Jesus repealed, changed, or abrogated the law of Moses when in TRUTH He merely revealed the consequence of divorce being conceded under the law.
"Remarriage is adultery" is one of the worse misnomers concluded from errant interpretation. A conclusion NOT derived from the biblical precedents to which Jesus referred, but rather from interjecting the belief that remarriage is the villain and shouldn't be allowed (as if God made a mistake by doing so). If that which God allowed by His Grace is thought to be sinful, does not the interpreter make the grace of God to be sin?
It’s imperative Christians understand that Jesus is not speaking negatively against divorce as a concession (as falsely believed by some), but rather negatively about the reason divorce was conceded. The concession itself was not a mistake on Moses part. Jesus was not criticizing Moses, He was being critical of that which prompted the need for divorce. Jesus revealed to the Pharisees that the concession was an accommodation of Israel's hard heart (Matthew 19:8). Hard hearts ultimately were the cause of marriages ending before death, which in turn caused the exclusivity of being one-flesh with one person for life to be transgressed. Thus the "something of significates" within God's creative design for marriage being violated, causing the inadvertent adultery the way Jesus described. There is NO win win in divorce, fidelity for life to one person is transgressed by ending one marriage and marrying another (as Jesus stated).
When women were divorced and remarried they were then bound to there present spouse and not there former. There was NO divorcing there current spouse and returning to their former for "repentance" or salvation sake as FALSELY claimed under the new narrative created by those who add false suppositions to Jesus' teaching.
Hope this helps Christians to understand the retrospective relevance of Jesus teachings to whom He was speaking without the false suppositions added to it. Blessings
You explained it so well. Thanks
Wow this crazy!
Nobody can marry a woman that has been put away for any reason, or let her therefore be reconciled! Why Lord? Because her husband is still alive!
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Mark 10:1-12 makes no mention of fornication, or adultery, yet this video is a teaching on divorce for the supposed cause of adultery. No wonder the church has a divorce and remarriage epidemic.
He clearly points to the parallel verses in Matthew for this reference and then deals with the pornea clause. He even lightly discusses the interpretation of the Greek word. It’s near the end of the sermon. He also covers the abandonment clause from Corinthians. This is a thorough introduction on the discussion of Christian divorce.
If I am already divorced and remarried, how do I repent? What should I do to make it right in God's sight? The options for repentance in this situation include leaving your current partner and reconciling with your original partner if possible. If reconciliation with your original partner is impossible, you should remain single. You have a difficult decision to make-you can either continue to live with your current partner for the rest of this life or choose to live with Jesus for all eternity, but you can't do both.
The woman at the well had been married 5 times and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. Jesus did not tell her to return to husband #1, #2, #3, #4 or #5. Certainly ONE of those previous husband's was still living. He also didn't condemn her to hell. Why did He stop and offer her "living water" if her choices already doomed her soul? Because they didn't. If He can offer salvation to a 5 time divorcee then maybe we need to do the same.
The solution you advocate comes from a random selection of scripture paradigm which either ignores or is ignorant of the biblical facts chronologically. You are taking the Apostle Paul's instruction (for a specific circumstance) which came many years after the teaching of Jesus (on the subject of divorce) and reading that instruction as if it was uniformly taught for every situation.
Conversely by following the biblical facts chronologically you would realize how unique it is in God's Word to prohibit remarriage for those divorced. If we follow the biblically facts chronologically we also have biblical precedents to guide our interpretation of any given passage so that we can avoid false presupposition for interpreting 1 Corinthians 7:11 as if it was stated in a vacuum.
Dear Brother Sproul... have you heard about the argument of Joseph and Mary? They had not consumated their marriage but even when engaged were considered married. So that is why Jospeh used the word ¨divorce¨ when he was going to put Mary away. Fornication. bcz he thougt she committed ¨fornication¨ so this exclusion clause when we look at it at the time of history and the place (Israel) the context.. that was alright before God but now people use this excuse to divorce if their partner commits ´adultery¨ ... .. If i am wrong about this intrpretation please help me.
You are correct regarding Joseph and Mary. You are also correct that people today are trying to use the word fornication in Matthew 19:9 to mean adultery so that they can divorce and remarry. We live in a wicked and adulterous generation. If people divorce their covenant spouses and marry another while their covenant spouses are alive, they are committing adultery (Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18 and Romans 7:2-3). Only death breaks the marriage covenant (Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39).
@@godgavemeeyestosee Hello dear believer... thank u so much for confirming what i wrote. so so few believe it... and it they do that means if they remarry then if their next spouse is unfaithful they can divorce and remarry ... as many times as their spouse is unfaithful... so many are carnal and selfish and don´t want to be along but the Lord, our precious loving Lord fills that emptyness so much more than any spounse ever could. He truly is all we need.
@@alicia4him1 Jesus is enough for His followers because He is the one who supplies all our needs according to His riches in glory if we love and trust Him. May our great God and Savior continue to bless and keep you.
What if your where abused should you stay till they kill you.
Heavens no! Get out of there. You just can't remarry until they pass on.
It seems that none of of our churches are speaking the truth. It makes me not want to go anymore. What’s the point?
this guy is off....forgiveness is always at the heart, of the Christian message....and by the way an example, of fornication, in Matthew.....Joseph and Mary....
What are you talking about
@@sovereigngrace9723 read the account of Joseph seeking to put away Mary, or divorce her, when he found out that she was pregnant....at that time a divorce was required to break an engagement....so that would indicate, once one is fully married, this so called exception would no longer be valid....
@@philipbuckley759 I’d disagree with that logic… just because Joseph wanted to divorce Mary doesn’t mean that it was because he was about to lose the window of availability to leave an adulterer.
Would you get married to someone who you thought fornicated prior to marriage? I think this was just self interest. Not a fear of being locked into a marriage.
@Philip u saying Joseph and mary fornicated?
What are you talking about?? Mary and Jospeh?? What in the world. Read the story again and again. You are the one way off.
the sky is always falling......America is not the center, of the world....
Couldn't agree with you more Yeshua permitted divorce but not remarriage as long as the former spouse is living, otherwise you and the new spouse would be in adultery. We know no fornicators or adulterers (2 different words and meanings) will enter the kingdom of God. Very serious, charge by the Messiah.
Correct two very different words which is why the alleged “exception clause” does not apply to married couples because a married person cannot commit fornication
The Lord didn't permit divorce. he had commanded by the Apostle Paul, that a husband is not to divorce his wife, she's to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.
Ask for the Holy Spirit and let the Scriptures guide you- Matthew 19:9, 1 Cor 7:9-15.
Yes. Many different scenarios here.
Thank you R.C.
After crocodile tears
Return as a brother or sister
But not as a spouse
According to Holy Scriptures
Dr. Sproul belife on this subject is not in agreement with what the scriptures says about it
@@garvinsmith4555 what does the Scriptures say
@@jessyjonas4988 I will like to answer your question with a question. Why is the lord always willing to to forgive us and receive us back unto him self whenever we turn away and depart. Shouldn't we do the same for our spouses, after all we're people after God's own heart and furthermore he did promised to take away the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.
@@jessyjonas4988 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 says we are to reconcile with our spouse or remain unmarried if we are separated/divorced from him/her. Marriage is a covenant until death (Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39).
@@godgavemeeyestosee scary stuff
Wrong. The word in Matthew 19 9 is fornication. This only applies in the Jewish betrothal period, as was the situation where Joseph thought Mary had committed fornication. Romans 7 1-3 makes it clear that in MARRIAGE only death can end it. No get out...but separation is permitted by Paul which might be needed for safety reasons. Read the KJV in Matthew 19 9. After death of one of the spouses remarriage is permitted. Very clear.
If the exception clause means adultery why did Jesus not use moicheia instead of porneia? And why is the exception clause in Matthew only and not in Mark or Luke.
Except for FORNICATION..... see KJV..... This changes everything.... see also Luke 16:18
So I wonder if you are saying that divorce does not exist. I guess that you are assuming that God does not acknowledge the existance of divorce, I am not sure. Jesus acknowledged the existance of divorce twice in Matthew 19:9 and again in Matthew 5:32. You say that you live by those verses, but then you later add and you say that there is no such thing as divorce, when Jesus explicitely mentions the existance of divorce in both passages. Divorce exists. Moses permitted divorce, and Moses permitted remarraige. Jesus forbid divorce, and Jesus forbid remarraige (after divorce). Jesus added a very small, tiny window of exception only, to divorce and remarry, and He was very explicit and clear about the exception: "except it be for sexual immorality" on that part of THE WIFE. Jesus specifically used the term "wife," as opposed to the terms "fiancee" or "betrothed," or "engaged." "Wife" means "a married woman," not an "engaged woman," or a "betrothed woman." I agree with you totally 100 percent that there is no exception to divorce and remarry for the woman, or for the wife. That is what Jesus said when He said, "whosoever marries her that is divorced commiteth adultery," but then again, we once again see that Jesus acknowledges, one more time, the existance of divorce, one more time . The word "divorce" means "dissolve a marraige." Marraiges are dissolved every day. Most all of the marraiges that are dissolved in this day and age are "put asunder," (the words of Jesus) without the permission of God (that means that those divorces are a sin). Yet divorces still exist. Finally, in Romans chapter 13, Paul taught that judges and magistrates and law enforcement is put in place to keep order in the world, and to punish evildoers that transgress those laws put in place by God (such as polygamy, for example, which is illegal), that God establishes. Jesus did not say that divorce does not exist, He said that in almost every case that divorce is a sin (adultery).
Jesus allows for divorvce but you cannot remarry while your spouse lives (Roman's 7:2-3, 1COR7:11) and if you remarry your in adultery ( Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18) and Matt 32:5, 19:9 say except for fornication...meaning the engagement period. Fornication is different that adultery look it up. Jesus uses 2 different words here. You take a vow/covenant before God to death do you part. Man might allow a divorce but your still married in God's eyes until death.
wow. this is what happens when your god is religion and not Christ. I can tell you this all these laws make marriage a curse. Not a blessing.
@@luv2uallday1 I gave scripture that is from Jesus, Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
ok, why did God forgive David's adulterous marriage and bless it? shouldn't he been treated the same?
@@darthjedi99 you gave releigion and law. That's all you gave.
Can I get a divorce if my spouse commits adultery? Never!
Can I get a divorce if my spouse is abusive to me? No!
Can I get a divorce if I no longer love my spouse? Absolutely not!
Can I get a divorce if my spouse has abundant me? No, you can't!
So, under what circumstances can I get a divorce? Absolutely none. The Bible is absolutely clear; only death can't dissolve a marriage In God site! Our only option is to separate from our spouse and stay single. If things get better between our spouse and us soon, we can get back together! (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Bible.
But what about the exception in Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-9? There is no exception in Matthew’s gospel: Once you are married, you are married for life. The exception in Matthew has nothing to do with people who are already married.
does anyone know a church that teaches that
the only way to remarry is with the death of a
spouse? I really want to know this church!
probably the Anabaptists....
yes.Independent Fundamental Baptists. Also Voodie Baucham believes this.
Gino Jennings
I want to see a church where the pastor would remove an unlawfully married couple who refused to actually repent of their adultery. That would be just BOOM!!!
Brother Gino Jennings!!
But why can nobody marry the woman that has been put away? Why is someone called an adulterer if they marry the woman that has been put away? The answer is, the women's husband is still alive.
Yes, because the woman's husband is alive, the man who marries her is an adulterer. Also, when the divorced man remarries, the woman who marries him is an adulteress.
@@godgavemeeyestosee CORRECT..EVEN IF THEY ARE LIVING IN THE SAME ROOF SEPARATED AND DIVORCED TWICE THEY ARE IN TEMPTATION TO BECOME MARRIED..
What is a man like me supposed to do. I divorced my ex last year for not one, not two, not even three, but more commissions of adultery.
Am I, a man who is faithful to Jehovah, to be condemned to be alone all the rest of my years?
I am not faultless, I have my own sins, but my divorce was not a matter of course but a matter of faith. What should a man like me do?
I want earthly love. I want a wife. Am I cursed?
You are free to leave to divorce and remarry. Your marriage vow was already broken when your wife had an affair
@@p01236-g under the old covenant it would have been the will of the father that this man makes a public example of his wife. But under the new it is the fathers will that he forgives her. He's not to make a public example of her nor divorce her like he did under the the old instead, He's to forgive her and with the help of the Lord be reconciled to her even if she had departed. The Lord had commanded by the Apostle Paul that a husband is not to divorce his wife even if she departs the, lord said that she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. 1Cor7:10-11. If we don't forgive others of their trespasses neither will the father forgive us of ours. Matt 6:15. If this brother doesn't forgive his Adultrous wife of her trespass neither will the father forgive him of his which is not forgiving his wife of hers.
@@garvinsmith4555 these were verses given to me when my husband was cheating with multiple women. Pretty abusive. He always blamed me for his sin. Where was the Church during all of this after I approached them? Hiding. Too messy. Not their business. Only my father and brothers handled it. He was unrepentant. At what point does the church declare the marriage “dead“ if they won’t even get involved? Church governance matters. Not just on adultery and divorce but many other things. The church needs to be in people’s business. And that should be a conviction to us all.
Have you not read and understood the book of Hosea?
@@MrsJFJSorry for the late response! Did the Lord say to you, none of my business when you turned to him? Was he in hiding too? Turning to your father and brother for help suggest to me you never turn to the Lord! Or trusted him!
Are we not going to talk about what Jesus said about adultery? He set the standard higher!
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 5:28
Adultery is a heart issue at its root.
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.
If the church preached the gospel to the world instead of spending time divorcing each other and showing the world that christs love and forgiveness doesn't work more would get saved.
Marriage is a picture of salvation and once saved always saved to get divorced pictures loss of salvation.
Anyway speaking from experience, my wife hated christianity and finally divorced me even though the only crime i commimted was i loved jesus and wouldnt fight or argue with her not once lol, she hated the fact that i kept sharing the gospel.
Everyone i know knows i loved her though our divorce
Divorce is wrong for the church unless the person is lost then they are free to leave, no other sin is too big to be forgiven, consider how God forgave all our sins we should forgive as he forgave us.
This preacher is a false preacher on marriage he is giving permission for divorce
@@christopherperkins2395 I agree that divorce and forgiveness are not akin to one another.
Regarding the Matthew was for the Jews comment, Matthew 28:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations (Grk. ethnos; Gentiles), baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them (all nations, ethnos, Gentiles) to observe ***all things whatsoever I have commanded you:*** and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Everything Jesus said in Matthew was/is for the nations, ethnos, gentiles. (As well as Israel).
@@AnHebrewChild Matthew was first given to the Jews (Romans 1:16). Mark and Luke were the other two synoptic accounts given to the Gentiles.
Any one who has found a scripture in the Bible that permits wives to divorce their husbands? Please let me know where it can be found.
It's a couple paragraphs from the phrase that shows that you are a prophet of god. ;-)
1 Corinthians 7: 10. "But" and "If" she departs. She can depart but not remarry
@@katyaonuoha7290 Corinthians was written by the same guy who also claims to have known 500 witnesses for the resurrection of Jesus but can't name a single one of them, wasn't it? Hmmmm.... I would take his writings with a mountain of salt. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Key question: was he ever asked to name a witness?
Mark 10:12 had suggested that it was possible.
Setting aside any extenuating circumstances that might allow remarriage without committing the (inadvertent) adultery, let me ask a few questions in regard to a contextual interpretation of Jesus teaching on this matter.
How do you feel about the Old Testament women who were allowed to remarry after being repudiated (divorced) by their husbands (Deuteronomy 24:2)?
Do you distain them?
Jesus revealed that these women were caused to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32).
Would you say that they shouldn't remarry then?
What would you do if you were divorced and God graciously allowed you to remarry?
Would you remain single and celibate or would you remarry?
That's the paradox presented in God's Word. Hope that helps you understand the divorce dilemma better.
Blessings to all
Amen💖
Remarriage was graciously allowed for women put away by their husbands (Deut. 24:2). Unfortunately there was an unintentional consequence even for them. But we have every reason for practical purposes to discriminate between the innocent and guilty parties of divorce!! That’s because Jesus does exactly that. Jesus indicts the men of Israel's Patriarchal society with the culpability of their former wives transgression (Matthew 5:32). “causeth her to commit adultery” (KJV) or “makes her the victim of adultery” (NIV) is an indictment against the former husband. The former husband CAUSED her to commit adultery in the manner Jesus described. Do you understand where Jesus places the blame for this way of committing adultery?
When Deuteronomy 24 is properly understood God prohibited the men of that Patriarchal society from reconciling with their former wives because they were the one’s responsible for her inadvertent transgression (v.4). By divorcing their wives they were releasing them with the right of remarriage. From a congruent knowledge of Moses and Jesus’ teaching you should be able to determine that divorce and remarriage caused both a transgression and a transference of marital obligation. One marriage ended and another one was constituted. Therefore marital obligations were transferred to the present spouse. Divorce and remarriage supplanted one spouse for another. This is the context for Jesus' teaching on the matter.
Don't follow someone who tells you more divorce is God's will for you!! Honor your present marriage. It is never referred to as an "adulterous relationship" in God's Word. Jesus revealed to Israel that divorce caused them to commit adultery against their former spouse when they remarried (Mark 10:11). Yes, there was a negative consequence to terminating the first marriage, that was Jesus' point. He gave them a reason to stay married, but He nor anyone else in scripture required the present marriage be dissolved. That is the remedy of a legalistic thinker. One who doesn't look to biblical history where remarriage resulted in a binding marriage, but rather makes up a new requirement based on the false teaching that the first marriage wasn't dissolved. That just happens to be the very opposite of what Jesus said.
The fact that this way of committing adultery was the inadvertent consequence of a marriage ending prematurely did not changed the fact that divorce and remarriage were effective events in God's Word. After remarriage a woman was responsible to her present husband, not her former. Her former husband was not allowed to reconcile with her (Deut. 24:4). In God's Word remarriage had both lawful and moral obligations. It resulted in a subsequent covenant of marriage to which those who entered where bound.
No one but Moses gave instruction to an “after remarriage” circumstance, understand?
Don't follow those who make up new requirements for repentance. Divorcing one's present spouse only results in MORE unfaithfulness. Read Moses and Jesus' teaching congruous, not as if Jesus opposed Moses. Blessings
I just told my wife to get out of my house out of anger
She has a living husband
I can’t get rid of her
🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Grace to you
Proves you have totally misunderstood Jesus' teaching on this issue.
For if you properly understood Him you would realize you are her present living husband.
You have embrace way to many false suppositions on this issue. Blessings
If we divorce we can't marry another person unless the woman is divorced because she committed fornication before the marriage.
In the name of lord,
What gospel did jesus preached?? The true gospel talks about the kingdom of lord, !!!
Luke:4:14." I must preach the kingdom of god to the outher cities also. For I was sent for this purpose"
Jesus purpose is only preach the true gospel(not his resurrection).
Mark 1:14-15
Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
He is referring to something truly revolutionary. He means that with his own coming to earth, God’s saving rule and reign has come near in a way that’s never happened before in all of human history.(nor the cross)
Matthew 4:23
And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.
He preaching only true gospel of lord. Remember, not this bible and not about Jesus.
Luke9:2,, and he sent them to preach the kingdom of God,,,,,
Luke 16:16,,, "Since that time, the Goodnews of the kingdom of God is being Preached".
There's only one true Gospel, that is the Kingdom of God.All Churches in the world have Preached the Wrong Gospel.
Mathew 24:14.,,,, And this Gospel of the Kingdom (not the Bible, not Jesus, Not his resurrection, nor the Cross)will be proclaimed throughout the World as a testimony to all Nations, and then the End will come.
Remember,, I'm the First Witness, And I will Diclair that True Gospel, and Preached the World, to the Testimony to all Nation.And then, the End will come.
The Seventh Verse?? Will be Coming Soon.
This is from,,,,,,,,,,, Son of Man.
I know I should not, but I am bored so I will entertain it. In what ways are the gospel of The Kingdom distinct from The gospel of Christ's crucifixion, death and resurrection? Please provide explanation and scriptural support.
You’re better than Salomon RC.
I you mean Solomon in the bible? I think not
I Cor 7: 15-16 does not permit re-marriage. Bandage here means enslaved. In vs 10-11 we clearly see that either believer may not re-marry....... And why would the church allow a member who is not born again?
Not only young people shack up.
especially people past child bearing years.....
Also was abused and cheated on
Amen
FALSE teaching.
that is an age-old lame pro divorce talking point. I debunked it in my video. Jesus was rhetorical when he called her previous partners "husbands" when they were not. There was no indication that she was saved or repentance in then encounter as much as we try to make inferences
Claiming to have "debunked" something you disagree with is an OVER statement on your part when in fact you merely inverted the meaning of Jesus' words to get to your interpretation. You claim "Jesus was rhetorical when he called her previous partners "husbands"
Conversely, the literal meaning of "husband" would mean this woman had been married 5 times and now shacking with a 6th man she wasn't married to. Thus Jesus made a purposeful distinction between the man she was presently living with over against 5 men who she HAD actually been married to.
If your "rhetorical" theory was true, there would be no reason to make a distinction at all.
Have you ever considered interpreting Jesus' teaching on divorce without changing the meaning of His words?
@@nealdoster8556 interpretation is why there are so many cults and fake religion. Was Jesus being literal when he said “take the plank out of your own eye…” was it a literal plank he was taking about? Wise up and never cherry pick passages to seek allowances for the horrific sin practice of remarriage adultery. It can lead to violence. A man who would dare move in on another man’s wife could get himself shot/killed, never mind exemption clauses.
@@SaanichtonMinistries You responded outside of the text under discussion and about a situation totally different. We all agree there were times Jesus used metaphors to relay a certain truth. But I have never heard anyone use the illustration you did to justify stripping Jesus' words (to the woman at the well) of there actual meaning for the sole purpose of rejecting the truth those words reveal. Do you realize that there is NO place in God's Word where the text is actually claiming that marriages can't end until death?
While I realize there are several passages often set forth by your camp to suggest the "indissoluble marriage" theory, none of them is actually making the claim itself. The interpreter has to read that idea INTO those text in order to even believe it's suggesting the idea. If "indissoluble marriage" was true why didn't any inspired writer just come out an say marriages can't end until death. The truth is, that's NOT a biblical argument, it's a figment of your imagination. Denying the reality of divorce in God's Word is the VERY cause of your false interpretation of Jesus' teaching on the matter.
"fake religion" is also created by those who add their own ideas to God's Word, right?
Particularly when someone cherry picks what they take as literal and what words they choose to change to the opposite meaning for the sole purpose of sustaining their false presuppositions.
Just imagine all the alterations one could make to God's Word if they practiced your hermeneutic.
It's one thing to help Christians navigate a bad situation, it's quite another to make that situation worse (for them) because the interpreter overlooked the simple point Jesus made about divorce.
Glad I divorced an hole that was married 3x. My bad. Red flag!
one can divorce regardless of the repenting, of the wayward spouse.....where does the expression, for better, or worse come in.....it seems that this speaker, wants for better, but not worse to be in the vows....
What about FORSAKING ALL OTHERS?