To hear you say that you have seen wives grieve the death of a spouse less than a death of a marriage is so true. Thank you for voicing to the church to gather around and listen to those who shoulder the heartbreak of divorce. This broadcast has been immensely helpful.
I married my husband because he raped me and I thought it was my fault. I divorced him because he ignored me and reprimanded me for 35 years after we were married and I became sick and suicidal. He also withheld sex for over 20 years. I am now remarried to my best friend of over 20 years and it feels like the first time I have had a husband.
your feelings are not Biblical teachings......there is a way that seems right, but lead to death....the Bible.....so, from a Biblical perspective, this marriage, as you call it, is adultery, according to the Bible...
It would be nice if the church was as passionate about coming alongside troubled marriages (with a true presence and not just words)and helping struggling marriages as they are about condemning divorce and shunning divorcees.
Been listening to the late David Pawson whom I much admire for his brave fidelity to the Scriptures and his challenges to all the churches. He takes a very hard line on this issue, which I struggle with. I look forward to listening to this podcast.
Adam Horstman sadly I came to know of him in the last five yrs turned my life 360deg from a staunch charismatic to a charisgelical that the two should never have been split I encourage you to listen to all his teaching it will bleed you Also another who will also convict his name is Zac poonan listen to his testimony I am remarried and now know that remarriage is a sin I pray it’s not an unforgivable sin because I’m living it every day One of those controversial areas that most churches won’t go there
@@gregstickler3798 David Pawson was not always correct and he encouraged listeners not to take his word but examine the word yourself. Pawson was clearly wrong on the "porneia" being sex during betrothal period like Mary was accused of. It's not a commonly held view now. The word covers many sexual sins...It cannot be narrowed. As far as your marriage, unless your wife was married prior and her ex husband is still alive... you aren't sinning in anyway. Exodus 22:16" If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, he must pay the bride price for her and marry her." No mention that the man need be unmarried and no "adultery" (since polygny was practised then). Live free
@@gregstickler3798 Jesus spoke many things to the Pharasees who debated with him on divorce and remarriage, but even when the Apostles heard Jesus answer their questions they were a little confused. When Jesus spoke to the multitudes (including many Pharasees) He did not always explain everything plainly, as the bible says many times He spoke in parables, but to His disciples He made everthing clear. When Jesus spoke to the questions of the Phrasees in Mark Chapter 10 even the disciples were not quite sure what Jesus was saying, so in Mark Chapter 10 vs 10 they asked Jesus many questions, as the bible says in the greek they were continuoulsly questioning Him about this AGAIN. Jesus told them plainly in v11-12 that ALL DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE IS ADULTERY. Jesus did not make it clear to the Pharasees because they came TESTING Him - but He made it clear to His true disciples and told them divorce and remarriage is not permitted period, as THE TWO BECOME ONE FLESH and even if they divorce, in the eyes of God they are STILL ONE FLESH. Your eternity is not worth your marriage on earth.
DR.David Insone-Brewer gives the best survey of biblical /historical teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage available anywhere on TH-cam. Thanks for posting.
Thank you for this. My ex husband was physically abusive and had affairs. There are so many horrible church people who say that I should just be alone and not remarry. Why should I live the rest of my life suffering because of the exhusband who misrepresented himself before we married?
My husband recently told me he wants a divorce. He's refusing to work on our marriage in any capacity. I'm devastated. The shame of divorce is already hanging over my head. I'm just trying to figure out how this looks Biblically. Thanks for this.
Don’t look to this guy, I’ve read his latest book and it’s full of assumptions and arguments from what the Bible does not explicitly say. So wherever Jesus and Paul are silent it serves his view that anyone can remarry. His scholarship is great because I do agree that we should understand how the original audience would have read the passages from Deut 24, Jer 3, Hosea 2, Mathew 5:32; 19:1-9, Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:16-18, Romans 7, 1 Corinthians 7. Take your time with this because the more I look into divorce and remarriage the more I can see the complexity of the issue and how God sees the marriage as being permanent.
Wow am in the same boat, I'm also trying to figure how I should go about it biblically, but the only think I can think of is 1 Corinthians 7: 15 but if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so 😢, the brother or sister is not bond in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. It's very hard and discouraging but God please help us . But What do you do when he wants a divorce but yet hasn't 🤔 done it, and he is treating you as a roommate 🤔
The point on "hard heartedness" or Kardiascorossia is critical to his view. Since its a Greek translation of a Hebrew phrase in Jeremiah that refers to Israel being hard hearted that God divorces them. Usually the hardheartednesd is seen in those divorcing.. David changes that to those being divorced. You could say his view stands and falls on that point.
@@Liminalplace1 LXX is in greek and was used commonly during the time of Christ. Jeremiah 3:8 displays in practice Isreal's hard heart in that they committed adultery which is a form of hard heartedness otherwise they would not have done so. but Judah was spared (not hardened enough?) but they will got their whoopin' soon enough. (it solved the Jews idolatry problem)
@@James-li8cm I've preached on the passage. Check out where he shows a manuscript of the LXX with Kardiascorossia th-cam.com/play/PL7740BFE40202311E.html
@@James-li8cm I just finished leading an 8 week divorce recovery group of 30 ppl at my church tonight to those who enquired I gave them the scriptures Exodus 21, Deut 23, Mathew 5, 19 Mark 10, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2, 1 Corinthians 7:10-15...the Spirit has written his law upon the believers hearts as a person honestly reads these scriptures they will have the witness of their conscience and the Holy Spirit to what is right. Those illegitimate divorces and marriages need be repented of as John called upon Herod to do. But the Bible gives 4 causes of legitimate divorce. Exodus 21:10-11 and the women's hard hearted unfaithfulness. Only a man can give a legal divorce. So combination between traditional Catholic view and In stone Brewer and Craig Keener (Jesus uses hyberbole).. David Instone-Brewers research is first rate. Richard Hays is best on the meaning of "porneia" in his Moral Vision of NT ethics. Limiting "porneia" to premarital sex just doesn't hold up. IRENEUS called the Samaritan women at the well in John 4 a woman guilty of "porneia" thru her many marriages.
Interesting that Deuteronomy 24 came up in this video but not Deuteronomy 22 which is the chapter that dealt with sexual immorality. Deuteronomy 24 seems to deal with property issues around divorce.
It is difficult in today's legal culture to advise one to get married considering the levels of hardship, discrimination, abuse and suffering that goes on in family law (regardless of a Christian Moral System). simply put... one can issue a divorce and wreck a family just because "they want to" with no recourse from the church, society, etc...
@@philipbuckley759 no... thats my point... our current messy system simply gives a "pass" on divorce and remarriage.. there is no recourse... there is no justice... and "the church" simply passively holds ZERO accountability... in fact... what happens today is "justice" is thrown out altogether... we make the "perpetrator" of a crime a hero and make the victim into the criminal... woe to them that call evil good, and good evil
Hebrew covenant of marriage was a contract. 2 parts: 1) what the parties will do and 2) time element. ie "faithful until death do us part". If one party failed in one part, the other was not bound by the other part.
it is not difficult.....selfish people want comfort, now....and who cares what consequences....ergo many are in for a rude, literally, awakening....and I, for one, dont want to be in that group...
This is a crazy discussion. It doesn’t seem like these arguments are truly connecting with the questions they are responding to. It’s so hard to follow in the sense of the questions just don’t really seem to be getting answered.
abuse, as bad as it is, it is not a Biblical permission to divorce and remarry.....one can seperate, or even divorce, but the options are reconcile, or remain unmarried....
Also, being that David should be most familiar with the Jewishness of the entire Gospel of Matthew (originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek), I was surprised that he didn't point out that Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 were written for a Jewish audience that were not permitted to divorce for fornication/adultery according to the Law of Moses (see Deut. 22:15+) unlike Mark and Luke's audiences that were Gentile and the Greco/Roman laws allowed them to divorce for infidelity too. But instead, under Jewish law, it was stoning for infidelity. Deut. 24:1 did not speak of fornication nor adultery, otherwise the woman would have been stoned instead of being given a certificate of divorce (freed fully) and supposedly given permission to marry another man. Jesus went against this, because it wasn't a command from the Lord to give a certificate of divorce. The translators of the KJV turned it into a command and wrote in as prescriptive instead of descriptive as it should be. Jesus pointed this same intentional error by the Jewish leaders saying "It has been said." in Matt. 5:31. Notice. Jesus didn't say, "it is written!". The divorce certificate "command" was in the unwritten Oral Law, not our Lord Yahwy's law, and wasn't written until later in the Talmud and Mishnah after the time of Jesus. The command by our Lord isn't found until vs. 4 of Deut. 24 saying that the woman must not return to the "Baal"/Master husband because she was defiled by another man. If perhaps she had remained unmarried and not prostituted herself, she could have been reconciled!
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.
Luke 16:18 New King James Version 18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
I'm sorry you're very very wrong about this. Mark and Luke have Jesus saying there are no exceptions to divorce. Paul reiterates, there is no grounds for divorce other than death in romans 7 and 1Corithians 7. There are only two places that can be distorted to mean its okay and you touched on them, but you are interpreting instead of just reading. When the believing partner is not bound, He doesnt say you can now remarry, He just said they are not bound, which paul earlier mentioned you can either reconcile or seperate and remain single. To assume and conclude "not bound" means you can now remarry is a gross assumption. We are called to peace he says, you cant force them to stay with you, you aren't bound in that way. But It never says you can remarry. Additionally, except for sexual immorality, Matthew is the only gospel with that exception, Mark says there is no exception, Luke says there is no exception, only Matthew, and thats the one everywhere flocks to because why? Because of the hardness of our hearts. Because Remarrying someone new after being cheated on is much more appetizing and easier to do than forgiving and reconciling with our first spouse who hurt us. But the reason the disciples were shocked at Jesus' standard for marriage was because there is absolutely no exceptions, only death. Thats why paul compares baptism to marriage because there must be a death from someone for there be freedom from that contract to be part of a new contract. Matthew is the only gospel with "except for sexual immorality" because Matthew is the only gospel that mentions Joseph wanting to divorce Mary after finding out she was pregnant before they were married. Now how could Joseph divorce mary if they werent married yet? Because Jesus, in Mathew, is speaking to the jewish community of that time where being engaged was considered to be married, this is what Jesus was talking about. If this was not true, why is divorce used for Jospeh wanting to leave Mary if they were not married yet? Why would Mathew be the only place in all of the scriptures where Jesus says its okay? Because its not okay. God hates it Malachi 2:16. The only time it is okay, is when it is fornication, during an engagement, like Joseph.
four reasons, for divorce and remarriage....wow....the disciples would have said, what is the big deal, and if you do remarry, just repent and stay in a non Biblical adulterous relationship...
The Bible makes it seem like the believer cannot divorce the unbelieving spouse, but what if they persecute them for their beliefs or try to keep the children from knowing the Lord?
Destiny Preston I went through this sadly. She ended up having an affair and leaving. If the spouse chooses to stay with you then you stay. If they leave then that’s their choice. Abandonment by an unbeliever.
there is some statement one can use, in front of a judge that makes one married....Ted Bundy did that, in his murder trial in the US State, of Florida....
Why does the Lord command a wife in the church (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), who has abandoned her husband, to "remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband", if she is considered to be divorced?
lets cut to the chase....for a moment forget the Bible....what about the marriage vow....better or worse....sickness and health.....why did you make that vow.....the Bible makes no provision for this, except separate, but to remain single or reconcile.....and if one can not reconcile, one can remain single...
@@philipbuckley759 So you keep saying. Unfortunately for you none of the English or Greek dictionaries agree with you and Matthew 19:9 is clear about what the exception means and why Jesus would speak the way he did.
You make a valid point. The marriage vow conducted by most Pastors today should really be similar to the following: " For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, 'til death do you part, *UNLESS*, one of you commits adultery or one of you becomes apostate and abandons the believing spouse. Then in either case, the offended spouse can divorce and is free to remarry." Just end the hypocrisy and stick it in the vows. Unromantic for sure, but at least it's consistent with what they teach (as wrong and unbiblical as it is).
Moses, Jesus and Paul all speak of divorce due to fornication committed by the wife which is to become one flesh with a man before she has become one flesh with her husband. Keep this in mind, Moses gave the law, which Jesus explained is for fornication committed by the wife, and Paul spoke to the Corinthians concerning fornication, so when speaking to the unmarried Paul explained how to avoid fornication in 1COR.7:1-9 and when he spoke to the Married Paul spoke of divorcing for the fornication in 1COR.7:10-15
abandoment...once again another false teaching.....Paul has just written one is bound, etc....but the one is not enslaved to the non believer....and again another word.....another false teaching..
Agreed. Paul would not be contradicting Jesus and Paul's goal here is to keep the peace which is achieved with separation. Paul would have used divorce as he had elsewhere if he meant divorce.
@@philipbuckley759 The Torah dealt with a list or set of sins that would keep people out of heaven. Faith in Jesus Christ is how we get to heaven now. We are no longer under the law.
@@shadowmist1246 Some of your logic is off.....repeating patterns of adultery is mentioned in New Testament as warranted as keeping one for inheriting the Kingdom of God....a remarriage was perhaps reckless does not keep one from the Kingdom of God....and also the Old Law allowed and had rules for divorce and remarriage. Not sure if you watched the video. The New Testament does not eradicate the Old Law but warns against trying to implement a horizontal constructivist works based application of it. The Torah leading us to the Holy Spirit should now help us to discern the heavenly temple and our High Priest and His sacrifice He gave.
@@graysonbr We are not under the law. The best way to describe the old testement law as it is related to the new testement is how Jesus described it in Matthew 5:17 ESV: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Many people today read most of this verse and fail to read (or understand) the last part of it that says "but to fullfill them". Example: there are 633 laws and at least a couple of dozen of them relating to animal sacrifices. There was nothing wrong with the law; it is just that Jesus fullfilled whatever purpose those sacrifices served. Paul also added another purpose of the law and that is to help us understand how God views things; what he finds right and wrong. This is found in Romans 7:7 ESV: "What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”"
In response to statements made at the 54:00 minute mark. Any unrepentant sin that warrants church discipline where an excommunication takes place, that would warrant a divorce as well. Those types of questions were never brought up to Jesus because they kept bringing up really trivial matters for warranting divorce. Jesus would never teach that would go against Torah. If you are watching porn, and unrepentant, yes she can biblically divorce.
Yes, watching porn(which was not a “thing” back then) is mental and emotional adultery. It breaks the covenant and is a clear manifestation of a hardened heart. It needs to be exposed and dealt with as the sinful stronghold that it is. It corrupts the man, the marriage, the home, the church, and the community. Church discipline (which many churches have no courage to administer) is God’s remedy for a true believer to repent and to avoid the permeating of the “leaven” among the other believers. There is also counseling and, prayer and so many other resources available to help. Viewing pornography is an addiction that tears down relationships as any other addiction. It is also an abuse of the wife as well as neglect of love: again, grounds for divorce.
A "reconciliation first" approach is an approach that doesn't really understand biblical marriage. Reconciliation is not a remedy for adultery; divorce is. Forgiveness? - absolutely but you can forgive someone who shoots your arm off out of anger but still have to live with one arm.
I heard the ignorant response to the question that a guy asked about pornography, about not not it was grounds for divorce. It surely is (Matthew 5:28) because when applied to a man or woman looking at porn: (1) it will create a false sense of love and reality & (2) accompanied by masturbation, it satisfies the evil thoughts tied to women or men that are viewed in pornography. People are foolish to think that just the physical act can cause you to sin.
Mike Winger teaches those in the church, who abandon the marriage, should be considered unbelievers and to divorce them in order to marry another. The Lord commands an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, not to divorce his wife. What Mike Winger teaches is in opposition to what the Lord commands.
@@FirefighterAliveJC in his 3 hour video on divorce and remarriage, listen between the 1:47:00 -1:48:00 mark, and you will hear him speak about a spouse who does not listen to Jesus, or the church (which is the context of the wife in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11), and abandons the believer (which is the context of the husband in 1 Corinthians 7:11).
The reason Jesus allowed for divorce in Matthew 19:9 is because the two who have become one are no longer one when someone has fornicated. Adultery is the only reason for divorce. Separation (stay single) is the remedy for abuse and abandonment.
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Wednesday, Apr. 29, 2020 [Finding Black Hole Structures]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SbDzqlOLIZA/mqdefault.jpg)
To hear you say that you have seen wives grieve the death of a spouse less than a death of a marriage is so true. Thank you for voicing to the church to gather around and listen to those who shoulder the heartbreak of divorce.
This broadcast has been immensely helpful.
I married my husband because he raped me and I thought it was my fault. I divorced him because he ignored me and reprimanded me for 35 years after we were married and I became sick and suicidal. He also withheld sex for over 20 years. I am now remarried to my best friend of over 20 years and it feels like the first time I have had a husband.
your feelings are not Biblical teachings......there is a way that seems right, but lead to death....the Bible.....so, from a Biblical perspective, this marriage, as you call it, is adultery, according to the Bible...
It would be nice if the church was as passionate about coming alongside troubled marriages (with a true presence and not just words)and helping struggling marriages as they are about condemning divorce and shunning divorcees.
Been listening to the late David Pawson whom I much admire for his brave fidelity to the Scriptures and his challenges to all the churches. He takes a very hard line on this issue, which I struggle with. I look forward to listening to this podcast.
Adam Horstman sadly I came to know of him in the last five yrs turned my life 360deg from a staunch charismatic to a charisgelical that the two should never have been split
I encourage you to listen to all his teaching it will bleed you
Also another who will also convict his name is Zac poonan listen to his testimony
I am remarried and now know that remarriage is a sin I pray it’s not an unforgivable sin because I’m living it every day
One of those controversial areas that most churches won’t go there
@@gregstickler3798 David Pawson was not always correct and he encouraged listeners not to take his word but examine the word yourself. Pawson was clearly wrong on the "porneia" being sex during betrothal period like Mary was accused of. It's not a commonly held view now. The word covers many sexual sins...It cannot be narrowed.
As far as your marriage, unless your wife was married prior and her ex husband is still alive... you aren't sinning in anyway. Exodus 22:16" If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, he must pay the bride price for her and marry her." No mention that the man need be unmarried and no "adultery" (since polygny was practised then). Live free
@@gregstickler3798 Jesus spoke many things to the Pharasees who debated with him on divorce and remarriage, but even when the Apostles heard Jesus answer their questions they were a little confused. When Jesus spoke to the multitudes (including many Pharasees) He did not always explain everything plainly, as the bible says many times He spoke in parables, but to His disciples He made everthing clear. When Jesus spoke to the questions of the Phrasees in Mark Chapter 10 even the disciples were not quite sure what Jesus was saying, so in Mark Chapter 10 vs 10 they asked Jesus many questions, as the bible says in the greek they were continuoulsly questioning Him about this AGAIN. Jesus told them plainly in v11-12 that ALL DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE IS ADULTERY. Jesus did not make it clear to the Pharasees because they came TESTING Him - but He made it clear to His true disciples and told them divorce and remarriage is not permitted period, as THE TWO BECOME ONE FLESH and even if they divorce, in the eyes of God they are STILL ONE FLESH. Your eternity is not worth your marriage on earth.
@@Liminalplace1 try for New Testment teaching, on this topic...
@@gregstickler3798 all sin that is repented of is forgiven!
This show is so good for my faith, thank you so much. I wish we had podcasts like this in germany.
a rose, by any other name, is still the same....same with a false teaching....
DR.David Insone-Brewer gives the best survey of biblical /historical teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage available anywhere on TH-cam. Thanks for posting.
Thank you for this. My ex husband was physically abusive and had affairs. There are so many horrible church people who say that I should just be alone and not remarry. Why should I live the rest of my life suffering because of the exhusband who misrepresented himself before we married?
My husband recently told me he wants a divorce. He's refusing to work on our marriage in any capacity. I'm devastated. The shame of divorce is already hanging over my head. I'm just trying to figure out how this looks Biblically. Thanks for this.
Don’t look to this guy, I’ve read his latest book and it’s full of assumptions and arguments from what the Bible does not explicitly say. So wherever Jesus and Paul are silent it serves his view that anyone can remarry. His scholarship is great because I do agree that we should understand how the original audience would have read the passages from Deut 24, Jer 3, Hosea 2, Mathew 5:32; 19:1-9, Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:16-18, Romans 7, 1 Corinthians 7. Take your time with this because the more I look into divorce and remarriage the more I can see the complexity of the issue and how God sees the marriage as being permanent.
Stephanie my heart goes out to you 💟
Did you divorce? Update?
@@grant2149 there was another woman. The divorce is almost finalized after 2 years.
Wow am in the same boat, I'm also trying to figure how I should go about it biblically, but the only think I can think of is 1 Corinthians 7: 15 but if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so 😢, the brother or sister is not bond in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. It's very hard and discouraging but God please help us . But What do you do when he wants a divorce but yet hasn't 🤔 done it, and he is treating you as a roommate 🤔
the point on "hard heartedness" is BRILLIANT! I have never heard that perspective, it makes a lot of sense
The point on "hard heartedness" or Kardiascorossia is critical to his view. Since its a Greek translation of a Hebrew phrase in Jeremiah that refers to Israel being hard hearted that God divorces them. Usually the hardheartednesd is seen in those divorcing.. David changes that to those being divorced. You could say his view stands and falls on that point.
@@Liminalplace1 LXX is in greek and was used commonly during the time of Christ.
Jeremiah 3:8
displays in practice Isreal's hard heart in that they committed adultery which is a form of hard heartedness otherwise they would not have done so. but Judah was spared (not hardened enough?) but they will got their whoopin' soon enough. (it solved the Jews idolatry problem)
@@James-li8cm I've preached on the passage. Check out where he shows a manuscript of the LXX with Kardiascorossia
th-cam.com/play/PL7740BFE40202311E.html
@@Liminalplace1 what is your stance on "marriage and divorce" with regards to Biblical Christianity?
@@James-li8cm I just finished leading an 8 week divorce recovery group of 30 ppl at my church tonight to those who enquired I gave them the scriptures Exodus 21, Deut 23, Mathew 5, 19 Mark 10, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2, 1 Corinthians 7:10-15...the Spirit has written his law upon the believers hearts as a person honestly reads these scriptures they will have the witness of their conscience and the Holy Spirit to what is right.
Those illegitimate divorces and marriages need be repented of as John called upon Herod to do. But the Bible gives 4 causes of legitimate divorce. Exodus 21:10-11 and the women's hard hearted unfaithfulness. Only a man can give a legal divorce.
So combination between traditional Catholic view and In stone Brewer and Craig Keener (Jesus uses hyberbole).. David Instone-Brewers research is first rate. Richard Hays is best on the meaning of "porneia" in his Moral Vision of NT ethics. Limiting "porneia" to premarital sex just doesn't hold up. IRENEUS called the Samaritan women at the well in John 4 a woman guilty of "porneia" thru her many marriages.
Love that you were able to have them move in and nurture them thru their issues.
Thank you for talking about topics in the church we wrestle with
What a fantastic interview! I really appreciated the guests insights.
Interesting that Deuteronomy 24 came up in this video but not Deuteronomy 22 which is the chapter that dealt with sexual immorality. Deuteronomy 24 seems to deal with property issues around divorce.
Interview the expert and let him talk. He’s the studied authority and we want to hear what he has to say more than the interviewer.
he starts off wrong, as the term is fornication, and they have the word, for adultery......and that is different...
"Unemployment Benefits" LOL XD
It is difficult in today's legal culture to advise one to get married considering the levels of hardship, discrimination, abuse and suffering that goes on in family law (regardless of a Christian Moral System). simply put... one can issue a divorce and wreck a family just because "they want to" with no recourse from the church, society, etc...
David clearly has not seen the suffering of the Family Law system. (and he's a pastor... )
@@James-li8cm so we make our lives convoluted, and that gives a....pass...on divorce and remarriage...
@@philipbuckley759 no... thats my point... our current messy system simply gives a "pass" on divorce and remarriage..
there is no recourse... there is no justice... and "the church" simply passively holds ZERO accountability...
in fact... what happens today is "justice" is thrown out altogether... we make the "perpetrator" of a crime a hero and make the victim into the criminal...
woe to them that call evil good, and good evil
marriage, according to the Bible is a covenant, not a contract....
Hebrew covenant of marriage was a contract. 2 parts: 1) what the parties will do and 2) time element. ie "faithful until death do us part". If one party failed in one part, the other was not bound by the other part.
@@shadowmist1246 the New Testamant has a covenant, and once that has been established there is no leaving it, save death...
@@philipbuckley759 I was responding to your claim that a marriage covenant was not a contract. Indeed it was and it still is.
I love this channel, but I disagree with the the teaching that David esposes.
it is not difficult.....selfish people want comfort, now....and who cares what consequences....ergo many are in for a rude, literally, awakening....and I, for one, dont want to be in that group...
This is a crazy discussion. It doesn’t seem like these arguments are truly connecting with the questions they are responding to. It’s so hard to follow in the sense of the questions just don’t really seem to be getting answered.
Yeah it's a rare miss for the Remnant guys.
You forgot the link in the description to the work of instone-brewer?
Was married 30 years in an abusive marriage. Marriage was NOT like a death but Remarriage was definitely a NEW birth!!
abuse, as bad as it is, it is not a Biblical permission to divorce and remarry.....one can seperate, or even divorce, but the options are reconcile, or remain unmarried....
You are living in continous adultery.
Luke 16:18
Also, being that David should be most familiar with the Jewishness of the entire Gospel of Matthew (originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek), I was surprised that he didn't point out that Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 were written for a Jewish audience that were not permitted to divorce for fornication/adultery according to the Law of Moses (see Deut. 22:15+) unlike Mark and Luke's audiences that were Gentile and the Greco/Roman laws allowed them to divorce for infidelity too. But instead, under Jewish law, it was stoning for infidelity. Deut. 24:1 did not speak of fornication nor adultery, otherwise the woman would have been stoned instead of being given a certificate of divorce (freed fully) and supposedly given permission to marry another man. Jesus went against this, because it wasn't a command from the Lord to give a certificate of divorce. The translators of the KJV turned it into a command and wrote in as prescriptive instead of descriptive as it should be. Jesus pointed this same intentional error by the Jewish leaders saying "It has been said." in Matt. 5:31. Notice. Jesus didn't say, "it is written!". The divorce certificate "command" was in the unwritten Oral Law, not our Lord Yahwy's law, and wasn't written until later in the Talmud and Mishnah after the time of Jesus. The command by our Lord isn't found until vs. 4 of Deut. 24 saying that the woman must not return to the "Baal"/Master husband because she was defiled by another man. If perhaps she had remained unmarried and not prostituted herself, she could have been reconciled!
What is the contact information David I’d like to talk to him
Great guest to have on your show guys from my country. Awesome TH-cam channel!
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.
Luke 16:18
New King James Version
18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
That’s GODS word, Amen !
I'm sorry you're very very wrong about this. Mark and Luke have Jesus saying there are no exceptions to divorce. Paul reiterates, there is no grounds for divorce other than death in romans 7 and 1Corithians 7. There are only two places that can be distorted to mean its okay and you touched on them, but you are interpreting instead of just reading. When the believing partner is not bound, He doesnt say you can now remarry, He just said they are not bound, which paul earlier mentioned you can either reconcile or seperate and remain single. To assume and conclude "not bound" means you can now remarry is a gross assumption. We are called to peace he says, you cant force them to stay with you, you aren't bound in that way. But It never says you can remarry. Additionally, except for sexual immorality, Matthew is the only gospel with that exception, Mark says there is no exception, Luke says there is no exception, only Matthew, and thats the one everywhere flocks to because why? Because of the hardness of our hearts. Because Remarrying someone new after being cheated on is much more appetizing and easier to do than forgiving and reconciling with our first spouse who hurt us. But the reason the disciples were shocked at Jesus' standard for marriage was because there is absolutely no exceptions, only death. Thats why paul compares baptism to marriage because there must be a death from someone for there be freedom from that contract to be part of a new contract. Matthew is the only gospel with "except for sexual immorality" because Matthew is the only gospel that mentions Joseph wanting to divorce Mary after finding out she was pregnant before they were married. Now how could Joseph divorce mary if they werent married yet? Because Jesus, in Mathew, is speaking to the jewish community of that time where being engaged was considered to be married, this is what Jesus was talking about. If this was not true, why is divorce used for Jospeh wanting to leave Mary if they were not married yet? Why would Mathew be the only place in all of the scriptures where Jesus says its okay? Because its not okay. God hates it Malachi 2:16. The only time it is okay, is when it is fornication, during an engagement, like Joseph.
four reasons, for divorce and remarriage....wow....the disciples would have said, what is the big deal, and if you do remarry, just repent and stay in a non Biblical adulterous relationship...
1 Tim. 5:3-16 the wife needs children for care in her old age | please see also 1 Kings 17:17-18
I would love to see a video on unequally yoked relationships that possibly includes couples navigating that terrain.
The Bible makes it seem like the believer cannot divorce the unbelieving spouse, but what if they persecute them for their beliefs or try to keep the children from knowing the Lord?
Destiny Preston I went through this sadly. She ended up having an affair and leaving. If the spouse chooses to stay with you then you stay. If they leave then that’s their choice. Abandonment by an unbeliever.
@@jdj2022 abandonment, is not a Biblical allowance for divorce and remarriage...
“But why a spoon, cousin?” 36:40
there is some statement one can use, in front of a judge that makes one married....Ted Bundy did that, in his murder trial in the US State, of Florida....
Why does the Lord command a wife in the church (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), who has abandoned her husband, to "remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband", if she is considered to be divorced?
Because she is still one with her husband.
this is not abandonment, but seperation, or maybe divorce..
She is still married to her husband in God's eyes until death
@@letstalkbiblewithshun.s Amen.
@ajlouviere202 I dropped a video on this yesterday. Stay blessed 🙌 AJ
lets cut to the chase....for a moment forget the Bible....what about the marriage vow....better or worse....sickness and health.....why did you make that vow.....the Bible makes no provision for this, except separate, but to remain single or reconcile.....and if one can not reconcile, one can remain single...
The marriage vow includes "be faithful". Adultery is a breach of this part.
@@shadowmist1246 fornication, is the exception.....if they wanted to say...adultery, they had another term, for it....
@@philipbuckley759 So you keep saying. Unfortunately for you none of the English or Greek dictionaries agree with you and Matthew 19:9 is clear about what the exception means and why Jesus would speak the way he did.
You make a valid point. The marriage vow conducted by most Pastors today should really be similar to the following:
" For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, 'til death do you part, *UNLESS*, one of you commits adultery or one of you becomes apostate and abandons the believing spouse. Then in either case, the offended spouse can divorce and is free to remarry."
Just end the hypocrisy and stick it in the vows. Unromantic for sure, but at least it's consistent with what they teach (as wrong and unbiblical as it is).
Moses, Jesus and Paul all speak of divorce due to fornication committed by the wife which is to become one flesh with a man before she has become one flesh with her husband.
Keep this in mind, Moses gave the law, which Jesus explained is for fornication committed by the wife, and Paul spoke to the Corinthians concerning fornication, so when speaking to the unmarried Paul explained how to avoid fornication in 1COR.7:1-9 and when he spoke to the Married Paul spoke of divorcing for the fornication in 1COR.7:10-15
the term is covenant, not contract....
abandoment...once again another false teaching.....Paul has just written one is bound, etc....but the one is not enslaved to the non believer....and again another word.....another false teaching..
Agreed. Paul would not be contradicting Jesus and Paul's goal here is to keep the peace which is achieved with separation. Paul would have used divorce as he had elsewhere if he meant divorce.
David Instone-Brewer will be responsible for leading many to hell. His teaching is absolutely absurd.
If you are remarried…are you going to Hell?
No. You are going to hell if Jesus won't be there at judgement vouching for you.
the Bible list a set of sins that keep people, out of heaven, and one is adultery, so go figure...
@@philipbuckley759 The Torah dealt with a list or set of sins that would keep people out of heaven. Faith in Jesus Christ is how we get to heaven now. We are no longer under the law.
@@shadowmist1246 Some of your logic is off.....repeating patterns of adultery is mentioned in New Testament as warranted as keeping one for inheriting the Kingdom of God....a remarriage was perhaps reckless does not keep one from the Kingdom of God....and also the Old Law allowed and had rules for divorce and remarriage. Not sure if you watched the video. The New Testament does not eradicate the Old Law but warns against trying to implement a horizontal constructivist works based application of it. The Torah leading us to the Holy Spirit should now help us to discern the heavenly temple and our High Priest and His sacrifice He gave.
@@graysonbr We are not under the law. The best way to describe the old testement law as it is related to the new testement is how Jesus described it in Matthew 5:17 ESV: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Many people today read most of this verse and fail to read (or understand) the last part of it that says "but to fullfill them". Example: there are 633 laws and at least a couple of dozen of them relating to animal sacrifices. There was nothing wrong with the law; it is just that Jesus fullfilled whatever purpose those sacrifices served. Paul also added another purpose of the law and that is to help us understand how God views things; what he finds right and wrong. This is found in Romans 7:7 ESV: "What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”"
In response to statements made at the 54:00 minute mark. Any unrepentant sin that warrants church discipline where an excommunication takes place, that would warrant a divorce as well. Those types of questions were never brought up to Jesus because they kept bringing up really trivial matters for warranting divorce. Jesus would never teach that would go against Torah. If you are watching porn, and unrepentant, yes she can biblically divorce.
Yes, watching porn(which was not a “thing” back then) is mental and emotional adultery. It breaks the covenant and is a clear manifestation of a hardened heart. It needs to be exposed and dealt with as the sinful stronghold that it is. It corrupts the man, the marriage, the home, the church, and the community. Church discipline (which many churches have no courage to administer) is God’s remedy for a true believer to repent and to avoid the permeating of the “leaven” among the other believers. There is also counseling and, prayer and so many other resources available to help. Viewing pornography is an addiction that tears down relationships as any other addiction. It is also an abuse of the wife as well as neglect of love: again, grounds for divorce.
A "reconciliation first" approach is an approach that doesn't really understand biblical marriage. Reconciliation is not a remedy for adultery; divorce is. Forgiveness? - absolutely but you can forgive someone who shoots your arm off out of anger but still have to live with one arm.
I heard the ignorant response to the question that a guy asked about pornography, about not not it was grounds for divorce. It surely is (Matthew 5:28) because when applied to a man or woman looking at porn: (1) it will create a false sense of love and reality & (2) accompanied by masturbation, it satisfies the evil thoughts tied to women or men that are viewed in pornography. People are foolish to think that just the physical act can cause you to sin.
Mike Winger has a great video on the subject
Mike Winger teaches those in the church, who abandon the marriage, should be considered unbelievers and to divorce them in order to marry another. The Lord commands an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, not to divorce his wife. What Mike Winger teaches is in opposition to what the Lord commands.
@@ajlouviere202 can you show me in his video where he says that? I don’t recall hearing that in his video
@@FirefighterAliveJC in his 3 hour video on divorce and remarriage, listen between the 1:47:00 -1:48:00 mark, and you will hear him speak about a spouse who does not listen to Jesus, or the church (which is the context of the wife in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11), and abandons the believer (which is the context of the husband in 1 Corinthians 7:11).
@@ajlouviere202 ok thanks, I’ll go check it out
@@ajlouviere202 amen
I know a lady that is remarried yet claims to hear God's voice.
Fluff brit quotes rabbis more than scripture
The reason Jesus allowed for divorce in Matthew 19:9 is because the two who have become one are no longer one when someone has fornicated. Adultery is the only reason for divorce. Separation (stay single) is the remedy for abuse and abandonment.