Why is divorce not an option for Christians?

[arunangelo]

In marriage, spouses leave their parents and unite with each other (Mark 10:7) to become one flesh (Gen.2: 24). Because, it is a covenant of love, and God is love (1 John4:8), it is God who seals the marriage covenant; and no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6). In divorce, therefore, this covenant is not broken; it is rejected. Therefore, remarriage after divorce is adultery (Luke 16:18). Furthermore, since God seals this covenant, divorce is rejection of God. God, therefore, hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and is not pleased with the offerings of those who divorce their spouse (Malachi 2: 13-14). Jesus tells us that before making offering to God, we must reconcile with those with whom we have grievances (Matt. 5: 23-24). Therefore, a divorced person must first reconcile with his/her spouse before making an offering to the Lord. Furthermore, even if there is unfaithfulness a person must still stay faith to his/her spouse, just as God His faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).

Divorce is absolutely prohibited in the Gospels (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 6:18; Matthew 5: 31-32). In Matthew’s gospel there appears to be an exception. The exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication), and not moiceia (which means adultery). In the Mosaic Law (Lv 18:6-18) certain types of marriages between close relatives were unlawful, because, they were regarded as incest (porneia). Certain rabbis, however, allowed gentile converts to Judaism to remain in such marriages. The exemption in Matthew’s gospel is against such permissiveness for gentile converts to Christianity. Fornication is another meaning for porneia. Therefore, this exception also applies to couples who fornicate by living together without a lawful marriage (also known as common law marriages).

surrendersacrifice
webs site: surrendersacrifice.com

[rusty]

Fallibleone,
Let me put it this way for you. I prefer an attitude of, "I can strive to live an honest good life," over the attitude, "It is impossible to live an honest good life."

No, I do not see the irony in my comment about unsubstanciated posts. I only see these things: Man's wisdom, pieces of wisdom, twisted wisdom, inconsistant wisdom, wisdom based on someone's own personal beliefs, wisdom based on college books, illogic, etc. Then there is the documented word of God which dates back far enough to convince me that it is trustworthy. It is not twisted. It is not inconsistant. It is not illogical. It was not written to confuse and mystify the reader. It is good!
rusty

"What," you say.

The truth about God has been written. The truth will draw men to it. It will not go back to God without drawing men to it. Right?
rusty

[-Foc-]

In marriage, spouses leave their parents and unite with each other (Mark 10:7) to become one flesh (Gen.2: 24). Because, it is a covenant of love, and God is love (1 John4:8), it is God who seals the marriage covenant; and no one can separate what God has joined together (Matt 19:6). In divorce, therefore, this covenant is not broken; it is rejected. Therefore, remarriage after divorce is adultery (Luke 16:18). Furthermore, since God seals this covenant, divorce is rejection of God. God, therefore, hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and is not pleased with the offerings of those who divorce their spouse (Malachi 2: 13-14). Jesus tells us that before making offering to God, we must reconcile with those with whom we have grievances (Matt. 5: 23-24). Therefore, a divorced person must first reconcile with his/her spouse before making an offering to the Lord. Furthermore, even if there is unfaithfulness a person must still stay faith to his/her spouse, just as God His faithful to us even when we reject Him (Hosea 3:1).

Divorce is absolutely prohibited in the Gospels (Mk 10:11-12, Luke 6:18; Matthew 5: 31-32). In Matthew’s gospel there appears to be an exception. The exception in the Greek text is porneia (which means incest or fornication), and not moiceia (which means adultery). In the Mosaic Law (Lv 18:6-18) certain types of marriages between close relatives were unlawful, because, they were regarded as incest (porneia). Certain rabbis, however, allowed gentile converts to Judaism to remain in such marriages. The exemption in Matthew’s gospel is against such permissiveness for gentile converts to Christianity. Fornication is another meaning for porneia. Therefore, this exception also applies to couples who fornicate by living together without a lawful marriage (also known as common law marriages).

surrendersacrifice
webs site: surrendersacrifice.com

Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:

This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.

Supporting evidence:

1Ti 5:9-14
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old,
having been the wife of one man, (10)
Well reported of for good works;
if she have brought up children,
if she have lodged strangers,
if she have washed the saints' feet,
if she have relieved the afflicted,
if she have diligently followed every good work.

(11) But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; (12) Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (13) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (14) I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

"Having been the wife of one man"

This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem.
There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts.
This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee.
It cannot be a remarried widow as no law prohibited the widow from remarrying. Paul even tells widows;

"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)

Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry.
Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...

“But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)

He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.

The only possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the only possibility from scripture as it is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.

and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.

Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.

The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.

Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''. The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.

Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.
The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it weren't, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.

It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.

Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.

=====

Porneia...aka ‘’fornication’’
By WmTipton

Some claim that fornication in Matthew is PRE marital sex alone and that divorce and remarriage for any other reason is not permissible.
But we see that conflicts with the use of the word throughout the NT.
Porneia is whoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.
This included every sexual sin of every nature.
Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.
This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.
When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.

Even the current english definition of ‘’fornication’’ is against these false doctrine as it says NOTHING about Unmarried people, but only that the two engaging in ‘’forication’’ are not married to each other.

Here is the current definition...

Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Notice not a single word about either person being ‘’unmarried’.
One or both could be married to someone else, they just arent marrried to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISNT your lawful spouse, whether youre married or not.
Here is the greek word rendered as ''fornication'' in your KJV bibles.

G4202
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

Also....

In Acts 15 and 21, four items are given for gentiles to abstain from as presented in the following verses.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (G4202, same as the exception clause in Matthew).

1. Things offered to idols
2. blood
3. Things strangled
4. fornication (G4202 same as the exception clause).

I ask those who say fornication (porneia G4202) is premarital or betrothal sex only and not “adultery”, why is it that the writer ONLY used ''porneia'' in Acts 15 and 21 and didnt seem to think it necessary to mention ''adultery'' as something to abstain from as well?
Hes already on the topic of sexual sin here, why not mention the big one *IF* adultery is a separate sin?

The reason is "porneia'' covers ANY sexual sin. Paul knew that as did whoever rendered Jesus words in Matthew into greek.
When it was used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin. Just as Jesus meant all sexual sin in Matthew 19.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered. And neither was there any need for Jesus to use the word adultery, which would have left a hole or two in His teaching (see ''why didnt Jesus say ''except for adultery)

1 Corinthians chapter 5

We see in the following passage that only the fornicator is mentioned..

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
(1Co 5:9-13 KJV)

Now, *IF* adultery isnt included in 'porneia' or 'fornication', why on earth didnt Paul mention not keeping company with the adulterer ?
Was Paul stating to not keep company with the fornicator ... but hey, its ok to hang out with adulterers ?

Hardly.
Paul used a word that covers all sexual sin.
He mentions a ''brother'' and isnt it odd that the word he chose rendered as 'fornicator' here is the masculine form of porneia ?

G4205
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Paul was clearly stating to not keep company with any man called a brother who is out having illicit sex.....married or not.
Porneia and its forms are all inclusive of sexual sin of the married and the Unmarried.

In Ephesians and Colossians both we see references to Fornication, but none about adultery.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(Eph 5:3-5 KJV)

(whoremonger being the masculine form ...pornos)

and

When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
(Col 3:4-6 KJV)

So if this porneia (fornication) does not include all sexual sin, then we would have to suppose that Paul is only directing these two churches to abstain from SOME sexual sins (incest, premarital sex, etc) , and surely not adultery (if it were the case that porneia is not all inclusive of sexual immorality)

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''porneia'' in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, He was saying the same thing ''Sexual Sin'' or whoredom. Jesus did not mean just PREmarital sex, and neither does the definition of ‘’fornication’’ present that idea either.

He used a word, the same as in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom....as ‘’fornication’’ clearly shows as well. ....porneia even covers the possiblity of bestiality if it has occured.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without committing adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin...EXCEPT that this person we marry has had sex with someone they arent married to.

That is what is clearly conveyed with ‘’porneia’’ and what is also presented with the REAL definition of ‘’forncation’’ (not the Unmarried tripe that some pass off on us )

What is funny about this one is we can get total agreement from everyone that a man can ‘’divorce’’ his wife for ‘’porneia’’, but the anti-remarriage camp then restricts the meaning of the word to fit their doctrinal stance...whichever it may be based on the many VARIED versions of their doctrine.

=====

Hosea and Gomer
By WmTipton

Some try to assert that Hosea and Gomer were foreshadows of marriage during this age of grace.
Let us see for ourselves what Hosea is about.

God TOLD Hosea to marry a harlot because of Isreals constant whoring / idolatry against Him.
He was showing, thru this prophet, how Israel was BREAKING the covenant He had made with them, and like a forgiving spouse, He had keep taking her back.

But God did not permit Israel, the nation as a whole, to continue in this.
In the book of Zechariah (11:10-11) He fully and finally broke / ended that covenant with them, as a nation.
One more prophet came ofter this, Malachi, then silence from God for over 400 years until John came out of the wilderness.

A brief read through of the first few verses in Hosea shows us clearly that it had nothing to do with all marriages, but was God showing Isreal through the life of this prophet what they had been doing to Him.

The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. (Hos 1:2-6)

Those who use Hosea for an argument also need to start doing every other thing in the OT commanded of His prophets.
God put away a covenant with a whoring nation and we may put away a whoring spouse, just as Jesus has confirmed .(Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9)
The fact is Hosea and Gomer are irrelevant in the MDR discussion as NONE of us are directed by God to go marry a harlot. Only if we were could we even begin to apply this situation to our marriage and even then it would ONLY be applicable to that marriage itself, not the hundreds of millions of others in the world today.

[arunangelo]

The heart of redemption is love, faithfulness and forgiveness. God was faithful to us and died for our sins although we were unfaitful to Him. He commanded us to love one another as He has loved us. We, therefore, have to do like wise. We, therefore, have to always stay faithful to our spouse. To do otherwise, is not to love God, because, Jesus said, " if you love me you will keep my commandment. It is easy to twist the scriptures to suite our own idea about matters in life; but our faithfulness comes from loving God and not by re-inventing the meanings of the scriptures. God tolerates a lot of non-sense from us; but that does not mean we must continue doing it. If we truly love Him we will do what pleases Him.

[-Foc-]

God was faithful to us and died for our sins although we were unfaitful to Him.

Thats not the WHOLE picture, arunangelo and Im guessing you know it.
God IS faithful.
He IS faithful also to put the apostate into hell.
Gods faithfulness is a two edged sword.
He is not a big huggy teddy bear who ignores treachery.
You can ask Mr Iscariot about that fact.

He commanded us to love one another as He has loved us. We, therefore, have to do like wise. We, therefore, have to always stay faithful to our spouse.

Sorry chap but thats about as non-sequitur as it comes.
God loves us....and He WILL condemn ANY person who apostates themselves from the Covenant. That is just how faithful God is.

To do otherwise, is not to love God, because, Jesus said, " if you love me you will keep my commandment. It is easy to twist the scriptures to suite our own idea about matters in life; but our faithfulness comes from loving God and not by re-inventing the meanings of the scriptures.

You have not yet proven that anyone is 're-inventing' anything.
You have been shown as presenting error. No one had to 'invent' anything to do so.

God tolerates a lot of non-sense from us;

Yes, He does.
But He does NOT tolerate apostasy.

Apostasy is to His covenant what adultery is to the marriage covenant. That is why the penalty is so severe for the adulterer.
I suggest you study that issue out a bit more

but that does not mean we must continue doing it. If we truly love Him we will do what pleases Him.

I see nothing in this post that says divorce absolutely forbidden as your OP claims.
Anything to add ?

[arunangelo]

We can all have our own ideas about who God is but the fullness of the true God is revealed only in Jesus. He did not condemn sinners but came to wash away their sins. He even died for sinners. To Be followers of Jesus we must express the same faithfulness to our spouse (even though our spouse may be unfaithul to us)

[-Foc-]

We can all have our own ideas about who God is but the fullness of the true God is revealed only in Jesus. He did not condemn sinners but came to wash away their sins. He even died for sinners. To Be followers of Jesus we must express the same faithfulness to our spouse (even though our spouse may be unfaithul to us)

Can I ask why you are cutting and pasting your responses over many different forums ? Ive seen this same response on a couple different forums, I believe.

Concerning your post tho..

God was faithful to Israel...and He was faithful to END the covenant given to her thru the prophet Moses over her whoredoms.

Jesus Christ is faithful to His church....and He is faithful to put those who apostate against that covenant in Hell.

Jesus was FAITHFUL to His disciples...and He was FAITHFUL to condemn the one who so close to Him and yet betrayed Him.

So it seems that you preach ONE side of faithfulness while rejecting the other side of it.

Faithfulness is not just about being oblivious to someone sin, it is also being FAITHFUL to carry out appropriate action when those actions are called for.

[cynthiabilderback]

The truth is that "marriages are made in heaven." When people love each other, there is nothing more beautiful than this. Especially when they build relationships in accordance with the will of God.
However, our marriage with my husband seems to be torn apart. I thought that everything was fine with us and there were no problems in our marriage, but increasingly, I began to notice that my husband was no longer interested in me. Moreover, he treats me badly, sometimes even hits me. Why? I bore him two children in marriage. I love him with all my heart, and every night I pray to God for our marriage. But I'm afraid that I will have to take the first step and file for divorce, cause his attitude towards me is unbearable. Then will I break the will of God?

[RJG]

I know of quite a number of Christians who have cheated on their partners and divorced, most have been of the extremist, 'you must be born again or else' dogma.

[Zzyzx]

.

But I'm afraid that I will have to take the first step and file for divorce, cause his attitude towards me is unbearable. Then will I break the will of God?

Cynthia, what would you do if you did not believe that your every move was being watched 'from above'?

Do that.

Christians divorce at rates similar to others, so evidently beliefs do not prevent divorces.

[JehovahsWitness]

The truth is that "marriages are made in heaven." When people love each other, there is nothing more beautiful than this. Especially when they build relationships in accordance with the will of God.
However, our marriage with my husband seems to be torn apart. I thought that everything was fine with us and there were no problems in our marriage, but increasingly, I began to notice that my husband was no longer interested in me. Moreover, he treats me badly, sometimes even hits me. Why? I bore him two children in marriage. I love him with all my heart, and every night I pray to God for our marriage. But I'm afraid that I will have to take the first step and file for divorce, cause his attitude towards me is unbearable. Then will I break the will of God?

Hello Cynthia,


I am sorry you are facing such trials. If your life or the life of your children is in danger you must take reasonable steps to protect yourself. Many countries have government agencies and helplines available for women facing domestic violence, please find out what is available in your area. If you are under immediate threat by your husband call the police or if he impedes you get out of the house immediately, run to a neighbour flag down a car and ask them to call for help for you! If your husband beats you you must consider leaving as too many women die at the hands if tneir husband giving him "one more chance" that leads to it being their last.

That said, if you feel that your husband isnt a threat to your life and his hitting you was a "one off" that he regretted and has not repeated, there is the option to stay and try and repair your marriage. This is not excusing him but it could be that hitting you was out of character for him. Nobody can really judge the situation for you nor tell you what to do.

You ask about what God thinks about divorce and as one of Jehovahs Witnesses I can direct you to bible based material that may be of help. Scripturally the only basis for divorce is adultery, so while as I said, there are situations were one might seek a legal seperation (threat of serious injury or death being one of them) divorce with a view to remarriage is limited to the above motive.


I want out: Is divorce the answer?
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines ... -want-out/


FURTHER JW RESOURCES: DIVORCE
https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Divorce+


JW




RELATED POSTS

Is conjugal violence biblically ground for divorce?
viewtopic.php?p=1014005#p1014005

Were the verses of John 7:53 - 8:11 [also known as the pericope adulterae]/[the Pericope de Adultera] part of John's original gospel?
viewtopic.php?p=813108#p813108

Does the bible give husbands the right to RAPE their wives?
viewtopic.php?p=1057293#p1057293

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

MARRIAGE , ADULTERY and ... DIVORCE