Divorce and Remarriage

[Anonymous]

Brothers and sisters,

I have (finally) completed my Scripture studies on marriage, divorce and remarriage, based in no small part on the wonderful discussions last year here at Biblical Families. As promised, I wanted to share the results with those who are interested. Many of the debates here on the subject have helped me refine points that might otherwise have been neglected or assumed were common knowledge. Special thanks go out to ^_^, Marc C, DaPastor and sixth_heretic for giving me lots of specific passages and situations to consider, including, most importantly, the continuity between the Old and New Covenants.

The series can be found at http://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/

One word of warning, however. I would advise against reading the series unless one is fully committed to placing God's Word above all other sources of information on the subject. Cultural Christians will NOT find this material palatable. This study assumes God's Word is our final authority. During our group Bible studies on this subject, it was suggested that, if it should be demonstrated that they are living in an illegitimate marriage, anyone who would be unwilling to walk away from their sinful relationship should NOT bother with the study. This isn't for the timid, nor for those who would choose to disregard clear Scripture to justify their predetermined beliefs. But it is a comprehensive study on the subject of divorce and remarriage from a whole Bible perspective, which also correctly understands and applies the true Biblical definitions of marriage and adultery. I hope everyone is blessed by the information.

Always in His love,
David

 

[Tlaloc]

It seems you've made a solid effort to leave no stone unturned. Its good, its a needed thoroughness and unabashedness.

 

[Mark C]

I presume that it will not come as a surprise to you, David, that I would disagree with the conclusions of your study, since we disagree on many of the assumptions. But I also strongly disagree with the claim that it is "thorough".

I read your material several days ago, and, and after some prayer, was led to begin a response to you. Since some of my criticism might sound harsh, and I fully expected that we would simply "agree to disagree", I originally thought to begin with a private admonition to you via email. Now that you have published the link here, however, it seems more appropriate to make an least my initial comments in the "iron sharpens iron" of a public forum. The potential for harm is too great to be allowed to stand without comment.

Obviously I can't address the substance of your three articles in a brief message, but I will try to summarize my significant concerns up front.

I will start with the disconnect that I saw when I compared some of your earlier positions to your conclusion. As one who rejects the "Mosaic law" based on a claim that much of what was "Written" has been overturned in the "New" Covenant, the legalism of your conclusion is extreme. Perhaps even more important, however, is the sense that it ignores the very "heart" of those teachings and understandings that our Messiah proclaimed - whether they were "new" or there "from the beginning".

Too many unanswered questions are either left out of the 'analysis', or conspicuously avoided, before proposing such an immutable, and potentially life-shattering, proclamation of damnation. Too many logical fallacies (such as the claim of completeness) are ignored for such a general, and damaging, claim to be supported.

I have been called "legalistic", or even a "Judaizer", because I believe that Yeshua meant what He said in Matthew 5:18, and in John 14:15. But I CHOOSE not to eat things He identified as simply "not food". That is a far cry from teaching people to potentially abandon vows they made before God! (Joshua, remember, was HELD even to a contract made in fraud!)

I am also not one who believes that an oral claim of "belief in Jesus" constitutes instant "fire insurance" or the proverbial "get out of hell free" card. The warning of Matthew 7:23 should be sufficient warning for all of us to "work out" our own salvation with "fear and trembling". But I do not believe that His Torah fails to provide a remedy for sin, or that He was lying when He wrote through David's repentance that we can be washed, and made "whiter than snow" -- or much less made 'new' in Him!

I understand that the essential principle of discernment of His Word, subsequent to the understanding that we are to love God, and love one another, is to "choose life". There is so much wrong with your blatant assertion that there is "no hope" for those who -- falsely or not! -- believe themselves to be "under bondage" to what they consider to be a "former marriage" - covenantal or not -- that it comes close to denying the power of the blood of our Savior to even cover sin, much less "redeem us from the curse of the law".

This response will be long enough without too many specific "chapter and verse" criticisms. Two, however, are worth an initial introduction. While you address (and you and I have discussed before) the "Ezra issue" of marriages that may not be "what God has joined" - your pronouncement of condemnation on potentially all non-virginal "second marriages" is recklessly broad.

Worse still, it exposes both men and women to a "snare of the devil" which IS condemned in Scripture by our Savior without equivocation -- UNFORGIVENESS. David had Uriah killed. Will not many who read your missive be tempted to at least wish death on a former spouse as a "better solution" than the destruction of marriages they believed to be Covenants before God? And what of, "else were your children unclean"?

I know you do not believe that prophecies such as Isaiah 4:1 are yet to be fulfilled (whether or not such types and shadows have happened before, or even repeatedly). As I read your charges, however, the phrase "take away my reproach" seemed to be imbued with additional significance. Why bother, if not even the shed blood of our Savior is unable make us "new creations in Him"? Is He so much less able to restore the spiritual virginity of a woman so that she might once again be a loved wife - without having to resort to the expedient of praying for the death of her presumed "first husband"!


Your own cautions in the text are interesting, David. I would add the caution to others who read it to do so carefully! Do not fail to note the logical disconnects, assumptions, and leaps of legalism before any husband, or wife under such a husband's authority, turns their back on any covenant made before Him, and listens to the potentially life-changing lie that their marriage constitutes "adultery".

Before anyone abandons their Covenant based on such fear, be advised to study "for yourself" what God has to say about oaths taken before Him, and how we are expected to honor all of the words which come from our mouths!

Some of us have heard that accusation before, based on other claims from Scripture, legalism, or centuries of the paganized 'traditions of man' which have supplanted His Word in so many worldly 'Churches'.

Finally, David, your missive literally serves the purposes of the Deceiver in one other important way. By attempting to turn many, if not ALL, non-virgin marriages into adultery, you water down the definition of adultery itself! Those who read this tome, and are "turned away" from a spouse - only to find they later "burn" - are at risk of REAL adultery! (It is not much different that a similar twisting I once heard of Yeshua's admonition to those who have "lusted in their heart" after a woman. "Well, I guess since I'm ALREADY GUILTY it's no WORSE sin to just go ahead and do the deed!" I am not joking. Teachers are held to a higher standard.)

Sorry, David. We have disagreed before, but this is far different. So I must caution those who read to avoid the temptation to descend into a level of legalistic hopelessness that surpasses almost anything I have seen in some time. The fact that it comes from one who has claimed that the "Law" was done away with is particularly ironic. But it does help to demonstrate what Paul may have meant in saying that the Spirit gives life, but the "letter of the law" kills.

Be like the Bereans.

Love in Him,

Mark


"If you love Me, keep My commands."
-- John 14:15

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Mark,

I know repentance isn't a popular topic in churches today, but that doesn't make it any less true. Forgiveness of sin always requires repentance - a radical and deliberate turning away from sin and turning or returning to God. It seems your complaint isn't with God's Word on marriage, divorce and remarriage, so much as with the nature of sin, repentance and judgment. An adulterous remarriage is still adultery according to Scripture.

Can an unrepentant murderer continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual murder and still be a Christian?

Can an unrepentant burglar continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual burglary and still be a Christian?

Can an unrepentant sodomite continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual sodomy and still be a Christian?

Can an unrepentant adulterer continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual adultery and still be a Christian?

Whether you believe an adulterer can make a vow before God to remain in a continual adulterous relationship and still be a true Christian is something else entirely. When a person makes two conflicting oaths, how are they expected to honor all of the words which come from their mouths? If a woman makes a vow before God to one man to be his wife, then makes another vow before God to a second man to be his wife, then makes another vow before God to a third man to be his wife, how would you suggest she proceed? One might say she just needs to select any two vows to break, but Scripture demonstrates that her first vow overrides any subsequent vows that conflict with it, because her original vow to her only true living husband is still binding according to God.

The same thing is true with two married men. They cannot simply feel bad about their sinful choices and continue to remain married in defiance of Scripture. Adultery, like sodomy, is something that must be repented of. Repentance means turning away from the sin. One cannot continue in adultery or sodomy and claim they are a new creation. On the contrary, they are the same old creation.

To believe, accept, and apply Scripture is not legalism. It is freedom and it is truth. Choosing a deliberate lifestyle of adultery and calling it "choosing life" makes a liar of God's Word. A choice for adultery is choosing death, not life.

Always in His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

It seems your complaint isn't with God's Word on marriage, divorce and remarriage, so much as with the nature of sin, repentance and judgment. An adulterous remarriage is still adultery according to Scripture.

No, David, my complaint is with your analysis. You "wrest" the Scripture in order to "add to" God's Word. What YOU define as "adulterous marriage" is not what God says it is. In the process you not only distort His teaching, but the power of His ability to heal, to cleanse, and to forgive. Your "analysis" has a 'form of godliness, but denies the power thereof."

When I looked that verse up this morning, the one that followed was particularly telling, because of what immediately followed.

You do not have the authority to tell another man's wife she is an adulterer, David - particularly if you are wrong. And woe to those who would cause such to stumble.

The flaws in that analysis are legion. And since you do not believe that He will return to "cleanse" His bride(s), perhaps it is not surprising that you would be blind to every Scripture that talks of how He will do so, whether her (our) sins include murder or worse (idolatry). But if an idolator (adulterer) CANNOT be born again, cleansed of ALL sin, and made a new creation in Him, HERE AND NOW, then what was the point of His coming?

Our Savior is not a liar.

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

You do not have the authority to tell another man's wife she is an adulterer

I most certainly DO have the authority to tell another man’s wife that she is an adulteress. John the Baptist lost his life to speak the truth. I’m in good company by sticking with God’s Word.

"whoever puts away his wife...makes her commit adultery" (Matthew 5:32)

"whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32)

"whoever puts away his wife...and marries another, commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9)

"whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9)

"whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her" (Mark 10:11)

"if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:12)

"everyone putting away his wife and marrying another commits adultery" (Luke 16:18)

"everyone marrying her who is put away from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18)

But if an idolator (adulterer) CANNOT be born again, cleansed of ALL sin, and made a new creation in Him, HERE AND NOW, then what was the point of His coming?

Certainly an idolater, adulterer, murder, thief, etc. can be cleaned from all sin, PROVIDED THEY REPENT AND TURN AWAY FROM THAT SIN. Deliberate and unrepentant sin cannot be forgiven, unless you’re reading a different Bible than I am. This is basic kindergarten Christianity that I assumed everyone understood. Emotionalism is no substitute for Scriptural truth.

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

Your claim to be in the company of John the Baptizer reeks of pride, David. And you have NO authority over my house, self-proclaimed or not!

To believe, accept, and apply Scripture is not legalism. It is freedom and it is truth.

You pick and choose, David, and you don't even pick consistently. You ignore what God says about forgiveness itself! You are the unprofitable servant whose DEBT is FORGIVEN and then turns around and tells someone else that their DEBT can NEVER BE ERASED! "Go into debt no more." Do a better study on what that means before you tell people God cannot remove some stains (much less "forget" them as He claimed!) - some defilement even supersedes being reborn.

You tell me that the "Law of Moses" is done away with, and then allege your "analysis" is based on Deuteronomy 24. You claim that you are not "under" some law, presumably because of Jesus, and then place burdens that he [sic] did not, while then denying His Authority to cleanse from "all" sin! Your entire premise wrests I Cor. 7:15 too, of course, but the "bondage" you preach is somehow different: a "law" that is done away with, at least in part, but not in others. And you tell those of us who say "let God be true and every man a liar" that YOU follow Scripture, and we aren't fit to know which parts still apply.

You talk of "conflicting" vows and ignore what God wrote about them! (What about the "first husband" who CONFIRMS his wife's vow, and his own, of "divorce" on the day he hears it? Or is Numbers 30 one of the things "done away with"? Keeping track of just WHICH parts of His Word still apply is SOOO hard for those of us who only claim authority over our OWN house...)

You create a morass of legalism, conflict, and hopelessness based on sins which you claim can NEVER be erased! And then you deny the power of the blood of Yeshua to cleanse from sin! All the while claiming that he REwrote things He Himself says He would not!

You can't even read Psalm 51 for comprehension! Did King David's "adulterous marriage" to Bathsheba cease when he had Uriah killed? The "message" of your demonic twisting of Scripture is that murder works while repentance doesn't -- since under your New Burden Legalism David's repentance was immaterial, as was God's ability to forgive or cleanse him, so long as Uriah lived! Good thing David had the foresight to add murder to adultery up FRONT!

Teachers are held to a higher standard, David! Not as high as husbands, perhaps, and certainly not as high as those who claim -- like popes and Caesars -- the power to rewrite His Word, annul vows for wives and daughters NOT their own, and redefine marriage.

It is your claim of "authority" over another man's WIFE that is adultery, David!!!!!

You ignore, or explain away, Matthew 5:17 and 18. Read Matthew 5:19 before you try to usurp authority to teach what He does not! (And don't forget Matthew 5:28.)

My Savior made far different promises than the one you claim violated His own Word in Deuteronomy (the part that was done away with, no doubt), who can't cleanse his own from their sin, and who even did that little bit by AD 70.

Mark


PS> This is the Sabbath, whether you choose keep it or not. I am called to speak His Truth "boldly", and to be ready to do His will "in season and out". It is a mitzvah to do so in love on the Sabbath as well. But I recognize that my response to the hubris that I saw of a man who denies my Redeemer yet claims authority over MY house clearly led me to anger, and that such (as opposed to "zeal") does not work the will of God. That editing is finished, and that anger as well. But do not overlook the "weightier matters" of the law:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. " -- Matthew 23:23

 

[Mark C]

Our Creator gave us authority over our own houses in Genesis chapter one, and provided much additional guidance, direction, and even warning throughout the rest of His Word. We may disagree on aspects of that Witness. Some here may not even accept the authority of our Savior to teach the Word, and I am not likely to be able, for reasons above my pay grade, to convince otherwise those that He has not.

But neither will I deny Him before men.

Those who would deny the Authority of our Risen Kinsman-Redeemer to forgive, forget, and cleanse us from "ALL unrighteousness" can do word studies. What does "all" mean? Cleanse? Forget? I have those witnesses, and thank Him for them...but I have also seen His miracles first hand, and so testify. "Grace" means UNmerited favor, and what He washes should not be called 'base' or unclean, or defiled.

I once knew a man who read scripture the way these articles seem to -- by picking and choosing which parts of the "Law of Moses" still apply. (It's simple, of course. Anything that does NOT "still apply", by definition, is the "Law of Moses", whether it's in Deuteronomy or not.) He had the same fatalistic approach to adultery. "Since I've already lusted in my heart, I'm guilty. I might as well go all the way." Either he WAS an unbeliever, or became one; I don't claim to know, or be fit to judge him. His wife, to whom that admitted unbeliever gave a get, or certificate of divorce, is "still under bondage", according to David's version of scripture, "so long as he yet lives," regardless of what Paul said in I Corinthians.

Nothing, not repentece, not rebirth, not even the shed blood of our Savior, can "take away my reproach", and allow her to know the covering of a husband. This is a lie, and it denies the Truth of a Savior who came not to change even the smallest part of His Word, and says He will yet return. And if He cannot cleanse us, how can we expect to be ready "in season and out" -- much less brides to Him?

King David committed adultery, and then he committed murder. God took the child from that adulterous liaison away from him. But David repented. David turned from sin, but he kept his Covenant with Bathsheba. And his son Solomon, born later of that marriage, became king, and is in the line of our Messiah.

The entire sufficient rebuttal to the claim that neither the "blood of bulls and goats", NOR our Messiah, can cleanse us from sin -- that some defilement can NEVER be cleansed, that some debts can never TRULY be paid once and for all, that some people can NEVER be remarried while their adulterous, murdering, unbelieving (or "married under Caesar, divorced under Caesar") first sex partner yet lives -- is contained in a single psalm:


HAVE mercy upon me, O God,
According to Your lovingkindness;
According to the multitude of Your tender mercies,
Blot out my transgressions.

Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin.

For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.

Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight--
That You may be found just when You speak,
And blameless when You judge.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts,
And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Make me hear joy and gladness,
That the bones You have broken may rejoice.

Hide Your face from my sins,
And blot out all my iniquities.

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,
And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.

Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners shall be converted to You.

Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
The God of my salvation,
And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness.

O Lord, open my lips,
And my mouth shall show forth Your praise.

For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart--
These, O God, You will not despise...

Psalm 51: 1-17

 

[Anonymous]

And you have NO authority over my house, self-proclaimed or not!

Who’s talking about your house? You said I have no authority to tell someone they are sinning and I corrected you. Why are you even acting like this?

You are the unprofitable servant
You create a morass of legalism, conflict, and hopelessness
you deny the power of the blood of Yeshua to cleanse from sin!
You can't even read Psalm 51 for comprehension!

I’m not sure what your problem is with me, but if you cannot conduct yourself in a more Christ-like manner, without making personal attacks, I will not acknowledge or respond to further comments by you. If our study of divorce and remarriage strikes such a cord with you, perhaps you should have read the disclaimer at the top of the Divorce and Remarriage series:

http://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/

They probably weren’t meant for you to read.

turns around and tells someone else that their DEBT can NEVER BE ERASED!
you tell people God cannot remove some stains (much less "forget" them as He claimed!)
denying His Authority to cleanse from "all" sin!
based on sins which you claim can NEVER be erased!
you deny the power of the blood of Yeshua to cleanse from sin!
a man who denies my Redeemer
deny the Authority of our Risen Kinsman-Redeemer to forgive, forget, and cleanse us from "ALL unrighteousness"
if He cannot cleanse us

Please stop misrepresenting what I’m saying. I’ve never said a person cannot be forgiven for past sins and you know it. Anyone who has read the articles knows that's not at all what is being said. This is nothing but a smokescreen to detract from the fact that ongoing, continual, deliberate unrepentant sin cannot be forgiven. If you believe we can be forgiven without needing to repent and walk away from the sin, then what difference does this make? If this is what you’re REALLY having an issue with, perhaps you should have a talk with God about what His Word teaches about repentance and forgiveness.

Matt. 4:17: "From that time Yahushua began to proclaim and to say, "Repent, for the reign of the heavens has drawn near."

Luke 13:5b: "But unless you repent you shall all perish in the same way."

Acts 17:30: "Truly, then, having overlooked these times of ignorance, Elohim now commands all men everywhere to repent,"

Rom. 2:4-6: "Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, and tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the kindness of Elohim leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of Elohim, who "shall render to each one according to his works"

2 Pet. 3:9: "Yahweh is not slow in regard to the promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward us, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Eph. 5:5-7: "For this you know, that no one who whores, nor unclean one, nor one greedy of gain, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the reign of Messiah and Elohim. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these the wrath of Elohim comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partakers with them."

1 Cor. 6:9-11: "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the reign of Elohim? Do not be deceived. Neither those who whore, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor greedy of gain, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers shall inherit the reign of Elohim. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were set-apart, but you were declared right in the Name of the Master Yahushua and by the Spirit of our Elohim."

Gal. 5:19-21: "And the works of the flesh are well-known, which are these: adultery, whoring, uncleanness, indecency, idolatry, drug sorcery, hatred, quarrels, jealousies, fits of rage, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, murders, drunkenness, wild parties, and the like - of which I forewarn you, even as I also said before, that those who practice such things as these shall not inherit the reign of Elohim."

Jam. 4:4: "Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with Elohim? Whoever therefore intends to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of Elohim."

Like it or not, some Believers actually take these passages at face value. If you don’t think a person needs to repent and turn from sin to be forgiven for it, then that’s your choice. Our articles are written to other Believers who DO understand that repentance and turning from their sin are REQUIRED for salvation. If you want to think that’s salvation by works, so be it. If you want to think we can sin and do whatever we like and God will cheerfully ignore it, so be it. I’m not so naive that I think I’m going to convince you of anything in Scripture, especially if it requires something of you.

But David repented. David turned from sin, but he kept his Covenant with Bathsheba.

Yes he did, and it was ONLY possible because her lawful husband had died. I wonder what you believe would have happened had Uriah survived the battle. Do you suppose David would be permitted to keep Bathsheba simply because he repented of his past actions? Does supposedly being sorry for past sins give one a license to keep on committing the very same sin? What exactly is your premise here? David had a right to Bathsheba irrespective of her covenant with Uriah, because David revoked it on the day he heard of it??

Please take some time to cool off and really think about what exactly has riled you up about this discussion. Nobody is being edified by your personal attacks and outrageous accusations against me. If you are unable or unwilling to discuss this peacefully, then I have nothing more to say to you. God’s Word speaks for itself and each of us can read His clear warnings and instructions without any commentaries. Whether we will accept them is another thing.

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

Who’s talking about your house? You said I have no authority to tell someone they are sinning and I corrected you. Why are you even acting like this?

I explained the principle of repentance, forgiveness, and cleansing, David; certainly not as well as King David did, much less King Yeshua. I object to any claim that His blood is not sufficient to cleanse even REAL sin like adultery and murder. How much more so the erroneous claim that Caesar's false union, dissolved in accord with Caesar's terms, and God's Written Law, are insufficient to meet your terms.

As to why this usurpation of ANY husband's authority over his own house strikes a chord with me, I will answer in a new thread.

But here I will quote you, David:

I most certainly DO have the authority to tell another man’s wife that she is an adulteress.

And this is from your own fallacy-ridden conclusion:

A woman with a living husband, whether married or separated, whether given a certificate of divorcement or not...

...who remarries is an adulteress.

Prior to reading your wresting of "the law", David, I would never have considered murder as a solution to David's Dilemma, which your missive seems to imply is the only alternative to breach of a Covenant before God, to those you take it upon yourself to proclaim as "adulterers".

My second post today, the last one I made before this response, explains my "zeal" for His Truth - all of it, as Written. THIS post, and the conclusion below, explains my anger. I am not "offended" by the Word, but I sure am by your presumption.

Pork still carries disease, even after the sacrifice of Yeshua, and still contains the harmful enzymes cadaverene and putrescene, among other "plagues". Eat it if you choose to; I will not call you unclean or defiled, even if you cannot understand the metaphor of Peter's dream as he explained it.

But if I had the hubris to take it upon myself to tell your wife that she is a spiritual adulteress, because she has defiled her body in the past by taking unclean things into herself, you have valid reason to tell me I have no such authority. We might even "agree to disagree" about whether that clear, unequivocal prohibition in Scripture had been "done away with" or not.

But (and here I abandon the first person) -- if if such a person was instead to persist, and demand that your wife leave you, ignoring any covenant you may have (the terms of which are none of his business anyway) and then claim "authority" to usurp YOUR headship of (allegedly) your own wife because she "continues in sin" -- you might be angry. You might take some time off, so as to resist any non-edifying outrages.

That person's claim that your wife "continues in sin" is no less outrageous than yours, and arguably based on far better logic and justification in Scripture. But such an attempt to claim authority over YOUR house is more than "outrageous", even without puffed-up comparisons to John the Baptist.

That is a lesson I have learned, and will not forget. And I have repented from that error, as I will witness.

 

[Mark C]

As to why this usurpation of ANY husband's authority over his own house strikes a chord with me, I will answer in a new thread.

But I will do so here, first:


=========================================================================================

Several years ago we attended a local fellowship which correctly taught "all" of Scripture, including the fact that a man may have more than one wife by Covenant. This attendance included both my wife L, and my wife B. While we did not "advertise" our relationship, neither did we attempt to hide it. Before we even formed that church, I had discussions with both of the men who were to become the pastors concerning our marriages. We "agreed to disagree" about a verse or two (Timothy and Titus, for one - and I had no problem agreeing simply that I would not seek to be an elder, in order to avoid even the issue of division).

Several years later, and unbeknown to me, two 'widows' in the congregation came to one of those pastors with what would be called "lashon hora" - that I had two 'wives' and was living in adultery. That pastor later told me that he had informed them of the situation, and what Scripture said. (Since they HAD no earthly husband, or covering, they arguably should have respected what he told them, but did not.)

On a subsequent Sabbath, following the worship service, my wife B disappeared after lunch, and did not return for the afternoon Torah study. I was concerned, and (skipping details here...) did NOT go to seek her out and confront those two who had "ganged up" on her in a back room and accused her of adultery. I should have.

They took it upon themselves to usurp my rightful authority as HUSBAND and head of my house, while I sat in another room and LET THEM DO IT!!!!!

They left that church, and so did my WIFE. Some time later she left me. And even though she eventually repented, and returned to me, and there was significant healing, even miraculous healing, scars remained. Strongholds remained. That was a number of years ago. And even though she said with her lips that she forgave me, and those others involved in the church, I have no doubt that she has never forgiven all of us "from her heart" for that horrible breach; the evidence is equally clear, and represents "surrendered ground" to the Adversary.

And I take responsibility. The authority that God has given to a husband, as head of his house, is outlined in Scripture. I was very wrong to have ever sat on my [you-know-what] and allowed ANY self-righteous servants of the Adversary to claim un-Godly authority over what He has joined!

And EVERY single God-fearing pastor and teacher that I know and respect understands that authority of a husband, and takes obvious care not to violate it.

And WE, all of my house, suffered from the chastening that resulted from that breach. And I have repented. I have TURNED unequivocally from that lazy and unprofitable course, and studied, and prayed, and sought His guidance so that such a failure on my part does not happen again. Satan is clever, however, and comes but to kill and destroy. Most here know of my own trials of late; even without "license from Caesar", the prince of this world can and will try to take by fear and force that which he cannot as readily take by deception.

So my charge to those who are reading this particular Sabbath-day witness of mine is as follows:

Read and understand Numbers chapter 30, and the significance of the charges by God to both Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. There is much more there than meets the eye, and NOT ONE YOD OR TITTLE of it has been done away with! (I have written of this before, but not with so personal a testimony.) Be like the Bereans, and study for yourself to see if these things be True.

Men are to take authority over their own house, over their wives, over their daughters, and even their sons (to a lesser extent) who still live under their care. Do not allow any false "authority" or "teacher" to claim otherwise -- as Yeshua's repeated warnings make clear! Those who fail to honor "the weaker vessel" by properly exercising that love, and that responsibility, will reap what they sow.

Be watchful, my brothers.

 

[Anonymous]

Brother Mark,

I am not trying to offend you, but I can't change what Scripture says about remarriage and adultery.

Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.”

Matt. 19:9: "And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery."

Mark 10:11-12: "And He said to them, "Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18: "Everyone putting away his wife and marrying another commits adultery. And everyone marrying her who is put away from her husband commits adultery."

I'm having a hard time understanding why verses that are so clear, so spelled out for us, can be such a major problem to accept. No matter WHO you think qualifies for committing adultery in these passages, certainly you would agree that SOMEONE is capable of committing adultery by remarrying, correct? I mean, if NOBODY can commit adultery by remarrying, then why did He even bother to say anything at all about remarriage or adultery? And if His words DO actually apply to someone, then He meant what He said to that adulterous person, right? It is perfectly possible for SOMEONE to commit adultery by remarrying, yes? Or are you completely dismissing what He taught?

In addition, I am also having a hard time understanding your position on repentance and forgiveness, so allow me to ask a simple question and I will answer it myself with a single 'yes' or 'no', so I can make my own position clear. Then, if you wish, you can also answer the same question so I will better understand your position.

Question: "Can a person continue committing an ongoing, deliberate sin, choosing never to repent and walk away from that sin, and still be forgiven for it?"

My answer: "No."

Your answer?

I can answer that question myself with a definitive answer. If you disagree on this point (or feel the need to qualify your answer with assorted excuses or caveats), then what difference does it make whether someone is living in an adulterous relationship or sleeping with his next-door neighbor's wife? Adultery is adultery and if we can commit any sin we like and never have to repent to be forgiven, then what difference does it make what Scripture says about adultery or what I think about it? I don't know your personal situation but unless you've gone and married another man's wife, I don't understand why you would be so venomous in your responses to me. Honestly, I see no reason for you to get upset unless deep-down you know what I've demonstrated in Scripture is correct, and you have some desperate need to show it just isn't so.

I have no wish to pointlessly quarrel with you. Please help me understand so I can work at trying to make amends.

Always in His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

I begin this response, David, by copying your entire post using the "Quote" button. Next I remove every passage which is "offensive" - either because it is a vain repetition of things you have stated many times before, and which have thus been addressed repeatedly, or, worse still, because it is untrue. This is what remains:

Brother Mark,

I am not trying to offend you, but...

I'm having a hard time understanding...
...
...Please help me understand so I can work at trying to make amends.

Always in His love,
David

Note that I was careful in my selection of words above. This response to your post begins by demonstrating, undeniably, at least a minimal attempt to prove that I read your post. I use the word 'post' to describe what you wrote because 'response' is incorrect. For you to have 'responded' to me, it would be necessary for that post to demonstrate that you at least had bothered to read what I had written.

Because you did not do so, or even attempt the appearance of doing so, your vain repetition of points not even remotely at issue, or related to the points I raise, was in fact "offensive". If you wish to understand you must READ. And you cannot "make amends" without first making that attempt to understand.

I will not repeat what I wrote yesterday. I presume that if you are sincere in any of what I read from your post that you are capable of going back and reading it yourself.


But I will clarify one more time the basic, and very fundamental, real issues I have with the three articles you posted a link to at the top of this thread. I have these very real problems with what you wrote because your missive is in ERROR. If the fundamental assumptions are wrong, if the logic is flawed, if the understanding of words is wrong, the conclusion is invalid. This is why your conclusion there is invalid. (You neither read, nor responded to my new concern raised yesterday by your hubris, and claim of false authority. You certainly did not "make amends", or even apologize. These are related, but ultimately very separate, issues. Do not confuse them.)

Repetition of assumptions does not fix the error. Asking unrelated questions does not fix the error.

I have been very careful in my use of words. This response to your post illustrates that concern. I will seek next to illustrated and clarify, in a different way, a single major concern with your article, AND make clear how you gave offense.

This quote is from your article, in part 1:

...this entire argument comes down to trying to differentiate between "putting away" and "divorce" by making it seem like these are two distinct concepts, even though Biblically they are identical.

No it does not. And no, they most certainly are not.

This error is fundamental.

I use two separate words to describe two separate things. Your "post" is not a response because it FAILS to meet very specific ADDITIONAL requirements which differentiate the two things. Were you now to respond to me by claiming that your earlier post was a response, I would be offended because such a response demonstrates either blindness, or a willful intent either to deceive or cause anger.

The different English words "putting away" and "divorce" express different concepts. They are USED for that very reason. Where languages differ, and concepts may in part overlap, it is important to those who claim to "seek Truth" that the words are used honestly, in both languages, and that, if necessary, new terminology is adopted to clarify nuance. This is particularly important when people seek to be obedient to God, Who does not use words carelessly.

God made a series of very important distinctions. You gave the appearance of careful study, David, and then not only glossed over the distinctions God was so careful to outline, but literally swept them away. The concepts are NOT "identical" -- or why did God waste His breath in Deuteronomy 24:1 and 3! Do not call people 'blind' who take note of distinctions which God was careful to make, but you ignore.

If you do not understand that fundamental, and key, distinction up front (or worse still, if you willfully attempt to ignore it, and worse even still, "teach others to do so") you cannot and WILL not understand the distinction that Yeshua was teaching!

In the Name of Yeshua HaMashiach,

Mark




PS> I did not post the response I originally wrote last night. I will not attempt to claim that it was written in His love, even though the word "response" is correct.

 

[Dairyfarmer]

David and Mark


I am not hear to argue, just trying to understand. If a man is married to a divorced woman, learns that it is a sin, your saying he can't repent and the sin be washed away as long as he is still married to that woman? If I understand you correctly, he must put her away, along with the children to sin no more.

Now someone that knows what the word says marries a divorced woman, knowing that it is a sin, but says I will ask for forgiveness later, what are they to do?

Then you have a woman that was married to a unbeliever, he divorces her, she is free to marry again. Now everyone is going to say the other was a nonbeliever. So they can marry again. And who can judge if they are a believer or not. So what is this woman to do? Never marry again or marry, ask for forgiveness or not worry about it thinking she is free.


Just trying to understand.
Dairyfarmer

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Dairyfarmer,

I'm through discussing these matters with Mark, but I'd be happy to answer your questions. For specific details, I would refer you to the articles in question: http://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/

If a man is married to a divorced woman, learns that it is a sin, your saying he can't repent and the sin be washed away as long as he is still married to that woman? If I understand you correctly, he must put her away, along with the children to sin no more.

Under MOST circumstances (at least in our modern western culture), the divorcement was most probably unlawful. This means the husband and wife remain married regardless. This is why Jesus was so clear that divorce and remarriage would result in adultery, and why Paul kept repeating how a married woman is bound to a husband so long as he lives, not so long as he doesn't divorce her.

If the woman in your example was unlawfully separated from her husband (either she left him or he put her away without the only lawful cause given in Scripture), then she remains bound to her living husband. If she lies with another man or marries another man, she commits adultery. In addition, the man she lies with also commits adultery. Each act of sexual relations is another act of adultery. She can either choose to remain celibate or be restored to her husband (if that is possible).

She most certainly can repent of her past adultery, but she cannot continue committing the same adultery and be forgiven for it. That's not Biblical repentance. True repentance is a complete about-face from the sin. Adultery is not divorce, adultery is a sexual act. To repent of adultery is to walk away from the adultery itself. Repenting for having committing sins in the past do not permit one to continue committing adultery in the present.

Now someone that knows what the word says marries a divorced woman, knowing that it is a sin, but says I will ask for forgiveness later, what are they to do?

They can ask for forgiveness at any time, but if they continue to repeat the same acts of adultery, they're not truly repentant. A thief cannot steal a million dollars from a bank, repent, and get to keep the money. An adulterer cannot sleep with another man's wife, repent, and continue to sleep with her. Nowhere does Scripture say that divorce, itself, is any kind of sin or something that needs repenting for. Rather, it is the resulting adultery which occurs IF SHE REMARRIES that requires repentance and forgiveness. The man and the woman are both committing adultery each time they lie together, because she belongs to another man (whether he wants her or not).

Then you have a woman that was married to a unbeliever, he divorces her, she is free to marry again. Now everyone is going to say the other was a nonbeliever. So they can marry again. And who can judge if they are a believer or not. So what is this woman to do? Never marry again or marry, ask for forgiveness or not worry about it thinking she is free.

The problem is that Scripture never actually gives a married woman permission to remarry because her unbelieving husband has left her. Read the entire chapter of 1 Cor. 7 carefully. Paul authored the entire chapter and he does not change his mind in the middle. The entire chapter says the same thing: she is bound to him so long as her husband lives. The misunderstanding of 1 Cor. 7:15 is explained in detail on our web series on divorce and remarriage. She is not enslaved to remain living with the unbeliever who abandons her, but neither is she permitted to commit adultery while he lives. She can be restored or remain unmarried. That's it.

I hope that helps explain my position. You can e-mail me anytime at webmaster@righteouswarriors.com if you have further questions. I have a feeling I won't be welcome here much longer. In any event, please check the Word for yourself in all these matters, and do not allow popular opinion to cloud what Scripture actually says.

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

You are asking many of the right questions, Dairyfarmer, and there are many more.

But the problem with the series of article David points to is far deeper still:

"If a man is married to a divorced woman, learns that it is a sin..."

He hasn't "LEARNED" anything if the definitions are wrong, the assumptions are bad, and the logic is flawed. He has been deceived, just as has happened in marriages since the beginning. And if a man allows his wife to be so misled by a false authority, then he has failed to cover her!
(And note again that Eve first ATE of the fruit, but the CONSEQUENCES of that action were not visited upon them "both" until Adam's failure! -- Gen. 3:7)

That article calls things "identical" that God clearly does not. As you correctly point out, DF, even the term "married" must be studied far more carefully than has been done there, as stories like that in Ezra highlight.

God asks "where is the certificate of your mother's divorce?" for a reason. He carefully specified the lawful procedure for 'termination of a marriage', IN DETAIL, for a reason! Our Savior died, was cursed for us, and hung on a tree, for a REASON. EVERY single aspect of that procedure, those prophecies, and His teachings is important - or He wouldn't have put it in there! From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is filled with stories of those who cut corners, called things "identical" that were not, and ultimately called things "evil" that were not -- and DIED for it!

What was wrong with Cain's offering? (I recently posted the link to a fascinating study of that very question, which bears directly on the topic of marriage as well.) Why were Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, killed? Didn't they think their fire was almost identical to what God had said? And isn't Caesar's license to "marry" just as good as God's?

Teachers are held to a higher standard, (Matthew 5:19, Hosea 4:6, et al) and God is very specific in His delegations of Authority. Paul admonished people to "be like the Bereans" and study for OURSELVES to "see if these things be True". I have done so, and offer only my own conclusions - I do not claim to be able to take authority over any other man's house, much less tell his wife she is an adulteress, or even demand to see the certificate.

Good questions, Dairyfarmer. Search out these things for yourself from the Word, and let His Ruach Hakodesh guide you.

Blessings,
Mark

 

[Mark C]

When I hit "submit" a minute ago, I saw this:

I'm through discussing these matters with Mark...

You are being called out, "brother", before witnesses, in accord with Yeshua's procedure, because you have not responded to reproof, correction, or chastening.

You did not, and have not, engaged in a "discussion" with me. Your "wresting" of the meaning of words is deceitful, and you are without excuse.


May God give you eyes to see, and a heart to repent,

Mark

 

[DaPastor]

Hello David,

Blessings to you.

Brothers and sisters,

I have (finally) completed my Scripture studies on marriage, divorce and remarriage, based in no small part on the wonderful discussions last year here at Biblical Families. As promised, I wanted to share the results with those who are interested. Many of the debates here on the subject have helped me refine points that might otherwise have been neglected or assumed were common knowledge. Special thanks go out to ^_^, Marc C, DaPastor and sixth_heretic for giving me lots of specific passages and situations to consider, including, most importantly, the continuity between the Old and New Covenants.

The series can be found at http://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/

I havent had time to look at it thoroughly, but you have put a lot a work in the subject.

One word of warning, however. I would advise against reading the series unless one is fully committed to placing God's Word above all other sources of information on the subject. Cultural Christians will NOT find this material palatable.

I am not sure what is meant by "cultural christians", but if by it you mean those who believe in contextualizing Scripture within the specific time frames of Biblical History, then count me in as a "cultural christian".

This study assumes God's Word is our final authority.

From what I have read so far, I would say that the interpretative method you are using is called the "proof-text method". This method takes verses and short sections of the text to support a particular topic or position. On the surface it appears to be very sound (i.e. "I am only sticking to the Bible). However, the problem with this hermeneutic is that it tends to isolate passages from either the immediate context (i.e. Chapter), or surrounding concentric contexts, (i.e. Book, Testament, or Entire Bible), or it neglects the historical setting and literary genre. From what I have read so far, I believe you believe that you are being very Biblical, and I would say that in many areas you are being very Biblical, but I think that you may not be doing as much justice to the Scriptures as you believe you are - God's Word was written within a specific context of time, manners, customs, an perspectives. Your approach may accidently be leading to the "anachronistic fallacy", that is, attempting to read the Scriptures from a 21st mindset by ignoring the historical and cultural interpretations of the individual writing a particular passage.

I believe Scripture is infallible and inerrant. However, one must determine what the God Inspired writer is asserting in each and every passage. God utilized the manners, custom and culture of the author's day. A culture, by the way that God controlled by His sovereign providence. A culture, by the way, that God decided would be the perfect one for the message He wanted to get accross. It is "hyper-spirituality" that would attempt to interpret Scripture without understanding the timing for God using specific messengers to write His Holy Word!

The Holy Spirit used specific authors to write the historical narratives, the poetry, the hyperboles, the metaphors, and so forth. Every word is inerrant, but each have to be interpreted within their own specific genre. To make poetry literal, for example, confuses truth. Every difference between each literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed.

What really needs to be understood, in my humble opinion, is that although Scripture is not culture-bound - its teaching is univeral - it is culturally filled with customs, and specific views for specific time periods, so to merely proof-text Scripture without culturally contexualizing the passages, it actually doesn't bring more clarity but in a few passages. Sometimes it actually causes error. For example, those who attempt to use the book of Isaiah to teach against Christmas trees is absurd. The Isaiah passages are addressing the dressing up of idols, not Christmas trees.

During our group Bible studies on this subject, it was suggested that, if it should be demonstrated that they are living in an illegitimate marriage, anyone who would be unwilling to walk away from their sinful relationship should NOT bother with the study.

The "perpetual adultery" doctrine is caused by approaching Scripture "literalistically", as opposed to "literally". This view is NOT a Biblical view! In my humble opinion, it is misunderstanding of the Greek, Hebrew, History, Cultural, Exegetical Principles, and general hermeneutics! It actually does more damage to the body of Christ then it helps!

This isn't for the timid, nor for those who would choose to disregard clear Scripture to justify their predetermined beliefs. But it is a comprehensive study on the subject of divorce and remarriage from a whole Bible perspective, which also correctly understands and applies the true Biblical definitions of marriage and adultery. I hope everyone is blessed by the information.

David, I appreciate your love for the Scriptures.

 

[DaPastor]

Hello David,

During our group Bible studies on this subject, it was suggested that, if it should be demonstrated that they are living in an illegitimate marriage, anyone who would be unwilling to walk away from their sinful relationship should NOT bother with the study.

Since David and Bathsheba began their relationship as an affair, do you believe that David should not have married Bathsheba? Or is it justified because David killed Uriah?

 

[DaPastor]

Can an unrepentant murderer continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual murder and still be a Christian? Can an unrepentant burglar continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual burglary and still be a Christian? Can an unrepentant sodomite continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual sodomy and still be a Christian? Can an unrepentant adulterer continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual adultery and still be a Christian?

In logic "question framing" is always leads to fallacies. Why? Because it is based upon the "a priori" assumptions. The last question assumes that "divorce" does not disolve a marriage, and that adultery is "perpetual". Even Jesus recognized that the woman at the well was legitimately married many times. The laws of averages tells me that she wasn't divorced "biblically" each time!

Whether you believe an adulterer can make a vow before God to remain in a continual adulterous relationship and still be a true Christian is something else entirely. When a person makes two conflicting oaths, how are they expected to honor all of the words which come from their mouths? If a woman makes a vow before God to one man to be his wife, then makes another vow before God to a second man to be his wife, then makes another vow before God to a third man to be his wife, how would you suggest she proceed? One might say she just needs to select any two vows to break, but Scripture demonstrates that her first vow overrides any subsequent vows that conflict with it, because her original vow to her only true living husband is still binding according to God.

If a woman is divorced, the divorce "dissolves" the previous relationship, whethere she had the right grounds for divorcing or not! This is quite easy to prove from the Bible and Ancient Jewish History!

The same thing is true with two married men. They cannot simply feel bad about their sinful choices and continue to remain married in defiance of Scripture. Adultery, like sodomy, is something that must be repented of. Repentance means turning away from the sin. One cannot continue in adultery or sodomy and claim they are a new creation. On the contrary, they are the same old creation.[/qutoe]

The assumption is that marrying one who was divorced is automatically adultery. I challenge this assumption! This is a misunderstanding of the Law, Jesus and porneia. Furthermore, there are many reasons for divorce under "porneia" besides what you have written.

To believe, accept, and apply Scripture is not legalism.

True enough David, but it may be legalism if Scripture is misapplied, for then it becomes a "tradition of man", not Biblical truth!