Did Jesus teach that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery?

[Kathryn]

Originally Posted by Pegg

yes, in the case of an unbeliever ending the marriage through divorce. That makes the believer free to remarry both legally and scripturally. This is what Paul meant when he said 'she is not bound'

In the case of an unbeliever DEPARTING.

Matthew 18:15-17

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

There's the unbeliever part covered.

I Cor 7

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Do you honestly think that a person who is threatening to kill you is really willing to live with you?

Do you think that a person can beat the crap out of you day in and day out, but say "No, you can't divorce me, because I'm willing to live with you," and that God is OK with that? Or that's what God meant by this passage?

In other words, if you FORCE someone to leave, who REALLY left the marriage?

By the way, the Greek word "chorizo" is the word we translate into "leave" or "depart." This word means, 1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from, to depart

If abuse and death threats aren't putting asunder a marriage, I don't know what is.

The same word is used in Romans 8:35:

Who 5101 shall separate5563 us 2248 from 575 the love 26 of Christ 5547? [shall] tribulation 2347, or 2228 distress 4730, or 2228 persecution 1375, or 2228 famine 3042, or 2228 nakedness 1132, or 2228 peril 2794, or 2228 sword 3162?

(sorry, from Strong's Concordance -the numbers are numbered greek words)

In this passage, the word doesn't limit itself to physical separation - it's an emotional separation - from God's love - that is being discussed. So the term can mean an emotional separation, not just a divorce or physically leaving the premises.

[Kathryn]

Originally Posted by james2ko

1. According to Paul, the believer does have an obligation to honor the covenant. This is why the believer cannot initiate the departure.

Physical abuse initiates a departure. When you know that a person MUST leave in order to be safe, then you in fact have initiated the departure.

"I can hold a loaded gun to your head, but by golly, I'm not leaving, so there!"

That makes no sense. My God makes sense. My God puts the rights of women and children above the rights of an abuser.

2. It wasn't my idea. It is the inherent implication of yours--- Paul allowing a believer to remarry only when their unbelieving mate departs. But not when their believing mate departs? Not only does it go against Christ's instructions, but it would also imply that God acts more favorably toward those who become Christians already married to unbelievers by giving them rights to remarry, but believers who marry amongst themselves who split cannot???

Well, I don't know where you got this idea, but it's skewered and a BIG stretch. Paul's letters were written to converts and this was a time of transition in a brand new church. And I frankly do not see this "implication" as valid - in fact, it sounds odd and sort of weird. The only thing "right" about it is your comment that it goes against God's instructions.

I'm not doubting or questioning whether God expects two Christians to stay together - He most certainly does.

3. That's of no consequence. He is still not sanctioning remarriage. Paul is merely stating the believer is not bound (no longer a servant) to the unbeliever.

This is your interpretation. If a person is not bound, they are free. If a person cannot remarry, they are still bound to that marriage. This idea is contrary to this passage.

However, it does not give them the liberty to be remarried. What if the unbeliever repents and wants to reconcile only to discover the believer has remarried?? This is why Paul states," Don't you wives realize that your husbands might be saved because of you? And don't you husbands realize that your wives might be saved because of you? (1 Co 7:16).

Not sure what translation you're quoting there, but that translation seems to push the envelope. Here's what the KJV says:

15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

This seems to be saying pretty much the opposite of what you're implying.
Let the unbeliever depart - because how can you know whether or not you can save them?

The Douay Rheims:
15But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.

16For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband ? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife ?

The NIV:
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

The New American Standard:
15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Hmmm, quite a bit different implication...

What's significant is Paul wrote this IMMEDIATELY AFTER the passage allowing the unbelieving spouse to leave. Thus by taking all of the passages by Paul and Christ on the topic into consideration, we can accurately paraphrase Paul's thoughts this way: If the unbelieving spouse decides to leave, do not remarry because don't you wives realize that your husbands might be saved because of you? And don't you husbands realize that your wives might be saved because of you?

You're basing your opinion on a passage that someone has twisted.

To insinuate Paul is authorizing remarriage when an unbelieving spouse departs is engaging in eisegesis.

Ironic.

[james2ko]

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Physical abuse initiates a departure. When you know that a person MUST leave in order to be safe, then you in fact have initiated the departure. "I can hold a loaded gun to your head, but by golly, I'm not leaving, so there!" That makes no sense. My God makes sense. My God puts the rights of women and children above the rights of an abuser.

1. I used the wrong choice of words. I agree. If an unbeliever has placed the believer in a life threatening situation, the proper thing to do is for the believer to initiate a departure but not a divorce. Divorce is the word I wanted to use. A believer should never initiate divorce proceedings.

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Well, I don't know where you got this idea, but it's skewered and a BIG stretch. Paul's letters were written to converts and this was a time of transition in a brand new church. And I frankly do not see this "implication" as valid - in fact, it sounds odd and sort of weird.

2. New truth always sounds odd and weird, especially when it's being either overlooked or ignored. Your implication that Paul allows a believer to remarry, only when their unbelieving mate departs but not when their believing mate departs, is much more questionable especially given the commands of Christ in the gospels forbidding remarriage.

Originally Posted by Kathryn

The only thing "right" about it is your comment that it goes against God's instructions.

3. If you agree that allowing a believer to remarry when their unbelieving mate departs is against God's instructions, why are millions of Christians doing it?

Originally Posted by Kathryn

I'm not doubting or questioning whether God expects two Christians to stay together - He most certainly does.

4. You're confusing the issue by combining divorce and remarriage. They are two separate actions. The text tells us divorce can exist without remarriage. Christ tells us remarriage is only sanctioned when fornication is discovered.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If you ignore Mat 19:9 and their parallel accounts, Paul's "not under bondage" statement is open game. Christ's statement clarifies Paul's "not under bondage" statement in that it does not grant a license for remarriage. It merely releases the believer from the current one until the death of the unbelieving spouse. Furthermore, if "not under bondage" means that a believer can remarry after their unbelieving mate has simply departed, Paul contradicts Christ's command for no remarriage, under any circumstances, except in the case of fornication!!

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Not sure what translation you're quoting there, but that translation seems to push the envelope. Here's what the KJV says:

5. The passage, by itself, is obscure in all of the translations. We must take into consideration other scriptures, which you are not, in order to decipher Paul's statement. BTW...You either missed my question or ignored it. Here it is again:

What should happen in the event the departed unbeliever repents and wants to reconcile only to discover his believing mate is remarried??

Originally Posted by Kathryn

You're basing your opinion on a passage that someone has twisted.

6. My interpretation is based on other scriptures which strongly support the view that Paul is permitting a departure with no allowance for remarriage. Your interpretation hangs on one passage. So who's doing the twisting???

Originally Posted by Kathryn

ironic

7. Do you realize you are hinging an entire doctrine on one obscure scripture and ignoring the plain command of Christ in reference to remarriage? The Christian walk is a difficult one. Many twist the scriptures in an attempt to simplify it. The disciples knew what Christ meant when He uttered the words in Mat 19:9. Divorce was tolerated but remarriage was out of the question except in the case of fornication (sex prior to marriage-Deut 22:13-21). Why do you think they reacted by saying it's better not to marry? Ironically, it was the same sentiment expressed by Paul.

[ForeverFaithful]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

In order to discuss why many Christians interpret that verse, and other verses, differently. One way for people to resolve some of their differences is to have friendly discussions about those differences. I do not think that it is a good idea for people who have differences to ignore each other, and refuse to discuss their differences.



Is that still your opinion?

Does it really surprise you that Christian read verses differently?

[bribrius]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

I look forward to reading commnents from readers.

yes. Adultery.
unless the unbeliever leaves you.

for anyone considering a divorce, i would suggest if you believe in the bible then you have a good chance of not having biblical grounds so you may be at odds.


Perhaps a solution would be to take a break from your spouse. Few months, maybe even a year or more. separation. but dont file for the divorce. They want to let them do it. Then a unbeliever has left you.

[Kathryn]

Originally Posted by bribrius

yes. Adultery.
unless the unbeliever leaves you.

for anyone considering a divorce, i would suggest if you believe in the bible then you have a good chance of not having biblical grounds so you may be at odds.


Perhaps a solution would be to take a break from your spouse. Few months, maybe even a year or more. separation. but dont file for the divorce. They want to let them do it. Then a unbeliever has left you.

I separated from my abusive spouse - without divorcing him - and he wouldn't let me alone. He was fixated on me - totally fixated.

We went to Christian counseling during that separation. We established parameters, we worked through all sorts of issues, for about six months. Oh how contrite and loving he was! How repentant, tearful, prayerful, and committed to being a fine Christian husband! Finally, I felt safe enough to move back in.

He managed not to be physically abusive for about two years. However, in that same time period, he became more and more controlling and emotionally abusive. He knew that if he resorted to physical violence, I would definitely leave him.

So instead, he started going to church regularly, and making a big show of Christianity. This was for public appearances. Privately, he tried to isolate me from my friends and family. He mistrusted my every move and constantly accused me of flirting with other men, having affairs, etc. (None of that was true by the way.) He would get insanely jealous - I mean to the point of literally not talking to me for WEEKS on end - if I so much as said, "Thank you" and smiled at the bag boy in the grocery store.

If I went to a friend's house, he would call there every fifteen minutes or so to be sure I was there. You can imagine how many friends I was able to have with that sort of interference.

He would invite his boss or his peers over for a big home cooked meal - which of course I fixed, after cleaning the house from top to bottom. Five minutes - FIVE MINUTES - before they were supposed to be there, he'd suddenly want to have sex with me. I mean, this is while I'm watching the rolls in the oven to be sure they don't burn, and stirring the gravy to be sure it doesn't boil over. When I would say, "Let's do that later," he would accuse me of "not being spontaneous" and "refusing him." Then he would be charming to our guests, but stare me down across the table, or corner me in the kitchen and say, "You'll be sorry you did that." Way to have a great, relaxing evening with friends! Oh wait - I wasn't allowed to have friends.

He told me that sex once a day was not nearly enough for him - and he was dissappointed in my sexual performance because it was OBVIOUS I didn't want to have sex with him in the morning, when he came home for lunch, and in the evening. I was holding out on him. Obviously. I mean - only once a day. What a hard *** I was, right?

And yes, this bundle of joy came home EVERY DAY for lunch. So - basically my entire day revolved around him. Get up, fix him breakfast. Be sure to answer all of his calls - or obviously I was too busy having sex with bag boys to answer his calls. Then fix a COOKED lunch (no sandwich would do for him) for lunch. He would usually be home for about two hours. Then answer more of his calls. Then cook dinner and it better be ready when he got home. Then wait around (after cleaning the kitchen) for him to let me know he was ready for sex.

Fine Christian man! NOT. I am telling you - he only claimed to be a Christian because he knew that I believed that it was not biblical for me to divorce a Christian.

Finally, after a couple of years, he stepped over the abuse line again - and I filed for divorce.

I am now married to a WONDERFUL Christian man who lives his faith. This man has never lifted a finger against me -honestly I can't imagine it. He treats me like a princess - spoils me rotten in fact. He truly cherishes me, and I cherish him.

I firmly believe that God blessed us both with each other, and we both thank God for our marriage every day of our lives. That is not an exagerration.

No guilt here. I will stand before God with a sparkle in my eye and tell Him, "Thank you for delivering me from that idiot I married the first time - and THANK YOU FOR MY HUSBAND!"

[bribrius]

Originally Posted by Kathryn

I separated from my abusive spouse - without divorcing him - and he wouldn't let me alone. He was fixated on me - totally fixated.

We went to Christian counseling during that separation. We established parameters, we worked through all sorts of issues, for about six months. Oh how contrite and loving he was! How repentant, tearful, prayerful, and committed to being a fine Christian husband! Finally, I felt safe enough to move back in.

He managed not to be physically abusive for about two years. However, in that same time period, he became more and more controlling and emotionally abusive. He knew that if he resorted to physical violence, I would definitely leave him.

So instead, he started going to church regularly, and making a big show of Christianity. This was for public appearances. Privately, he tried to isolate me from my friends and family. He mistrusted my every move and constantly accused me of flirting with other men, having affairs, etc. (None of that was true by the way.) He would get insanely jealous - I mean to the point of literally not talking to me for WEEKS on end - if I so much as said, "Thank you" and smiled at the bag boy in the grocery store.

If I went to a friend's house, he would call there every fifteen minutes or so to be sure I was there. You can imagine how many friends I was able to have with that sort of interference.

He would invite his boss or his peers over for a big home cooked meal - which of course I fixed, after cleaning the house from top to bottom. Five minutes - FIVE MINUTES - before they were supposed to be there, he'd suddenly want to have sex with me. I mean, this is while I'm watching the rolls in the oven to be sure they don't burn, and stirring the gravy to be sure it doesn't boil over. When I would say, "Let's do that later," he would accuse me of "not being spontaneous" and "refusing him." Then he would be charming to our guests, but stare me down across the table, or corner me in the kitchen and say, "You'll be sorry you did that." Way to have a great, relaxing evening with friends! Oh wait - I wasn't allowed to have friends.

He told me that sex once a day was not nearly enough for him - and he was dissappointed in my sexual performance because it was OBVIOUS I didn't want to have sex with him in the morning, when he came home for lunch, and in the evening. I was holding out on him. Obviously. I mean - only once a day. What a hard *** I was, right?

And yes, this bundle of joy came home EVERY DAY for lunch. So - basically my entire day revolved around him. Get up, fix him breakfast. Be sure to answer all of his calls - or obviously I was too busy having sex with bag boys to answer his calls. Then fix a COOKED lunch (no sandwich would do for him) for lunch. He would usually be home for about two hours. Then answer more of his calls. Then cook dinner and it better be ready when he got home. Then wait around (after cleaning the kitchen) for him to let me know he was ready for sex.

Fine Christian man! NOT. I am telling you - he only claimed to be a Christian because he knew that I believed that it was not biblical for me to divorce a Christian.

Finally, after a couple of years, he stepped over the abuse line again - and I filed for divorce.

I am now married to a WONDERFUL Christian man who lives his faith. This man has never lifted a finger against me -honestly I can't imagine it. He treats me like a princess - spoils me rotten in fact. He truly cherishes me, and I cherish him.

I firmly believe that God blessed us both with each other, and we both thank God for our marriage every day of our lives. That is not an exagerration.

No guilt here. I will stand before God with a sparkle in my eye and tell Him, "Thank you for delivering me from that idiot I married the first time - and THANK YOU FOR MY HUSBAND!"

it isn't me you need to justify it to, nor is it my business or interest. if you are asking my opinion i stated it in the first post. I believe biblically your husband is not the one you are with. The abuse claims, while i am sympathetic to anyone abused, are not even a cause of divorce. Separation yes. Divorce there is no biblical grounds. In Gods eyes, you may have never been divorced. I could think of many reasons for leaving my wife at rocky times in our relationship. But i didnt have grounds. It wasn't the right thing to do. Separation yes, divorce no. We are happy now. There is a reason some things are. what God has joined let no man separate. When you say your marriage vows, they are not only to the person you are marrying. They are to God.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by bribrius

it isn't me you need to justify it to, nor is it my business or interest. if you are asking my opinion i stated it in the first post. I believe biblically your husband is not the one you are with. The abuse claims, while i am sympathetic to anyone abused, are not even a cause of divorce. Separation yes. Divorce there is no biblical grounds. In Gods eyes, you may have never been divorced. I could think of many reasons for leaving my wife at rocky times in our relationship. But i didnt have grounds. It wasn't the right thing to do. Separation yes, divorce no. We are happy now. There is a reason some things are. what God has joined let no man separate. When you say your marriage vows, they are not only to the person you are marrying. They are to God.

Thank you for sharing your personal opinions and interpretations of what the Bible says.

You do know that there are those who disagree with you, right?
And you do understand that they have the exact same amount of support for their opinions and interpretations as you do...

[bribrius]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Thank you for sharing your personal opinions and interpretations of what the Bible says.

You do know that there are those who disagree with you, right?
And you do understand that they have the exact same amount of support for their opinions and interpretations as you do...

we all make our own decisions, live by them, die by them, and perhaps are judged by them. It matters not who disagrees with me. That is their decision and potential weight to carry. They are accountable for themselves.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by bribrius

we all make our own decisions, live by them, die by them, and perhaps are judged by them. It matters not who disagrees with me. That is their decision and potential weight to carry. They are accountable for themselves.

Fair enough.