"What God put together and adulterous relationship

[Truthseeker]

Matthew 19:6 KJV
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

https://bible.com/bible/1/mat.19.6.KJV

How do we apply "what God has joined together "? Do not the saints have the liberty to marry whoever they will as long as in the Lord?

My main question I have for posting this verse is, it's obvious a marriage birthed from adultery wouldn't fall under "what God has joined together " and wouldn't be honorable before God. At what point does it become honorable before him?

If a couple falls out of church from adultery then marry in their 20s start a family then want to be restored 15 years later is the marriage still sinful and they must separate? Some claim they can stay together so to not tare the family apart, but at what point would the marriage fall under "what God has put together "?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Matthew 19:6 KJV
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

https://bible.com/bible/1/mat.19.6.KJV

How do we apply "what God has joined together "? Do not the saints have the liberty to marry whoever they will as long as in the Lord?

My main question I have for posting this verse is, it's obvious a marriage birthed from adultery wouldn't fall under "what God has joined together " and wouldn't be honorable before God. At what point does it become honorable before him?

If a couple falls out of church from adultery then marry in their 20s start a family then want to be restored 15 years later is the marriage still sinful and they must separate? Some claim they can stay together so to not tare the family apart, but at what point would the marriage fall under "what God has put together "?

Living this out right now. Its amazing how the enemy who was so supportive of a split becomes enraged and acts out when God begins to do a work of reconciliation. We are hearing all sorts of excuses that fall flat like"Its too soon.." Um...we are still married with an 8 year old daughter and you have absolutely NO say so over this.


My wife since reaching out has had an almost immediate turn around in her health and her parents couldnt be more enraged even throwing in her face about her being with someone else during the separation that was leading to divorce.


People just need to get out of the way and let the Lord do the work in folks marriages. Everyone wants this "one size fits all" approach to everything and wants to become an expert but many times are just acting as a tool of satan with division and sabotage.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Matthew 19:6 KJV
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

https://bible.com/bible/1/mat.19.6.KJV

How do we apply "what God has joined together "? Do not the saints have the liberty to marry whoever they will as long as in the Lord?

My main question I have for posting this verse is, it's obvious a marriage birthed from adultery wouldn't fall under "what God has joined together " and wouldn't be honorable before God. At what point does it become honorable before him?

If a couple falls out of church from adultery then marry in their 20s start a family then want to be restored 15 years later is the marriage still sinful and they must separate? Some claim they can stay together so to not tare the family apart, but at what point would the marriage fall under "what God has put together "?

This is one of the reasons why divorce is permitted under the Torah. If the offending party has been divorced by the innocent party, he or she is permitted to marry someone else without it being a sing. After that, if the originally offending party should repent and be restored to God, he or she may be restored, according to the riches of His mercy, without having to end the second marriage in order to fix the first.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

This is one of the reasons why divorce is permitted under the Torah. If the offending party has been divorced by the innocent party, he or she is permitted to marry someone else without it being a sing. After that, if the originally offending party should repent and be restored to God, he or she may be restored, according to the riches of His mercy, without having to end the second marriage in order to fix the first.

Are you saying man that marries the woman he left his wife ovrt to commit adultery then repents it makes the marriage honorable? A marriage that started from adultery can end right?

[Amanah]

I think this is what votivesoul was referring to:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house... her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord.

This passage allows for divorce due to "indecency" or "immorality"
Strong’s Definitions
עֶרְוָה ʻervâh, er-vaw'; from H6168; nudity, literally or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):—nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).

If the innocent party initiates the divorce, they are free to remarry without sin.

The Torah permits divorce in certain situations and allows for restoration and remarriage without requiring the dissolution of subsequent marriages.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Are you saying man that marries the woman he left his wife ovrt to commit adultery then repents it makes the marriage honorable? A marriage that started from adultery can end right?

Originally Posted by Amanah

I think this is what votivesoul was referring to:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house... her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord.

This passage allows for divorce due to "indecency" or "immorality"
Strong’s Definitions
עֶרְוָה ʻervâh, er-vaw'; from H6168; nudity, literally or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):—nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).

If the innocent party initiates the divorce, they are free to remarry without sin.

The Torah permits divorce in certain situations and allows for restoration and remarriage without requiring the dissolution of subsequent marriages.

Once a divorce has been finalized, both according to the Torah, and according to State and Federal law, the offending party is free to marry again.

So, if a man commits adultery, and then gets divorced on account of the adultery, and then marries the woman with whom he has had an affair, the second marriage is sanctioned both by the Torah and State and Federal law.

As Amanah has indicated, as Deuteronomy 24:3 shows, a divorced woman may become the wife of another man.

However, the Scriptures don't really deal with or show a woman divorcing her husband.

Paul relates to us that such a scenario isn't permitted according to the Torah:

Romans 7:1-3 (ESV),

1 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

The same Paul, however, wrote this:

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 (ESV),

12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

First, please note that Paul admits to not writing this portion under divine inspiration, but rather, is giving good pastoral wisdom and advice. Second, notice what Paul writes about the unbelieving spouse; if he or she separates (departs in the KJV), let it be so. Meaning what?

Meaning there is no spiritually binding and divine moral obligation on the behalf of the faithful, believing spouse, to reconcile and make the marriage work.

If the unbeliever leaves, the believer is free to close the door on that marriage, whether the believer is a man or a woman.

I would argue that a cheating spouse who leaves a marriage to go whoring after someone else, is by definition, an unbeliever. Such a scenario frees the innocent party from being "enslaved", meaning bound to the oath and covenant of the marriage.

Divorce may then proceed, according to both Paul's teachings and the Torah. And if a divorce occurs, the offending party may indeed marry again.

The question then becomes, but did God join the offending party to the second spouse? Not necessarily. When Christ taught on this, He said "What...God has joined together, let not man separate" (See Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9).

There, the word for "separate" is the same as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.

So, it might indicate that no one on earth has the right to separate two people who have been married. But, Paul makes the case that an unbeliever may leave, and the believer is then free. So, is Paul disagreeing with Jesus?

I don't think so. In both Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9, "man" is anarthrous, meaning it contains no article before it. This makes "man" a generic reference to humanity. Christ's context is less about specific individual cases of marriage, but rather, about marriage as an institution.

Now, in Mark, we only read that Jesus stipulates the following:

Mark 10:10-12 (ESV),

10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

This would seem Jesus doesn't permit divorce and subsequent marriage under any circumstances. But Matthew clarifies:

Matthew 19:9 (ESV),

9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Note that Jesus doesn't expound on which of the two parties in a marriage is guilty of sexual immorality. The man may divorce his wife because of his own sexual immorality! If he cheats on her, and they divorce, and then marries another, even if he goes on to marry the woman with whom he had an affair, the exception clause goes into effect.

The sexual immorality clause has been triggered, the marriage can be rendered over, divorce may ensue, and marriage by either the offending or innocent party may take place.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Once a divorce has been finalized, both according to the Torah, and according to State and Federal law, the offending party is free to marry again.

So, if a man commits adultery, and then gets divorced on account of the adultery, and then marries the woman with whom he has had an affair, the second marriage is sanctioned both by the Torah and State and Federal law.

As Amanah has indicated, as Deuteronomy 24:3 shows, a divorced woman may become the wife of another man.

However, the Scriptures don't really deal with or show a woman divorcing her husband.

Paul relates to us that such a scenario isn't permitted according to the Torah:

Romans 7:1-3 (ESV),



The same Paul, however, wrote this:

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 (ESV),



First, please note that Paul admits to not writing this portion under divine inspiration, but rather, is giving good pastoral wisdom and advice. Second, notice what Paul writes about the unbelieving spouse; if he or she separates (departs in the KJV), let it be so. Meaning what?

Meaning there is no spiritually binding and divine moral obligation on the behalf of the faithful, believing spouse, to reconcile and make the marriage work.

If the unbeliever leaves, the believer is free to close the door on that marriage, whether the believer is a man or a woman.

I would argue that a cheating spouse who leaves a marriage to go whoring after someone else, is by definition, an unbeliever. Such a scenario frees the innocent party from being "enslaved", meaning bound to the oath and covenant of the marriage.

Divorce may then proceed, according to both Paul's teachings and the Torah. And if a divorce occurs, the offending party may indeed marry again.

The question then becomes, but did God join the offending party to the second spouse? Not necessarily. When Christ taught on this, He said "What...God has joined together, let not man separate" (See Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9).

There, the word for "separate" is the same as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.

So, it might indicate that no one on earth has the right to separate two people who have been married. But, Paul makes the case that an unbeliever may leave, and the believer is then free. So, is Paul disagreeing with Jesus?

I don't think so. In both Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9, "man" is anarthrous, meaning it contains no article before it. This makes "man" a generic reference to humanity. Christ's context is less about specific individual cases of marriage, but rather, about marriage as an institution.

Now, in Mark, we only read that Jesus stipulates the following:

Mark 10:10-12 (ESV),



This would seem Jesus doesn't permit divorce and subsequent marriage under any circumstances. But Matthew clarifies:

Matthew 19:9 (ESV),



Note that Jesus doesn't expound on which of the two parties in a marriage is guilty of sexual immorality. The man may divorce his wife because of his own sexual immorality! If he cheats on her, and they divorce, and then marries another, even if he goes on to marry the woman with whom he had an affair, the exception clause goes into effect.

The sexual immorality clause has been triggered, the marriage can be rendered over, divorce may ensue, and marriage by either the offending or innocent party may take place.

Do you think a married pastor that ran off with a woman then married the woman is excluded from being a bishop/elder? Or all is clear?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

First, please note that Paul admits to not writing this portion under divine inspiration, but rather, is giving good pastoral wisdom and advice.

I would take exception to this interpretation of his words regarding the authority of his statements.

1 Corinthians 7:10 KJV
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

VS

1 Corinthians 7:12 KJV
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

I do not believe this is a difference of inspiration. For then we have a passage of Scripture that is literally just one man's opinion, and therefore not authoritative. But the teachings of the apostle Paul are in fact authoritative, and he wrote what he wrote by divine inspiration.

So what is he saying here?

The the first instance involves a restatement of a direct instruction or teaching from the Lord, and the second instance involves a statement of apostolic teaching. Both are inspired, and both are authoritative, but one is directly from the Lord (either a paraphrase of the Law, or a teaching actually declared by Christ during His ministry) and the other is directly from the apostle (who, being led by the Spirit and authorised by Christ as an apostle has the authority to establish "ordinances" or rules which are binding upon the church).

The alternative, that Paul was declaring he was just giving his human, uninspired opinion, breaks the chain of Scripture in that we now have "scripture" that quite honestly should not be considered Scripture. What else in the Bible is not Scripture? What else is just Paul's opinion and therefore uninspired and therefore non-binding?

"οὐκ ἐγὼ, ἀλλʼ ὁ Κύριος] The negation is absolute. Paul knew from the living voice of tradition what commands Christ had given concerning divorce, Matthew 5:31 f., Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18. Hence ὁ Κύριος, sc[1104] παραγγέλλει, for the authority of Christ lives on in His commands (against Baur, who infers from the present, which is to be supplied here, that Paul means the will of Christ made known to him by inspiration). It is otherwise in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. As regards the ἐγώ, again, Paul was conscious (1 Corinthians 7:40) that his individuality was under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He distinguishes, therefore, here and in 1 Corinthians 7:12; 1 Corinthians 7:25, not between his own and inspired commands, but between those which proceeded from his own (God-inspired) subjectivity and those which Christ Himself supplied by His objective word. " (Meyer's New Testament Commentary)

"The Lord Jesus, during his ministry on earth, delivered many precepts of his law in the hearing of his disciples. And those which he did not deliver in person, he promised to reveal to them by the Spirit, after his departure. Therefore there is a just foundation for distinguishing the commandments which the Lord delivered in person, from those which he revealed to the apostles by the Spirit, and which they made known to the world in their sermons and writings. This distinction is not only made by Paul; it is insinuated likewise by Peter and Jude, 2 Peter 3:3, Jdg 1:17, where the commandments of the apostles of the Lord and Saviour are mentioned, not as inferior in authority to the commandments of the Lord, (for they were all as really his commandments as those which he delivered in person,) but as different in the manner of their communication. And the apostle’s intention here was not, as many have imagined, to tell us in what things he was inspired, and in what not; but to show us what commandments the Lord delivered personally in his own lifetime, and what the Spirit inspired the apostles to deliver after his departure. This Paul could do with certainty; because, although he was not of the number of those who accompanied our Lord during his ministry, all the particulars of his life and doctrine were made known to him by revelation, as may be collected from 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:18; and from many allusions to the words and actions of Christ, found in the epistles which Paul wrote before any of the gospels were published; and from his mentioning one of Christ’s sayings, not recorded by any of the evangelists, Acts 20:35. Further, that the apostle’s intention, in distinguishing the Lord’s commandments from those he calls his own, was not to show what things he spake by inspiration, and what not, is evident, from his adding certain circumstances, which prove that, in delivering his own commandments, or judgment, he was really inspired. Thus, when he asserted that a widow was at liberty to marry a second time, by adding, (1 Corinthians 7:40,) she is happier if she so abide, after (that is, according to) my judgment; and I think, or, (as δοκω rather means,) I am certain that I also have the Spirit of God, he plainly asserted that he was inspired in giving that judgment or determination." (Benson's Commentary)