Divorce and remarriage

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

New testament one who has been separated has two possibilities.
1) stay unmarried till the ex dies.
2) be reconciled to the ex husband/wife.
Keep in mind that Jesus told to the Jews that the only reason to divorce was Formication.
(that's what Deuteronomy quote was about ). And that was the debate between Jews , "if the husband can divorce his wife for any reason".
And Jesus told them the only reason is Formication.
(Like Joseph thought to do to Marry when he learnt she was already pregnant. That's Formication for it was before they married. Otherwise Adultery was never the reason for divorce, for it was punished to death.)

Anyway , there are many things we can speak about but there is not a subject to debate about. Church, thanks to God ,knows the Truth.
I please you to see aside any personal opinion and feelings and listen the sermon with an open and humble heart. Pray to your God to give you a confirmation if what is preached is truth and let Him saw you if you have any fault please.
I am like you and I do the same as you. The only thing I strive is to know and obey the Truth. I don't care if you or anyone else proves that I am wrong in something. That's the challenge and the point of strict holy spirit teaching. We may be surprised when we realize we fail to obey something but that's what will save us at the end!

I just gave you what Jesus said, in a historical context. You quote I Corinthians 7 which never implies that Christians who were married and divorced prior to conversion must abandon their new spouses. Then instead of actually dealing with what I posted, you want me to listen to a false prophet. No, YOU deal with what I said about Deut. 24.

[Esaias]

Jesus didn't day the only reason for divorce was fornication. He said the only reason for putting away was fornication. Two slightly but importantly different things.

Originalist is correct about Deut 24 though. A twice married woman is prohibited from going back to her first husband.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus didn't day the only reason for divorce was fornication. He said the only reason for putting away was fornication. Two slightly but importantly different things.

Originalist is correct about Deut 24 though. A twice married woman is prohibited from going back to her first husband.

Thank you! Now even at that, I don't see any evidence that the Apostles would have commanded such a non-Jewish Christian converted woman who returned to her original husband after having married someone else (all before conversion) to leave him. What do you think?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus didn't day the only reason for divorce was fornication. He said the only reason for putting away was fornication. Two slightly but importantly different things.

From reading 1 Corinthians, I believe the only other allowance for divorce is if the unbelieving spouse leaves the believing spouse. In that case, the Bible says "But 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."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Thank you! Now even at that, I don't see any evidence that the Apostles would have commanded such a non-Jewish Christian converted woman who returned to her original husband after having married someone else (all before conversion) to leave him. What do you think?

It's a difficult subject. I am not sure what a court would have ruled, in Judea, prior to Jesus, on a similar situation involving two Judeans. Would they have dissolved the marriage? Or not? Much less how the ekklesia would decide. Assuming the ekklesia even had that role (I'm wondering if it would be more a civil matter with the church simply advising its members on the "best" course of action)?

I also think we look at the subject through modern eyes, where the primary purpose and goal of marriage is "love and affection". It was not quite like that back then (even up to the 1800s). So the emotional turmoil we today associate with divorces and separations was not really what was dominating people's thoughts and decisions back then.

The courts of Judea allowed for divorce under circumstances other than what Jesus declared. Yet there is no record of mass separations upon conversion by new Christians. There is the idea that what the court decides to be valid, is valid, as long as its reasoning is sincere. See for example Deut 17:9-12. So there is an argument that whatever status a person was in, as long as it wasn't one of the various forbidden unions like incest etc, was where you were expected to remain.

But I recognise that argument isn't iron clad, either. I'm just glad I am not a judge of such cases.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

From reading 1 Corinthians, I believe the only other allowance for divorce is if the unbelieving spouse leaves the believing spouse. In that case, the Bible says "But 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."

That passage is claimed by every side of the debate.

A pagan man whose wife converted would not "depart", but would instead put her out. Furthermore, what role did the civil authority play? A Christian woman whose pagan husband "left" wasn't bound per Paul? So she remarries and gets arrested and executed by the civil authorities for being an adulteress? Would the Corinthian court system have given any heed to this "apostle Paul guy" and his arguments? Seems like this would invoke a scandal with Christianity being charged with homewrecking? Not sure if that ever happened (the claim, I mean).

I'd like to see a more thorough consideration of the subject that takes account of then existing civil marriage laws and how Paul's and Christ's teachings interacted with those laws.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That passage is claimed by every side of the debate.

A pagan man whose wife converted would not "depart", but would instead put her out. Furthermore, what role did the civil authority play? A Christian woman whose pagan husband "left" wasn't bound per Paul? So she remarries and gets arrested and executed by the civil authorities for being an adulteress? Would the Corinthian court system have given any heed to this "apostle Paul guy" and his arguments? Seems like this would invoke a scandal with Christianity being charged with homewrecking? Not sure if that ever happened (the claim, I mean).

I'd like to see a more thorough consideration of the subject that takes account of then existing civil marriage laws and how Paul's and Christ's teachings interacted with those laws.

And these are all in-depth considerations that should be analyzed. But Peter and James on this thread just spout their oversimplified drivel.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus didn't day the only reason for divorce was fornication. He said the only reason for putting away was fornication. Two slightly but importantly different things.

Originalist is correct about Deut 24 though. A twice married woman is prohibited from going back to her first husband.

Isaiah how are you?
Yes exactly in the new there's only the putting away phrase! No divorce thing!
Yes Deuteronomy it's correct for sure but in new testament it's not prohibited to go back to her husband. She can be reconciled to her husband or stay unmarried.
Why this change? Because they are separated (she left him or he put her aside) not any divorce thing!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

Isaiah how are you?
Yes exactly in the new there's only the putting away phrase! No divorce thing!
Yes Deuteronomy it's correct for sure but in new testament it's not prohibited to go back to her husband. She can be reconciled to her husband or stay unmarried.
Why this change? Because they are separated (she left him or he put her aside) not any divorce thing!

The "putting away" was not in the "New Testament" in the sense you are claiming. Christ was referring to a practice that had already been going on for centuries!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by peter83

Isaiah how are you?
Yes exactly in the new there's only the putting away phrase! No divorce thing!
Yes Deuteronomy it's correct for sure but in new testament it's not prohibited to go back to her husband. She can be reconciled to her husband or stay unmarried.
Why this change? Because they are separated (she left him or he put her aside) not any divorce thing!

I'm doing good. Just became a grandfather last month.

Nothing in the New Testament allows what is forbidden by God's Law. Jesus didn't abolish the law of God, He fulfilled it and by faith we establish it.