Help! I've got 10 wives!!

Okay Bible Scholars. . . Why did God sanction muliple wives in the old testament? I've ruled out pro-creation,culture and symbolic(still open to a relevant thought though) reasons. Now i am stuck. Anyone got any answers that hold water scriptually, I suppose im open to interpetations, but would really like to know what saith the scriptures--i've searched but come up blank.thanks d

Hi inotof,I don't know that God ever 'sanctioned' multiple wives. I believe it would be more accurate to say that He 'tolerated' it. Just like He tolerated concubines. Jesus said "from the beginning it was not so." It was God's plan for marriage to be one man and one women together forever. I don't mean one man and one woman 'married' - I mean one man and one women PERIOD. Not a life of fornication with multiple partners and then 'settling down' with a spouse and calling it God's plan. That was NOT His plan any more than multiple wives was His plan. His plan was that one man meet one woman, leave the Father and Mother be joined unto each other and become one flesh. That is, they consumate the marriage covenant through the shedding of the blood and the two living together until death. Anything more or less is NOT God's plan- but is a compromise of that plan. Marriage is a blood covenant and carried in the OT all the penalties of breaking a blood covenant. As a child I remember an old sit com in which the mother was arguing with a daughter over her "moving in" with her boyfriend so she can "try the shoes on before she buys them." Her mother retorted- "Nobody wants to buy a pair of used shoes!" We can talk about marriage all we want. We can go to seminars and read and write books- but until we we decide it will be 'one pair of shoes', put on once they were actually purchased, laced up and worn for life- we will have nothing but disaster in marriages. God's plan is for one woman and one man to know each other until death. No one else ever having 'known' them before or after the consummation. This is Adam and Eve. There were no Adam's before Adam for Eve and there were no Eve's before Eve for Adam. All they knew were each other. Not 700 wives and 300 concubines as with Solomon. Not 30 premarital relationships. No handling the merchandise and putting it back on the shelf. Not 'trying on the shoes' before the commitment was made (they were actually paid for). I'm sure this will greatly increase my popularity, but as simple as it is- I see no other plan of God in scripture. Anything else is compromise. Anything else is missing the mark. Anyone care to start a series on this at the local church level? :-D God Bless,-Robert

Here's an old thread:Polygamy, Slavery, why was God silent?

I believe God winked , as it were for a time with this sin inorder to show us in these last days how our own hearts looked in His sight when we committ adulatry (worldily lusts) and had ,as it were, multiple wives(GODS). The marriage is a symbol of covenant, therefore anything that is sin that we seek to live with in peace(even a false peace), we have in essence covenanted with and therefore in a type we are married to or in covenant with. ?????What ya think? Bro. Daryl

I agree with your direction, but I would say that whether or not one should leave would be a case by case basis. Paul gave instruction for a Christian that has an unbelieving wife in 1 Corinthians 7:12: "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." If the man is converted, he should, by the moral law, not "lay with her" until the are married. I don't think it would be godly to leave just for the sake of conversion, but there may be other factors. As far as Paul speaking of things being done away with, Paul is talking about the way God sees the newly converted soul. The new Christian will want to do right, and can now point all those he exposed to to Christ, and should be doing so. He will now want to make all his crooked places straight. What a fine witness he would be if he turned from all his evil ways in front of all these who knew him, and preached the gospel. Sounds sort of like some bad guys from the Bible that God got ahold of (Joseph, Moses, Samson, Paul, etc).

RobertW, I was going to reply in full, but you pretty much covered it. Agreed, having multiple partners was never God's plan. Look at what happened with Ishmael. Or what about Lot's kids as a result of sleeping with his daughters. Go through Scripture and look at the results of the kids from these situations. Many times you will find curses. Remember this from the ten commandments, "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers of the children unto the third and fourth generation that hate me." Haven't most of us seen a son that has an addiction that he got from his father. David had a problem with lust (remember his loyal servant Urriah?) that lust passed to his son, Solomon. Lust has always been a deviation of God's plan. To find out God's plan, go to the beginning. "An help meet for him." Notice that it is singular, "an help." Not "many" helps. The word "an" is synonymous with the number one.Anyway Robert is right. One man and one woman.

I know that this sounds far fetched, but what do you do with such a situation. Someone might say, they should get married, well according to Paul that which is joined to a harlot are one flesh, so they are already married, so I ask what constitutes marriage?If fornication (we call it pre-marital sex) constitutes marriage, then fornication is not sin, but the start of a new covenant. And what if a virgin first commits fornication with a non-virgin? The non-virgin would be "bound" to the person who they lost their virginity to, since this made them "one flesh." This begs the question, How many people can be "one flesh" with one another at the same time?For example, if Jack (virgin) sleeps with Jill (non-virgin), who has slept previously with James (non-virgin), who previously slept with Amy (non-virgin), who previously slept with Joe (non-virgin), who previously slept with...on and on....Are they all one flesh with each other????Sounds more like an orgy than a marriage. Where am I wrong?This is gonna be good. ;-) Blessings,RT

Healingwaters wrote:What consitutes marriage anyway? "A man that is joined to a harlot is one flesh".If you read the original design of joining:23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.Genesis 2:23-25KJVYou will notice the order of how the oneness occured. The one flesh occured because of the sanctioning of the first two requirements which validated 'the one flesh' as constituting marraiage.In those first two: leaving of mother and father and cleaving to his wife it is the transferring of legitamate authourity between the parents to the son and now becoming the head of his particular family.Look at Jesus' words: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.Matthew 19:6KJV God has to join the marriage for it to be considered 'official' and not man acting out of his own glands.In regards to where this discussion is headed, even though a man or woman has joined themselves as one flesh, there has not been any legitemate transference of authourity into that relationship. I believe therefore that there is no 'marriage' in the sight of God.Coming to multiple marriages. We were in Malawi recently and this exact subject came up. One of the comments was that the man was following OT pattern of having multiple wives. First of all any man taking more than one wife is being selfish, because any woman does not want her husbands affections shared with any other. So this man is not fulfilling the law of Christ and causing his sister to stumble.If you look at how this all started:21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof...Genesis 2:21KJVYou will notice that he took one of his ribs not any more. There is not place for more ribs to be joined. When this last point was mentioned it brought rapterous applause from the audience.In regards to men who have more than one wife. The issue I believe is this. The first covenant stands before God as being legitamate. All the others are not. There simply is not room in Gods economy of marriage for an 'official' marriage that he has sanctioned. So a man must put those wives away and not share the relationship of marraiage with them, but in regards to caring for them and their children that remains his responsibilty. Something along the lines of you made your bed, so sleep in it.

Thanks for the response people. I do however think some might have missed the spirit of the post though. i was not stating that I litterly have 10 wives nor was i looking for an exposition on what marriage was--simply wondering why there would be levitcial laws goverening multiple wives. mostly because the patriarchs Abe and Jake had mulitiples Isaac ((type and shadow of the bride and christ did not). I will admit i never thought about the statment "from the beginning it was not so" forgive my ignorance. I see satisfactory evidnece that it was indeed tolerated.

The first covenant stands before God as being legitamate. All the others are not. There simply is not room in Gods economy of marriage for an 'official' marriage that he has sanctioned. So a man must put those wives away and not share the relationship of marraiage with them, but in regards to caring for them and their children that remains his responsibilty. Something along the lines of you made your bed, so sleep in it.That is exactly what I've gleaned through my studies on marriage as well, though it is not a popular viewpoint. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Jesus told the woman at the well that the man she was with now was not her husband. I think it does not take a stretch of scripture here to believe that she was living with a man who she was likely having sex with. Jesus said he was not her husband. That's right Laury. Scripture does not teach sex=marriage. Sex is a "type" of joining, this is true. There has to be an acknowledged/jointly agreed upon "leaving and cleaving" for a marriage to be binding.Those who teach sex=marriage would have to then say that any adultery dissolves the previous union and now obligates them to stick to their new union, and that certainly would be a hard thing to prove with scripture. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Soloman had 700 wives and 300 concubines. But that did not "seem" to bother God. ever read the book of ecclesiates, that is one dissolutioned and tormented man. I've often pondered how instrumental the Lord is in the marriages his children are in. Here's what I mean--One man who 's not saved marries and then becomes a christian but his wife doesn't or visa versa, Did the soverienty of God extend back to that union or not? Amos says can two walk together unless they agree..... I often see christian couples walking in different directions and then they complain about thier mates as if God isn't in the whole marriage process or wasn't in thier marriage choices, How big is our God? I believe in the Soverienty of God, that all things (can)work together for good to them that LOVE the Lord and are called.....according to His purposes. Even what we think are our mistakes.

One man who 's not saved marries and then becomes a christian but his wife doesn't or visa versa, Did the soverienty of God extend back to that union or not? Amos says can two walk together unless they agree..... I often see christian couples walking in different directions and then they complain about thier mates as if God isn't in the whole marriage process or wasn't in thier marriage choices, How big is our God? I believe in the Soverienty of God, that all things (can)work together for good to them that LOVE the Lord and are called.....according to His purposes. Even what we think are our mistakes.Very good insight Dohzman. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

Someone had mentioned the woman at the well, this brings up an intresting point and to further the discussion i do have another question.First why, did it seem, that men where allowed to have mulitple wives yet wives only one husband? The second question is, why did God use 4 different women to birth the 12 tribes of israel? (Leah, Rachel and thier handmadiens?) Is there something of a proverb or prophetic illustration I'm missing? sorry to be so persistant but it is like a splinter in my mind.

Those who teach sex=marriage would have to then say that any adultery dissolves the previous union and now obligates them to stick to their new union, and that certainly would be a hard thing to prove with scriptureSex apart from marriage is not 'marriage' it is whoredom. The word used in the OT is 'whore.' That is harsh language in our times, but that is KJV language. It is taking that which belongs to the one and giving it to another. If the whoredom was not disclosed before the marriage bed the woman was to be taken out and stoned to death.But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 22)Notice the phrase- "so shalt thou put evil away from among you." What was the evil? Was it merely whoredom? No, it was her attempt to marry under false pretenses. She took that which belonged to the one and gave it to anouther- and now she pretends to be one thing when she really is another. So as we attempt to get back to God's original intention we have to do what Jesus did and go back to the beginning. Go back to Adam and Eve. We can't reach back to some point and say "this was God's plan." Surely it was never God's plan that men and women divorce and He hates divorce (putting away). Are we to assume God likes fornication? Hebrews 13:4- whoremongers AND adulters God will judge. How can we have sound marriages with all the whormongering that goes on in society? Much of which is never disclosed until after the wedding night. God's plan is for one woman and one man forever. To live a life of whoredom and whoremongering and then "find the right one" and decide to leave and cleave is to tempt God. To think that a person can live in whoredoms and then marry and keep fooling around and force the spouse to just keep taking it is nonsense. Let it be known that if you cheat on your spouse you are on dangerous ground. If you marry under false pretenses you are on dangerous ground. If you commit adultery against your spouse and join Christ to an harlot (male or female) a divorce may very well be the merciful thing you get. As Ravenhill said in his interview "God is going to destroy that man!" Him shall GOD destroy. If you get caught you may end up in a grave anyhow. Listen to Proverbs:30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;31 But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts. (Proverbs 6)These are sound scriptural facts that ought to make one tremble and fear. Imagine being on the receiving end of the wrath of BOTH God and man? God Bless,-Robert

I was just wondering: What actually makes a couple married? Is it the ceremony? Is it when a religious leader declares so, or when the gov't gives a liscence. How does GOD join two and make them one? If a common-law couple is committed to each other is that not actually marriage? If they should split, does that not have exactly the same disastrous affect as when a legally married couple separates - esp if they have children.If we have marriage lisences, why doesn't our society have penalties for violation, like for any other violation of a lisence, or doing something without a liscence (permission)? Re multiple marriage: Note Nathan's rebuke to David. He speaks for God, saying, "I gave you your masters wives into your arms.... If all this had been too little, I would have given you more.... You took the wife of Uriah...." 2 Sam. 12:8More? Is this saying that David could have had more wives if he had ASKED God?? It seemed like David's sin was coveting, stealing, adultery = taking what belonged to SOMEONE ELSE instead of asking God.It seems like there is an ownership issue here. Makes me think, why don't Christians get more upset about adultery which is destroying so many people. I see a far louder outcry against same-sex marriage. However, I think that adultery is far more common and damaging than we'd like to think?

However, I think that adultery is far more common and damaging than we'd like to think? That would be because human beings are notorious for slamming sins that they have no inclination to. This is true across the board. Practicing homosexuals don't generally slam homosexuality, they slam something else. Adulterers don't generally slam adultery, they slam something else, like homosexuality. Its the oldest mindset in the book to slam sins that we are not guilty of or have been delivered out of. Yet, probably the two most frequently committed sins in America is covetousness and gluttony. In the end it is really a diversion. Divert the attention to things that occupy our minds and keep our conscience in check. The problem with this is you generally end up nailing someone who is really trying to serve God. We need to become introspective. We need to get the beam out of our own eyes so we can see clearly to do the delicate and painful task of eye surgery. God Bless,-Robert

I agree on your thoughts on smae sex marriage and adultry. We have groups that fight against it, and we call it preserving the sanctity of marriage but realy what are we doing to prevent unfaithfulness? The "what makes a marriage a marriage? it is the covenant. that is where our ceremonies date from. there is a verbal commitment to each other in the sight of God and witttness and then there is a consumation of the vow that you as a husband leave and cleave. (at least from what i know)as far as the david issue goes, that is actuall what im tying to figure out with this post.

The "what makes a marriage a marriage? it is the covenant. that is where our ceremonies date from. there is a verbal commitment to each other in the sight of God and witttness and then there is a consumation of the vow that you as a husband leave and cleave. (at least from what i know)There is a mouthful here, but by and large I agree. As we go back to Adam and Eve we see the beautiful design of God for man. In the beginning He (God) called their name Adam (man). This is unity. This is one flesh. How long would this one man and one woman plural unity last as a model? Not long. In Genesis 4 we read... and Lamech took two wives.... Before Adam had breathed his last he lived to witness the beginning departure of God's original plan for marriage which had began with him. God always wanted "one woman kind of men" and "one man kind of women". Not wandering eyes- not coveting each others spouses. Not polygamy and not divorce. God hates putting away. This is the crux of the pain. The emphasis is generally placed on the multiple marriages, but what God hates primarily is the putting away. The breaking apart. Men could have had multiple wives and not have commited what God 'hated' had He not dealt harshly with the wife of his youth- the one with whom God was the witness of the covenant. This is where we must focus. We must understand that the treatment of our spouses in the eyes of God is critical- failing to understing this will cause you many of unanswered prayer. As terrible as pologamy is it is not what God said he hated. It was the putting away that He hated. Dwell on that for a while. It is a sobering thought. Think of how horrible it is that two would give each other to each other and then one of them violate that union in adultery. Think of the hurt and the pain. It would take a miracle of God to keep the romantic love alive after such a transgression. What could be more violating than to violate a person like this. Yet, if God hates 'putting away' what does He think of adulterers and whoremongers? Hebrews 13: says He WILL judge them. Not maybe, not perchance, and not if He feels like it. Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God WILL judge. Mark it down and watch their lives. They will come to calamity- they will know that they have transgressed. God Bless,-Robert

wow. that is a great post and makes alot of sense. so then poloyogmy is yet another extention of our sinfulness that God was patient with those before us in, he tolerated it and we confused his tolerance of it was with his approval? wow.i wonder, just out of curiousity, how many really hard messages have we heard in recent years on the subject of infidelity in marriage? I can't really think of any that targeted it, even in marriage conferences.powerful words from you post Robert, my friend. my God keep that which we have commited to him and may we not snatch it from his hands and ruin this lovely thing called marriage.

As terrible as pologamy is it is not what God said he hated. It seems like you are saying that men who practised polygamy, were held accountable for how they treated the wives they had. In some cultures, isn't polygamy a way of providing social security for women? That seems like a good thing. In the Mormon community "Bountiful" (In western Canada) the practise of polygamy involves horrible abuse - shaming, sexual abuse, control, male domination.... They practised polygamy for religious reasons - the more wives a man had, the higher status in heaven (at the expense of the women and girls). That is very evil.

Malachi 2:13 (King James Version)13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your handGod was saying, “I no longer accept your offering or your worship. I won’t receive anything you bring.”And why was it the Lord was not accepting these men’s ministry any longer?Malachi 2:14-15 (King James Version)14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.Without fear of contradiction, it all had to do with their marriages!!Some of us have been exposed to a Gospel that says a man can abandon his wife and kids and still make heaven his eternal home. Some of us have been exposed to a Gospel that says a woman can abandon her husband and kids and still make heaven her eternal home.1 Timothy 5:8 (King James Version)8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.I see this passage as properly fitting also in the context of marriage/divorce, as it does taking care of the widows. A man, a woman who will abandon their spouse and children will one day close their eyes in death on this earth and they will awaken in the flames of hell. They will be eternally rewarded with what they wanted here on earth. A spouse who wants to separate themselves from their family here, God will one day grant that request for all eternity. And yes, I am well aware of the very limited exceptions that allows for a "putting away". I am fearful there are entire congregations whereby God is even now saying “I do not accept ANY of this.” “Not your Sunday morning service, not your Sunday night Evangelistic service, nor your midweek service.” We live in a day when Men can fornicate, commit adultery, divorce and remarry, and then go right on down the road to another Church and be put right back in Ministry with hardly ANY QUESTIONS ASKED!!Yet………………………………Don’t forget this…“THE LORD HATH BEEN WITNESS.”The madness being perpetrated upon Children with new mom, old mom, new dad, old dad, old grandparents, new grandparents, step this, step that… IS WICKED!And then I hear parents trying to convince me how well-adjusted the kids are to all this. I am not convinced, not now, not yesterday, and I will not be convinced tomorrow. Only thing I am convinced of is, God IS NOT accepting all this.Sad truth is, to you young Ministers I speak… Don’t expect to be invited to speak at many denominational Churches with a message like this. \tSO WHAT, I say.HPWT= Have Pulpit Will Travel.Let this be your motto, build yourself a pulpit stash it in the trunk of your car and go Preach! If one marriage is saved it will be worth it all, irregardless of all the hateful comments and correspondence you will receive.God Bless, Tonyp.s.1 Peter 3:7 (King James Version)7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.I hardly know a Christian man who will sit down with some Godly marriage&relationship literature/books/videos to try and gain some knowledge in thier marriage relationship as to how and dwell with their spouse. Typically some men will tell me the scriptures are what they use, and is all they need for a Godly home. Just remember this men: you are not always physically present with your spouse to “remind” them how great and Godly your home and relationship’s are as they speak with other ladies. Know this, it all comes out then, so don’t be a fool!!

Reply toHelp! I've got 10 WivesThe posts seem to have gone from multiple wives to divorce. Maybe that is what the discussion has been about all along. While reading these posts, I can't help but think there are people that have been hurt by divorce that are reading these posts. Many if not most Christians are taught that remarriage is adultery. Often people who have been faithfull to his or her spouse have been divorced by the mate. Some people talk of divorce and remarriage as if it is the unpardonable sin refusing to minister any grace or mercy even to the inocent person.Jesus, while speaking to the Parisees said that they put burdens on people that they themselves wouldn't move with one of their fingers. (Mathew 23:4) Wouldn't expecting someone else to remain unmarried and knowing that he or she couldn't live up to it themselves be the same? While speaking on the mount, Jesus said that when a man looks at a woman to lust after her he has committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Math. 5:28) Should those who have done this never get married? When God said it's not good for a man to be alone, would being divorced change that fact? If the unmarried and widows can't contain, let them marry, (1 Cor 7:8+9) would being divorced make the person more likely to be able to contain or to have self-control? In (1 Timothy 4:1-3) where forbidding to marry is called a doctrine of devils, isn't at least sometimes a ministers refusal to minister a marriage cerimony this doctrine?Once the Lord told me to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. I actually told him it would never happen to me. It was sort of like Peter saying he would never deny him. It wasn't long that I was chewing on that bread and didn't even know it. Eventually the Lord had me drop my stone. (John 8:9)If someone is reading this that is hurting from divorce, God makes a way when there isn't a way. Often we are where we are at because we have disobeyed him, but when we repent and pray it all works out for good eventually. There is a need to tell the Lord that no matter if you never get married again, you will still follow him. By giving your will to the Lord in this it opens up the opportunity for the Lord to heal you and protect you from all this hurt. You must also forgive anyone involved with this including yourself. Remember, it is the olive that has been crushed that brings the oil that heals others.In Christ,GaryE

I don't think anyone knows what Marriage really is.Amen, Karl. It is only as we see through God's perspective that we can make some sense of it. Marriage is be a prophetic picture - and we are to present the picture to the world through our lives. Yet, trying to attain the ideal is impossible - and causes a lot of frustration.I hardly know a Christian man who will sit down with some Godly marriage&relationship literature/books/videos to try and gain some knowledge in thier marriage relationshipTony, I'm one who has carefully sought and studied every available resource. I learned volumes about the ideal marriage, and tried to impliment the advise. In the end, after all my efforts, I felt intensely defeated, because I could not make the ideal happen. I couldn't fix a thing. It's like trying to live up to the Law, and never arriving - a set-up for dismal failure. Your words feel a bit like a cruel stab to the already defeated - though I know you didn't mean it that way. Whether we are talking about polygamy, divorce, or adultery, we end up with the same conclusion. WE CAN'T FIX IT. If we stretch our thinking beyond our own culture and time, we have to admit that in general, people are in situations that are beyond their control - due to cultural values, oppression, dysfunctional background. It is even impossible to change oneself - patterns that have been established since birth. It's like learning a brand new language. A psychologist once told me that books rarely work to fix troubled relationships. I can see why. I ask: Do "ideal" marriages make strong Christians? I think that it is in brokenness and troubles that one cries out to God. He reaches down and touches them. (think of Leah, one of Jacob's wives)I once heard that in revival, God will work mainly through the divorced, the prostitutes etc (ie those the "righteous" tend to regard as the sinners and losers) Isn't that what Jesus did? May all on this site who suffer in relational turmoils be comforted by God's voice wooing them, saying, I will betroth you to ME forever.I will betroth you in righteousness and justice,in love and compassion...In that day, you will call me'MY HUSBAND'And [you] will say,"You are my God."Hosea 2:16,19,23In eternity that is the only marriage that will exist!!!!!!!!!! Diane

i wonder, just out of curiousity, how many really hard messages have we heard in recent years on the subject of infidelity in marriage? I can't really think of any that targeted it, even in marriage conferences.I see the same thing. Truly, I get wearied listening to the so called experts on marriage who bring examples of how marriages and family 'ought' to be performed in homes and have them tell of how if you just do things 'right' then life will be akin to Little House on the Prarie or something. What you rarely hear is how folk DID raise their families right and the kids still went to the devil. The spouses that DID do everything right and the mate took off and committed adultery or left all together. The people who never suffered a mate running off or never saw their wife with child by another man or a woman with child by their husband have no idea what they are even talking about, plainly put.It seems like you are saying that men who practised polygamy, were held accountable for how they treated the wives they had. In some cultures, isn't polygamy a way of providing social security for women? That seems like a good thing. This is a biblical principal that carries over into the New Testament: But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel (I Timothy 5:8)Provision comes in lots of forms. I believe first that provision begins with protection. A man has the responsibility to provide this protection for his family and if necessary lay down his life. Here we read... Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it...;(Ephesians 5). Man has the responsibility if possible to provide shelter and food. Moreover, men and women are responsible to give their bodies one to the other as they do not have power over their body but the spouse does. It is a wicked thing to use relations as a means of manipulation or control. It also opens the door for the spouse to be tempted for their incontenency. Actually, it is witchcraft and the perpetrator is serving as the agent of Satan or the means by which the spouse could fall. In the Mormon community "Bountiful" (In western Canada) the practise of polygamy involves horrible abuse - shaming, sexual abuse, control, male domination.... They practised polygamy for religious reasons - the more wives a man had, the higher status in heaven (at the expense of the women and girls). That is very evil.This is serving Asteroth. It is a religion that is based upon illicit experience. Keep in mind that one of the stipulations for becoming a Bishop or Deacon in the pastoral epistles was that the person in question must be a "one woman man." This indicates that there were men that were in some kind of way more than "one woman men". Either there were whoremongers that had applied for the position (that can't be practicing woremongering or they would not be truly Christians and would be expelled from the church). They were widowers whose spouse had died and they were remarried (this could not be as Paul would not give instruction to young widows to remarry and be saved in child bearing, etc. if remarriage after widowhood was somehow a compromise). They were divorced and remarried and therefor had been the husband of more than one wife (this is the traditional and most popular view) or they were polygamists (some historians say this is impossible because this was not a common practice in the NT Greco Roman culture, while others say it was commonplace. We do know that slavery was rampant and that the Gospel had spread to other cultures that may have practiced it). No matter what, we KNOW that it was NOT God's plan and STILL is not God's plan. Personally I believe it would be on par with slavery and I believe slavery to be a great evil. So we see then that God had ways of dealing with those who had compromised the marital relationship. If we want to be as strict as possible we could say that no man that ever knew more than one woman romantically qualifies for leadership. That would be truly a "one woman man." if we look at the passage as Pentecostal Greek Scholar and teacher Dr. Charles Westlake believes it is a "One woman kind of man." A man that only has eyes for one woman. I believe this is the meaning of the pastoral texts. A man could be married once and have eyes for every woman he sees and qualify for leadership in many circles. Yet a man could have been married more than once and truly love his wife with a 'single eye' and be disqualified. Let your conscience be the judge. Better yet, what is the Holy Ghost saying?God Bless,-Robert

Remember, it is the olive that has been crushed that brings the oil that heals others.What do you say when the pharisees say that a crushed olive is a worthless olive both to God and man?

Diane,Thanks for this post.You wrote:Whether we are talking about polygamy, divorce, or adultery, we end up with the same conclusion. WE CAN'T FIX IT. Those four words are most interesting to me personally "You can't fix it." For two years after having abandoned my spouse they were the only words I heard from heaven. I was not even in a frame of mind to know that I could not, but with God all things are possible. And He has , and is fixing it.In the last one and one half years I have spoken to scores of innocent victims of divorce and have been amazed how God moves in to comfort, heal broken hearts and give hope to (mostly ladies) who are in terrible depression.I also stand by my statement, there are so few men who will avail themselves to the worthwhile works that could just help them in dwelling with their spouse according to knowledge. The wives try, the women seek out help, but sadly all too often Christian men because of pride shut out sources that God has designed that have the potential to bring help.My downfall started with the mind, I did not immediately cast down those imaginations that would in very short order wreck havoc and destruction on all fronts. This is what David Wilkerson said in his April 11th message:"In short, there is no other school as difficult and intense as the school of marriage. And you never graduate. God is making it clear to us: our life with our loved ones is the pinnacle, the very summit, of all our testings. If we get it wrong here, we'll have it wrong everywhere else in our life."God bless,tony

The matter of being a husband of one wife, is one living wife. Marriage is until death do us part. Once a spouse has died, the widow(er) is free to remarry. (Romans 7:1-3)It is this belief that gets people labelled "Pharisees" or "lacking in grace or compassion". I know, I have been accused of such, by the very nicest of Christians.Concerning the statement, "the pharisees say that a crushed olive is a worthless olive both to God and man?" I think that is a very wrong assertion. I am a permanency of marriage proponent (believing a marriage covenant bound by God is UNBREAKABLE until death) and I certainly do not believe a "crushed olive is worthless". There are some I know presently who have fallen (or dove) into sin(committing biblical adultery---extramaritally or through unbiblical remarriage) and have forsaken the adulterous relationship and are being used greatly by God----whether through a restored covenant marriage or alone(with Jesus at their side).When one truly forsakes their sin and submits themselves COMPLETELY to the Lord (not expecting anything in return), God can and does do mighty works in and through that person. There is great potential in every crushed olive.........Blessings in Jesus, CindyHere's a great site concerning marriage, what is is and what it is not: http://www.marriagedivorce.com/hosea2.htm

To be honest Dorcas, this topic has sifted me and other saints who really love God so bad in the last 5 months that I personally am battle weary to even enguage the issues. I know what the word teaches and the gaps that people try to fill in. When we are talking about divorce and remarriage we are moving in waters without a compass under cloudy sky at midnight. Jesus chose not to address the "what shall we do next" aspects of remarriage. He had opportunity and for what ever reason chose NOT to speak to the issue. Why? I have no idea. Everyone has to be fully persuaded in their own minds what to do. I cannot tell and will not tell people how to get on with their lives after tragedy has struck. I do not have the wisdom and It is enough that all hell itself sits in wait to bring a believer down without me adding my 2 cents. Let me say this though; when it comes to playing the role of the Holy Ghost I do not stand in that line. "To his/her own Master they stand or fall." I will not "set at nought my brother/sister." I will not "judge" them. I would tell you what I have said before- "Do what the Holy Ghost is saying for you to do- nothing more and nothing less" and it will be gospel to me. You have to answer to God and so do I. I tremble and fear to give advice when scripture is simply not clear on the issues. You do what God tells you to do and ignore everything else. Don't let folk come in who may have good intentions and fill your mind with questions that wound your conscience. was God dealing with you before that person showed up? If so- do what He says. If not- when in doubt don't do ANYTHING until you have clear direction from God. God Bless,-Robert

I know, I have been accused of such, by the very nicest of Christians.I would like to know how God views the teaching.

I also stand by my statement, there are so few men who will avail themselves to the worthwhile works that could just help them in dwelling with their spouse Okay, Tony, I accept these words. That seems to be true for various reasons. Is it because men don't feel the need? Or because they have other means fo finding fullfilment? I don't know.... I will confess that a lot of my past attempts to make improvements really had an idolatrous root - my desire for security and acceptance. However, God never promised security in this life. He wants us find our security in HIM, regardless of our circumstances. That was the big lesson for me. I'll never forget the day I took down the plaque that said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." It was a moment of death - the death of a passionate desire. But it was the beginning of something new. God has something far better than a Christian-like family - He had THE REAL THING. I see him at work through life circumstances - constantly drawing my family to an AUTHENTIC reliance on him. We're not there yet, but that does not mean we measure lower on the scale in comparison to those families where all are going to church every Sunday and are all in the "Lord's work".One thing that I did learn was that there is no such thing as an "innocent" victim. The one who seems to be "shinier" is usually also part of the problem - after all - all are sinners.When I had to leave my husband, I realised something for the first time ever. Only I could know whether my course of action was justified. Further I did not need to explain or justify it to anyone else. Lastly, it was extremely difficult to put into words. Instantly, I remembered how often I'd tried to advise (close) friends and instantly, I realised how unhelpful or useless my contributions may have been.Dorcus, to me these words are some of the best words I've read so far - because they flow from real life experience. We can talk about the ideal till the cows come home, but in the final day, we stand alone before God to give an account for how we handled our own lot in life. DianeI see that Lahry started another thead, "Let's discuss marriage", so I'll see you there.

"the pharisees say that a crushed olive is a worthless olive both to God and man?" The Pharisees were notorious for trying to userp God's authority. They took the woman taken in adultery and wanted here stoned. They did not bring the man. They wanted to be judge and executioner. This is a 'Jezebel' type attitude. They wanted to userp the authority of God as did Jezebel userping the throne of Israel. She ruled through her husband and then her sons. She caused the prophet of God to flee to a cave. This attitude among the pharisees gave birth to modern day Rabbinic Judaism. They took the scriptures and shut God out of the equation. You can read about it here. They see themselves as the final authority in matters of life and practice. When I say 'final authority' I mean that their hermeneutic so contorted scripture as to place their interpretation of scripture in the place of the authority of God. It is the word that is infallable not our interpretation. Way too much goes into interpreting scripture to have a totally pure doctrine. This is why we need the Holy Spirit. God is in authority. God Bless,-Robert

I apologize to you all, when i started this thread it was not to rile any one or to stir any emotions or to condem. It was to seek an answer to why, it seemed, the God sanctioned multiple wives. I certianly did not expect the coversation to turn to divorce, remarriage etc. This is a very sensitve subject and when one gets into it with stangers, even though they are brothers and sister, who many times have not met, there is a very thin line between enlightening and offense. i agree that no one can take the place of the blessed Holy Ghost and not should we try. it is a very touchy subject for me--while i have never been divorced and (to the glory of God) my wife and i were both virgins when we married--a very dear friend and the man that married us WAS. There where many people that saw him as unfit to minister, much less to join my wife an i (6 years ago in june) in the covenant of marriage. This man was and is a mentor to me and much more of a father than my own has been--yet because of a sin (over 27 years ago) he is still looked on as a trnsgressor? It really produced a crisis of faith for me. Either the cross is powerful enough to conquer sin and shame or it is not. I will bow out of this post now.I';m not angy or offened, just worried about the possible direction that this post might be headed in. If anyone has any information on maybe why God allowed some folks (Abe, Jake, Dave, Solly) to have many wive PM me. God bless you all. Dave

we need the Holy Spirit. God is in authority. Adam, Abraham, Ahab, Samson, Solomon, King Herod, let their wives influence them to make tragic choices because they did not make the Spirit their highest authority.Diane

roadsign wrote:...they did not make the Spirit their highest authority.Do you mind if I put the 'his word' in place of Spirit?

Do you mind if I put the 'his word' in place of Spirit?The Spirit and the Word agree. The written word is God breathed- by the Holy Spirit and is not of any private interpretation. The conflict arises with interpretations that are not the result of the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth. The Holy Spirit must deal with us and lead us according to His will. God Bless,-Robert

The conflict arises with interpretations that are not the result of the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth. The Holy Spirit must deal with us and lead us according to His will. That comment is the beginning of 'the conflict arises with interpretations' :-) So which is the cart and which is the horse?

I would like to know how God views the teaching. I don't understand your statement Robert.

Hi inotof,I see no need to apologize. You did not stir emotions or condemn. You simply asked a question that Jesus demonstrated as to what God's will was for marriage. If we stay there and don't add to or take away from what He said- we will do well. It was to seek an answer to why, it seemed, the God sanctioned multiple wives.Jesus appeals to the creation texts. Again, from the beginning it was not so. We have come a long way from the original post, perhaps, but it all fits together. God originally intended that man and woman would be as Adam and Eve. The drift from God's plan went farther and farther away as time went on until the two rabbinic schools debated whether divorce was mandatory or whether it was allowed. This places the doctrine of the Pharisee's at exact odds with God on the matter.The only real prohibition for marriage under the law was to family members and infidels. Ezra broke up a lot of marriages that were unions to heathen peoples. The NT forbids such and teachs that the one should dwell with the other if possible because they are sanctified by the believer. There is no NT evidence of any such practice ever having taken place. this is an argument from silence, but if the matter was as serious as it is- there had been some sort of precedence.Getting back to the Garden of Eden is God's desire, both for man and Himself. God desires that we walk with him in the cool of the day and has made a way. Do we know Him in that way? We do in part. But things will be quite different in the New Jerusalem. We will know even as we are known. Until then we need to press as hard as possible towards Eden- to recapture all that was lost that Christ has come to reclaim. God Bless,-Robert

I don't understand your statement Robert.I would like to know what God thinks because of the ramifications of mass marital breakups and confusion that the doctrine generates among the people of God when there is no precedent for any such things ever taking place in the bible that were not later nullified by NT teachings. I.E. Ezra's OT actions would not have flown according to Paul's NT doctrine. God Bless,-Robert

I would like to know what God thinks because of the ramifications of mass marital breakups and confusion that the doctrine generates among the people of God when there is no precedent for any such things ever taking polace in the bible that were not later nullified by NT teachings. I.E. Ezra's OT actions would not have flown according to Paul's NT doctrine. We are talking of the sin of adultery here Robert, not of marrying heathen women. Jesus and Paul both agreed that remarriage outside of the death of one's covenant wife was adultery. How does one repent of adultery? I cannot see how God is displeased in the least when one forsakes the sin they are caught up in. If we say "let the Holy spirit be the Holy Spirit" in regards to this one particular sin (not desiring to take a firm stance, though the Word of God does), how can we call people to repent of other types of sins with a good, clear conscience? It seems to me that is exactly what many Christians are doing today-----calling homosexuals to repent, yet we have adultery going on in incredible numbers within the "church" congregation and there is no call to repentance. Do you not see the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness when we preach against some sins, but not others?There are many people who post here on SI who speak of the hypocrisies they see in the Church. This is a great hypocrisy I see.......and ignoring it is only making it worse. :-(

We are talking of the sin of adultery here Robert, not of marrying heathen women. The usual passage cited for breaking up families is the one I mentioned in Ezra. There is NO precedent for repentance involving breaking up families anywhere in the New Testament record. Clearly there were many that were in these situations in NT times and yet not one example of repentance requiring the breaking up of a family. If there is but one clear example I will change my view. God Bless,-Robert

Cindy wrote:It seems to me that is exactly what many Christians are doing today-----calling homosexuals to repent, yet we have adultery going on in incredible numbers within the "church" congregation and there is no call to repentance. Do you not see the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness when we preach against some sins, but not others?There are many people who post here on SI who speak of the hypocrisies they see in the Church. This is a great hypocrisy I see.......and ignoring it is only making it worse.Cindy, would you not make a distinction between the spouse who abandons, and the spouse that was abandoned? I do agree to a point with Diane, “there are no innocent parties”. In conversation with so many over these many months, after the dust settles this point is usually made. Even the spouse who is abandoned many times will confess they were not cultivating the relationship Christ desired.The man, the woman need not feel condemned by these comments though, when their spouse has walked out on them. I have nothing but blessings and goodwill towards those “innocent” victims. God will use these wonderful people in an even greater fashion in all their future endeavors as they desire to walk in the Holy Ghost.What is the Holy Ghost saying? Is what the Holy Ghost has already said.... Go and sin no more.In Christ,tony

There is much talk here about "guilty" and "innocent" parites. Let's take a Biblical look at this:The guilty party policy:The following doctrine is an attempt to expose the shortcomings in divorce apologetics, and contends that only death breaks the marriage covenant, not adultery and not desertion. Every doctrine that justifies divorce and remarriage is based upon the 'exception clause' found in Matthew's gospel (5:32 and 19:9). Matt. 5:32 ...whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery... Matt. 19:9 ...Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery... We are told that fornication (porneia in Greek) in the aforementioned 'exception clause' can be translated as three or four different types of sexual perversion, all good reasons for divorce and remarriage. This interpretation always results in a guilty party and an innocent party, i.e. innocent party free to remarry and guilty party not free to remarry; this is the most popular interpretation of the 'exception clause' (generally speaking). There are so many variations of this policy that only God knows them all. Hence the term guilty-party-policy or statement-on-divorce-and-remarriage. While it is fair to say that sexual perversion is definitely a reason for separation, it does not make the one become two. D. Evenhuis explained like this, "God says the two shall be one, but the church says, 'we can make the one into two again'." I am convinced that the 'exception clause' is referring to what Moses taught about fornication in Deut. 22:13-21. (My reasons to follow)The not guilty party policy: A careful study of the Hebrew marriage customs and laws reveals that the groom pays for the bride with a dowry paid to the bride’s father (Gen. 34:12, Exod. 22:17) . Many examples can be found in the Old Testament of this, e.g. David could not afford the dowry for a king’s daughter (very expensive) (1Sam.18:25). No better example of this is than the groom Jesus paid for His bride, not with corruptible silver and gold but with His own blood, revealed as a dowry in this example.Terms and conditions:- No try before buy.- Payment upfront in full before marriage.- One exception only, if the girl is not a virgin the deal could be called off. Hence the reason why Jesus said "except it be for fornication". This also reveals the importance of holiness: if we don’t maintain our chastity then we will be excluded from the marriage supper.In my opinion, the best New Testament example of what Jesus meant by "except it be for fornication" is the case of Joseph and Mary. I'm sure you know the story how Mary was found with child before they were married and Joseph was going to put her away until the Angel of the Lord intervened. When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant he assumed she had been fornicating because he knew that he was not responsible for Mary's pregnancy. Therefore he was able to 'put away' his fiancée because of fornication. Notice that the Bible refers to Mary as Joseph's wife before they were married. Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, Matt. 1:20 ... Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife... The New Testament uses the word wife in these examples as fiancée; the same use can be applied to the exception clause: Whosoever shall put away his fiancée, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. But in some cases the sin of fornication can only be discovered after the marriage has occurred, hence Deut. 22:13-21. If the 'exception clause' is interpreted in this way then Jesus effectively upheld the Law of Moses and set an even higher standard for His Church. Sadly, this standard has been replaced by the guilty-party-policies of the last-days Church. Any study on the Sermon on the Mount reveals that Jesus is teaching from the Old Testament and setting a higher standard for His followers; this is the point where the 'exception clause' first appears (Matt. 5:32) and is primarily for the Jews because Moses included it in their Law. The Church seems to have forgotten that Jesus is Jewish and the Gospel is still for the Jews first. When the Churches' work is tested by fire I wonder what will be left of the guilty-party-policies.What about the innocent party? When it comes to marriage breakdown and divorce, the term "innocent party" is a myth. No doubt there are many victims of divorce but there are no innocent parties. The only example in all history where a divorce has produced an innocent party is found in Jer. 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; The example above is the one and only divorce that has produced an innocent party, all other divorces produce two guilty parties. Admittedly, in many cases one party is the victim and the other party is the perpetrator, but neither can rightly be called "innocent". Please note: in the very same chapter of Jeremiah we see that the Lord God declares; Jer. 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: It is worthwhile stating that God said He is still married after the divorce. Some say the 'innocent party' is described in Num.5:31. But a closer look at the context shows some interesting facts concerning the law of jealousy as detailed in Num. 5:12-31. Adultery is the suspected crime and the events conclude with the words: Num.5:31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity. Despite the fact that the husband is called "guiltless" [read innocent] there is no mention of divorce here in the entire chapter. In fact the effects of the coming curse are graphically described but divorce is not amongst them Num.5:21. If the husband initiates a divorce he is innocent of adultery but not of divorce. He has provision to divorce under the Law but not under Grace. The jealousy law is for those under the Law, to build a New Testament case for divorce and remarriage based upon this is an error. This chapter again shows that the marriage continues after the adultery.Consider David’s position when King Saul wanted to kill him. He fled for his life and Saul gave his daughter (David’s wife) to someone else. David was left alone through no fault of his own and eventually remarried. Many years later when he became king he forced the separation of his first wife and her second husband, refusing to accept her second marriage. This same attitude was reflected by John the Baptist when he called Herodias "Philip's wife" despite the fact that Herod and Herodias were married, (Matt.14:3, Mark 6:17, Luke 3:19) John refused to accept her second marriage . The Bible says that Herod liked listening to John's preaching (Mark 6:20). Imagine if Herod and Herodias went to one of today’s modern churches, I wonder what they would say to them? Consider the marriage between Jehovah and Israel (Jer. 3:14 & Isa. 54:5). This also resulted in tears and gives us an interesting insight into the marriage covenant. Although Israel was unfaithful on many occasions her sin did not destroy the agreement. Even the divorce only amounts to a recognition of separation; the reason for this is because only death can break that covenant, and neither party has died. Of course the innocent party in this example being the Creator of heaven and earth, and it is interesting to note that He never remarried. Some say God divorced Israel and married the Church but the Bible doesn't say that. In fact, the New Testament Church is only engaged to be married to Jesus, and ceremony has not occurred yet, nor has the marriage been consummated. How heartbreaking is the marriage of Jehovah and Israel when you consider that not only was the marriage painful but the child born from the marriage was even killed by the wife.Another interesting example of marriage gone wrong is the union of King Ahasuerus and his first wife, Queen Vashti (Esther chapter 1). In case you're not familiar with the story, when the King was merry with wine he wanted to show his mates how beautiful the Queen was. Its not clear what exactly he had in mind but anyone who has been in the company of men when they are merry with wine could guess what was going on. The ensuing tiff seems to have resulted in a divorce and the King went on to remarry many other wives, one of course being Esther. That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. Jesus said whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery therefore the King was guilty of adultery. Adultery in this context is not so much the sexual act, as the crime committed against his first wife. Jesus described this in Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. Of course all these conclusions are drawn from the 'betrothal view' perspective.Summary The 'exception clause' (Matt. 5:32 & 19:9) only appears in Matthew's Gospel because Matthew wrote to the Jews and it must be understood in its Jewish context. It is therefore irrelevant to the gentile church. The 'exception clause' would only apply to those men who were married in accordance with Deut. 22:13-21 and were deceived into thinking their bride was a virgin. The Church has re-interpreted the 'exception clause' to suit its own requirements and produced many different guilty-party-policies, all of which don’t fit the canon of Scripture.

Tony, I too am in agreement with Diane concerning "there are no innocent parties", but even so, we must support and encourage those who are suffering in such a way to be faithful to the Lord and not give up. We must also encourage each other to obey, even in the "hard" things, for when we do, we will truly walk in the blessings of God, with a clear conscience.What makes me feel sad is, I've seen people say they are the innocent party due to the sin of their spouse (thus giving them permission to 'move on'). It's the 'moving on' part that I don't agree with because I don't believe scripture teaches this nor does the Spirit gives witness that this lines up with the very heart of God. The problem with the mentality("I" deserve, surely God wouldn't expect me") is scripture teaches that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. As you have stated, many times even the deserted/abandoned who remain faithful to their wayward spouses recognize this truth-----they have Christ's mind on their own position of guilt and His mind on forgiveness no matter the transgression against them----because they have been forgiven greatly. You know, there are many people within that support group (Spirit of Hosea) who have been abandoned by cheating spouses and they are standing for their covenant marriages to be restored. Many of them have been reviled/rejected by the "church" for believing they are called to be faithful to their covenant marriages even though their spouse has left them. Forgiveness and perseverence abound there like nothing I've seen before (although there are some incredible saints here who let the Lord's love shine through them in the forgiveness they extend).........not only that, but the level of faith that God is with them through all the difficulties, is inspiring to say the least. It shames me concerning my own faith walk to see how faithful these saints are, not only towards their cheating covenant spouses (many who have remarried), but how faithful and obedient they are to the Lord. In the same vein, those who have forsaken adulterous remarriages when they came to see them as such, as you did, are living/breathing faith in action saints.......One more thing if I may, the divorce/remarriage problem is only the symptom of a greater sickness----and that sickness is unforgiveness,lack of longsuffering, selfishness and faithlessness(towards the covenant spouse as well as to God). Until those heart issues are dealt with, we can only assume the divorce and remarriage/adultery sin (the outward manifestation of the heart), will continue to plague the church in ever increasing numbers. I do pray that I have not wrongly offended anyone, but may encourage some who are so led to ponder and study this very important topic to the Body of Christ........Blessings in Him, Cindy

The usual passage cited for breaking up families is the one I mentioned in Ezra. There is NO precedent for repentance involving breaking up families anywhere in the New Testament record. Clearly there were many that were in these situations in NT times and yet not one example of repentance requiring the breaking up of a family. If there is but one clear example I will change my view. Robert, I think the reason anyone would use the Ezra passage is to show precedent. Ezra 9-10 clearly shows that God's judgment was upon the nation for joining themselves with heathen wives. To rectify this great sin, the men repented of these sinful unions (by forsaking those wives and families they had rebelliously contracted). We also see in Mal. 2 that AFTER the priests had taken these young wives (disposing of their covenant wives), even their weeping at the altar would not satisfy the Lord. What would have satisfied the Lord in your opinion?As I said I think Ezra is only used as precedent. When people say that the Lord would never require the breaking up of a family, that is indeed what occurred in Ezra-----due to sin. If God's judgment was upon the nation due to these marriages, do you think their putting away of these families was sin to God? In my opinion, their acts were acts of repentance and restoration to the Lord and they were honored as such.Concerning biblical adultery in the NT (extra marital AND remarriage) are the fruits of repentance different for each? I don't believe so. This is where the church has used "different weights and measures".........which is an abomination to the Lord. Either something is a sin and needs to be forsaken, or it is not a sin and can be continued on in. It can't be one way for some and a different way for another. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Dorcas wrote:TonyS - I want to thank you for your postings in this thread, which come from a place of reality I recognise.If only this were entirely the summation of the matter. It comes from a place of my total and complete failure. Failure as a Christian, as a Husband, as a friend, as a leader... the list goes on. My comments in this thread, at least it has been my intent, are for those men and maybe women that are even now toying with the idea of putting away their spouse. Before I committed this atrocious sin, I built an elaborate scheme of teachings that I felt would allow it. My itching ears gathered around me teachers with doctrines that made me comfortable in my wickedness. Every step I took out in this barren wilderness I felt would "seal the deal." I just knew if I went far enough with my plans that God would just have to roll with it all. Simply stated He never just went along with it. read this quote:"A Jesus who will allow you to do things forbidden by The BOOK is a Jesus of your imagination. A Jesus who permits you to live by a lower standard than by his actual teachings is a false Christ presented to you by Satan."-Milton Wells, former Assemblies Of God College PresidentThat quote is my Testimony.Thank you Dorcas!!In Christ,tony

The 'exception clause' (Matt. 5:32 & 19:9) only appears in Matthew's Gospel because Matthew wrote to the Jews and it must be understood in its Jewish context. It is therefore irrelevant to the gentile church. Jewish Context? Hmmm. I majored in Jewish Roots and find a disturbing trend among Non-Jews (Gentiles) that is common and it is exactly what is written above. To follow this line of reasoning nothing Jesus said is relevant to Gentiles.

I think the reason anyone would use the Ezra passage is to show precedent. Ezra 9-10 clearly shows that God's judgment was upon the nation for joining themselves with heathen wives. To rectify this great sin, the men repented of these sinful unions (by forsaking those wives and families they had rebelliously contracted). This issue here was clearly not the issue of multiple wives or adulterous relationships as you stated previously. Heathen wives had turned the hearts of the Jews from God and God wanted it stopped. Yet, when we come to I Corinthians Paul expressly states that this type of separation should not take place. 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. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 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. (I Corinthians 7:12-15)We see clearly that the OT practice of forced putting away because of infidelity towards God (heathenism) is clearly reversed. Again, I wish for anyone to show me one clear example of families being broken up in the New Testament as an act of repentance? The woman at the well would have been a great opportunity for our Lord to give direction on what this woman who had been married so many times should do. Should she go back to husband #1, #2, #3, #4,#5, or should she marry #6 or should she live a life of celebacy? The Holy Spirit by design ommitted any corrective action here. Why? Only God knows. Had God wanted to give direction on 'what' to do- he clearly would have. There is NO direction anywhere in the New Testament and only Ezra in the Old Testament- which is something that clearly would not have happened in the New Testament. So where is the authority for instruction to folk to divorce and return to the first spouse coming from? Is someone that I am unaware of speaking with Apostolic authority giving this direction? Are they speaking this, not the Lord, but by permission? With no Biblical precedence, where are the orders coming from?

One more thing if I may, the divorce/remarriage problem is only the symptom of a greater sickness----and that sickness is unforgiveness,lack of longsuffering, selfishness and faithlessness(towards the covenant spouse as well as to God). Until those heart issues are dealt with, we can only assume the divorce and remarriage/adultery sin (the outward manifestation of the heart), will continue to plague the church in ever increasing numbers. Again, this is the cart before the horse. The first corrective action is to return to the creation model and stop the whoremongering and adultery that is plaguing the church. Before Adam there was no Adam for Eve and before Eve there was no Eve for Adam. All they knew were each other. They only had eyes for each other as there were no others. They were the only two people on earth to each other. I believe in forgiveness and restoration and could speak to this issue if it were proper, but I will not. Yet obedience is better than sacrifice. Jesus clearly taught "except it be for fornication." You have no promise of ever restoring your marriage if you decide to break that one union by adding a 3rd party. You are rolling the dice with your life and are SURE to suffer the judgment of God. You will reap what you have sown as God is not mocked. Under the Old Testament folk who did so were to suffer the death penalty either at the hand of the leaders or by the hand of a jealous husband. The reproach was never wiped away for them. In the New Testament that is done away, but what is NOT done away is the clear warning of both Matthew 5 and 19. For all the zealots who wish to erase the words of Christ in their zeal to see folk return to their first spouses- again I ask- by what authority do you tamper with the word of God?

I wish for anyone to show me one clear example of families being broken up in the New Testament as an act of repentance? The Holy Spirit by design ommitted any corrective action here. Why? Only God knows. Had God wanted to give direction on 'what' to do- he clearly would have. There is NO direction anywhere in the New Testament and only Ezra in the Old Testament- which is something that clearly would not have happened in the New Testament. Robert,NT scripture does not advocate putting away the family gotten through an adulterous EXTRA- marital affair, does it? If someone were to come to you and say "I am married, with no kids from that marriage. I also am involved with another woman whom I now have 3 children with. What should I do?"What would your counsel be, Robert? Would you tell him to forsake the adulterous relationship----even though it has produced children, or would you tell this person that scripture is not clear in such instances, so go pray and do whatever you feel the Spirit is leading? Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

For all the zealots who wish to erase the words of Christ in their zeal to see folk return to their first spouses- again I ask- by what authority do you tamper with the word of God? There is no erasing nor tampering with the Words of Jesus, Robert. Certainly not on my end. Rom. 7:2-3 seals it for me and that is a passage my own church would not touch, and I've found most will not touch it either. Many continually go back and stand on their understanding of "porneia" in Mt. 19:9, 5:32. The thing is the argument that allows for a remarriage in the case of adultery does not fit Rom. 7:2-3. So lies the great division in how Mt. 19:9 is interpreted. I too believe Mt. 1:18-24 answers the dilemma very well.A person who remarries while their covenant spouse is still living is in a state of adultery------til that spouse dies. That is exactly what Paul taught. Paul even gave the example of a woman remarrying, calling her an adulteress----did he say this new "marriage" dissolved the previous? No, he stood firm on the teaching that DEATH dissolved the bond of marriage, then and only then would one be free to be joined with another.There is only 1 means of freedom from the law-----Christ. There is only one means of freedom of the bond of marriage----death. That is why Paul used the marriage analogy. If there were other ways to escape the bond of marriage outside of death, his analogy would have been flawed. It was not flawed. Paul never mentions divorce as a freeing vehicle, nor does he say extra marital adultery or remarriage adultery frees one from the bond of marriage (he had plenty of chance in I Cor. 7----which again, he states marriage is until death---verse 39). Man has added "other ways" of being free from the marriage bond, ways that Paul never spoke of. In the church now we have all kinds of acceptable 'extra biblical' reasons why people can not only get divorced, but remarried as well: verbal abuse, physical abuse, pornography addictions, substance abuse, joblessness, mental illness, etc, etc...........where does it end? Don't people realize that unforgiveness is at the root of all broken marriages? Do we not yet understand and believe that what Jesus declared is truth: If you will not forgive the sins of others, you will not be forgiven..........Do we not see that "I" is at the root of all remarriages.........."I" deserve, "I" want, "surely God doesn't expect "me" to live "unmarried" or be reconciled to this horrible person I married"...........yet, surely as you said Robert, "Obedience is better than sacrifice".........Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

Rom. 7:2-3 seals it for me and that is a passage my own church would not touch, and I've found most will not touch it either.Do you know of a single case in the Old Testament where a woman that was given a writing of divorcement was ever called an 'adulteress'? There are none. I too believe Mt. 1:18-24 answers the dilemma very well.That would be a very inviting interpretation for me and quite advantageous, but in no wise do I believe it answers what our Lord said. He could have used clear wording and made the point impossible to miss if He wanted to say "putting away for infidelity during the betrothal period." Does a person need be a bible scholar to understand the words of the sermon on the mount or Matthew 19? Do they need to know history or be an expert on the Old Testament? From the time I was a child reading that passage I understood what He was saying. It means what He said it means. A person who remarries while their covenant spouse is still living is in a state of adultery------til that spouse dies. That is exactly what Paul taught. Paul even gave the example of a woman remarrying, calling her an adulteress----did he say this new "marriage" dissolved the previous? Again, this never happened in the Old Testament. Look up the word "called" and see what the real meaning is. Some have interpreted the meaning to mean that she will be 'labeled' as an adulteress because folk will not know that she was given a writing of divorcment when she is seen with another man. It is a matter of perception as I see it- as a women under the law was free to marry another man as was the whole point of the certificate. If someone 'called' her an adultress she could pull her certificate and show she was NOT. There is only 1 means of freedom from the law-----Christ. There is only one means of freedom of the bond of marriage----death. That is why Paul used the marriage analogy. If there were other ways to escape the bond of marriage outside of death, his analogy would have been flawed. It was not flawed. Paul never mentions divorce as a freeing vehicle, nor does he say extra marital adultery or remarriage adultery frees one from the bond of marriage (he had plenty of chance in I Cor. 7----which again, he states marriage is until death---verse 39). There is always a point when an analogy can be taken to far. How are we dead to the law if we are still alive in a literal way? We are dead to the law because we are in Christ who died to the law. Paul is not teaching on divorce in Romans 7 he is teaching on our death to the Law of Sin and the subsequent liberty that that entails. Moreover, if we take this route we must believe in UNCONDITIONAL ETERNAL SECURITY. A man could serve false gods and still be saved. a man could worship Allah and still make Heaven. Do you really believe that? I do not. God would not command men to do what He would not do Himself- i.e. remain unconditionally faithful to an unfaithful member of the bride. Man has added "other ways" of being free from the marriage bond, ways that Paul never spoke of. In the church now we have all kinds of acceptable 'extra biblical' reasons why people can not only get divorced, but remarried as well: verbal abuse, physical abuse, pornography addictions, substance abuse, joblessness, mental illness, etc, etc...........where does it end? Don't people realize that unforgiveness is at the root of all broken marriages? Do we not yet understand and believe that what Jesus declared is truth: If you will not forgive the sins of others, you will not be forgiven..........I believe this to the utmost. I believe and practice forgiveness. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the madness of divorce. the difference between us is that I am unwilling to remove the very exceptions for the breaking of a covenant that God himself put in place. i do not believe a person can loose their salvation for 'any' reason and I do not believe in divorce for 'any' reason. I do not believe in unconditional eternal security and I do not believe in unconditional matrimony. I do not believe it is God's will that I become apostate any more than I believe it to be God's will that any divorce. Neither are God's plan- I choose by my actions what will come of me. Do we not see that "I" is at the root of all remarriages.........."I" deserve, "I" want, "surely God doesn't expect "me" to live "unmarried" or be reconciled to this horrible person I married"...........yet, surely as you said Robert, "Obedience is better than sacrifice".........Blessings in Jesus, CindyI can flip this around and show it is selfish to walk out on a present spouse. Many want to be back with their old spouse because the new has worn off the one they are with. Lets get real here. i want him back or I want her back and God said I MUST go get him (or her). Come on now? what about it polluting the land to take the defiled woman back? that would scare me to death. I would live alone before I polutted the land. Moreover, what about the 'vows' that were taken solemnly before God? do they say "God it was a mistake!"When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it, for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands? For in many dreams and in many words there is emptiness. Rather, fear God. (Ecclestiases 5:4-7) Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. It is not selfish to need to provide for your own lest you be worse than an infidel. It is not selfish to tend your family in the fear of God to raise up a godly seed. It is not selfish to try and salvage what is left from a mess. It is not selfish to be concerned for your spouse that you vowed to remain with until death. Again, I wish to see ANY examples of breaking apart marriages in the NT in order to prove repentance. there is no case of it and we had best not be privy to starting something in motion that God has not ordered. God have mercy on us if we would be part of such a thing based upon uncertain interpretations of proof texts that clearly do not offer enough info to turn to the right hand or the left.God Bless,-Robert

What is the Holy Ghost saying? Is what the Holy Ghost has already said.... Go and sin no more.This is the only real direction we have.

Do you know of a single case in the Old Testament where a woman that was given a writing of divorcement was ever called an 'adulteress'? There are none. Yes, I think we can agree that writ of divorcements were "tolerated". I think we can also agree that what Joseph had in his mind to do was considered "JUST".......and that was to put away his BETROTHED wife.See in the Rom. 7:2-3 passage Paul NOWHERE shows that a "writ of divorcement" dissolves a marriage and that is what you are trying to say. Paul ONLY gives death as the vehicle of dissolving the bond of marriage. It doesn't matter if the woman of Rom. 7:2-3 had or did not have a "writ of divorcement"----only the death of her husband, not his proper "putting away" document, dissolves their bond.I can flip this around and show it is selfish to walk out on a present spouse. Many want to be back with their old spouse because the new has worn off the one they are with. Lets get real here. i want him back or I want her back and God said I MUST go get him (or her). Come on now? what about it polluting the land to take the defiled woman back? that would scare me to death. I would live alone before I polutted the land. Moreover, what about the 'vows' that were taken solemnly before God? do they say "God it was a mistake!"Regarding the term "spouse", is it your assertion that civil law dictates who God considers one's lawful spouse? If God called a relationship adultery, who are we to say it is then lawful-----especially when there is nothing in scripture which shows the relationship is somehow now changed from sinful to lawful.........The only Word we have is Jesus' and Paul's final word on the relationship-----adultery.When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it, for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands? For in many dreams and in many words there is emptiness. Rather, fear God. (Ecclestiases 5:4-7) Again, we have gone over this point in days past and are in disagreement. I do not believe that God is obligated to honor a "vow" that He says is sin. If I "vow" another that I will commit a crime with them, am I to hold to that vow, or to repent of that sinful vow? Concerning that scenerio I posed you in my post: Say this man VOWED to the other woman he would never leave her, love her to the day he dies, etc......since it is an adulterous extramarital affair, is he obligated to honor such a vow? Blessings in Him, Cindy

Again, we have gone over this point in days past and are in disagreement. I do not believe that God is obligated to honor a "vow" that He says is sin. If I "vow" another that I will commit a crime with them, am I to hold to that vow, or to repent of that sinful vow? Concerning that scenerio I posed you in my post: Say this man VOWED to the other woman he would never leave her, love her to the day he dies, etc......since it is an adulterous extramarital affair, is he obligated to honor such a vow?This reasoning leads to another pandoras box. Who is to say WHEN and WHERE God honored any vow made between a man and women? What were the criteria required for God to consider and marriage lawful? In the OT if the woman pretended to be a virgin and was not the marriage was null and void via stoning her to death. If she committed adultery later the marriage was null and void via stoning to death. If the husband was overcome with jealousy she could be forced to drink the drink and if found quilty was smitten by the hand of God. (Numbers 5:11-31) Adultery is a sin that was punishable by death. None of the parties guilty are supposed to live through it. If they do it was God's mercy. They are walking and breathing and it is His mercy that allowed it. Does that detract from the severity of the crime? Whether she is put away privately or publicy she would be shown mercy. Are we to assume Joseph would not have remarried? For what cause then would the man leave the woman? Would not any woman be better than no woman at all if he ever really loved her? Too often we hear a "in God's eyes" type of remark that is so subjective that it can mean virtually anything. Who knows what God sees anyhow? Shall we determine it based upon our proof texts? Teenagers convince themselves everyday that since they love each other they are "already married in God's eyes" and use it as an excuse to fornicate. If man has nothing to do with what is happening and the state has nothing to do with it- then the whole issue of modern marriage is a farce. God did not take my wife from my rib whilst I was in a deep sleep. He did not bring her to me and set her before me as I awakened from slumber. So if 'man' administers the vows and they are taken before God and that is not binding- what DOES bind them? is it because you left your parents? What about the women and men who never really left mom and dad and can't take two steps without running home to mom and dad? You have already stated that you do not believe relations constitute the consummation or putting into effect the marriage in previous conversations. if the broken hymen does not do it- what does? So if it is not the vow and it is not the consummation and God did not take her from my rib and side- what is it? and when would God honor a vow? When He was satisfied that all parties were not somehow deceiving the other into making the vow? Or were being 100% forthcoming in entering into the covenant? What is the criteria He looks at? See in the Rom. 7:2-3 passage Paul NOWHERE shows that a "writ of divorcement" dissolves a marriage and that is what you are trying to say. What I am saying is that we cannot make a doctrine of marriage here from Paul's teaching on freedom from the law of Sin. It was not the topic he is discussing. And I stick by my statement that there are none in the OT that were called adulteresses that were given a writing of divorcement. Moreover, God 'tolerated' fornication before marriage also, but it was NOT His plan. We are simply no where near what God's original plan for marriage was- but we must press to get there with each generation. It has to begin with our children and raising them up as best as possible. what they do from there is up to them- but I have seen marriages that were wonderful that followed closely the creation model. Sadly, today folk enter marriage a country mile from God's original plan. Multiple relationships, live ins and all sorts of stuff. At what point does God even honor a person settling down? And then we wonder why we can't fix things. It is because the whole structure it skewed from the very foundation. With this and a multitude of millions who all have a story and all are doing there best to serve God and raise their kids and make their life work- it is inconceivable that repentance for them is breaking up their homes for Jesus. There is absolutely no precedence for it in the NT whatsoever. That doctrine is not just false it strikes mine and every seasoned believer I have presented it to as demonic. There is no clear direction and the enemy is trying to bring mass confusion and break up what homes he can that are trying to stand in the grace of God. I will never believe that God's requirement for repentance is to divorce the present spouse and go back and find the first. This is repentance gone mad. God Bless,-Robert

In my opinion, the best New Testament example of what Jesus meant by "except it be for fornication" is the case of Joseph and Mary. I'm sure you know the story how Mary was found with child before they were married and Joseph was going to put her away until the Angel of the Lord intervened. When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant he assumed she had been fornicating because he knew that he was not responsible for Mary's pregnancy. Therefore he was able to 'put away' his fiancée because of fornication.According to this theology, if my betrothed bride cheats on me before we're married, I can break off the engagement, but if she cheats on me after the wedding, I'm bound to her until death. So if she wants to play the harlot, all she has to do is wait until after the wedding, because I can't divorce her then. Hmmm? Does that sound like truth to you?Moreover, if 'pornea' is biblical grounds for putting away before the marriage, Why would it not be grounds for divorce after the wedding? So we "put away" for unfaithfulness before the marriage, but not for unfaithfulness after the wedding vows? This is a recipe for rife adultery in the Church. It removes the second most fearful obstacle- divorce. The only other would be damnation if there were no repentance.God Bless,-Robert

Robert wrote:There is no clear direction and the enemy is trying to bring mass confusion and break up what homes he can that are trying to stand in the grace of God. I will never believe that God's requirement for repentance is to divorce the present spouse and go back and find the first.What speaks to me with your statement here is the word “requirement”. Ordinarily I would prefer to ask this in private, but for the benefit of those who may be reading and are desperate for direction. Robert, do you also make concession for some that the Holy Ghost just may “require” a forsaking of an adulteress relationship, one in which God does not call marriage, but indeed calls it adultery?Given the opportunity, I know he would prefer I not say the following: Robert no doubt spent countless restless nights dealing with my own personal web of sin. And make no mistake all sin webs an incredible mass of confusion. We all, no matter who we may be talking about approach these issues through our own experiences, hurts, victories and failures. In essence what I have read, and been personally counseled is this “there better be a Thus Saith The Lord”, before you take action.” Ron Bailey made the following statement some time ago that I have adopted as my own “frustration is not a call to action but is a call to reflection and prayer.” While I am a little uncomfortable with the advice “what is the Holy Spirit saying to you”, what else can we possibly offer when we truly do not have crystal clear direction? Our friends, our Brothers and Sisters in Christ need help. Personally I would rather not have to drink from this cup of marriage, divorce, remarriage ect… In fact for a year I said nothing. But I believe Cindy said it best, ignoring the problem is not helping. Just a few days ago an acquaintance of my wife decided to put away her husband. By her own testimony her Husband was beside himself with grief, and was willing to do anything to put the relationship back together. But the wife had made up her mind and moved out. As she returned to the home a few days later to pack her belongings she heard a gunshot upstairs, her Husband in despondency had taken a shot-gun and put it to his head, and killed himself.We would not dare put blame on this grieving widow and will not. But the sad story has shaken me maybe like no other. God truly does compare the relationship between Husband and Wife with Christ and the Church. And so I ask myself: How are our(my) Marriage relationships representing Christ and the Church? In Christ,tony

What speaks to me with your statement here is the word “requirement”. Ordinarily I would prefer to ask this in private, but for the benefit of those who may be reading and are desperate for direction. Robert, do you also make concession for some that the Holy Ghost just may “require” a forsaking of an adulteress relationship, one in which God does not call marriage, but indeed calls it adultery?Hi Bro. Tony, of coarse we have discussed this at length and you know well my position, but for the sake of those who may be unclear I believe that we all as believers have the obligation to do what they feel is right in the sight of the Lord. Why would your liberty be judged by my conscience? I have said and will continue to say- do what God tells you to do. Be "fully persuaded in your own mind." If you do that- it will be gospel to me.My position heretofor has been to take that position and hold that line. But the probigation of Webb's theology is moving like leaven through these forums. I could take the book apart no problem, but I am trying to be moderate. I am trying to exercise Christian charity and not impose my conscience upon others as to influence the clear direction they feel they have from God. Yet, taking this approach has handed me 5 months of sifting and grief that just lifted off yesterday. Wheew it is good to come out of the woodshed! My pants are on fire though I will guarantee you that. Never again will I come across as if I am promoting the whole leave your husband or wife and go back to the 'ex' doctrine. God forgive me. You mention the crux of this issue "requirement." These people want to make this doctrine a point of repentance. Webb is so brazen that he emphatically states that those who have living spouses are adulterers and should be told so. His circular reasoning is unacceptable. The premise is faulty from the beginning. And as you know- error begets more error. The "more error" is that we stand to look on as whole thousands and maybe millions of families are broken up just so they can be sure to not be in adultery. I cannot look on while this type of thing happens. There is no way in thw world someone has enough insight into God's word as to advise them that their marriage is not legit to begin with without first at least hearing the merits of the case. To HANDILY condemn millions as adulters? listen to Proverbs 17:15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD. What Webb and his disciples are doing is an abomination to God. I have no trouble saying it with a clear conscience. To brazenly condemn folk with faulty theology as adulterers? In their zeal to condemn the wicked they condemn the just. My grandma used to call it, "whipping you all so I'm sure to get the right one."God Bless,-Robert

Good RobW.

Healingwaters wrote:I have found the more people that preach against sin in other peoples lives, that they have a closet full of their own. So how do we preach holiness, righteousness, sanctification without preaching against sin which is unfortunately in peoples lives?

I believe that we all as believers have the obligation to do what they feel is right in the sight of the Lord. Why would your liberty be judged by my conscience? I have said and will continue to say- do what God tells you to do. Be "fully persuaded in your own mind." If you do that- it will be gospel to me.I agree with the premise that WHEN the Lord reveals sin to each of us, we have the obligation to obey Him. However, a relationship cannot be sin for one and not sin for another concerning the moral laws of God. THAT would be confusion. It seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) you believe if someone feels they are in adultery by remarriage and desires to repent by forsaking that relationship, they should be silent about it. In other words, don't perpetuate the doctrine of the permanency of marriage because it may offend someone who is in a remarriage? Personally, I think that would be quite unreasonable since the Holy Spirit would be the cause of this knowledge/conviction of sin. There is something implanted in each believer, that when they learn a new "truth", they desire to share it-----to help the Body of Christ and share the freedom they now are experiencing through the knowledge and application of Truth. To expect someone to "be quiet" -------where do we draw the line? Do we only talk about the "pleasant" aspects of Truth?The unpleasant aspects of Truth many times challenge us and are what grows us toward Christ the most, as many here can attest.You believe Webb is wrong. I disagree. I think he is very correct. He is only one of a multitude throughout the world Robert who believe and teach the permanency of marriage. Many other Christians of the world do not hold the same belief on divorce/remarriage as American Christians do. The permanency of marriage doctrine is not a new doctrine, Robert. The early church too believed that ALL first marriages were permanent til death. The reformers started playing fast and loose with God's Word........Because they were so bent on total reform, they threw the baby out with the bathwater concerning marriage.........slowly divorce started creeping into the church until we now have the big mess we have------He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD. What Webb and his disciples are doing is an abomination to God. I have no trouble saying it with a clear conscience. To brazenly condemn folk with faulty theology as adulterers? In their zeal to condemn the wicked they condemn the just. My grandma used to call it, "whipping you all so I'm sure to get the right one."Did Jesus make sure someone's Theology was correct before He called them adulterers? Did Paul? Honestly, I have not seen any "condemning" by those who believe in the permanency of marriage. The group I've witnessed on line are very loving, supportive and encouraging----even towards those who revile them. Besides demonizing us, you seem to be placing those who are permanency of marriage believers as "followers" of Joseph Webb. I didn't know of Dr. Webb when I came to my present viewpoint. I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ and it was the scriptures which convinced me of my present viewpoint, not man. If you would read some of the testimonies by those who hold this belief, you will not see Joseph Webb being lifted up, but Jesus Christ. You say what the permanency of marriage adherants are doing is an abomination to the Lord, do you suppose it possible that those who teach you can remain in what Jesus and Paul called adultery, could possibly be the ones who are justifying the wicked.........and condemning the just( by labelling them: Zealots, Pharisees, spreaders of doctrines of demons)? Just something to ponder. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

But the probigation of Webb's theology is moving like leaven through these forums. I could take the book apart no problem, but I am trying to be moderate. I am trying to exercise Christian charity and not impose my conscience upon others as to influence the clear direction they feel they have from God.Robert, why not try to take the book apart? You aren't taking people apart. You are dealing with the Scriptures. To be honest, I would really like to see you try to take that book apart. I haven't seen anyone do it yet. If you are right, I'm sure we all would want to know.Trust me when I say that I don't know anyone who believes in the permanency of Marriage who has an easy time standing against marital adultery. So if you think we are "condemning the just" and thereby abominable to the Lord, you should try to help correct our understanding of the Scriptures. I do understand that you have dealt with this in the past. But obviously folks aren't convinced. And these folks aren't being stubborn. They are simply not wanting to "justify the wicked", which is also an abomination to the Lord, as you so wisely quoted.By the way, there is a difference between "condemning" someone and "disagreeing" with someone. I really think you are stretching it to say the folks who agree with Webb are "condemning" others. See the Scriptures:"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Romans 8:34)So the Scriptures say that only Christ condemns. These folks don't seem to be trying to condemn. Just because they believe something doesn't make them judges of others. It just makes them convicted of truth. So it will be good to see you try to show these people where they are wrong. Blessings,RT

I don't mean to interject something here to lessen the gravity of this thread, but in a humourous way everytime I read the heading of this thread, the thought that goes through my mind is that I REALLY PITY THIS MAN. One wife is enough for anyone and one husband enough for anyone. But I see it in a kinda funny way.

Does Divorce Mean, "Seperated But Still Married"?By Robert Wurtz IIShall we begin with Romans 7:1?Here we read:Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?Here Paul is speaking to those who 'know' the Mosaic Law. Not to those who are aware that there 'be' such a Law, but those who have a 'working knowledge' of the Law. Do you have a working knowledge of the Law? Are you familiar with what the Law has said concerning divorce? Are you aware that women who were given a writing of divorcement were not called 'adulteresses' in the Old Testament in any place. In fact, the only stipulation added to them remarrying was to a priest (Mitzvot 273 neg Leviticus 21:7-14) or their former husband (Deuteronomy 24:4). Divorced women were recognized again and given instruction in Numbers 30:9. To those who know the Law, they understood that a divorced woman does not have a husband, she has a former husband. Those who have heard of the Law, but do not 'know' the Law would immediately be confused on this point. A woman is not bound to a 'former husband' so long as he lives- but her 'husband' according to the Mosiac Law. Again Paul is not teaching on divorce here and remarriage. He is using a 'normal marriage' that is dissolved at death to make his analogy on freedom from the Law of Sin. In the case of divorce or putting away, the Law does not 'bind her' to her former husband- it frees her from him. It is at this point that the 'husband' becomes what scripture calls, the former husband. Here we read:Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24)... and again... They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 3:1)Here we see that the land would be greatly polluted (Jer 3:1) by the abomination of a woman being divorced remarried and returning to her former husband. Even if the present husband were to die- she was NOT at liberty to return to her former husband after she had become another man's husband. In other ordinary cases... And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife (Deuteronomy 24:2). Moreover this dispells the myth that 'divorce' could ever mean a psuedo seperation of married people. This is confirmed by the permission to remarry. 'Joining' to a man while married would have surely been adultery punishable by death for both parties (Lev. 20;10). Adulterers were punished, according to tradition, by various means. One of which was to place them in dung up to their knees, wrap a rope around their throat while a person on each side pulls until they collapse dead (Sanh 49). In NT times the Perushim (Pharisees) sought to stone the woman "caught in the very act." So we see then that women were not adulteresses in the OT when they committed adultery; they were deceased. The 'writing of divorcement' was given to the woman by the man and authorized by the Sanhedrin as proof that she had the right to remarry another man. Her former husband had sent her away and now she was free to become 'another man's.' This certificate protected the woman if she were seen with another man known not to be her former husband. This would prevent her from being 'called' an adulteress and her present husband from suffering the adulteress' fate. I'll stop here for comments.God Bless,-Robert

Comments you asked?Sure do….Getting way ahead of you here I know.it’s an awesome thought considering all that pertained to this topic under the Law was because of the hardness of men’s heart. Incredibly this was not God’s plan from the beginning, and under what many would consider this dispensation of Grace it also is not God’s plan, how could it possibly be considering the Prophet Ezekiel looking forward to the New Covenant saw such a miraculous event whereby God would take out an heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.Amazing is what it is, in order to walk in newness of life a new heart and a new spirit. And if God hated the “putting away” under the Law how much more surely does He hate it under this New Covenant. Truly it makes a mockery of what was accomplished at Calvary, considering marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church.Blessings,tony

To those who know the Law, they understood that a divorced woman does not have a husband, she has a former husband. Those who have heard of the Law, but do not 'know' the Law would immediately be confused on this point. A woman is not bound to a 'former husband' so long as he lives- but her 'husband' according to the Mosiac Law. Again Paul is not teaching on divorce here and remarriage. He is using a 'normal marriage' that is dissolved at death to make his analogy on freedom from the Law of Sin. In the case of divorce or putting away, the Law does not 'bind her' to her former husband- it frees her from him. It is at this point that the 'husband' becomes what scripture calls, the former husband. Robert, I'd like you to answer some of the previous questions that you still have not responded to (situations of adultery posed and how you, as a Pastor, would counsel), but I will respond to part of your most recent posting.NT Divorce does not equate to dissolvementof the marriage. I know that is what the modern church teaches today, but if one unbiblically divorces and remarries, they DO commit adultery---which means a "writ of divorcement" does not dissolve the covenant marriage----it is still in tact.Paul and Jesus both taught this(permanency of a 1st marriage---even AFTER a divorce and remarriage). Paul reaffirmed Jesus' teachings not only in his teaching on law/sin in Rom. 7:2-3, but again in I Cor. 7:39. A woman could be walking around with a certificate of divorcement, but if Jesus doesn't say the marriage is dissolved, then it isn't and she is an adulteress until her husband dies (Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:9, Mt. 19:9, Mt. 5:32, Mk 10:2-10, Lk. 16:18). When Paul was teaching the Rom. 7:2-3 passage I'm sure not only did his hearers understand OT Mosaic law, but they also now know what Jesus taught on divorce/remarriage and how His very own disciples were taken aback at His strict teaching.Jesus taught that since the beginning marriage was never intended to be broken apart. The ONLY reason He gave that allowed for "putting away" was porneia/fornication. All other putting aways were for "hard hearted" reasons and unacceptable. Scripture teaches Joseph being a "JUST" man thought to put Mary away privately. He could have "legally" had her stoned for fornicating BEFORE their marriage bed. Putting away for this cause, and ONLY this cause, was permissible (it was a "just" thing, instead of stoning). Putting away for after marriage adultery was not practiced----those women were stoned (or forgiven---see Hosea).The "writ of divorcement" was a tool that was necessary to be given to a BETROTHED wife, which freed her to marry another. That is what Joseph would have to give Mary to set her free------BEFORE the actual marriage took place. The betrothal "legally" joined them-----even before they consummated it. I didn't know that until I did some research on the "writ of divorcement" and betrothal customs. It was a very enlightening study and pulled many pieces together for me as to why the 'exception clause' is ONLY found in the Gospels written to a Jewish audience-----not in the Gospels which were sent to Gentile Christians (who had no such "betrothal" custom).Blessings in Him, Cindy

Does Divorce Mean, "Seperated But Still Married"? Part 2By Robert Wurtz IIIn Part 1 we demonstrated clearly that Paul was speaking to those who 'knew' the Mosiac Law in order to make an analogy from the Old Covenant. Not all would have known the 'Law' or he would not have addressed those who had a working knowledge of it specifically. Given the fact that Romans 7 is the fulcrum from which the argument for Unconditional Matrimony is made- it is necessary to understand what was happening within its proper context. To understand how important this is one need only look at the doctrinal statements of ministries that hold to Unconditional Matrimony. They candidly call marriages between couples that have a living spouses 'adulterous' no matter why the original divorce took place and they use Roman 7 to do it. They believe that God calls the people adulterers in this passage and so should the Church. They will not fellowship with such Saints as they view them as sinners.Again, Paul was not teaching on marriage here, he was teaching on our freedom from the Law of Sin. Therefor, based upon what is known about the Mosiac Law, we can better understand what Paul did not mean by what he said. He could not have meant that a woman that had a 'former husband' under the Mosiac Law according to Deuteronomy 24 was called an 'adulteress' because women that have 'former husbands' have no husband, they are free to remarry based upon the conditions previously set forth. Nor can we impose the clarification that our Lord set forth in Matthew 5 and 19; that would be an expostfacto judgment that made divorced women in the Old Testament adulteresses retroactively. This simply cannot be because where there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:15). To take this position is to condemn multitudes who lived before Christ via His clarified teachings. Proponents of Unconditional Matrimony contend that divorce does not mean 'dissolution', but merely 'seperation.' This allows the accusations against previously married women to hold force with their misinterpretation of Romans 7:1-4. For those who are unaware of where the battle lines are drawn in this debate, they are clearly drawn and hinge on whether or not a biblically sanctioned divorce 'dissolves' the marriage as completely as death. If death is the 'only' means by which a marriage can be dissolved then we have some perplexing problems with the Old and New Testament. One example is found in I Corinthians 7:27-28. Here we read:Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. Let us first examine Romans 7:27 and use 'death' as the only legitimate means of being 'loosed' from a wife. Paul states; "Are you bound unto a wife- seek not to be loosed." The root word for 'bound' here is deo and is the same as Romans 7. Logic would have it that if death were the only means by which the person was 'loosed' in this passage from their former spouse then Paul was saying to the one who was not loosed from his wife that he ought not to murder her. If death were the only way Paul understood being loosed- he would have to be saying; "seek not an occasion to murder her!" This seems highly improbable that Paul would have exhorted a Christian man not to kill 'someone.' So we must understand 'loosed' to mean something here other than death. What could it be? No doubt it was a biblically sanctioned 'loosing.' This is unacceptable to those who hold to Unconditional matrimony because of the natural progression of scripture. The very next verse reads:But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. There are clearly two people mentioned in this passage. There is the "thou" and the "virgin." Who is the 'thou'? The 'thou' is the person that is recognized by Paul as legitimately 'loosed from a 'wife' that Paul encouraged to remain single. However, he states that if the 'thou' that has been loosed from a wife marry they have not sinned, but shall have 'trouble' in the flesh, but I spare you. If we are consistent in our exegesis of the passage we must conclude that a man should not seek to be loosed from his wife through divorce, but if he is already divorced he should not seek to be remarried. But if he does seek remarriage he has not sinned. A common rebuttal of this is to say that Paul was speaking to the virgins of the previous verses. Yet, this would make no sense as it would cause the passage to read, "And if the 'virgin' marry she (the virgin) hath not sinned and if the 'virgin' marry she hath not sinned." This redundance would make no sense. This one verse when read in this light sets aside the whole of the Unconditional Matrimony doctrine by showing the farce of death being the only legitimate means of dissolution. God Bless,-Robert

Let's say that a couple get married in a "christian religious church". The man later on becomes an adulterer and divorces his wife. He then repents and remarries. Is this marriage valid or is he before God still married to the former first wife? Hi Lahry,Personally I don't believe it matters whether one marries in a Christian church or at the courthouse. The binding marriage is in the publically acknowledged vows made. Many cultures perform marriages differently-----all acknowledged by God. In OT Jewish marriage, the couple was "married" in a binding marriage at the betrothal ceremony----they were already considered married, though the consummation wouldn't take place until the final ceremony.Concerning your scenerio, yes, I would believe based upon all NT scripture, that the man has not truly repented and entered into a second marriage, he is now committing adultery. Paul says in I Cor. 7:10-11 "NOT I, but THE LORD, but if you depart, remain unmarried OR be reconciled".......no mention of remarriage to another. Paul's admonishment was for every man to have HIS OWN WIFE, not someone else's.....and the same for a wife-----she is to have her own husband, not another's husband. That is exactly why Jesus said that whosoever puts away their wife and marries another, commits adultery. And whosoever marries one who is put away, commits adultery. Putting someone away does not dissolve the marriage. If some believe that to be true, they will have a very hard time explaining away what Jesus taught. One can't commit adultery if their previous marriage has been dissolved through divorce.The woman of Rom. 7:2-3 is not entitled to be with another man----except after the death of her lawful husband. Paul never in any of his teachings, teaches otherwise. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Does Divorce Mean, "Seperated But Still Married"? Part 3By Robert Wurtz IIWe established in part 2 that ‘death’ was not the only means of dissolving a marriage. But what would the other means be? If God had joined the people together and no man is to ’put asunder’, who can put asunder other than death? Is death all that could save a man from a fornicating spouse? Would God intervene? Clearly there are but two that can dissolve marriage; death and the decree of God. Man simply cannot ‘put asunder’ what God hath joined together. This would have been a sore point for the Pharisees that were used to ‘making the word of God of none effect by their traditions.’ The decree of men cannot dissolve a marriage, but the unchaste behavior of a spouse can. From here on out we move into the area perhaps of the greatest controversy concerning what are commonly called exceptions that contradict the 'death only' dissolving of a marriage. It has been said, that there is no need to be dogmatic when one only need submit the evidence. In this case we have the Gospels, which contain basically twenty-four verses of scripture that pertains to marriage and divorce. Of those 24 passages one is found in Luke, eight are found in Mark, none are found in John and fifteen are found in Matthew. No matter what view one takes concerning the relative passages in which our Lord clarified the issue of marriage, fornication, and adultery one thing is certain; our Lord exalted marriage to the highest level of esteem ever conceived for those who heard His words. We are told by tradition that in the New Testament period there were two prevailing views on the marriage and divorce issue. The one view was that of Rabbi Hillel and the view of Rabbi Shammai. A simple description of them can be found at the Jewish Virtual Library. An excerpt reads: Hillel was the more popular of the two scholars, and he was chosen by the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court, to serve as its president. While Hillel and Shammai themselves did not differ on a great many basic issues of Jewish law, their disciples were often in conflict. The Talmud records over 300 differences of opinion between Beit Hillel (the House of Hillel) and Beit Shammai (the House of Shammai). Hillel taught that a man could divorce his wife for any trivial reason. Shammai taught that the phrase "some uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24 applied only to sexual immorality, (Hebrew Zanah GK. Porniea) and therefore the only grounds for divorce in Israel was adultery. This issue sets the stage for the following passage in Matthew 19: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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.The first point I wish to make is that the word ‘except’ denotes and ‘exception.’ Radical Unconditional Matrimony proponents would say, “No exceptions!” This clearly contradicts our Lord’s attempt to answer their question and clarify his answer with additional information. The second point I wish to make deals with the question that the Pharisee’s posed to our Lord;... Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? There is no real word for ‘wife’ in Greek, the term is Gune and it means ‘woman.’ It is clear that our Lord was not being asked about putting away an ‘espoused wife’ or he had used the term Mnesteuo. He was being asked about the present wives that the men lived with. To say that the simple use of ‘wife’ is sufficient in Matthew 1:20 to indicate that our Lord was referring to ‘espoused’ in Matthew 19 would not work hermeneutically. There are 18 chapters of scripture between the two uses of the word. For those who do not understand this it would be like referring to God as ‘Him’ before first referring to Him as ‘Lord’ in an earlier sentence or part of the sentence. We could refer to God as ‘Him’ if it had been already established who the ‘Him’ is we were talking about previously (in reasonable proximity) and it would serve to eliminate the redundancy of saying His proper name over and over. Therefore, scripture established Mary as Joseph’s espoused woman in Matthew 1:18 and to her simply as his ‘woman’ two verses later. It is impossible to conclude that in Matthew 5 or 19 that "espoused” is in view when there is no indication whatsoever that this is what is being said. One would have to be intentionally misleading to try to assert they meant ‘espoused’ if they did not say ‘espoused’. The primary weight of the passage rests on the Greek word Porniea. What does the word mean? It corresponds to a word that the Hebrews certainly knew- Zanah. This word means; to commit fornication, be a harlot, play the harlot\ta \t (Qal)\t1 \t to be a harlot, act as a harlot, commit fornication\t2 \t to commit adultery\t3 \t to be a cult prostitute4 to be unfaithful (to God) (fig.)Our Lord gave no indication that he meant anything other than “illicit sexual intercourse.” He spoke the word as it was then and is now commonly understood.

Hi Lahry,I think I asked something similar, but it didnt' get answered.I asked if someone came for counsel, confessed they were having an extramarital affair which produced 3 children, his wife had no children, what would the counsel be? Should he depart from the adulterous relationship or depart from his wife who doesn't have any children?If Jesus and Paul call a remarriage "adultery", there is no difference in the scenerios. Is having children together what makes a marriage? I do not believe so. Blessings, Cindy

Robert,I put out the challenge, so I'll start with your first post here:Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?Here Paul is speaking to those who 'know' the Mosaic Law.There is your friend's first error. (First sentence even ;-) ) Paul is not speaking exclusively of the Mosaic Law (Exodus - Deuteronomy). He is speaking of the Jewish Scriptures as a whole. The Jewish Scriptures are commonly referred to as "the law" meaning the law, the prophets, and the psalms. One has to look at context to see what is meant.Here the context immediately removes the possiblity of the narrow sense of the word "law" and demands the broad sense (law, prophets, psalms). Why? Because Paul here CONTRADICTS Deut. 24 in favor of what Jesus laid down. He said that a woman was bound to her husband "so then if, while here her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." (v. 3) So he cannot be talking about Moses' law and contradict that law at the same time!Now take a close look here, because this is going to really help you see this passage in the light in which it was written: What law is Paul referring to?? The passage is clear. "...but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."Do you see that? This is talking about "the law of her husband". This is the law instituted in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2. It is the only law given in man's innocence save the command not to touch nor eat of the forbidden fruit and to be fruitful and to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it. This is a law that predated Moses by around two thousand years! This had nothing to do with the children of Israel. There was no Abraham, Isaac, nor Israel!! This is the law of her husband.This is why Jesus said, From the beginning it WAS NOT SO. He said that Moses gave Deut. 24, but refused to say that it was by God. He said that Moses allowed it. He didn't say God willed it. (See also Jer. 3:1 "They say..(Deut 24)", not "I say") God distanced Himself from the Deut 24 remarriage law because it was not His original intent. When Jesus came as the new lawgiver, he re-instated Gen. 2.So the premise of this whole article is faulty. This is really bad exegesis.To those who know the Law, they understood that a divorced woman does not have a husband, she has a former husband.Hmm...I guess Paul must not have known the law very well...NOT! Check out 1 Cor. 7:11:"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband"Her what??? Her what??? Oh! Her HUSBAND. Not her "former husband." This article is weak.Now I understand that I am writing in a very forceful way. But I am not making any of this personal. I AM trying to make this article look as OFF as it really is. And it is WAAAAY off.For further confirmation of this, see what God thought of Israel after He gave her a bill of divorcement:"Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:" Jer. 3:14Did you see that? The LORD said that He was STILL MARRIED to Israel even after he gave her a bill of divorcement. What was God doing reconciling to His wife?Jer. 3:1 "They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD."Notice again, "They say". God quotes Deut. 24 remarriage law as the words of man, not His words. That's why Jesus reverted to the older (Garden of Eden) law of the husband and wife.This certificate protected the woman if she were seen with another man known not to be her former husband. This would prevent her from being 'called' an adulteress and her present husband from suffering the adulteress' fate.Yeah, under Deut. 24 remarriage law, which Jesus CLEARLY dismissed as from Moses and not from the Beginning.I always am amazed at the mental acrobatics that men undergo to make the word say what they want it to.What else do you got?RT

Robert,In Part 1 we demonstrated clearly that Paul was speaking to those who 'knew' the Mosiac Law in order to make an analogy from the Old Covenant.No, what Robert Wurtz II demonstrated was that he did not know the Scriptures as well as maybe he should of before writing what he did.Proponents of Unconditional Matrimony contend that divorce does not mean 'dissolution', but merely 'seperation.'To use the Scriptures, divorce means to "put her away." It is a fallacy to assume that just because a man is free from certain marital responsibilities to his wife that he is separated physically from her. The scriptures are clear that "they twain shall become one flesh." So they are no more twain (never again two) but one flesh. Just because a man or woman is free from certain responsibilities to a spouse for the sake of peace, does not mean that the "one flesh" ever becomes two again. The burden of proof is upon those who think that after two become one, that one can become two again. "No more twain" means (never again two).1 Cor. 7:25-28 "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.26\tI suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.27\tArt thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.28\tBut and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you."OK, now that we have put this scripture in CONTEXT, let's look at it and decide what makes sense and what does not.V. 25 "Now concerning virgins" - OK, we expect that Paul is going to give a command "concerning virgins. Let's look. v. 25? No command. v. 26? Still no command. v. 27? There we go: "Virgins...Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed." And so on.Now how could a virgin be bound to a wife? Well Mary and Joseph were both virgins. Were THEY bound? Let's see:Matt. 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.19\tThen Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.20\tBut while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."First notice in v. 18 that this was "before they came together", yet Mary was "espoused to Joseph." They were botrothed or "bound" to each other. It required a divorce to break this union, though they had not even had the marriage ceremony or come together.Next notice v. 19. Joseph was "her husband" and to break the relationship he had to "put her away." Yet they were VIRGINS. Maybe Paul DID know what he was talking about.v. 20, the angel said that Mary was Joseph's "wife", though he had not "take(n)" her unto him.Now let's use this holy couple to see if we can figure out what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 7: 25-28. 1) Scripturally we know that virgins can be "bound" in marriage through betrothal (different from engagement). 2) We also know that in a betrothal it requires a divorce to separate the two. 3) The reason a virgin "hath not sinned" if they marry their espoused partner is "because of the present distress" in which many virgins remained single and devoted their lives to the Lord. It was a very SERIOUS thing to make a commitment to give one's life to celibacy in serving the Lord. See the charge against the widows who couldn't keep their vow to be devoted to the Lord:1 Tim. 5:11 "But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;12\tHaving damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.13\tAnd withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.14\tI will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."So young widows that commited to live single and devote themselves to serve the Lord and His church, if they break this vow and end up marrying were said to be in danger of damnation.So Paul needed to tell these virgins that they were NOT in sin, so they could be free to marry...FOR THE FIRST TIME. (they were virgins)So again the twisting of Scripture may be entertained by some, but hopefully not by anybody here. You too, Robert. God bless you. Pray you will see this clearly.

There is your friend's first error. (First sentence even ) Paul is not speaking exclusively of the Mosaic Law (Exodus - Deuteronomy). He is speaking of the Jewish Scriptures as a whole. The Jewish Scriptures are commonly referred to as "the law" meaning the law, the prophets, and the psalms. One has to look at context to see what is meant.I stick by the original statements completely and count this retort as utter nonsense. Nothing is said here to disprove the point whatsoever. Here the context immediately removes the possiblity of the narrow sense of the word "law" and demands the broad sense (law, prophets, psalms). Why? Because Paul here CONTRADICTS Deut. 24 in favor of what Jesus laid down. He said that a woman was bound to her husband "so then if, while here her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." (v. 3) So he cannot be talking about Moses' law and contradict that law at the same time!Here RT is trying to suggest that Paul was imposing upon the OT Saints the teachings of Christ retroactively. For those who do not understand what expostfacto means; quite simply, it is to make a law today against things people were doing previous to today, draw them into court and punish them for it. Moreover, Paul did not contradict Moses, nor did Christ. I know you are not willing to suggest that Christ came to destroy the Law? He came not to destroy, but to rightly interpret and set forth. You cannot pit Christ and Paul against Moses. Do you see that? This is talking about "the law of her husband". This is the law instituted in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2. It is the only law given in man's innocence save the command not to touch nor eat of the forbidden fruit and to be fruitful and to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it. This is a law that predated Moses by around two thousand years! This had nothing to do with the children of Israel. There was no Abraham, Isaac, nor Israel!! This is the law of her husband.You said much here, but let me remind the audience first that the world is now in a fallen state. We are not in the Garden and God did not take from each man's rib and side his mate. In Genesis 4 we already had polygamy being practiced. Morover, God gave laws concerning marriage as He did most everything else. Another little interesting side note is that the first command in all scripture to man is to be fruitful and multiply. I will take this opportunity to point out that RT is totally anticatholicism and rightly so, but in previous posts he criticised the Reformers for correcting their error towards marriage and divorce. The Catholic Church has consistently promoted a doctrine since the second century that preferred celebacy to marriage. They wished that none would be married the first time, much less again after they were biblically divorced. They are by no means a standard to use for marriage. they were not pro-marriage, they were pro-monasticism. We can thank them and the Hellenistic and ascetic influence they probigated for marriage and relations between man and woman being looked upon as dirty and sinful. There were some so messed up they believed it a sin to look on their own nakedness- so would get dressed in the dark. Should we seek advice from them? This is why Jesus said, From the beginning it WAS NOT SO. He said that Moses gave Deut. 24, but refused to say that it was by God.What a marvelous thing- a man who calls himself "RT" that does not believe the Holy Spirit breathed the whole counsel of God. Now we are getting to the bottom of this. He condemns the NIV, yet his version of the Bible is the NEC (Not Even close) version. When he gets through cutting and slicing I had wished I had an NIV than his version of the KJV.God distanced Himself from the Deut 24 remarriage law because it was not His original intent. When Jesus came as the new lawgiver, he re-instated Gen. 2.Wow! the lengths to which one would go to prove Unconditional Matrimony! I must admit, I have rarely heard of such liberal twisting of scripture. How could a man possibly pit God against His own Word and then say He distanced Himself from what the Spirit breathed? So the premise of this whole article is faulty. This is really bad exegesis.As you can see, the article stands and is quite water tight. Had I not known that, I had not posted it for 100's of people to see. Bad exegesis? Your right- I never once pitted God against His own Word.Hmm...I guess Paul must not have known the law very well...NOT! Check out 1 Cor. 7:11Because RT does what near all the disciples of Webb does (out of hand denies Deuteronomy 24) he refuses to accept what the Bible calls "a former husband." These are not my words, there are God's words. Let your own conscience be the judge. "But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband"Her what??? Her what??? Oh! Her HUSBAND. Not her "former husband." This article is weak.Looks almost like Webb himself is rebutting me with all these exclamations and bold type. Louder does nothing to change my mind- it only solidifies my position more as it appears that there are no sound arguments against it. If the article had been weak, BOLD type would not have made a 'weak' article any meatier. Now I understand that I am writing in a very forceful way. But I am not making any of this personal. I AM trying to make this article look as OFF as it really is. And it is WAAAAY off.I welcome you discounting it if you can. I want to know the truth and hope you do also. If I can be shown to be wrong with sound arguments, I will immediately write a retraction and apologize publically for my error. WKIPDid you see that? The LORD said that He was STILL MARRIED to Israel even after he gave her a bill of divorcement. What was God doing reconciling to His wife?Do NOT assume I am against reconciliation or that I believe that adultery necessitates divorce. I believe a man and women should forgive and try to go on and love one another. I do not believe in cheap grace. If a woman or man keeps playing the harlot they had better know that as sure as God will turn a man over to a reprobate mind a man or woman may be free from one who continues to trod their mercy and forgiveness underfoot. God turned back to Israel, but what about the multiplied millions who were not of Israel that plunged down into Hell. The ONLY people that are the Bride of God are those who live faithfully to Him. Ask Satan what unfaithfulness got him. It got him a one way ticket. Notice again, "They say". God quotes Deut. 24 remarriage law as the words of man, not His words. That's why Jesus reverted to the older (Garden of Eden) law of the husband and wife.Jesus reverted to the original plan for man because He was about to restore much of which was lost in the Garden to man. He came to seek and to save that which was lost. The hardness of the hearts of the born again has been removed and the stoney heart replaced with a heart of 'flesh.' This is why two born again believers are not to put away one another and never would put away one another of they were truly born again and walking with God because Sin would not enter. But, Sin does enter when folk are not truly saved or they backslide and suddenly the situation goes from "in the beginning" (type of scenerio) to a "hardness of heart" type of scenerio. Are sinners born again? Do they have a replacement heart yet? No. They are under the same hardness of heart conditions as were folk when God made the allowance for divorce in Deut 24. Our Lord DID NOT toss out this passage. He clarified it. I address that later. I always am amazed at the mental acrobatics that men undergo to make the word say what they want it to.What else do you got?No acrobatics here. Just the plain sense of what is said. What esle do I got? Well, I can't say you dealt with what I said yet. all this talk did nothing to break the seal of that article. Truthfully, I was hoping you would have. God Bless,-Robert

No, what Robert Wurtz II demonstrated was that he did not know the Scriptures as well as maybe he should of before writing what he did.Come on now RT, now that shot was below the belt. Pretty soon I'm going to have to put my gloves over my ears (I'm laughing and just trying to lighten things up no offense). Thanks for getting my name right though, I never seen anyone address me by my full name like that. To use the Scriptures, divorce means to "put her away." It is a fallacy to assume that just because a man is free from certain marital responsibilities to his wife that he is separated physically from her. The scriptures are clear that "they twain shall become one flesh." So they are no more twain (never again two) but one fleNever again two? That is something Webb would say and with lots of punctuation marks. Yet, find me some reputable lexicons that ever will define 'divorce' in the OT or the NT as mere 'seperation'- but still married. Is a slave still a slave if his master set him free? Need a slave be dead to be free from his master? Look again at the law. If he was injured bad enough the slave master was forced to set him free. If he were set free, is he still a slave? Then what means 'set free.' In the Hebrew the word for 'put away is garash and it means, "To thrust out." The word history begins with two major incidents. Here we read:So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)Here Adam was 'put away' from the Garden of Eden and just as God forbade a woman put away and remarried from returning to her former husband, God forbade Adam from ever returning to the Garden of Eden. even if Adam would have wanted to return, He was met with flaming swords. Words have a history. Words have 'first impressions' that set the course for the word as it will be used throughout scripture. What need more we know of what it means to be "put away"?Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. (Genesis 4:14)Notice what Cain says here; "From thy face shall I be hid." If I might so say, were it not for God giving a woman a writing of divorcement in Deuteronomy 24, she also would be a fugative and a vegabond in the earth and whoever found her with her new man without her papers may well have brought her to be slain also. Deuteronomy was NOT originally intended to make divorce easy- it made it more difficult. If forced the man to have to go before the Sanhedrin and provide her with some papers. The seperation had to be approved. Those who know the Mosaic Law are aware that there were crimes against virgin women that could be committed that removed the possibility of the man ever putting the woman away so long as she lived. These things had to be determined before the man could have the Bill of Divorcement approved. Next notice v. 19. Joseph was "her husband" and to break the relationship he had to "put her away." Yet they were VIRGINS. Maybe Paul DID know what he was talking about.I must give credit where credit is due and say that this is truly a valiant effort to try to answer I Corinthians 7:25-28. The first major problem with this is that we have now taken Jewish customs into a Greek context- where Jewish customs were strait out rejected. These people in I Corinthians were so immoral that it is doubtful that there were many virgins even in the Church. I say this not to defame them, but to bring to bear the full context of who Paul was talking to directly. It was reported commonly that there was sexual immorality among them and Paul went to great lengths to tell them that their bodies were not for sexual immorality. To take these Greeks and impose upon them the stained white sheet verifications of Jewish marriage would be a wild stretch. I concede that there were virgins in the Corinthian church that had parents concerned if their kids should marry. It seems to me that virgin most likely means here "never been married." This is different than simply saying "qualified for marriage." Can we verify that Paul is speaking to two types of virgins in these passages? We first have to ask if it is reasonable that Paul was adressing 'only' virgins in this passage. In I Corinthians Paul deals with the 'unmarried' and the widows. The Greek word for 'unmarrried' is agamos and it simply means "not married." We have shown in the articles that a women who has a 'former husband' is not married and is free to marry (Deut 24:2). So the term used here is simply a person who has no spouse. This is akin to our Lord telling the woman at the well that 'truly' she has no husband. Here we read:The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. Are we to assume here that this woman who was with a man and not married to him had suffered the loss of five husbands to the grave? Adam Clark comments on this passage:It is not clear that this woman was a prostitute: she might have been legally married to those five, and might have been divorced through some misbehaviour of her own, not amounting to adultery; for the adulteress was to be put to death, both by the Jewish and Samaritan law, not divorced: or she might have been cast off through some caprice of her husband; for, in the time of our Lord, divorces were very common among the Jews, so that a man put away his wife for any fault. Yet Jesus calls all five of the men- "her man". This is a clear indication that even He recognized that they had all been 'her man'. Not even Adam Clark would say that she had merely 'fornicated' with 5 men. Reason being is that it would not make sense when he said 'the man you are with is not your man.' Five were and one is not? If you are fornicating the man is not your man. She had to have been married and they died or she was divorced. Nearly all commentators opt for divorce. Yet, then why did not Jesus call her an adultress if that is what she was? He had no trouble calling the Pharisee's vipers and hypocrites? He referred to the people as an evil and adulterous generation, but would not call this one as adultery? Was he just being nice and tactful? That does not jibe. She was not an adulteress because she had truly been married to those men and it was very likely that at least one of them was still living. Plainly put- she was an "Unmarried Woman." So Paul is talking to unmarried women and to widows in I Corinthians 7:8. In I Corinthians 7:25 he begins to address virgins (Parthenos). In 7:26 he says it is good for a 'man' so to be. This word is anthropos and simply means a human being- male or female. Let us insert the word 'virgin' into the I Corinthians 7:27 text to see if it could possibly make sense. Art thou bound (deo) unto a virgin? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a virgin? seek not a virgin.I must ask how to be consistent with this line of reasoning how that a person who was loosed from a woman, that that person could be a 'virgin.' Either by death or divorce surely she was not a virgin. The argument looks good at first, but upon close examination the theory I put forth makes much more sense to me.God Bless,-Robert

If Jesus and Paul call a remarriage "adultery", there is no difference in the scenerios. Is having children together what makes a marriage? I do not believe so.This is based completely on your personal view of what constitutes perpetual adultery. I know of no case when a person biblically divorced could be said as commiting perpetual adultery.

The thing that stands out to me here is how difficult it is to really come to terms with what the New Testament says on this subject. A person practically needs to be a bible scholar to really understand it all and even then they don't agree. Could it be possible that we could be so dogmatic about the issue as to justify referring to married folks with living spouses as adulterers? Before the retort- "that's what Jesus and Paul taught" comes forth- may I remind everyone that we don't know for certain what was meant by their words. I simply do not know for sure and I don't believe anyone really does. Many say they do and are ready to risk peoples lives on it. Surely if the Lord had wanted- he had set forth unmistakable direction.

This is based completely on your personal view of what constitutes perpetual adultery. I know of no case when a person biblically divorced could be said as commiting perpetual adultery. Robert, Do you believe the adultery by remarriage Jesus and Paul spoke of IS perpetual for those "unbiblically" divorced? If not, what is it that makes it no longer adultery---in God's eyes? Blessings in HIM, Cindy

Do you believe the adultery by remarriage Jesus and Paul spoke of IS perpetual for those "unbiblically" divorced? If not, what is it that makes it no longer adultery---in God's eyes?Because God ended adulterous relationships in the OT with death. The marriage ended because the perpretators were dead. yet, in the NT they are allowed not only to live, but no matter how much harlotry they dish out- they go on mocking the whole one flesh institution? I can't go for the latter. What happens when two become one and then one more is added? Simple math states that you have two again. 1+1=1+1=2 That ought to scare any adulterer or adulteress. I will believe in Unconditional Matrimony when 1+1=1+1=1 and likely not before. I really do appreciate you and RT's input and debate and have been very blessed by it. We are not enemies and I hope you don't see me as such. I just believe strongly we need to use caution here. God Bless,-Robert

Because God ended adulterous relationships in the OT with death. The marriage ended because the perpretators were dead. yet, in the NT they are allowed not only to live, but no matter how much harlotry they dish out- they go on mocking the whole one flesh institution? I can't go for the latter.Robert, When the woman was caught in adultery, what did Jesus say? He said, "go and sin no more"........You're right, the death penalty no longer exists. The thing is you are still not answering my question: what about unbiblical divorce and remarriage----is it continual adultery? What exactly is it in your understanding, that dissolves a 1st marriage-----the adultery itself (extramarital), the divorce or the adulterous remarriage?You've already stated that vows are to be upheld (when you speak of second/third, et marriages. How is it that they are supposed to be upheld, but not the first marriage---the marriage scripture clearly shows where God takes 2 and joins together into "1". Many say of second, third, etc marriages "you can't unscramble the egg"..........If we can't unscramble the egg God calls "adultery", how can we unscramble the egg that God Himself scrambled?Concerning the perpetrator being dead, I think that mindset can be absolutely refuted by Rom. 7:2-3. It is not the death of the GUILTY one that dissolves the marriage, but of the INNOCENT one.........Also, if one wants to use that argument (adultery means "death" to marriage). How about all those marriages where the marriages survive? Did Jesus give some an "out" while others have the choice to be forgiving? It seems to me that brings us right back to hardhardedness-----something Jesus spoke against. Another thing: what if the "innocent" one wants the marriage, but the guilty does not? When is the marriage dissolved? What if the "innocent" one believed they were joined by God FOR LIFE and are waiting for restoration, do you feel comfortable enough to tell that person in God's sight their spouse is dead, so they need to "move on"? If you could only definitively point me to the exact time a marriage is dissolved when both spouses are living, I may understand your position, but at this time, your position on divorce/remarriage is as foggy as most Robert. One further thing, you are not my enemy either. I know this topic hits close to home for you and for that I am sorry, but this is an important, important issue to discuss and the fact that there is such "foggyness" in understanding what exactly dissolves a marriage, people are just throwing their hands up in the air and following what everyone else is doing-----which is almost always a work of the FLESH. That is why we see the destruction of God's intended family unit that we are now seeing in the last 100 years...............Blessings in Him, Cindy

Also, if one wants to use that argument (adultery means "death" to marriage). How about all those marriages where the marriages survive? Did Jesus give some an "out" while others have the choice to be forgiving? It seems to me that brings us right back to hardhardedness-----something Jesus spoke against. Another thing: what if the "innocent" one wants the marriage, but the guilty does not? When is the marriage dissolved? What if the "innocent" one believed they were joined by God FOR LIFE and are waiting for restoration, do you feel comfortable enough to tell that person in God's sight their spouse is dead, so they need to "move on"? Hi Cindy,You asked a lot of things, but I think this paragraph will suffice for the moment to respond to. I will answer the last question and it will give my view.The person(s) in question need to genuinely search the scriptures and find out what God's word says. I have already addressed many of the relevant passages from what I can see. This does not satisfy you, but that is irrelevant unless you personally are in the situation and are looking for counsel. Personally I would never tell a person WHAT to do. NEVER! That is not my perogative. I would lay out the issues as best as I can for comparison to what the person(s) in question is seeing. At the end of the day I do not say what to do no matter WHY the persons were divorced. That is between them and God just like everything else. I am not the leader of a cult and do not have apostolic authority. If the subject was clear enough for me to speak to I would; but it is not. It would be like doing heart surgery through a dark glass with a speck in your eye to try to speak to such a serious issue with such little light and such frailities and shortcomings. I will post at some point a rather large tractate on this whole topic as God bids me. Before I do that I will leave you with a question to ponder: "Can you place yourself in a position to consider the issue from Christ's point of view in light of what He has revealed as his personality and attitude to folk He encountered that their lives were in a mess?" God Bless,-Robert

lastblast wrote:The thing is you are still not answering my question: what about unbiblical divorce and remarriage----is it continual adultery? If I may throw some letters around, I would say no.What exactly is it in your understanding, that dissolves a 1st marriage-----the adultery itself (extramarital), the divorce or the adulterous remarriage?I think in this regard, God is more interested in the individual well being of the people concerned than the formula of who is still married to whom and why their present spouse is not really married.There is a 'loose' princaple of obedience brings blessing and disobedience brings cursing. If people do such things voluntarily with a full knowledge of what Gods word says then there are consequences. I do nor believe however that God would require that couple to now seperate and then the one who was/is married before to go back to his/her original partner. What of the other spouse who went into the relationship none-the-wiser. That would be causing more hurt in a situation that was already not operating with Gods full blessing. As much as God hates divorce, I think that it is a deffective view of the true nature of God to think that he would require such a thing from someone to 'carry through' repentance. There are more often than not other people involved and that is what God is seeing in this situation.For those people who have remarried I think there will always be something that they carry with them from their previous marriage. If man casts asunder something that God has joined there will always be something of that other person left with each other. Have you ever tried to pull wall paper of a wall without using the right stripper, bits of the paper and bits of the wall are left on the two as they seperate.

Hey, my friend. Of course no hard feelings. We are ALL wanting truth here. I don't sense that you are being stubborn. I don't have time now to refute your refutation of my refutation. :-P But I do want to point out one thing. You seem to be satisfied with thinking that this issue is vague from either side. I can speak from personal reference as one who used to take your position. It is SO confusing to look at the divorce Scriptures from the more permissible angle. I never really understood them until I had the betrothal piece. They seem to contradict without it.So with that, let me ask you a question. What if you were a Gentile reading the book of Mark if that were all you had? (After all Mark was written for the Gentiles and Matthew was written to win the Jews) What would you think if all you had to go on was this:Mark 10:1 "And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.2\tAnd the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.3\tAnd he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?4\tAnd they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.5\tAnd Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.6\tBut from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.7\tFor this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;8\tAnd they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.9\tWhat therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.10\tAnd in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.11\tAnd he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.12\tAnd if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."No exception clause there. No need of understanding of Jewish betrothal customs. Just a plain Jane Gentile message. What do you understand this CLEAR passage to mean?Blessings,RTP.S. (You never took my origianl challenge to take Webb's book and refute it. You did post your own article, but never directly dealt with Webb's book. That would be nice to see you try to do some time. ;-) )

I just thought of something. There are probably a lot of people here that don't have a copy of Dr. Webb's book "Till Death Do Us Part." So I have an audio message by Dr. Webb posted on our site entitled, "What the Bible Really Says About Marriage and Divorce." I think many of you will appreciate his Berean style approach to this subject. Before you judge the man, you owe it to him to at least hear it from his own mouth. (Assuming you haven't read the book)Here's the link:http://www.believeonjesus.com/audio/messages.aspWould love to have a discussion about the contents of this message.Blessings,RT

If the subject was clear enough for me to speak to I would; but it is not. Then we will leave our discussion at that. At the very least hopefully this discussion will spur people on to seek the Word of God for themselves. We all need to know HOW to walk in God's blessings, not His cursings AND we need to understand the very heart of God and why He commands us to live, not by the flesh, but by the Spirit. Blessings in Jesus, CindyWhosoever will seek to save his life, will lose it and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, will save it...........

what about unbiblical divorce and remarriage----is it continual adultery? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------If I may throw some letters around, I would say no. God is more interested in the individual well being of the people concerned than the formula of who is still married to whom and why their present spouse is not really married. Hello Zeke,Do you believe that God cares more about how we are "feeling" than that we abide "in Him"? I'd have a really hard time understanding that to be the case due to my studies, experience with the Lord. Yes, God loves those who are His, however, when we go astray, there is chastisement guaranteed (Heb 12). Jesus made this statement: He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of Me; and he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me, he who finds his life will lose it and he who loses his life for my sake will find it (Mt. 10:37-39).If God did not care about a "formula" for marriage and the sins involved, why did He label a remarriage as adultery? It seems to me that God takes marriage very seriously since it is HE, not man, who makes 1 out of 2. Some seem to believe that God is at our whim, He just goes along with (remarriage)adultery----even joining that which He has called sin. I just can't see that in scripture. God defines marital relationships and He defines what is sin relationally. It seems to me we, in the Western World, have taken great license with "thus saith the Lord" in many different areas----even outside this present topic. It reminds me of the story in Genesis when the serpent said to Eve: "Has God indeed said?".......his point was "surely you don't believe Eve, that God really meant 'exactly' what He said now, do you?"This is now what we are doing with "adultery". "Surely this isn't really what God meant when He spoke of divorced people marrying"........I'm sorry, but if I don't have God's Word----in literal context, then I am lost in my understanding and I truly could go to ANY church, and I mean ANY, including one headed up by homosexual clergy, because maybe, just maybe they were "rightly" interpreting God's Word in a more "spiritual" manner. Yikes!!! I at this present time, couldn't abide by that mindset.I think that it is a deffective view of the true nature of God to think that he would require such a thing from someone to 'carry through' repentance. There are more often than not other people involved and that is what God is seeing in this situation.Here again is the precedent that Robert and I spoke of: Ezra 9-10. God surely DID require families to be broken up over sinful marriages. People seem to think that this type of thing would be out of character to God. His judgment was upon the nation due to their rebellion against Him in marrying heathen women. This had been going on a LONG TIME. So long that people didn't even know/remember they were sinning. It was only after they went inquiring of the Lord as to why His judgment was continually upon them that they had it revealed to them they had gotten into sin and that is why God's judgment was upon them. See, ignorance did not do away with God's judgment.We now see in Acts 17:30-31 that God is not "winking" at ignorance. He is commanding ALL men to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.......The "LIGHT" has come into the world and the standard is even HIGHER......though the Grace, and not punishment is there WHEN we show forth the fruits of REPENTANCE. Blessings in Him, Cindy

I never really understood them until I had the betrothal piece. Hi RT,I am full aware of this position and have heard of it for some time, though I never really thought through it for 'days' as I have now. I must say that on the surface it seems to make sense because it appears to represent the picture of our relation to Christ and the Church. That is where the FORCE of the argument is coming from. However, I think what is happening here is that there is a completely legitimate metaphor being merged with the teachings of Christ on divorce and remarriage and it is seriously handicapping the fulness of what our Lord said- while at the same time piggy backing off of the truth of the metaphor. It has all of the ingredients of deception- truth mixed with falsehood. It assumes several things from the beginning that are simply false:1) That Christ was referring to betrothal and not marriage in particular. a) The question posed to him in Matthew 19 was not about betrothal- it was about marriage. In Matthew 5 he was talking clearly about husbands and wives. There is no reasonable cause to assume that he is referring to the 'betrothed' in this group. b) Some say that to commit harlotry during the betrothal period was considered adultery under the Old Covenant and not merely 'fornication.' 2) It would indicate that anyone who ever broke off their 'enguagement' have committed adultery unless the person actually committed fornication during the betrothal period and were given a writing of divorcement. It would suggest that one who was enguaged to be married by the hand of the flesh would be compelled by the letter of the Law to follow through with the marriage even if Godly counsel had persuaded them otherwise or if the Holy Spirit was dealing with them "NOT" to marry the person. Once the man and woman were 'enguaged' there would be no turning back. Are you prepared to take this line also? If not why not? If you are, what shall be of the multitudes of people around the world that broke off enguagements without 'fornication' being the cause? Are they adulterers and adulteresses and in need of being called such also?3) The issue at hand was clearly Deuteronomy 24. This is not a passage about betrothal, but divorce of married couples. One cannot say that Christ threw out Deuteronomy 24 on the one hand without admitting that He was in fact addressing it. The topic was Deut 24- not betrothal. Betrothal is a fabrication to further the circular arguments of Unconditional Matrimony. o with that, let me ask you a question. What if you were a Gentile reading the book of Mark if that were all you had? (After all Mark was written for the Gentiles and Matthew was written to win the Jews) What would you think if all you had to go on was this:Having studied this topic in depth, you likely know that unless you take all of the Gospel passages on the topic and merge them together- some party will have a loop hole to commit adultery. Your cited passage in Mark is case in point:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.In verse 11 only the man that put the woman away commits adultery. The woman and the man who marries her are not mentioned. In verse 12 the same happens- only it is the wife in question.Obviously there are some serious details missing here if we want to know the whole counsel of God on the topic of Divorce. You cannot make an argument from silence. Actually, the whole concept insults me as a believer because it suggests to me that I ought not pursue the FULL counsel of God, but should try to select passages that fit my beliefs as a 'Gentile'. What if I just decide to toss out the entire Sermon on the Mount? Just because I am a Gentile and not a Jew I can look on a woman and lust with impunity? God forbid!No exception clause there. No need of understanding of Jewish betrothal customs. Just a plain Jane Gentile message. What do you understand this CLEAR passage to mean?This is another line of Webb's reasoning that I hope he has not spoiled you with because it will distort your entire hermeneutic. Notice how you made the word CLEAR in all caps? You are suggesting that the "CLEAR" passages should have precedent over the "UNCLEAR". The next move in this strategy is to obscure the passage that do not fit your doctrine. This is BRAINWASHING my friend. How do you think the cults get started? Matthew 5 and 19 appear as the first book in the New Testament. That is God's design as He ordered things. Moreover you and Webb admit that there are UNCLEAR teachings on the topic. Wherein then gain thee the confidence to speak so dogmatically on the topic? To the casual reader, before one ever reaches Mark or Luke's passages you have already been shown the exception clause TWICE in Matthew. The omissions of Mark and Luke do not nullify the inclusions of Matthew on ANY Biblical subject. They are the synoptic Gospels and are all necessary. By your rational, I could only have the Gospel of John and would not even know Unbiblical Divorce was Adultery. God Bless,-Robert

Then we will leave our discussion at that. At the very least hopefully this discussion will spur people on to seek the Word of God for themselves. We all need to know HOW to walk in God's blessings, not His cursings AND we need to understand the very heart of God and why He commands us to live, not by the flesh, but by the Spirit. Blessings in Jesus, CindyYou asked several times how I counsel people in various situations. First of all, I am not a counselor or a 'Pastor' per se. I am a Youth Pastor. I am also an Adult Sunday School teacher and out reach minister. I also 'preach' monthly. In cases when I have known people to be wanting to divorce their spouses I have gone to great lengths to stop it just short of name calling and physical intervention. I have poured out my soul to see it stopped. when the person has no real biblical cause I consider it wickedness and don't hesitate to say it is such. When adultery was involved I counsel to work it out and forgive. Recently this happened until I encouraged a man to forgive over and over (the space of a few years) and when he caught his wife the 3rd time it turned to serious physical violence and a catrostophy of major proportions was narrowly avoided. So yes, I have been there. I know what these issues are all about. I have seen men that were very spiritual men watch their wives play the harlot until the almost completely lost their faith. By counseling them to just forgive and trust God the harlotry never ceased. Forgiveness was seen as weakness until the person is to this day in a backslidden state because God did not keep their wife while they attended to their life. Imagine that. Hosea project? What they know bout' Hosea? Unless the been there and walked it and know what they are talking about. On the flip side I have known of godly men whose wives played the harlot with many men and they have gone on and forgiven them. they stand in God's grace. Having seen both what do I say? I say that when you play the harlot you are taking your very body and soul into your own hands. I have known of men who found their wives with men that put the shotgun into the room where they were and only God's providence kept it from going off as the naked man and woman fled out the front door. A pastor who shot his wife to death when he came home and found her in bed with another man and is in prison today. She went out into eternity in a bed of adultery. these are the ones I can at least mention. The worst ones I will save between me and the Lord. Taking Matthew 5 and 19 out of the scripture will cost many people their lives. I know it to be a fact. I have seen my fair share of near misses and know of actual occurences. God Bless,-Robert

Jesus made this statement: He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of Me; and he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me, he who finds his life will lose it and he who loses his life for my sake will find it (Mt. 10:37-39).This is another typical line that is used to break up families and it is wildly out of context. To suggest that a man or woman leave his/her wife/husband and kids because they love the Lord militates hard against the whole of scripture. If any man provide NOT for his own and especially for his own house he has denied the faith and is WORSE than an infidel. Here again is the precedent that Robert and I spoke of: Ezra 9-10. God surely DID require families to be broken up over sinful marriages. People seem to think that this type of thing would be out of character to God. His judgment was upon the nation due to their rebellion against Him in marrying heathen women. This had been going on a LONG TIME. So long that people didn't even know/remember they were sinning. It was only after they went inquiring of the Lord as to why His judgment was continually upon them that they had it revealed to them they had gotten into sin and that is why God's judgment was upon them. See, ignorance did not do away with God's judgment.Paul addresses the marriage of believers to pagans in I Corinthians 7 and tells us they they should not leave the spouse because the unbeliever is sanctified by the believer. So this ordeal in Ezra would not go down in the NT as the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile is broken down and God has called us unto peace.Notice in I Corinthians 7 how many times the people are told "To abide in the calling wherewith the Lord found them." Are you bound to a wife do not seek to be loosed. There are many "women at the well" that are coming to Christ everyday in this world. What do they need? They have been married many times and have no idea what to do. I know of a woman been married 9 times and recently came to Christ. What did Jesus tell the woman at the well to do? Your right. He didn't tell her anything but one thing- "If you would have known the gift of God and who it is that asks of you a drink, you would have asked and He would have given you LIVING water." Did she need a counselor? Did she need advice? No. she needed a drink of Living Water. And when the Holy Spirit comes in to come along side- HE will lead them into all truth. HE will chart the course of direction for their live and He will do it based upon His will and character. Not our pet peeve doctrines and not according to how I wish He would do it. A man or woman earnestly trying to serve God are not the ones that are bringing anathema on our heads! It is not the ones who smite their breast and say God have mercy on me a sinner. It's the ones that thank God that they are not like the adulterers and such. No one is exempt from a life of ruin. No one is exempt from the fears of uncertainty. If I might exhort all who read this- allow the Holy Ghost to be the Holy Ghost and stop trying to play God. You will give an account for every thing you counsel. Tread lightly and speak slowly and softly. More than that- encourage the people to do what the Holy Ghost is dealing with them to do. Don't come in and wound their conscience with strifes about words- let them seek the Lord and let Him guide them into the truth. He will not fail if we will get out of the way. if they desire TRUTH they will find it- if they do not- you are wastig your time anyhow.God Bless,-Robert

Hey Robert,1) That Christ was referring to betrothal and not marriage in particular. a) The question posed to him in Matthew 19 was not about betrothal- it was about marriage. In Matthew 5 he was talking clearly about husbands and wives. There is no reasonable cause to assume that he is referring to the 'betrothed' in this group. I don't think you quite see the betrothal piece as it applies in its historical context. This is probably my fault for not writing more clearly. However, Joseph Webb does make this very clear.1) There is a HUGE difference between Jewish betrothal and our modern day Gentile "engagement". Betrothal was witnessed by both families (especially that father and brothers of the groom and the father of the bride). A dowry was agreed upon and a pledge was exchanged. It was legally binding from that time on. They were husband and wife. Modern "engagement" is NOT marriage. It is not recognized as binding by the families or the law or the couple themselves. If you ask them, they will tell you that they are NOT married yet. This would not be the case with a Jewish betrothed couple. 2) Jewish marriage BEGAN at betrothal, not when they began living together. There was a period of time at the beginning of the marriage where the couple were bound together as married, but had not yet come together in sex. There was a set time for the man to "take" his wife "unto him." 3) We cannot differentiate between MARRIAGE and BETROTHAL. This is a misnomer. Betrothal was a STAGE of marriage. A betrothed person WAS married. (See the passages I clearly layed out below about Mary and Joseph) While you can't differentiate between marriage and betrothal, you CAN differentiate between BETROTHAL and CONSUMMATION. If during consummation the man found the woman to have played the harlot (fornication) in her father's house, he could put her away.4) So the Jews knew exactly what "except for the cause of fornication" meant. Gentiles don't. I think that's pretty clear.I think this deals with your points 1 through 3.Having studied this topic in depth, you likely know that unless you take all of the Gospel passages on the topic and merge them together- some party will have a loop hole to commit adultery. Your cited passage in Mark is case in point:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.In verse 11 only the man that put the woman away commits adultery. The woman and the man who marries her are not mentioned. In verse 12 the same happens- only it is the wife in question.I hope no one is looking for a "loophole" here. I know I certainly am not. How foolish would it be to search for a loophole only to deceive yourself and come up wanting on the day of judgement. Not me, sir.I can't believe you think Matt. 10:11, 12 are unclear. This befuddles me. Here it is again:"11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."v. 11 is a commandment concerning men. So the consequences for a man are given. (Notice "whosoever" is only speaking to the husband) Very clear. v. 12 is a commandment for the woman. So the consequences are given for the woman. ("And the woman" is only for the woman) Again, very clear.So both parties in the divorce are spoken to. Both are told that they would be in "adultery" if they re-married. No exceptions. There is NO silence here.Obviously there are some serious details missing here if we want to know the whole counsel of God on the topic of Divorce. You cannot make an argument from silence. Actually, the whole concept insults me as a believer because it suggests to me that I ought not pursue the FULL counsel of God, but should try to select passages that fit my beliefs as a 'Gentile'. What if I just decide to toss out the entire Sermon on the Mount? Just because I am a Gentile and not a Jew I can look on a woman and lust with impunity? God forbid!There are NO details missing. There is a complete revelation concerning God's requirements for divorce and remarriage. It is sin for a man or a woman to divorce and then re-marry.This shouldn't INSULT you at all! For you to say that EACH GOSPEL does NOT contain CLEAR revelation concerning EVERY issue in which it deals is the thing that is insulting. For you to say that a person can't read Mark and get a full picture about everything it speaks to is just off the chain! You can't pit Matthew against Mark or vice versa. Mark teaches the SAME thing as Matthew. One may contain more detail than the other, but one does not abrogate the other.If the exception clause is not betrothal, then Matthew 5 and 19 abrogates Mark 10. This is unacceptable. A person SHOULD be able to pick up ANY of the gospels and believe what he reads without any need of confirmation from any of the rest!! The truth is that if a person reads Mark 10, he or she will be convicted that they are in adultery if they are in a second marriage with the previous spouse still living. That is just the TRUTH. It takes an abrogation of Mark to remove this.This is what you are seeking for in Matthew. Well, you have not found it. You have found a specific detail as regards the betrothal period in marriage. Gentiles weren't into this like the Jews and they (gentiles) sure wouldn't be bound to keep themselves pure. Married people cannot commit "fornication" after consummation! Fornication is sex between singles. The narrow sense of "pornea" is demanded because Jesus uses the word "moikia" (adultery) in this passage as well. He was differentiating between fornication in the narrow sense (sex between singles or virgins) and adultery. This is air tight. It is terrible logic to say that my view that Mark CLEARLY speaks to everything it contains (incl. marriage commands) DEMANDS throwing out the sermon on the mount. Mark doesn't even CONTAIN the sermon on the mount. How could it change the meaning of something it doesn't even contain? Why would Mark leave people feeling wrongly condemned in Mark 10? Crazy. He wouldn't. Same goes for looking on a woman with lust specifically. Matthew is not ONLY for the Jews. But it contains specifics that only Jews could appreciate. Remember it was "to the Jew first".Notice how you made the word CLEAR in all caps? You are suggesting that the "CLEAR" passages should have precedent over the "UNCLEAR". The next move in this strategy is to obscure the passage that do not fit your doctrine. This is BRAINWASHING my friend. How do you think the cults get started?No, this is how you go about exegeting Scripture. No brainwashing here. Just commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. Hey, why don't you go and make a doctrine out of baptism for the dead? Why not? Your Bible interpretation warrants it. You have no need to start with the CLEAR passages. Go grab an unclear passage and RUN WITH IT. Knock yourself out.But everyone here knows that it is in fact THAT WAY (taking the unclear and running with it) that cults get started. Not the other way around.Now THAT is insulting.BTW, Livingwaters, I am married.Blessings,RT

Hi RT,4) So the Jews knew exactly what "except for the cause of fornication" meant. Gentiles don't. I think that's pretty clear.This is simply not true. It first of all is made on tha false premise that Matthew was written to the Jews and the other Gospels to the Gentiles. ALL of the Gospels were written to the JEWS first. ALL of the NT books were written BY Jews. It is a serious misnomer to suggest that Gentiles were the intended audience when the Gospel is to the Jew first and then to the Greek and there was not a single Gentile even in the Church until Acts 10. This belief fosters an overall contempt for the Law (except when it conveniently fits the endoctrination). Either give me ALL of Matthew or give me none of it! Either give me all 4 Gospels or give me none of them! I will have not of this slice and dice deception and endoctrination.The Betrothal Theory makes for what appears to be a strong case for those who have the circular reasoning of Unconditional Matrimony and are entangled in Webb's endoctrination practice; but it is far from reality. There is a conspiracy to try to write off the passages of scripture that clarify our Lord's position on this topic. This is not just a sin, but it is a great evil. And if I might so say, that cutting out passages of scripture under the pretense of holiness is not a new practice. The Rabbi's did it when the put a "fence around the Torah." The purpose was fear mongering and control. Nothing new here with Webb and his endoctrination methods. I'm surprised that you, as a Pentecostal believer did not discern this in his message. Look PAST his FEAR tactics and name calling. Look past the fact that he considers himself a bastard son born out of wedlock. Look past his disrespect for our men at war referring to them as "soldier-boys". Look past the fact that he tells his friends that he gets paid to be good- but that they are worthless (that would be 'Reca' in KJV termonology). RT, you are not 'worthless' if you do not ascribe to his indoctrination. If as you are suggesting, and I do not disagree, that the strength of betrothal under Jewish Law is as it is- then the whole premise of the argument is null and void. How can it be premarital sex when it is clearly adultery (Deuteronomy 22). Webb's fast talking sales pitch may have confused his readers and audience- but it has not rattled me in the least. There has to be a voice of reason to confront this madness. This man stands to wreak more havoc in the Church than anyone in modern times if his method of family breakup is taken on a large scale. What if a man or woman as Webb says can have 16 or 17 adulterous affairs and not break wedlock (that is the meaning of Adultery BTW), but it is merely a 'violation of the covenant'. Adultery means to BREAK MATRIMONY. He says that a "covenant may be violated but not broken." Hmmm. Strange!And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. (Zechariah 11:10-14)He also makes a serios error in his understanding of what "one flesh" constitutes. What does scripture call becoming 'one flesh' with someone? Here we read:I Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. Webb states: “Coming together does not make you one flesh- it is the priviledge because you ARE one flesh”. How does that statement jibe with I Corinthians 6:16? If one is ‘one flesh’ with their spouse and they join themselves to a harlot and become one flesh- we now have 2 and not 1. 1+1=1 (flesh) + one more flesh = 2 flesh. This is what it is mathmatically to "Break Matrimony." He or she have BROKEN the one flesh union because the nature of the one flesh union is stated in I Corinthians 6:16. Webb’s entire argument stands or falls based upon whether or not coming together in sexual relations constitutes “one flesh”. Are we to suggest that if a man becomes one flesh with a harlot it was because he made a vow before God with her? What made them one flesh? Adultery is sex by a married person with someone or something who is not their spouse. The vow you made before God allows for legal "one flesh" relations. *********How many churches are operating based on the FEAR he has set loosed in those that hear him? How many churches are locked in bondage and their people are in bondage due to it? I had a young man call me on this and suggest in genuine Webb form that if one really loved Jesus they would leave mother, father, etc. Should I have been surprised? No! It is all part and portion of Webb's theology and how he encourages folks to walk out on their family by a carefully calculated use of passages of scripture that anyone who has read their bible more than once is aware of. He has NO uniques angles on scripture- except that he seeks to make an unprecedented breakup of legitimate families in order to suit his doctrin and as he calls it "get paid to do good"; which, to him, relagates the rest of us to "worthless."One of the most brazen thing he says in his sermon is that "folk who have a living spouse and are married in the Church are not 'good christians' because they are NOT christians they are adulterers. The reason they work so hard is that they have a guilty conscience." (Paraphrased) If that is not brazen I don't know what is. Could it not be that these folks who have been forgiven of much- love much? Ooops! Sorry, Webb does not acknowledge any sort of forgiveness for them. To HEAR him minister ruined my whole perception of him. The writings were one thing- but I heard ALL I need to hear. Surely you know the difference between a spirit of fear and the Spirit of God?God Bless,-Robert

Hi RT,11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."v. 11 is a commandment concerning men. So the consequences for a man are given. (Notice "whosoever" is only speaking to the husband) Very clear. v. 12 is a commandment for the woman. So the consequences are given for the woman. ("And the woman" is only for the woman) Again, very clear.So both parties in the divorce are spoken to. Both are told that they would be in "adultery" if they re-married. No exceptions. There is NO silence here.What a marvelous thing! Can read Matthew 19-, Luke 16 and Matthew 5 into Mark 10 but cannot see "saving for the cause of fornication." If that is not selective isogesis- what is? There are NO details missing. There is a complete revelation concerning God's requirements for divorce and remarriage. It is sin for a man or a woman to divorce and then re-marry.This shouldn't INSULT you at all! For you to say that EACH GOSPEL does NOT contain CLEAR revelation concerning EVERY issue in which it deals is the thing that is insulting. For you to say that a person can't read Mark and get a full picture about everything it speaks to is just off the chain! You can't pit Matthew against Mark or vice versa. Mark teaches the SAME thing as Matthew. One may contain more detail than the other, but one does not abrogate the other.RT, you are really reaching here my friend. You know I am not pitting anything against anyone. If I have 4 witnesses to a crime and only call the one I believe will say what I want him/her to say- I am a wicked person. They are all in agreement. mark does not disagree with Matthew- he merely recorded details that mark did not. Look at the whole book of Mark. Is it a complete revelation? what og Luke or Matthew? John records John 3:16 & 17. Did we have the full revelation on salvation in Matthew, Mark and Luke? Of coarse not. That is why John was written. Give me all 66 books and I will have the Full Counsel of God. if I am short 1 book I am missing something. If I am missing 1 passage I am missing something. ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine and reproof. You cannot be honest and keep taking the approach that Webb's so called "CLEAR" passages nullify what he calls the "UNCLEAR" ones. The only thing Matthew 5 and 19 make unclear is WEBB's Unconditional Matrimony. Again, it is brainwashing and indoctrination. If the exception clause is not betrothal, then Matthew 5 and 19 abrogates Mark 10. This is unacceptable. A person SHOULD be able to pick up ANY of the gospels and believe what he reads without any need of confirmation from any of the rest!! We are not dealing with QUALITY here we are dealing with "quantity". We need every passage of all four Gospels to have the FULL Revelation. I want the whole Received Text- not fragments. Married people cannot commit "fornication" after consummation! Fornication is sex between singles. The narrow sense of "pornea" is demanded because Jesus uses the word "moikia" (adultery) in this passage as well. He was differentiating between fornication in the narrow sense (sex between singles or virgins) and adultery. This is air tight. Not so fast. Porniea is harlorty. Paul used the word to describe the young man who took his fathers wife. She was married wasn't she?It is terrible logic to say that my view that Mark CLEARLY speaks to everything it contains (incl. marriage commands) DEMANDS throwing out the sermon on the mount. Mark doesn't even CONTAIN the sermon on the mount. How could it change the meaning of something it doesn't even contain?Now you are getting it! How could Mark negate the exception clause when it does not contain it?No, this is how you go about exegeting Scripture. No brainwashing here. Just commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. Wrong, let me tell you what you are dong and I don't believe it is your fault- but you are a victim of the Webb. You are WOUNDING people's conscience by suggesting they are adulterers and adulteresses when they in fact are not. For those who "have not this knowledge" a stumbliung block is being laid before them so that they hear this and fear going home to their family. it's not Holy Ghost conviction- its the wounding a a persons conscience. it would be like me pointing to all sorts of passages on meats without pointing to the ones that bring the full revelation and counsel of God. God Bless,-Robert

WHY DID OUR LORD USE PORNEIA IN MATTHEW 5 AND MATTHEW 19:32?By Robert Wurtz IIMatt 5:28-32Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: Here we have our Lord making reference, not to some vague law that Moses gave the people, but one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. The word ‘adultery’ in the Old Testament is na'aph and simply meant to ‘break wedlock’. This root represents "sexual intercourse with the wife or betrothed of another man" (KB) (from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Copyright (c) 1980) A woman broke wedlock when she had illicit sexual relations. Man broke wedlock when he had relations with a married woman that was not his wife. The crime was punishable by death. Scripture indicates that the method would have been stoning (John 8:5). He continues: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Here our Lord tells us that to merely look upon a woman with lust constitutes adultery. This was the 10th commandment in that we are told not to ‘covet’ our neighbors wife. There is no contradiction here between lust and covet as the Apostle Paul stated that he had not known lust except it be said, “Thou shalt not covet” (Romans 7:7). He furthers this warning with several points that show the severity of the behavior. We read; “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (V 29, 30). Here our Lord is making adultery a matter of the heart. “Looking” with epithumia (lust) on a married woman or a married woman ‘looking’ on a man (not her husband) is grounds for adultery of the heart according to our Lord. This is an EXPANSION of the traditional definition of adultery. Keep in mind that our Lord is aware of what He is saying and carefully selects His words as not to be misunderstood and in fact loosen the bonds of matrimony rather than strengthen it. It would be a serious error to use again the word adultery (moicheuo) after establishing that looking with lust essentially constitutes adultery. Looking with lust is a very ‘loose’ form of adultery and could not possibly be used as the rule for divorce. It is reasonable to assume that the people looking to "put away" their wife or husband for "any cause" would immediately equate looking on a woman with LUST as grounds for divorce if they follow an exception clause with the word 'adultery' (the definition of which He just expanded) to its ‘contextual’ and ‘logical’ conclusion. This, in turn, could have been expanded to make BOTH parties guilty for the crime (the one who lusted and the one who was the object of the lust). Our Lord avoids this inevitable progression by reverting to the word ‘porniea’ which means 'harlotry'. It is defined as 'illicit sexual relations either for lust or for profit.' Man cannot be free from their wives for merely ‘looking’ at another man with what they in their jealousy may perceive as ‘lust.’ Hence, our Lord avoids the word 'adultery' by expressing the fulness of what He intends to say by using the blanket term porniea which inevitably involves use of the body and not merely the eyes, mind, and heart. Since it involves the body it is also a sin against the Temple of the Holy Spirit for those who are born again. Thus, the sin of adultery is a terrible sin which places one under the judgment of God (Hebrews 13:4). In Matthews’ writings the word porniea is only used 3 times (once in Matthew 5, once in Matthew 15 and once in Matthew 19). The root word for porniea used as follows: Matthew 5:3232 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.KJVMatt 15:199 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:Matt 19:9And 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.KJVWe have the word used of a person here in Matthew 21:32:Matthew 21:3232 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.The root word translated ‘harlotry’ is NT:4204:Def: In the N.T. universally, any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust: (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon) So we see then that the cause for the use of PORNIEA is not some illusive and mysterious or UNCLEAR cause. If lust = adultery and adultery is ground for divorce then in this equation lust= grounds for divorce. Simple math here. is lust grounds for divorce? NO! Harlotry is.

I am wondering if those who write these long post on this topic are married.Married for almost 17 years, first marriage, lots of bumps along the way......... :-)

I have been married also for 13 years and have 6 children. I am a "man of one woman" based upon I Timothy 3;2, 12 & Titus 1 devoted to one woman in my life. I do not have a wandering eye, nor do I flirt with other women. The intimacies of my relationship with my own wife are not shared with any other woman. (One could be unfaithful to his/her wife/husband, but still be married to only one woman/man.). My life is quite a testimony. God has brought me through some horrible things. I will not sling these things publically. It would be neither charitable or prudent. My forgiveness extends to all involved and God's grace has been suffucient. I am what I am. God has brought me through. Maybe you have been through some terrible things and do not quite know what to think of all you have been reading. Maybe you 'feel' condemned by those who have said to you - you are not 'really' a Christian. The GOSPEL is for you. Jesus Christ died on a Cross for your sins and mine. Search the scriptures. Let the Holy Spirit speak to you. God loves you! He desires that you come to know Christ and walk with Him. like the woman at the Well- you may have had 5 husbands and be living with a man RIGHT this moment! Jesus said that if you knew the GIFT of God- and the one that offered it- you would ask and He would give you Living Water. You need a drink! You need a drink of that water. And when the Paraclete comes inside to walk along side He will lead you to what to do. He did me- and I know He will you. Be Encouraged! Come to Christ! Ask for a drink- He will give it for the asking.God Bless,-Robert

You asked several times how I counsel people in various situations. First of all, I am not a counselor or a 'Pastor' per se. I am a Youth Pastor. I am also an Adult Sunday School teacher and out reach minister. I also 'preach' monthly. Robert, the reason I asked you is because of the very things you say about yourself above------your title is Pastor, you say you are a teacher and you also "preach".........how can you NOT counsel, if you believe the Lord has gifted you in all the "counselling" ministries?It seems to me that you are coming out hard AGAINST a position, but are unwilling to stand firm IN a position. How can that be? If you are so unsure of the Truth, so unsure that you would not counsel someone on what is right or wrong, how can you be so sure you are right to come out so hard against a position? If you cannot come to a conclusion on "what" it is that dissolves a marriage (outside of death), how can you then tell a married person to repent from their adulterous extramarital affair...........maybe it is possible that the affair already dissolved the lawful marriage and they were not actually committing adultery anymore, now they were "joined" in marriage to the new partner............You see how important it is to rightly divide the Word of God concerning WHAT else, if anything besides death, dissolves a covenant marriage?I have seen men that were very spiritual men watch their wives play the harlot until the almost completely lost their faith. By counseling them to just forgive and trust God the harlotry never ceased. Forgiveness was seen as weakness until the person is to this day in a backslidden state because God did not keep their wife while they attended to their life. Imagine that. Hosea project? What they know bout' Hosea? Unless the been there and walked it and know what they are talking about. Robert, if a person is "backslidden" it is their own lack of faith in God, not God's inability to do something, that has led them there. I think most of us can agree that in those times of spiritual dryness, it is US, not God, who is responsible. When people fail us(or our expectations of them), it is to God and Him alone, we are to run. I know this. Do I always do it? No, and when I don't, I get beaten up with life and those hard things God has ALLOWED into my life. This is a direct RESULT of not "abiding in Him". Also, God is not a puppet and if someone backslides due to another's sin, they are trusting in man and not God---and they then can become entangled in sin themselves. We always need to encourage each other that God works in other's lives according to HIS perfect timing, not ours. Our place is only to TRUST, not to decide the "whens" and "hows" of how God will deal with another. One thing I do know is that if I do not stand in the gap for the one GOD joined me with, who will? Concerning counsel, if one's spouse is in UNREPENTANT adultery, I think staying in the same household is bad counsel. Paul tells believers how to treat those who identify themselves as believers(if that is the case)---if they are unrepentant, we are not even to eat with them. Maybe this was what Paul had in mind when he spoke in I Cor. 7: "but if you do depart, remain unmarried or be reconciled"......This is exactly what the Shepherd of Hermas(AnteNicene Fathers) writes about: if a wife is in unrepentant harlotry, she is to be put away, but the man is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her. He is to remain unmarried----in the hopes that his wife will repent and return to her marriage.........this is what we see Hosea doing. He does not forsake his sin loving wife, he waits for her to return from her adulteries.........Hosea was TOLD by God to marry a woman of harlotries------and God KNEW she would continue in her harlotries even after getting married, yet He TOLD Hosea to marry her. Why? Was Hosea more gifted to be able to "remain unmarried or be reconciled" than the believers today who are supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit---who empowers us to "abide in Him" by His grace? I don't believe so. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

Hi Cindy,It seems to me that you are coming out hard AGAINST a position, but are unwilling to stand firm IN a position. How can that be? If you are so unsure of the Truth, so unsure that you would not counsel someone on what is right or wrong, how can you be so sure you are right to come out so hard against a position?Because after a while you reach a point when you know to let God be God and not try to be him. Had God not needed to give man direction in the Earth the Holy Spirit had not been sent. I DO take FIRM stands when the issues and direction ARE clear- but I do not give direction at midnight under cloudy skies with no compass. We have to let God be God- Webb and his disciples are trying to play God and have relagated those who don't believe as they do as worthless salt that has lost its savor. those are not my words, but his. Listen to his sermon. This takes Finney to a new level. Robert, if a person is "backslidden" it is their own lack of faith in God, not God's inability to do something, that has led them there. I think most of us can agree that in those times of spiritual dryness, it is US, not God, who is responsible. When people fail us(or our expectations of them), it is to God and Him alone, we are to run. I know this. Do I always do it? No, and when I don't, I get beaten up with life and those hard things God has ALLOWED into my life. This is a direct RESULT of not "abiding in Him". If anyone ever wondered why we have a great High Priest this is it. He understands when we are being sifted in life and when we need prayer that our faith fail us not. I have been through things that would have caused a non spiritual person to commit suicide and I almost did anyhow. I know how this person 'backslid' and it was in part due to my counsel to keep trusting and forgiving a woman who was near to killing the man. Like a weapon in the hand of the enemy she battered his faith and blugeoned his heart. Also, God is not a puppet and if someone backslides due to another's sin, they are trusting in man and not God---and they then can become entangled in sin themselves. We always need to encourage each other that God works in other's lives according to HIS perfect timing, not ours. Our place is only to TRUST, not to decide the "whens" and "hows" of how God will deal with another. One thing I do know is that if I do not stand in the gap for the one GOD joined me with, who will? That is easy to say when its not your wife or husband thats fooling around all the time. The pain of infedility is the greatest negative emotion one can feel- BETRAYAL. Concerning counsel, if one's spouse is in UNREPENTANT adultery, I think staying in the same household is bad counsel. Paul tells believers how to treat those who identify themselves as believers(if that is the case)---if they are unrepentant, we are not even to eat with them. Maybe this was what Paul had in mind when he spoke in I Cor. 7: "but if you do depart, remain unmarried or be reconciled"......Wheew! So let them run the streets and get their fill of it? Lay around driving yourself crazy wondering where they are? Wondering who they are with? Wondering if YOUR wife is in bed with another man? Come on now! Thats how violence comes about. Webb says 16 or 17 affiars is no problem and that it don't break matrimony. Problem is- He has no authority to redifine the term adultery in 2005 when the meaning has been established for thousands of years. Listen again to Proverbs 6:32But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. 33A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away. 34For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance. 35He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.Does that sound like a man wanting to lie around wondering if his wife is with another man? his is exactly what the Shepherd of Hermas(AnteNicene Fathers) writes about: if a wife is in unrepentant harlotry, she is to be put away, but the man is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her. He is to remain unmarried----in the hopes that his wife will repent and return to her marriage.........this is what we see Hosea doing. He does not forsake his sin loving wife, he waits for her to return from her adulteries.........The problem with this is that "put away" as I wrote in a previous tractate means to return and not come back. This is backed up with Deut 24 and Jeremiah 3. It also assumes that all the parties survive the ordeal. Am I missing something- or do you no really understand the seriousness of breaking wedlock? Maybe that's why we are in disagreement and can find none. It does not get any more serious in this life than to commit adultery against a spouse unless one commits adultery against God. BTW the ANTE Nicene Fathers are not in authority- God's word is. Hosea was TOLD by God to marry a woman of harlotries------and God KNEW she would continue in her harlotries even after getting married, yet He TOLD Hosea to marry her. Why? Was Hosea more gifted to be able to "remain unmarried or be reconciled" than the believers today who are supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit---who empowers us to "abide in Him" by His grace? I don't believe so. Blessings in Jesus, CindyHosea was anointed of God to be a prophet to the people and live out what the people were doing to God as a living pictorial and commentary. Hosea can NEVER become the standard by which relationships are judged. He was a PROPHET of God. Ezekiel ate dungcakes but they won't be on my table tonight and I'm sure they were not on Hosea and Gomers. Likewise a priest was forbidden to marry a harlot. BTW, I heard just last week what the latest REPENTANCE 'craze" is going to be! Get this, since the word in Revelation for 'sorcery' is pharmakia (from which we get our word pharmacy), then everyone who is on medication is to pour out their medicine bottles!! Imagine when that book goes to its 5th printing! If you take medicine you are damned because all sorcerers will have their part in the Lake of Fire! Give me a break!God Bless,-Robert

This is another typical line that is used to break up families and it is wildly out of context. To suggest that a man or woman leave his/her wife/husband and kids because they love the Lord militates hard against the whole of scripture. If any man provide NOT for his own and especially for his own house he has denied the faith and is WORSE than an infidel. No, I did not take Mt. 10:37-39 out of context. It was very much in context. When we put ANYTHING above God, we are in sin, period. I would NEVER tell a person not to care for their responsibilities ........as that would be a sin. To have children out of wedlock----it is the DUTY of father to provide for his children....Is it however, the duty of the man to remain in the adulterous relationship BECAUSE of the children? That is where I see a double standard in the Western Church-------we call one group of people from adultery, but not another----when both addressed in scripture as the sin of adultery.Notice in I Corinthians 7 how many times the people are told "To abide in the calling wherewith the Lord found them." Are you bound to a wife do not seek to be loosed. Yes, we are called to abide in the calling wherewith we are called, but you wouldn't tell a practicing homosexual in a long-term, committed relationship that, would you? You would call him from his homosexual relationship, as would I. As I said before, for some reason, many in the Western Church think what Jesus and Paul both called adultery, God thinks it ok to "abide" in that calling?As to "loosed", here are many different translations on it.....also to note: two different greek words for "loosed" are used in the same passage.NIV27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. NASB27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.MSG27Are you married? Stay married. Are you unmarried? Don't get married. 28But there's certainly no sin in getting married, whether you're a virgin or not. All I am saying is that when you marry, you take on additional stress in an already stressful time, and I want to spare you if possibleAMP27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But if you do marry, you do not sin [in doing so], and if a virgin marries, she does not sin [in doing so]. Yet those who marry will have physical and earthly troubles, and I would like to spare you that.NLT27If you have a wife, do not end the marriage. If you do not have a wife, do not get married. 28But if you do get married, it is not a sin. And if a young woman gets married, it is not a sin. However, I am trying to spare you the extra problems that come with marriage.KJV27Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.ESV27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman[a] marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. CEV27If you are married, stay married. If you are not married, don't try to get married. 28It isn't wrong to marry, even if you have never been married before. But those who marry will have a lot of trouble, and I want to protect you from that. NKJV27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.ASV27 Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. 28 But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you. WE27If you have married a wife, do not try to be free from her. If you have no wife, do not look for one. 28But, if you marry, it is not wrong. And if a woman marries, it is not wrong. People who marry will have trouble in this life. And I want to keep you out of it. YLT27Hast thou been bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; hast thou been loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28But and if thou mayest marry, thou didst not sin; and if the virgin may marry, she did not sin; and such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I spare you.Darby27Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; art thou free from a wife? do not seek a wife. 28But if thou shouldest also marry, thou hast not sinned; and if the virgin marry, they have not sinned: but such shall have tribulation in the flesh; but I spare you.Wycliff27 Thou art bound to a wife, do not thou seek unbinding; thou art unbound from a wife, do not thou seek a wife. 28 But if thou hast taken a wife, thou hast not sinned; and if a maiden is wedded, she sinned not; nevertheless such shall have tribulation of flesh. But I spare you. The thing we see when reading the "loosed" passage is that not one of them says "are you divorced?"..........Paul says in I Cor. 7:11-----"Husbands, do not put away your wives". If they did put away their wives and got remarried, they WOULD sin, so inserting "divorced" into the meaning of "loosed" does not fit the context of that passage. The only men who would not sin in getting married are those who are "unmarried"(never married) or those who were widowed............It is not the ones who smite their breast and say God have mercy on me a sinner. It's the ones that thank God that they are not like the adulterers and such. Yes, Robert it IS one that smites her breast and says "God have mercy on me a sinner!!!"........I WAS an adulteress!! I KNOW what it's like to commit that kind of sin, so just because I come against this sin being perpetrated in the Church so freely today, don't assume I believe myself to be either "flawless" or sinless, because I am neither and my past wasn't too "pretty". I KNOW what it's like to sin and receive GRACE ABUNDANTLY from our Lord. I will not allow the emotional spins you are putting on this discussion sway me to "be quiet". You are making this an "us" vs. "them" thing, which to me, is much more divisive than the topic at hand. That my brother, is wrong. All of us need to check our emotions "at the door". If one or many of us is wrong, do what you admonish others to do-----let the Holy Spirit be the Holy Spirit and guide those who are in error, into truth.I read the post to RT and to be honest was quite surprised at your making those of us "permanency of marriage believers" into cult followers of Dr. Joseph Webb. I haven't even read his book---though I do know I agree with him by reading over his website. As I have stated before, this is a belief I came to THROUGH PERSONAL STUDY---guided by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. It was only AFTER I came to my present viewpoint that I learned of Dr. Webb's position as well as those of many other Christians. It was only AFTER this I learned that almost uniformly, the Early Church believed and practiced this as well...........and not only that but MOST non-western Christians TODAY believe and practice the permanency of marriage as well........I'm sure the bulk of those have never heard of Dr. Joseph Webb.....allow the Holy Ghost to be the Holy Ghost and stop trying to play God. You will give an account for every thing you counsel. Tread lightly and speak slowly and softly. More than that- encourage the people to do what the Holy Ghost is dealing with them to do. Robert, noone is trying to "play God" here. We are discussing the Word of God and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach each of us as HE sees fit. I have not condemned anyone, though I may disagree with them. It appears to me that you desire people don't even talk about this issue and this issue in my opinion, outside salvation, is the biggest issue we SHOULD be talking about-----especially with a 50% divorce rate IN THE WESTERN PROFESSING CHURCH. I'm sorry, but I place way more emphasis on this than: speaking in tongues, the rapture, baptism in the Holy Spirit, free-will vs. election, water baptism, etc, etc........Yes all these other topics ARE important to the Body, but there is a plague or divorce/adultery that is NOT being spoken of because it causes offense.Ask any Pastor what is the biggest dividing topic that now exists in the Church and they will say "the divorce and remarriage topic". (One of my previous pastors said it was one of the "hottest" topics). After asking Pastors this question, ask them how often they PREACH on it (line by line, precept upon precept), since divorce and remarriage is such a HUGE problem in the church..........the answer to that mystifies me. How in the world will things ever get "better" when people will not discuss it because it's too "offensive"? It seems today that being a "Berean" is only ok if questioning and studying does not make someone else feel bad..........Gosh, many Christians have made me "feel bad", but that has led to my growth and I hope it NEVER stops----the Holy Spirit WILL teach and someone offending me has nothing to do with it, IF, I desire truth. Just my 2,000 cents..........Blessings in Him, Cindy

Robert,First, I cannot delay anymore in apologizing for saying "Robert Wurtz II" should have known the scriptures better before writing what he did. I really thought you grabbed someone else's article and pasted it in here. When you said it was your full name, I just about died (figuratively of course). So please forgive me for that. I have had so many people respond to me on this issue by throwing me some weak article written by someone else. So many people don't want to deal with these issues themselves. They want someone else to do their Bible digging for them. This is quite clearly NOT what you are doing. So again, forgive me. :-? You have brought up some things in this article that I have never seen nor considered. So it may be a while before I post here again. I plan on passing this article of yours around to some of my theologically minded friends that are on the same page with me on this issue. I have always had the attitude that I just want to be right before God. I want to tremble at His word. (Isa 66:1-3) I just want to thank you for wrestling with me on this one. This is extremely healthy. If what we believe holds water, it will stand up in any debate. This is how it was in the days of John Wycliffe. At Oxford they weren't doing extensive essays and tests. They studied and studied and were rewarded by how well they could hold up in debating what they believed against opposing views. The idea was that the truth would always win out. This is also how young Jewish boys learned the Torah. They would group them in pairs of two and would have them discuss the meaning of the law. Whatever view is stronger here will win. Whatever is right will win. Thank you for your time in this. I need to go consider your point that Jesus had previously called looking with lust "adultery" and compare that with the "fornication" in the exception clause.''It will be pointless for us to continue until I have settled this in my own heart. This is new information. I will not debate meaninglessly. The whole point is to expose truth. And that, I believe, we will do.Blessings,RT

Hi RT,It will be pointless for us to continue until I have settled this in my own heart. This is new information. I will not debate meaninglessly. The whole point is to expose truth. And that, I believe, we will do.Sounds good to me. No apology needed. Glad to hear you want to know the truth also. God Bless,-Robert

Wheew! So let them run the streets and get their fill of it? Lay around driving yourself crazy wondering where they are? Wondering who they are with? Wondering if YOUR wife is in bed with another man? Come on now! Thats how violence comes about. Webb says 16 or 17 affiars is no problem and that it don't break matrimony. Problem is- He has no authority to redifine the term adultery in 2005 when the meaning has been established for thousands of years. So you believe that adutlery dissolves the "one flesh" God joined together-----it dissolves the marriage?Am I missing something- or do you no really understand the seriousness of breaking wedlock? Maybe that's why we are in disagreement and can find none. It does not get any more serious in this life than to commit adultery against a spouseAbsolutely I understand the seriousness of it.......yet, you do not seem to understand the seriousness of the adultery spoken of in Lk. 16:18, Mk. 10. Those who get a "divorce", yet God does not recognize it-----now they get remarried and God calls it adultery. That, my brother, is serious business.That is easy to say when its not your wife or husband thats fooling around all the time. The pain of infedility is the greatest negative emotion one can feel- BETRAYAL. There are MANY faithful saints who are "standing" for their covenant marriages to be restored, though their marriage partner is with another. Many of these faithful are even praying for those who are committing adultery with their spouses. That is Jesus' heart.........as He says: seventy times seven you shall forgive them.Hosea was anointed of God to be a prophet to the people and live out what the people were doing to God as a living pictorial and commentary. Hosea can NEVER become the standard by which relationships are judged. He was a PROPHET of God.Do we not have God living within us? If I cannot live as Hosea did, then I have no more power to live than the "best" unsaved person on the earth right now............Though I can speak with the tongue of angels, but have not love.............I Cor. 13........that is what is expected of us as followers of Jesus Christ and as we submit to His will and not the will of our flesh, HE will empower us to love as Hosea loved, which IS a picture of Godly, self-sacrificial, placing another above yourself kind of love.........it IS possible with Christ. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

Robert,I almost forgot. I did have one question for you. Where did you get this:The word ‘adultery’ in the Old Testament is na'aph and simply meant to ‘break wedlock’. This root represents "sexual intercourse with the wife or betrothed of another man" (KB) (from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Copyright (c) 1980) A woman broke wedlock when she had illicit sexual relations. Man broke wedlock when he had relations with a married woman that was not his wife. Where do you get that adultery means "break wedlock". Please site your source(s).Blessings,RT

Hi Cindy,Is it however, the duty of the man to remain in the adulterous relationship BECAUSE of the children? That is where I see a double standard in the Western Church-------we call one group of people from adultery, but not another----when both addressed in scripture as the sin of adultery.I agree that it is a terrible problem. I agree and preach repentance in this area. Where we don't agree is that God allows in certain cases for divorce and those people are not in adultery. beyond that, to address the 'questionable' cases- I do not have a solid opinion other than take the disciplined route as much as possible. Yes, we are called to abide in the calling wherewith we are called, but you wouldn't tell a practicing homosexual in a long-term, committed relationship that, would you? You would call him from his homosexual relationship, as would I. As I said before, for some reason, many in the Western Church think what Jesus and Paul both called adultery, God thinks it ok to "abide" in that calling?No, as with the exception clause, scripture presupposes the other relavant passages. That would rule out any illicit union of any kind. This is why we must study to show ourselves approved. As to "loosed", here are many different translations on it.....also to note: two different greek words for "loosed" are used in the same passage.I deal with this in a former tractate. It is a real good answer.The thing we see when reading the "loosed" passage is that not one of them says "are you divorced?"..........Paul says in I Cor. 7:11-----"Husbands, do not put away your wives". If they did put away their wives and got remarried, they WOULD sin, so inserting "divorced" into the meaning of "loosed" does not fit the context of that passage. The only men who would not sin in getting married are those who are "unmarried"(never married) or those who were widowedIf 'death' is how one is loosed then he told folk not to kill their spouse. Yes, Robert it IS one that smites her breast and says "God have mercy on me a sinner!!!"........I WAS an adulteress!! I KNOW what it's like to commit that kind of sin, so just because I come against this sin being perpetrated in the Church so freely today, don't assume I believe myself to be either "flawless" or sinless, because I am neither and my past wasn't too "pretty". I KNOW what it's like to sin and receive GRACE ABUNDANTLY from our Lord. Well, God forgives and so shoule we. Amen. I will not allow the emotional spins you are putting on this discussion sway me to "be quiet". You are making this an "us" vs. "them" thing, which to me, is much more divisive than the topic at hand. That my brother, is wrong. All of us need to check our emotions "at the door". If one or many of us is wrong, do what you admonish others to do-----let the Holy Spirit be the Holy Spirit and guide those who are in error, into truth.No- but there are some real emotions involved with people who are crushed by adultery. We need to take that into consideration and not take an ascetic position as if people had no feelings. If a person's marriage survives adultery then give God the praise and serve your spouse with all your heart- #2 only to God. I read the post to RT and to be honest was quite surprised at your making those of us "permanency of marriage believers" into cult followers of Dr. Joseph Webb. I haven't even read his book---though I do know I agree with him by reading over his website. As I have stated before, this is a belief I came to THROUGH PERSONAL STUDY---guided by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. It was only AFTER I came to my present viewpoint that I learned of Dr. Webb's position as well as those of many other Christians. It was only AFTER this I learned that almost uniformly, the Early Church believed and practiced this as well...........and not only that but MOST non-western Christians TODAY believe and practice the permanency of marriage as well........I'm sure the bulk of those have never heard of Dr. Joseph WebbMy apology. He is just the main promoter of this doctrine as far as I know. NONE of his points are new- he is just a ZEALOT preaching them and damning those who do not fall in line with his beliefs. Terrible it is! My sincere apology for suggesting that of you! Robert, noone is trying to "play God" here. We are discussing the Word of God and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach each of us as HE sees fit. I have not condemned anyone, though I may disagree with them. It appears to me that you desire people don't even talk about this issue and this issue in my opinion, outside salvation, is the biggest issue we SHOULD be talking about-----especially with a 50% divorce rate IN THE WESTERN PROFESSING CHURCH. I'm sorry, but I place way more emphasis on this than: speaking in tongues, the rapture, baptism in the Holy Spirit, free-will vs. election, water baptism, etc, etc........Yes all these other topics ARE important to the Body, but there is a plague or divorce/adultery that is NOT being spoken of because it causes offense.Again, I am sorry for putting you in a category with Webb. They are very forceful and condemning in their teachings. I do discuss these topics and have a sermon on SI in print in articles section and in other places on the Internet that is VERY strong on Marriage and Divorce. But, I still let God be God.Ask any Pastor what is the biggest dividing topic that now exists in the Church and they will say "the divorce and remarriage topic". (One of my previous pastors said it was one of the "hottest" topics). After asking Pastors this question, ask them how often they PREACH on it (line by line, precept upon precept), since divorce and remarriage is such a HUGE problem in the church..........the answer to that mystifies me. How in the world will things ever get "better" when people will not discuss it because it's too "offensive"? It seems today that being a "Berean" is only ok if questioning and studying does not make someone else feel bad..........Gosh, many Christians have made me "feel bad", but that has led to my growth and I hope it NEVER stops----the Holy Spirit WILL teach and someone offending me has nothing to do with it, IF, I desire truth. Just my 2,000 cents..........Blessings in Him,One of my first repentance messages in 2004 was on Marriage and Divorce. it was a real challenge- but God laid it on my heart and I ministered it in love and compassion. God Bless,-Robert

I know you didn't ask me this RT. This is just for your study taken from crosswalk.com:The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon Strong's Number: 05003 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin @an a primitive root Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Na'aph TWOT - 1273 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech naw-af' Verb Definition to commit adultery (Qal) to commit adultery 1a usually of man 1a always with wife of another 1a adultery (of women) (participle) idolatrous worship (fig.) (Piel) to commit adultery 1b of man 1b adultery (of women) (participle) idolatrous worship (fig.) King James Word Usage - Total: 31 adultery 17, adulterer 8, adulteress 4, adulterous 1, women that break wedlock 1 KJV Verse Count Exodus 1 Leviticus 1 Deuteronomy 1 Job 1 Psalms 1 Proverbs 2 Isaiah 1 Jeremiah 8 Ezekiel 4 Hosea 5 Malachi 1 Total 26 It looks like there is only 1 useage for "women that break wedlock", but I haven't looked up each verse listed to find out which one uses it in such a fashion. Blessings, Cindy

I agree that it is a terrible problem. I agree and preach repentance in this area. Where we don't agree is that God allows in certain cases for divorce and those people are not in adultery. beyond that, to address the 'questionable' cases- I do not have a solid opinion other than take the disciplined route as much as possible. I think where you and I differ greatly is in what true repentance entails for those who don't fit the 'exception clause'. Obviously I believe in the permanency of all marriages. As of this point in time, there has been nothing shown which refutes what I see in scripture. Even so, if I were to believe in the 'exception clause' as you do, I would have a very difficult time seeing repentance for the rest of divorcees/remarrieds as just involving "sorrow and change of heart", yet staying in the relationship Jesus and Paul termed adultery. The only way I could accept that is to have it proven to me scripturally, that adultery is a dissolving force of a marriage.If that is the case, then the "innocent" parties standing for their marriages to be restored could/should rightly be told: God dissolved your marriage. You need to accept that and move on.Again, I am sorry for putting you in a category with Webb. They are very forceful and condemning in their teachings. Thank you Robert. As for Dr. Webb's teachings, I will listen to his sermon tonight. I never have heard it. I have received his newsletter though and I found it to be full of compassion and love towards those who are "wayward". I will be surprised if I hear him be "condemning" in his attitude towards those who are in adulterous relationships..........Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

Hi Dorcas,I had this long post all typed out and something happened,it got deleted.Anyways, I can see how you could relate the widow passage to yourself-----if I were a divorcee, my husband deserting me, the Lord would be my provider/protector. I can not see however, how this passage would lead a divorcee to believe they were free to remarry. That's really stretching it "spirtually" and contradicts with scripture which teaches that a woman is bound to her husband til death (Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). Scripture also teaches that if a woman DOES depart from her husband, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled (I Cor. 7:10)----there is no permission to remarry, without committing adultery in the process (Mt. 19:9, 5:32, Mk.10:2-9, Lk. 16:18).It seems many have a real problem with "remaining unmarried or being reconciled". My "flesh" would too as I would think that unfair, yet that is exactly what Paul teaches the Lord commands of those who "depart". Going against this admonishment is to sin and to heap even more trouble upon oneself, in my opinion. If you would like to continue this discussion by PM/email, I would be happy to Dorcas. Blessings in Him, Cindy

The Lord has set me free from a legalistic definition of marriage - especially in the light of Paul's allusion to the possibility of being one flesh with a harlot. If being one flesh with a harlot does not bring a marriage to an end, then marriage is something different from or at least additional to, a formally-sanctioned sexual relationship. It may even depend on the quality of the sexual relationship, which would be a reflection of other attitudes within the relationship.Hello Dorcas, I am having a difficult time understanding what you are saying here. Do you believe that what God has defined as sin or His commands for the use of marriage are of a private interpretation----that some could disobey scripture and it be ok with God? As for the quality of a sexual relationship determining it's legitimacy to God, I cannot see that scripturally at all, if I'm understanding your point.I think (just my opinion again) that unless we are able to see there could be a bigger picture of God's plan for the lives of some individuals, and to trust that He is able to lead and minister to them by the Spirit, we may lose a great deal of the freedom to be freed by Him.Understand, I DO believe in the freedom which Jesus has bought us. I don't believe in the freedom to sin, however, I believe in the freedom to NOT sin. If we do sin, we have an advocate, but we are to FLEE sin, not remain in it, excuse it or ignore it. Paul believed so strongly in not using Grace as an occasion to sin that he stated "God Forbid" someone should be of that mindset.........I personally believe many of us who are permanency of marriage advocates/believers DO see the big picture, DO have a grasp on the Great Grace that was extended to us, the elect of God. Yes, most of us completely acknowledge that we ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, but........we shouldn't stop there. We are called to be conformed to His image......Yes, it is He that will do it in us----as we submit to His will in all things. We should not look to Him to see what we can get away with, what we deserve, what we are entitled to, as those things are flesh-based, but we should look to see how we can submit ourselves to Him so that He will be manifested IN US...........as He reveals sin and we repent of that sin. I think too what needs to be remembered is that we are really not just "individuals", we are a "part" of a bigger WHOLE----the Body of Christ. What we do or do not do affects the WHOLE Body. What is good for one is good for all and what is not good for one hurts all.The concept that one person can commit biblical sin and it be ok, while another cannot----well, I can't understand that reasoning---in the big picture. Now if one is saying: the Lord deals with each individual in His perfect time, revealing the individual areas of sin that need addressing so the Body becomes healthier and functioning better, that I understand and agree with. God does not deal with each of our sins at the same exact time---He deals with them when He's made us ready to deal with them-----then and only then the 'revelation' is real and personal AND lifechanging. That I CAN agree with.Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

Hi Cindy,Since you replied to my post, I have really been thinking hard about the situation, because you are right that is what the word says...but.Do babies/small children go to heaven?I believe yes, thats why I believe God extends grace to people in situations which we are discussing. I don't really have time to embelish on the thought but that is what came to me.Kapish? ;-)

Hi RT,Where do you get that adultery means "break wedlock". Please site your source(s).This is the translation that Tyndale gave the term 'adultery'. It seems in reading his writings that he preferred in some cases to state the true meaning of adultery rather than simply use the word 'adultery'. This is only carried over into the KJV as we have it in Ezekiel 16. All other passages opted for the word 'adultery' which obviously means something quite different to folk in 2005 than it did to William Tyndale. Had the KJV kept with his (Tyndale's) translation of adultery (machaio) we had not had these debates. Webb would have never made the statement that a person can 'violate' but not 'break' a marriage vow. But because the KJV translaters swapped Tyndales terms and simplified them- it has allowed for this confusion. You can look this up at studylight.org from the front page. Go under the 'older versions' drop down list and select Tyndale 1535. Romans 7:3 (Tyndale 1535)So then yf whill the man liveth she couple her selfe with another man she shalbe counted a wedlocke breaker. But yf the man be deed she is fre fro the lawe: so that she is no wedlocke breaker though she couple her selfe with another man.Miles Coverdale (1535)Yf she be now with another man, whyle the man lyueth, she shal be called a wedlocke breaker. But yf the man be deed, then is she fre from the lawe, so that she is no wedlocke breaker, yf she be with another man.Bishop's Bible (1568)So then yf whyle the man lyueth, she couple her selfe with another man, she shalbe counted a wedlocke breaker: But yf the man be dead, she is free from the law, so that she is no wedlocke breaker, though she couple her selfe with another man.Here are a few other examples of this written with modern spelling for Tyndale's version:Matthew 5:32But I say unto you: whosoever put away his wife, (except it be for fornication) causeth her to break matrimony. And whosoever marrieth her that is divorced, breaketh wedlock.Matthew 19:9I say therefore unto you, whosoever putteth away his wife (except it be for fornication) and marrieth another, breaketh wedlock. And whosoever marrieth her which is divorced, doth commit advoutry.Romans 2:2Thou sayest, a man should not commit advoutry and thou breakest wedlock...Romans 7:3So then if while the man liveth she couple herself with another man, she shall be counted a wedlock breaker. But if the man be dead she is free from the law: so that she is no wedlock breaker, though she couple herself with another man.Mark 10:11-12And he said unto them: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, breaketh wedlock to her-ward. And if a woman forsake her husband, and be married to another, she committeth advoutry.Luke 16:18Whosoever forsaketh|putteth away| his wife, and marrieth another, breaketh matrimony. And every man which marrieth her that is divorced from her husband committeth advoutry|breaketh wedlock| also.James 4:4Ye advoutrers, and women that break matrimony: know ye not how that the friendship of the world is enmity to Godward? Whosoever will be friend of the world, is made the enemy of God.Tyndale uses the words almost interchangably as if to establish the meaning clearly as "Breaking Matrimony" or "Breaking Wedlock." It is my personal opinion that the KJV translators knew in Ezekiel 16 that the word 'adultery' could not possibly carry the weight of what God was saying to the people. Ezekiel 16 is God's commentary on harlotry. If you want to know what He thinks and feels about it- read that chapter about 10 times. You will rarely find as much strait talk as you read there. If Song of Solomon is a commentary on genuine love- Ezekiel 16 is a commentary on breaking wedlock. God Bless,-Robert

Hi Zeke,Yes, Zeke, I struggled with that idea as well, but the thing is, most who hold this type of reasoning only want it applied to the sin of adultery concerning remarriages, not other sins. They want to practice church discipline to bring restoration to the erring, but not in this sin. I ask you: would God's grace allow for a committed homosexual union, possibly even a legally sanctioned marriage, to continue? How about someone who is embezzling funds from their business-----because they have extenuating, heartbreaking circumstances? Would it be right for the church to come alongside these individuals and say "Go ahead and continue what you are doing. We understand the heartbreak you would have to face if you discontinued your sin. God will understand for His grace is sufficient to keep you in your sin, yet give you the appearance of righteousness".......Believe me, I've tried to see how God can "allow" this sin to change from a sin to a non sin, but I just can't see it as of yet......Dr. John Piper believes as you stated. He will NOT remarry anyone, period, because he believes that only death dissolves a marriage. However, he believes that if a remarriage DOES take place, that people should not look upon them as adulterers........??? Marriage can't be permanent until death and not permanent until death. I'm sorry but that is doublemindedness to me. I actually had correpondance back and forth with his ministry on this position and the man I was correponding with conceded that remarriage IS CONTINUAL sin, but somehow, someway God allows it by His Grace. Such a position, in my opinion, from such a Word-Focused ministry is confusing to say the least. Even those who have a 'liberal' stance on this issue see that as being "double-minded" or going part of the way, but letting fear of man prevent them from going all the way.......Until I can see otherwise, I MUST stand on the Word of God, even when my mind can't comprehend the reasons for His Ways, His definitions, His heart.........Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

Is it private, or merely the decent thing to do for people, to let them retain their privacy while sorting out their lives with God, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? In the end, it is they who will have to answer for getting it wrong, not the onlooker. This is an "open" discussion Dorcas, not a personal one. If I were one on one with you, it may be very different. Maybe not though because I would only "counsel" on what I believe the scriptures have spoken to me and share those scriptures. I think we can agree, as with any sin issue, that noone can make the choice for another concerning true repentance. We are responsible for our brother only in the respect that we are truthful, open and caring for his needs. However, we as believers, cannot FORCE righteous behavior upon each other, no matter the sin issue. God conforms, as He reveals and we submit. We share, we pray for one another, we wait...........You ask this question at the end again. Jesus reminded us that we live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God. Is this limited to scripture? Please come back to me if my later response is unsatisfactory.No, there are many "words" the Lord speaks to us outside His Word, YET, they never contradict His written Word. That is how we "test" the personal Word we receive........to see if in fact, it is a Word from God, or a "word" from another source.if I say, as I've grown in the Lord, it is not a boast but the mature position to which the Lord has brought me. This is how I know I was legalistic before - I've had to change - a lot!Yes, I came from a different place. I came from a seeker sensitive, light on sin church. Said they were spirit filled, but were very CARNAL in every aspect as a congregation, I finally saw. The Lord showed me that this is NOT representative of His Grace nor of His righteousness. Now, I'm trying to find the balance----Grace which covers our repented sins........Grace which slowly reveals our sins and this hard one: "and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail"(Lk. 16:17----one verse before Jesus said "Whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whosoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. Lk. 16:18).........It is a hard thing to understand and incorporate the "law" and Grace, but we cannot forsake one in favor of the other---on either side, for they work together.........Just because a sexual relationship has been legally sanctioned, does not make it binding in God's sight, if it should never have happened in the first place. That's why I commented on the lack of satisfactory definition of 'marriage' in this thread.I agree in part. God does not see as ok a homosexual marriage, though it be sanctioned by state. However, when one man and one woman come together IN MARRIAGE, that is when God "joins" them as one. Fornication between those who are not husband and wife is sin, not marriage. There is a "joining" which occurs sexually, but scripturally there is no evidence that any intial joining is considered "marriage". That is usually what "seals the deal" per se. We see this very thing in the Jewish betrothal custom. They are "married" after signing all the agreements and exchanging dowry (mt. 1:18-24)----the consummation of the marriage comes later. The whole concept of 'divorce' takes on a different meaning in these circumstances, as it can be the same difference as between a co-habiting couple breaking up - for the glory of God, and those who went so far as to obtain a certificate to make their sin 'legal', breaking up - for the glory of God. I suggest both types of sin can be forgiven and fall into the abyss of His death. Why should a Christian not be forgiven this sin, if a non-Christian is? I would appreciate if you could address this question. Personally, I don't believe it matters how someone came to be married in God's sight. I think it matters that someone took a vow of marriage. Yes, living in sin (fornication) and forsaking that sin by separating is to the Glory of God. However, separating that which God says "He has joined and no man must separate" is not Glorifying to God. Paul taught, "but if a woman does depart, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled". I myself couldnt' be comfortable with a personal "word" that contradicted clear teaching to the contrary.Yes, I do believe all sin can be forgiven, but we must not remain in it......we must not willfully enter into it and we must forsake it as God reveals. If we are to say we can go forward into sin, remain in it and "God forgives all", then we need to apply that to ALL SIN that is unrepented. I dont' see the church doing that though------we like to 'pick and choose' sins. Also, I don't see the unsaved sins being forgiven at all. They are LOST in their sins. When they come to Christ they need to repent of their ongoing sins as they are revealed to them. Yes, once they are born again, they have eternal life, but their "old man's sins" will be revealed as they progress in Christ and those sins need to be forsaken. As Christians, we are called to "keep ourselves from sin"..........meaning that NEW sin should not be a Christian's lot. I think I know where you're coming from on this and I do take your point, but it does have to be mutually accepted by both spouses. If it is not, there does come a time when it is reasonable to stop pretending one is in a marriage (by a Godly definition) and to start being realistic about what is going on at a spiritual level. If it is one-way traffic continuously, then something is deeply wrong. And, it can be possible to reinforce each other's wrongness by not addressing an issue appropriately with each other and before God.I disagree with you quite strongly on this point. If one is in a "lawful" marriage, it is such before God. Now whether each is living up to their God commanded role is the issue, not the legitimacy of the marriage. If one or both is being rebellious, then they need to repent before the Lord and let Him be glorified in their lives. They need to be in unity, or their prayers will be hindered-----that is what scripture teaches. In my opinion, if one separates from their spouse in rebellion, their prayers will be hindered until they come under submission to the Lord's will. I don't believe God does intends those who have sinned in this way should be punished for the rest of their lives by being forbidden to remarry, or, by being told they will go to hell for doing so. One hopes their error was a salutory experience and indeed, some do not remarry, for any number of reasons and apart from thinking it may be a sin to do so. I think scripture is clear Dorcas. Paul taught that if a woman departs, she is to remain unmarried or to be reconciled with her husband. To remarry is to commit adultery. That is what the scripture teaches and to go against that is to rebel against God Himself. I cannot say otherwise. May He keep you in His Way. Blessings in Him, Cindy

I think scripture is clear Dorcas. Paul taught that if a woman departs, she is to remain unmarried or to be reconciled with her husband. To remarry is to commit adultery. That is what the scripture teaches and to go against that is to rebel against God Himself.This is your error. You equate your interpretation with the authority of God. This is what the Pharisees did and what the Rabbi's still do. You just don't want to turn loose of that 'right' to substitute your interpretation for the Truth of God's word. It is a recurring error. If you had said, "I believe that is what scripture teaches" that would have been enough. It would give a person "your counsel"- but then you link your counsel to God's authority. How can a person possibly be fully persuaded in their own mind when they are already biased with the thought that if you do not "conclude" as I do on this subject- then you are rebelling against God. It is typical of the entire Unconditional Matrimony movement and it is this userping of God's authority that if God bid me I will uproot. You and I and they are NOT the Holy Ghost. He will lead unto all truth and convince of Sin. Especially when it has been fully demonstrated the error of that movements doctrine and the obscurity of these issues.

Hello Bro. Robert,In an earlier post you wrote:Let it be known that if you cheat on your spouse you are on dangerous ground. If you marry under false pretenses you are on dangerous ground. If you commit adultery against your spouse and join Christ to an harlot (male or female) a divorce may very well be the merciful thing you get. As Ravenhill said in his interview "God is going to destroy that man!" Him shall GOD destroy. If you get caught you may end up in a grave anyhow.By what authority does Ravenhill speak? His statement that God will “destroy that man” certainly to me at least is stronger than stating “if you go against what scriptures teach you are rebelling against God.” If I preach that whoremongers and adulterers will God judge, by what authority do I say such a thing? If I preach that God could very well give a person up unto their vile affections because of idolatry, sodomy, fornication, maliciousness ect.. By what authority could I presume to make such statements?By what authority do I speak should I say not to keep company with any man/woman who claims to be in Christ yet is a fornicator, a drunkard, an idolater, an extortioner ect… not even to eat.By what authority have I stated for a Father,Mother,Spouse not to take care of their family God says they are worse than an infidelAm I to question one’s authority only when I have disagreements with their interpretation of Scripture as it differs from my own? Am I to believe one usurps God’s authority when what they are fully persuaded of differs from my position? By what authority does ANY believer speak, write or counsel I guess is my underlying question. Maybe you can touch on this a little more for me since apparently I am not completely following this whole authority reasoning. Most likely it has been looked at in other forums, you can direct me to if you wish.God Bless,tony

You equate your interpretation with the authority of God. This is what the Pharisees did and what the Rabbi's still do. You just don't want to turn loose of that 'right' to substitute your interpretation for the Truth of God's word. It is a recurring error. Robert, Notice I quoted PAUL......not my own "interpretations". Paul clearly taught what the Lord commanded of women who "depart" in I Cor. 7:10.You are doing exactly what you accuse me of by this very statement: "You just don't want to turn loose of that 'right' to substitute your interpretation for the Truth of God's word"By you comparing my interpretation with "the Truth of God's Word", you too are believing your interpretation to be the truth of God's word and mine false........... ;-)

By you comparing my interpretation with "the Truth of God's Word", you too are believing your interpretation to be the truth of God's word and mine falseThe difference in us is that I understand the need to allow God to be God by spilling out the issues onto the table and allowing the evidence to speak. If I interpret the evidence for the jury what have I done? I have tried to make a case. If I TAMPER with the evidence I am clearly not desiring to see justice. I am still waiting for an honest rebuttal of any of the tractates I posted. That is where the rubber meets the road- not in these fruitless- he said she said arguments that are vain.***************Moreover, just because the Law of God is abused does not give anyone the authority to repeal aspects of that Law that would bring an end to the symptoms of the breaking of that law. For example:If adultery is the cause of many divorces in America is it lawful to repeal Matthew 5 & 19 in order to stop these divorces? Shall we have every angle and tradition drought forth to cloud the clear teachings of scripture- so we can cause just enough confusion and fear to accomplish our end? To do so may well bring the divorce rate down, but it has done nothing to eliminate the symptoms of the problem. What it does, is it further victomizes the victim and allows the sinner to go on sinning with impunity. God Bless,-Robert

Hi Bro. Tony,By what authority does Ravenhill speak? His statement that God will “destroy that man” certainly to me at least is stronger than stating “if you go against what scriptures teach you are rebelling against God.” There is no question whatsoever if adultery is a sin. There is none that would reasonably dispute that. It is an issue that we know with great certainty (Hebrews 13:4). Ravenhill's remarks were made in his interview as he discussed what had happened with Jimmy Swaggart. I did not need to use him to make the point valid. It was not prudent. My comments further are a mixture of Proverbs 6 and Hebrews 13:4.If I preach that whoremongers and adulterers will God judge, by what authority do I say such a thing? If I preach that God could very well give a person up unto their vile affections because of idolatry, sodomy, fornication, maliciousness ect.. By what authority could I presume to make such statements?Each example you gave are clearly biblical and scriptural and none who were reasonable and sincere would refute it. God's word is the authority ultimately; but as I have said before, the question is, does the Holy Ghost back the words. Pharisees could prove a false doctrine from scripture and use scripture as the authority. Scripture verses taken out of context and contorted do not validate their claim. Yet, they could use God's word to invoke fear in folk and gain a following- based upon that fear. By what authority do I speak should I say not to keep company with any man/woman who claims to be in Christ yet is a fornicator, a drunkard, an idolater, an extortioner ect… not even to eat.The passage cited above would be clear enough to stand on its own two feet. In a case where the passage applied, all things being equal, God would back the words with Holy Ghost conviction and apply it to those in the crowd to whom it pertains to. But say I were to say this:If any man keep company with any man/woman that is a fornicator, a drunkard, an idolater, an extortioner ect, you are partakers of their sins. Scripture says we are not even to eat with these people! Now either you believe God's word or you do not? And you know that no sin will enter heaven don't you? So what is this telling you? Thats right- if you eat with a sinner- your going to hell! Now that's not me talking ladies and gentleman- its God's holy word and you had better fear and tremble at that word. That is what we have happening here. My question is not at those who rightly interpret God's word, but to those who as in the example above, userp God's authority by misinterpreting what He says and then attaching His signature to it. Am I to question one’s authority only when I have disagreements with their interpretation of Scripture as it differs from my own?If a person wants to teach unconditional Matrimony as it is as a doctrine- that is fine and I would disagree, and that would be that. But that is not what is happening here. We have a continual promotion of a doctrine and taken to its conclusion that suggests that if a married person has a different living spouse they are not Christians- they are adulterers and need to break up the family and go back to the first spouse. I have repeatedly asked for precedent on such a thing happening in the New Testament period and to no avail. Marrying a sinner is a perpetual sin that cannot be repented of without breaking up the marriage if we take a similar line of reasoning. Paul said that such should not be the case. We see from this that the sin was not a perpetual sin- it was a one time sin. If it were perpetual- they could not be saved. Maybe you can touch on this a little more for me since apparently I am not completely following this whole authority reasoning. Most likely it has been looked at in other forums, you can direct me to if you wish.We know that scripture is in authority. not my private interpretation- but scripture itself. I will never allow my private interpretation of a passage to dictate the course of a persons life. Unless the subject be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt, how could I possibly intrude into those areas where God has not been clear and declare dogmatically- "thus saith the Lord?"That is all I am saying. Hope that helps.God Bless,-Robert

Here we differ, the operative word being 'married' and whether it is indeed recognised by God as a marriage. I fully accept couples take away a legal certificate sanctioning conjugal rights and inviting many assumptions as to God's view of such.I guess I take the position because of what I see in the OT and NT that "marriage" is an agreement and vows taken by a man and a woman who are free to marry. When they take these vows, God joins them---for life. It is not the 'certificate' that makes one married, it is in the vows said before witnesses. All cultures have various ways of "marrying" each other and I believe those customs are acknowledged as binding by God.I am struck by your main assumption that once a marriage is entered into, that fact somehow obliterates any of the reasons it perhaps should not have been entered into .. any attempt by either party to admit they made a mistake of any kind at all, is automatically a sin ... your stance on this ... may not be realistic if the foundation was always wrong. I don't disagree that some SHOULDN't have married who they have, but I cannot find anywhere in scripture where God doesn't honor the 1st marital union. I also believe we can admit we made a mistake, but that doesn't obliterate our obligation to honor our vows----even when the other doesn't live up to their end of the committment. In the end, it would be me who would decide whether the Lord has set me free to remarry. You are right that any word from the Lord will be in agreement with the spirit of scripture.I agree with you. We all have choices to make and each of us is responsible before God for those choices based upon what we know/think/believe the truth to be----rightly or wrongly. I will never "force" someone to see as I do, but in the same breath, as much as some would like to stifle this type of conversation from going forth, I will not be silent----unless the Holy Spirit leads me to silence, which He has at times. May you go forth in the Will of our Lord, Cindy

The difference in us is that I understand the need to allow God to be God by spilling out the issues onto the table and allowing the evidence to speak. If I interpret the evidence for the jury what have I done? I have tried to make a case. When you teach/preach Robert, do you just speak scripture or do you share what YOU believe the scriptures are teaching?Concerning Mt. 19 and 5, I never "repeal" those passages, I see them very differently than you do based upon my studies on the betrothal "writ of divorcement" which is even addressed in Mt. 1:18-25. How I view that passage can easily be seen in light of Mt. 1 and it doesn't contradict Rom. 7:2-3, which shows that adultery does not dissolve a marriage, nor does a remarriage dissolve a previous marriage, only death does. Seeking only to abide in Him, Cindy

Hi Cindy,When you teach/preach Robert, do you just speak scripture or do you share what YOU believe the scriptures are teaching?I have answered this I believe well enough in many past threads. There is nothing more I can add. I believe I have made myself abundantly clear. I have articles on this site as well as audio teachings that Greg has been kind enough to put up. That will give you a feel for how I minister. Concerning Mt. 19 and 5, I never "repeal" those passages, I see them very differently than you do based upon my studies on the betrothal "writ of divorcement" which is even addressed in Mt. 1:18-25. How I view that passage can easily be seen in light of Mt. 1 and it doesn't contradict Rom. 7:2-3, which shows that adultery does not dissolve a marriage, nor does a remarriage dissolve a previous marriage, only death does.I will leave off from this topic once and for all with this last post. It is no longer profitable to continue. I have said previously that illicit relations during betrothal constitutes adultery and the penalty was stoning (Deut 22). I have shown why 'porneia' is used in Matthew 5 and 19 instead of adultery. I have also shown that Tyndale understood adultery to mean to "break matrimony." Many other issues too numerous to number. In the end let the Truth prevail and let all falsehood or error I may have spoken fall to the ground. I believe at the least that this conversation has been charitable and I go away feeling much better than the last time we had this exchange. I have studied the scriptures deeper and have a more firm grasp of what I believe. Never in a million years would I tell a woman she is FREE to marry if she does not feel that liberty in the Sight of God. I tell people to do what God is telling them from His word and when they can look me in the eye with a clear conscience and say yea or nay it will be Gospel to me. I have known the strengths and weaknesses of my arguments and am under no allusions to that. I have a strong confidence that what I have written is true; but we know only in part. We walk in the light we have and when issues are life and death and heaven and hell I move slowly. i was raised in Oberlin theology and know what it is to fear hell all the time. those who know me know who I am. Those who do not I pray that charity would be extended to me as I to them and that in the end God would have mercy on us knowing that we are merely mortal. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you always.-Robert

Could we agree that all who name Christ as Lord are in a process of growth and understanding? I have read, heard and have personally said something to the effect “that is how I see things with the light I now have.” To me this appears valid.We might say it like this, five years ago I was at a D level in my understanding of any particular doctrine, teaching ect…. You fill in the blank. And now five years later I am at a, let’s say H level of understanding. And at this H level I no longer hold to the letter what I once espoused as finality. And this brings me to the thought, what of all the people that I had interaction with back at level A when I believed my position to be firm and sure? What of the counsel that I dispensed with back at level A, and incidentally was heeded?My point? We may have influence over any number of people at any given time , eternal souls many of whom have gotten themselves into all kinds of tangled webs. Sure, once we arrive at our new level of understanding there no doubt is an awareness of accomplishment we can take comfort in, but again I ask what of those we have left in the wake of our journey? And I am not merely speaking of “covering the bases” so as not to come back and haunt us, our counsel. But I speak of real people, with a real faith, with real lives, with real careers, with real emotions, with real hopes and dreams. Maybe John Wooden, Hall of Fame Basketball Coach said it best “It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”May God grant us(me) the understanding and Grace as we(me) carefully handle the sword. God bless,Tonyp.s.Cindy, I ordered the work of former College President Milton Wells “Does divorce dissolve marriage?” from the A/G archives, should you want a copy let us know.

May God grant us(me) the understanding and Grace as we(me) carefully handle the sword. I will "Amen" this for myself as well. Thank you Tony and thanks also concerning the book. Is it affordable? Robert, We'll leave off then. Blessings brother. In Him, Cindy

This is one of those statements that don't make sense. Forgive me Cindy, but this doesn't make a lick of sense. Everyone including Jesus spoke the word as he or she sees it. You can quote scripture all day long but if you don't give it's intrepetation no one will understand it. That is why He sent forth preachers/teachers so that they can know.You misunderstood my question Karl. It was a reflective question based upon a statement Robert made to me. Yes, I agree with you. I believe when any of us insert words beyond what the scriptures say EXACTLY, we insert our own understanding of the scriptures and what they are speaking to us. That was my point when I asked Robert that question. We ALL do it when we share in discussion, teach, preach, etc. He said he just lays it all on the table and allows the evidence to speak. I was basically refuting that position. That's all. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy :-)

Cindy, that's why I'm mystified, now you have clarified that you were specifically refuting the necessity of looking at the facts and discerning the meaning of them in a practical situation - always under the influence of the Spirit (I am assuming and would normally include this without saying).Boy, I must not be communicating very well...... :-P Listen, I believe we must ALWAYS look to scripture first and foremost. I also believe that what God says CLEARLY should always be taken above what "He is speaking to me personally"..........which if, in opposition to the Written Word, should be discarded. Let me clarify one more time: Robert basically said I am steering people to my conclusion by doing much more than just laying the scriptures on the table. He says He doesn't do that. I disagreed. We all after studying, praying, seeking----when we present what we believe put our own "spin", put certain scriptures together someone else may not, etc. None of us just "lays the scriptures on the table and lets it speak for themselves".........we ALL intrepret what the Word means to us. That's why some people will only use certain translations to "boost" their viewpoint, only one definition that fits their viewpoint of many from the greek lexicon, say "see the Words used here are the same(in English)", yet in the greek those words can clearly be shown to be different words. It's a hard, hard thing to just give the evidence without showing one's bias-----almost impossible actually because once someone believe the Lord God Himself has shown Truth, most believers want to share that either to protect the Body from error and strengthen it, but it's important to try as best as we can to fit ALL the pieces to find truth.Are we all correct in our interpretations? No, I don't believe so. Especially when it comes to moral/sin issues. What is not ok for one in this area, is not ok for another and I think that really is the main issue here when discussing scripture on this topic.What do you understand the Holy Spirit to bring to us through new birth, being filled and baptised in Him, if gifts of discernment and interpretation are not given to some in today's church? I believe in the "gifts" of the Holy Spirit. What I don't agree with is "private interpretation" which is in opposition to the written Word of God. Some personal things the Lord speaks to us, is for us "in part", but we run with it and get off into error. I told you what I believed "widow" pertains to........I personally believe the Lord could speak that to a woman who is together in a marriage, not only to a divorced woman or a widowed woman. I think it was a post by Chanin recently speaking about the Lord being her husband, even though she is married. It was about acknowledging the primacy of God above a husband. Some husbands do not "love" and take care of their wives. For those, they could grasp hold of that scripture and KNOW the Lord is their provider/protector, not see it as ok to divorce and remarry, as that would go against clear scripture admonishing that as sin. It is to me, a picture that the LORD is our ULTIMATE husband-----when our flesh husbands fail to take care of us and love us as Christ loves the church, the LORD is there and that is our comfort........Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

If I make a mistake, when I find out that it is wrong and against what God's perfect plan is, and I make the same mistake to rectify the first mistake, who am I trying to please? Is it really God I want to please or is my own condemnation and guilt trying to make me feel good about myself by using God's Word to relieve the guilt of my sin. I have sinned, Christ died for that sin, am I now to commit another sin to rectify the first sin, God forbid. If I am divorced and remarried to a different person, and I feel guilt and condemnation, where is it coming from? Myself, Satan, or others, or the Godly guilt that will change my mind to the Mind of Christ. If it is myself then what I do is coming from my works to make things right. If it is Satan, I am being deceived and lied to, so I will do works of repentance to release myself from the guilt. If it from the pulpit or other Christians them I am trying to please them that they will see how righteous I am. If it is God, then my guilt is not counterfeit but true, but, 1 John 1:7-10 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.I can not commit perpetual adultery, either I am an adulterer by looking at another person with lust, or I have broken God's Law and committed adultery against my marriage partner, either way I am guilty. If my spouse divorces me because it is adultery or I divorce my marriage partner for someone else, it is all sin, and I am an adulterer. Did Christ die for this sin or am I condemned to die in my sin? No matter if I am a Christian or not, Christ died for it. The difference is as a Christian I can when I know that the sin is wrong I can be released from it and go and sin no more, and even if I sin again, God is faithful to His Son and will forgive me again and this Love will eventually change my mind to the Mind of Christ and because of Love I won't want to sin anymore. Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 5:4-6 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.I am a sinner and can do nothing about it, only Christ in me can make me righteousness before the Father, the more I believe this, the more I have made the change to the Mind of Christ. Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:We are cleansed and washed and forgiven and It is our minds that need cleaning up not our works. The works will show the cleansing of my Mind in Christ Jesus. Then the cleansing will be the works of Christ in me the Hope of Glory.Romans 7:23-25 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.Once it has been revealed by the Holy Spirit that we are in sin we must make the Cross the only way of repentance and then we will change our mind to the Mind of Christ, which we already have. "Do I condemn you, where are those that condemn you? There are none and I condemn you not go and sin no more." Get over it and serve Christ.In Christ: Phillip

Let me ask you something Philip.....please just ponder this:If a married man has a woman on the side--producing a couple of children in the process.....and he comes to the Lord with a repentant heart, can he continue in his adultery and it be fine with the Lord?If a couple in an illicit pre-marital relationship come to the Lord and are sorry about their sinful relationship, can they then again resume this relationship in it's previous form and it be fine with the Lord?If a couple who have married civilly, yet are gay, come to the Lord sorrowfully for their sin of homosexuality, can they they continue in their present relationship and it be fine with the Lord?What would the "fruit" of repentance look like in each case? Blessings in Him, Cindy

lastblast wrote:Let me ask you something Philip.....please just ponder this:If a married man has a woman on the side--producing a couple of children in the process.....and he comes to the Lord with a repentant heart, can he continue in his adultery and it be fine with the Lord?If a couple in an illicit pre-marital relationship come to the Lord and are sorry about their sinful relationship, can they then again resume this relationship in it's previous form and it be fine with the Lord?If a couple who have married civilly, yet are gay, come to the Lord sorrowfully for their sin of homosexuality, can they they continue in their present relationship and it be fine with the Lord?What would the "fruit" of repentance look like in each case? Blessings in Him, CindyI believe the adultery that occurs during remarriage is just like any other adultery or sin. All sin must be repented of and forsaken.