Yes, we cross-posted, I wrote my post without seeing @Verifyveritas76's. Yes, question answered, we're very much on the same page in terms of Mark and the multiple witnesses issue.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
David and Bathsheba?
- Thread starter Aussies
- Start date
Great! I’m gonna leave you to it and I’m gonna get some shut eye.
No, this is wrong. The Bible is not silent on this topic at all. As Zec has pointed out Mark 10:12 is very clear:
"And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Notably, Jesus makes no exceptions here for any reason.
I have read ahead (in this thread) and there is some confusion about witnesses, etc. Jesus needs no witness other than himself as he and the Father are one and the Father is his witness (see John 8).
But in this case, even though he needs no additional witness, he has one in Paul. Paul states in 1 Cor 7:
"10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."
So Paul clearly confirms what Jesus is saying. If anything Paul goes even further. According to Paul she is not even supposed to leave her husband. Again he gives no exceptions.
How can you say that divorcing her husband is in the realm of possibilities if leaving her husband is not?
What Paul does give is a backup plan: If you fail at the first thing you are supposed to do (not leave your husband) then you are not off the hook so to speak. You have the additional responsibility (in accordance with the words of Christ - see above) to not divorce your husband but rather remain unmarried or be reconciled to your husband.
There is nothing tricky about these passages. They have a simple and plain meaning. People just do not like what they say.
Not at all the case here.
For men.
Matthew 5 - "32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
The exception clause is for a man divorcing his wife, so it only applies to men. For women the only words we have is for her not to do it with no exceptions. See above.
No real issue with your summary, except the last line Matthew 19 does not seem to talk about this. Perhaps you are extrapolating from another passage?
The "A man" in the first line should be understood to mean niether man nor woman.
Agreed. But it is in other places. See above.
No. Only a man can divorce for adultery. A woman is not to get divorced at all according to the words of our Lord.
Your elevating the secondary information and trying to reconcile it to the point where you are negating the primary information. The primary information is clear.
Jesus, "Moses said X, I say Y."
Jesus > Moses
Pay close attention to what Jesus is saying. He is the man(God). The other guys might be doing it wrong.
We are Christians, not Mosesians.
Same to you, sir!
I found this sentence a bit odd myself also. What do you actually mean? What is a scenario in which a woman could justifiably divorce her husband, using your above interpretation?
A woman can clearly commit biblical adultery against her husband. But can a man commit adultery against his wife?
Obviously if a man divorces his wife for another this is labelled "adultery", in the sense of it being an unjust breaking of the marriage, but that's not a cause for a woman to divorce. She's already divorced, he divorced her. So that's not what you're talking about. You must be talking about a man committing true adultery - sleeping with another man's wife.
Now true adultery is clearly a sin against the husband of the other woman. But does it have anything to do with his existing wife, does it give her grounds to divorce him? That seems strange. It would mean that if a man starts sleeping around with unmarried women, his wife has to put up with it whether or not he does the right thing and marries them, but the moment he sleeps with a married woman she can divorce him. Sounds like a strange technicality. What scripture do you take this from?
G-d>Yeshua>Moses
G-d gave Moses the mitzvots
Jews knew this when Yeshua said Moses gave the law that it was given to him by G-d and when he said I say that he's not contridicting what the laws G-d gave Moses to give the world said but explaining what G-d said. Just like how everyother Rabbi spoke.
What you are actually saying is
Yeshuas words > The words given to Moses by G-d
Yeshua > G-d
I do believe that contradicts scripture
If your saying G-d did not give Moses the law then any definition about Adultery or rulings about divorce gleaned from it is the works of man. Not even the Ten commandments because the ones written by the finger of G-d were smashed Moses wrote the next set of tablets. It's said that Moses wrote the first five books, that G-d gave him the narrative of Adam and Eve ect.
Another thing
Theres no confusion on my part G-d/Yeshua doesn't need witnesses. Man needs witnesses to show him he Is not relying on his own interpretation. This scripture is specifically talking about Yeshuas nature and who he is and is a warning that if you dont know Him and follow Him, you dont know the Father and will be seperated from him because of your sins. So unless your saying your Yeshua or that the Father is winess to your understanding this doesn't apply.
Last edited:
Bold and underlining mine. IF you misspoke this egregiously then you owe me a debt of gratitude for the opportunity to correct yourself. You literally questioned (your words) the veracity (a word rooted in your screen name) of the Gospel of Mark and identified it as a conflicting and secondhand biography. That wasn't a poor choice of words sir. That was a disastrous faux pas. If taking a stand against that statement is bloviating and wasteful use of air and keyboards then I will gladly bloviate my way through both air and keyboards.
Now about women divorcing their husbands, THEY CAN'T. They can't end the one flesh relationship. You're taking a modern idea, a "legal" divorce and substituting it in for what Jesus is talking about. If a woman who has left her husband commits adultery by "remarrying", then the one flesh relationship was still in effect. There's no "divorce." If it was a divorce, then she wouldn't be committing adultery if she "remarried".
C
Cap
Guest
Would imagine the drunk version would require physical restraint and no guns allowed.
Lets get practical. Look around. Most divorces are by woman, practically every divorced woman feels justified to do so, the church also often justifies them, and most of the time it's not for sleeping with another woman.
Is it any wonder God didn't allow them to initiate divorce?
I think that wisdom came about as most novel ideas came about first from drunken speculation.
Is it any wonder God didn't allow them to initiate divorce?
I think that wisdom came about as most novel ideas came about first from drunken speculation.
C
Cap
Guest
The current divorce situation is a result of a fallen world no different than what's happening in society related to prayer being taken out of school or abortion.
You tell a woman who is being beaten or mentally abused by an ungodly man that she just needs to suck it up because God says so.
If the church actual did the job it was suppose to things would be much different.
No, I'm telling them boredom isn't justification for divorce, criticism isn't the same as a beating, causing feel-bads isn't a grave sin and the solution to an ungodly man is to submit (not rebel), just as Peter said.
Your statement is exactly the attitude used to justify divorce daily. Every divorced woman thinks she's the victim of horrific behavior by her husband.
The scriptures are pretty simple on this: women aren't to divorce. All these discussions about why women can divorce do is provide fodder for women seeking justification for why it's alright to blow up their family.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
I have been the victim in the 'no fault divorce' epidemic that the world's courts freely hand to women. I have lost children to that system. I know perfectly will how it works and how there are women who use it for gain and I have suffered greatly from it.
I still believe in a loving God who does allow a woman to divorce if the biblical requirements are meet. The key is the man's choice in the women they choose to marry instead of trying to trap women in an unholy relationship.
B
BeingHeld
Guest
It seems from the statements I am reading, I am in the wrong place. I was divorced by a person who was living a secret life and never available for his family. I raised 3 wonderful children, kept a home, fixed what was broken, worked outside of the home while my children were in school and volunteered at their schools and followed him when he did show up. He didn't follow God like he should have to protect his family.
Then he hands me a bill of divorce after 23 years. There was no adultery on my part what so ever. He said he got bored with me, I was too easy to live with.
You are saying I am not allowed to be in a marriage now with a man who loves God with all his heart, mind and soul. Who I can follow where he leads me. Who has brought me closer to God than anyone in my life and continues to each and everyday. God lives in our hearts, we see signs every day He is holding our hands in this journey to do His will.
How then am I supposed to be "accepted" by you people that have condemned me. I for one, am delighted that God has enough love for me, His child, that He did not condemn me to a life of loneliness and no covering.
I was so excited to be coming to the retreat, now I wonder maybe our family isn't really welcome and accepted. This is getting really hurtful to some of the women that are reading this and I want to stand up for the other women that are here who are divorced and seeking a Godly husband to follow. You make them feel there is no hope.
God has not condemned me, who are you to feel you have that right?
Then he hands me a bill of divorce after 23 years. There was no adultery on my part what so ever. He said he got bored with me, I was too easy to live with.
You are saying I am not allowed to be in a marriage now with a man who loves God with all his heart, mind and soul. Who I can follow where he leads me. Who has brought me closer to God than anyone in my life and continues to each and everyday. God lives in our hearts, we see signs every day He is holding our hands in this journey to do His will.
How then am I supposed to be "accepted" by you people that have condemned me. I for one, am delighted that God has enough love for me, His child, that He did not condemn me to a life of loneliness and no covering.
I was so excited to be coming to the retreat, now I wonder maybe our family isn't really welcome and accepted. This is getting really hurtful to some of the women that are reading this and I want to stand up for the other women that are here who are divorced and seeking a Godly husband to follow. You make them feel there is no hope.
God has not condemned me, who are you to feel you have that right?
Last edited by a moderator:
I am very sorry that this discussion is hitting you this way, please understand that that particular view does not belong to everyone.
I have been happily married to a divorced woman these last 22 years and have been totally accepted here.
Please accept that short reply until someone more eloquent responds.
I have been happily married to a divorced woman these last 22 years and have been totally accepted here.
Please accept that short reply until someone more eloquent responds.
@BeingHeld you've taken it the wrong way. Nobody (ok, almost nobody, I better not assume to speak to everybody) is making such a statement. Nobody is condemning you.
This discussion is about women who initiate divorce, NOT men divorcing women. It is not about your situation at all.
You have a bill of divorce from your former husband. He divorced you. That makes you free to remarry. That is very clear from scripture, and the most common view held among the men here.
You will be completely welcome at the retreat, and when you talk to the ladies there will find a number who have similar pasts to yourself.
Keep looking forward to the retreat. It will be awesome.
This discussion is about women who initiate divorce, NOT men divorcing women. It is not about your situation at all.
You have a bill of divorce from your former husband. He divorced you. That makes you free to remarry. That is very clear from scripture, and the most common view held among the men here.
You will be completely welcome at the retreat, and when you talk to the ladies there will find a number who have similar pasts to yourself.
Keep looking forward to the retreat. It will be awesome.
No, you are free to remarry. He divorced you. What is being promulgated here is that if you divorced him you wouldn't be free to remarry. A woman whose husband divorces her with a written declaration is free to remarry.
@BeingHeld, the other important general principle to bear in mind in all discussions such as this, is that the men get into all sorts of technicalities and discuss many different things, often from a hypothetical perspective. Inevitably, someone will always say something, somewhere, that appears critical of something you have done personally in the past. When that happens, and it will from time to time, don't jump to the conclusion that they are personally judging you.
Yes, in this discussion some men have stated that a divorced woman should never remarry, in a couple of isolated posts. That is not the primary topic of this discussion, but that opinion has been mentioned. This is a valid opinion, held by many in the church including some here. But it is also a minority opinion, both in the wider church and here. (Importantly, don't assume everyone who has "liked" a post agrees with the statements when applied to their fullest extent, these people may have simply agreed with another point being made in the narrow context of the discussion).
In many cases, the person making such a statement is expressing their personal conservative opinion that they will use to guide their own decisions. If in doubt, it is far better to assume something is sin, than to assume it is not sin - better to avoid something you didn't need to avoid, than do something that turns out later to have been sinful. It is therefore entirely reasonable to read the passages around divorce and decide "to ensure I do not sin, I will not marry a divorced woman, because based on the way I currently understand scripture I think that is wrong". That's a prudent, conservative position. But it also does not automatically mean that the speaker condemns everyone who disagrees with them as an evil sinner. Or even if they do think that someone who remarried DID sin in doing so, that does not mean they believe that person is not forgiven for that sin and still condemned by God today.
Furthermore, when you read one statement that appears to criticise you, a whole host of other considerations apply:
Just go to the retreat and find out what it's like when you get there.
Yes, in this discussion some men have stated that a divorced woman should never remarry, in a couple of isolated posts. That is not the primary topic of this discussion, but that opinion has been mentioned. This is a valid opinion, held by many in the church including some here. But it is also a minority opinion, both in the wider church and here. (Importantly, don't assume everyone who has "liked" a post agrees with the statements when applied to their fullest extent, these people may have simply agreed with another point being made in the narrow context of the discussion).
In many cases, the person making such a statement is expressing their personal conservative opinion that they will use to guide their own decisions. If in doubt, it is far better to assume something is sin, than to assume it is not sin - better to avoid something you didn't need to avoid, than do something that turns out later to have been sinful. It is therefore entirely reasonable to read the passages around divorce and decide "to ensure I do not sin, I will not marry a divorced woman, because based on the way I currently understand scripture I think that is wrong". That's a prudent, conservative position. But it also does not automatically mean that the speaker condemns everyone who disagrees with them as an evil sinner. Or even if they do think that someone who remarried DID sin in doing so, that does not mean they believe that person is not forgiven for that sin and still condemned by God today.
Furthermore, when you read one statement that appears to criticise you, a whole host of other considerations apply:
- You may have misunderstood them
- Their statement may have been simplified and unintentionally broad, capturing your specific situation when the speaker did not intend to
- We are all sinners, accepted by grace. Just because someone thinks you're a sinner does not mean they don't accept you
- Never assume someone represents either the forum as a whole, or the people you would meet at a retreat.
- Finally, for completeness, it may be that they truly are criticising you, and they're right, and if that's the case you needed to hear it so still shouldn't take it negatively! (that does not apply in this case, I'm just being comprehensive).
Just go to the retreat and find out what it's like when you get there.
Very, very well said.