Divorce...

[Runningman]

At first glance, I would agree with you, but the counter-argument is this:

What about married couples who cannot engage in sexual intercourse? Like if the husband is paralyzed from the waist down or something? Are they not considered to be married in God's sight?

I do believe that the whole "one flesh" thing is tied to sexual intercourse, and this would seem to be a reason why God would consider sexual immorality as a violation and seeming breaking of the wedding vow or marriage covenant itself. I'm not sure, but that's sort of how it seems to be to me. I definitely don't have all of the answers. This whole topic has been a giant head-scratcher for me for years.

Well, I think I if me make an oath then God actually expects us to keep them and doesn’t forget about them. The thing is, is people aren’t too good at keeping our promises, so Jesus pointed out that just saying yes or no is better. That might be why Paul said it’s better to not marry, too. Jesus also spoke to a woman at a well and informed her he knew about her many marriages. So I agree marriage is more then just sex.

A lot of this isn’t just plain in the scripture though, in my opinion, hence the confusion about it all. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher to me too.

 

[notonmywatch]

Well, I think I if me make an oath then God actually expects us to keep them and doesn’t forget about them. The thing is, is people aren’t too good at keeping our promises, so Jesus pointed out that just saying yes or no is better. That might be why Paul said it’s better to not marry, too. Jesus also spoke to a woman at a well and informed her he knew about her many marriages. So I agree marriage is more then just sex.

A lot of this isn’t just plain in the scripture though, in my opinion, hence the confusion about it all. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher to me too.

When it comes to breaking our promises, my mind always thinks on this:

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Romans 1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Romans 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Romans 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Romans 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

According to this, covenant-breakers, and I personally believe that this includes those who break the covenant of marriage, are those who did not not like to retain God in their knowledge, and have therefore been given over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. Their fate isn't good at all, per verse 32, so this is a serious matter. We should also all notice that there are a lot of other sins on that list which people have been given over to, and some of them are very commonplace in the lives of even those who claim to be believers. We really need to take warnings such as this one to heart. We'd be fools not to.

 

[notonmywatch]

Jesus' voiding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is a popular conclusion but there's one major problem with it. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is inspired, God breathed and man written. That is to say, it was God's law, not Moses'.

Are we to believe that God gave Moses Deuteronomy 24:1-4, provision and guidelines for divorce and remarriage, then voided them when he came as Christ?

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Jesus wouldn't give Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to Moses only to void it thousands of years later after He states not one tittle will be voided. So you see, there must be something else going on here.

Google the Hebrew word: (agunah: the chained wife) This will help to explain what Christ was addressing in Matt. Mark and Luke.

Thanks for your response. I understand what you're saying, but I still cannot agree with it for at least two reasons.

For one thing, you didn't address what the LORD himself said in Jeremiah 3:1. There, the LORD was clearly willing to violate Moses' precept from Deuteronomy 24, so if it was still in effect, then the LORD himself would be guilty of violating the law, and thereby be disqualified from later dying as our spotless and sinless lamb because he would be a lawbreaker himself. I simply don't see how you or anybody else can get around this, but I'll listen if anybody has a legitimate solution to this major problem.

For another thing, the law itself, to a very large degree, has been done away with since the sacrifice of Christ.

Galatians 3:15
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Galatians 3:17
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Galatians 3:18
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Galatians 3:19
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Here, we see that, initially, a covenant had been confirmed in Christ or a promise had been made in regard to Abraham's seed, singular, which is Christ, and that the law which was later added in no way disannulled that which had come before it. We also see that the law was only added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Christ, and he has already come.

With this before us, how can you suggest that none of Moses' precepts or that none of the law could be voided or done away with?

Do you understand what I'm asking?

 

[NOV25]

Thanks for your response. I understand what you're saying, but I still cannot agree with it for at least two reasons.

For one thing, you didn't address what the LORD himself said in Jeremiah 3:1. There, the LORD was clearly willing to violate Moses' precept from Deuteronomy 24, so if it was still in effect, then the LORD himself would be guilty of violating the law, and thereby be disqualified from later dying as our spotless and sinless lamb because he would be a lawbreaker himself. I simply don't see how you or anybody else can get around this, but I'll listen if anybody has a legitimate solution to this major problem.

For another thing, the law itself, to a very large degree, has been done away with since the sacrifice of Christ.

Galatians 3:15
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Galatians 3:17
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Galatians 3:18
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Galatians 3:19
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Here, we see that, initially, a covenant had been confirmed in Christ or a promise had been made in regard to Abraham's seed, singular, which is Christ, and that the law which was later added in no way disannulled that which had come before it. We also see that the law was only added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Christ, and he has already come.

With this before us, how can you suggest that none of Moses' precepts or that none of the law could be voided or done away with?

Do you understand what I'm asking?

I think I understand brother. Let me try to briefly restate what you're saying to see if I get it.

1. God denies Deuteronomy by his willingness to take back Israel after she had been with another man, so to speak... Thus proving Deuteronomy invalid.

2. The law has essentially been done away with since the sacrifice of Christ so how can you claim none of Moses' precepts or none of the law can be voided?

Is this an honest recap of what you're asking? If so, I'll respond

 

[notonmywatch]

I think I understand brother. Let me try to briefly restate what you're saying to see if I get it.

1. God denies Deuteronomy by his willingness to take back Israel after she had been with another man, so to speak... Thus proving Deuteronomy invalid.

2. The law has essentially been done away with since the sacrifice of Christ so how can you claim none of Moses' precepts or none of the law can be voided?

Is this an honest recap of what you're asking? If so, I'll respond

That's pretty accurate. I don't know if I would necessarily say that he denies Deuteronomy 24 in Jeremiah 3:1 because, again, as Jesus stated in Mark chapter 10, that precept was only "suffered", or permitted, or allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of the people with whom Moses was then dealing. I mean, obviously, God doesn't have a hard heart himself, and therefore he was perfectly willing to take back his wife who had previously been put away even though she had since been with another lover, figuratively speaking.

 

[Magenta]

The marriage covenant/vows are to be as a picture of God's covenant vows to us.

Is God faithful? Yes, He is.

Is man faithful? No, he is not. There are none righteous.

Unfaithfulness of God's people in Scripture is given as idolatry.

Idolatry takes on many forms. Is pride at the root of idolatry?

Certainly it was not God's plan for man to dominate, subjugate, and abuse woman.

When Eve was made for Adam, the term used to describe her role was ezer kenegdo.

In Genesis 2:18, the word "helpmeet" does not occur. The Hebrew expression ezer kenegdo appears,
meaning "one who is the same as the other and who surrounds, protects, aids, helps, supports."

The combination of these two Hebrew words has two roots: `-z-r, meaning "to rescue, to save," and
g-z-r, meaning "to be strong." There is no indication of inferiority or of a secondary position in an
hierarchical separation of the male and female "spheres" of responsibility, authority, or social position.

Use of the word ezer in the Scripture often refers to either God or military allies. In all other cases the
one giving the help is superior to the one receiving the help. Adding kenegdo (meet) modifies the
meaning to that of equal rather than superior status. Scripture is so awesome. God says just what He means.

The word ezer is used twice in the Old Testament to refer to the female and 14 times to refer to God.

For example, in the Psalms when David says, "The Lord is my Helper," he uses the word ezer.

 

[NOV25]

That's pretty accurate. I don't know if I would necessarily say that he denies Deuteronomy 24 in Jeremiah 3:1...

Sorry. I thought the phrase, "God denies Deuteronomy...", would be a fair substitute for your statement which was, "..the LORD was clearly willing to violate Moses' precept from Deuteronomy 24"... I was just trying to condense in an honest fashion.

Is this essentially what you're saying? Jesus asks what did Moses command? The Pharisees quote Deuteronomy. Then Jesus refers to Genesis, let man not separate, thus proving Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is Moses' precept not God's. Furthermore, you use Jeremiah 3 as extra proof that God was against Deuteronomy 24:1-4 by His willingness to take back spiritually fornicating Israel. Is this fair?

If so, I ask one simple question: Is Deuteronomy 24:1-4 inspired?

 

[notonmywatch]

Sorry. I thought the phrase, "God denies Deuteronomy...", would be a fair substitute for your statement which was, "..the LORD was clearly willing to violate Moses' precept from Deuteronomy 24"... I was just trying to condense in an honest fashion.

Is this essentially what you're saying? Jesus asks what did Moses command? The Pharisees quote Deuteronomy. Then Jesus refers to Genesis, let man not separate, thus proving Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is Moses' precept not God's. Furthermore, you use Jeremiah 3 as extra proof that God was against Deuteronomy 24:1-4 by His willingness to take back spiritually fornicating Israel. Is this fair?

If so, I ask one simple question: Is Deuteronomy 24:1-4 inspired?

There's no need for you to apologize. We're simply engaged in a civil conversation, and that's a good thing.

It's Moses' precept which he "suffered" or allowed due to the hardness of the hearts of the people, even as Jesus said.

Was the precept in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 inspired by God? Yes, I believe that it was, but simply as an allowance which was based upon the hardness of the peoples' hearts, and not as his original design or intent. In other words, it was probably put in place for the protection of the women of Moses' day or to offset the sufferings that they were facing due to their hard-hearted husbands.

Anyway, yes, all scripture is inspired of God, but not all scripture is true (I'll explain why and in what sense momentarily), nor is it all still relevant, like things from the Old Testament which have either already been fulfilled or have since been made obsolete.

As far as not all scripture being true is concerned, and this really has nothing to do with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, is this true?

Matthew 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

It's true in the sense that the Pharisees actually made this accusation, but it's definitely not true in that Christ did not cast out devils by Beelzebub. So, yes, all scripture is inspired by the Spirit of God, but it is not all necessarily either true, in the manner in which I just described, nor is it all necessarily still applicable to us today. I mean, you're not going to go out and slaughter a Passover lamb come Springtime, are you? Was that command inspired by God? Yes, it was, but it's no longer applicable to us today. Anyway, I hope that I've answered your questions and that you understand what I'm saying.

 

[NOV25]

Anyway, I hope that I've answered your questions and that you understand what I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying, it's basically what the majority of commentators would say. I've read them all lol... They all conclude Jesus voided Deuteronomy 24:1-4 but they're scared to come out and say it, and rightfully so.

My earlier posts. If this topic interests you, this should get you started on the way to a clear understanding.
#198 In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus was addressing the practice of putting away a wife without a divorce certificate. This practice still occurs today in the Jewish community. Essentially, the man can putt away his wife without the divorce certificate and remarry another woman. Furthermore, without the divorce certificate the original woman is unable to remarry.
As stated, look into the the chained wife (agunah) some pretty sad stories.

In Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 Jesus was addressing the Jewish practice of putting away, he states fornication is the only acceptable reason to do this.

#200 So you see, in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 Jesus wasn't addressing modern day gentile Christians.

When we try to apply these verses to ourselves, with a bad translation such as the ESV which uses the word divorce in place of putt away, the result is disastrous. This is the reason for the wide ranging, often harmful, often contradictory divorce and remarriage doctrines.

Biblical hermeneutics is crucial, definition, usage, context, historical, logic, precedent, unity and inference.
The Hebrew word Shalach ≠ Kerithuth and the Greek word Appoluo ≠ Apostasion.

The ESV and other modern day translations get this wrong, it's a perfect of example of letting doctrine dictate translation. In my opinion, it's one of the most harmful (non-salvific) errors we see.

 

[notonmywatch]

I understand what you're saying, it's basically what the majority of commentators would say. I've read them all lol... They all conclude Jesus voided Deuteronomy 24:1-4 but they're scared to come out and say it, and rightfully so.

My earlier posts. If this topic interests you, this should get you started on the way to a clear understanding.
#198 In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus was addressing the practice of putting away a wife without a divorce certificate. This practice still occurs today in the Jewish community. Essentially, the man can putt away his wife without the divorce certificate and remarry another woman. Furthermore, without the divorce certificate the original woman is unable to remarry.
As stated, look into the the chained wife (agunah) some pretty sad stories.

In Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 Jesus was addressing the Jewish practice of putting away, he states fornication is the only acceptable reason to do this.

#200 So you see, in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 Jesus wasn't addressing modern day gentile Christians.

When we try to apply these verses to ourselves, with a bad translation such as the ESV which uses the word divorce in place of putt away, the result is disastrous. This is the reason for the wide ranging, often harmful, often contradictory divorce and remarriage doctrines.

Biblical hermeneutics is crucial, definition, usage, context, historical, logic, precedent, unity and inference.
The Hebrew word Shalach ≠ Kerithuth and the Greek word Appoluo ≠ Apostasion.

The ESV and other modern day translations get this wrong, it's a perfect of example of letting doctrine dictate translation. In my opinion, it's one of the most harmful (non-salvific) errors we see.

I'll look more deeply into what you said here tomorrow when I have more free time at my disposal. In the meantime, I cannot help but notice that you still haven't really addressed what the LORD said in Jeremiah 3:1. Do you have an explanation for his willingness to go against what was written in Deuteronomy chapter 24? No rush, but I'd really like to hear your explanation of that if you have one. Thanks.

 

[NOV25]

I'll look more deeply into what you said here tomorrow when I have more free time at my disposal. In the meantime, I cannot help but notice that you still haven't really addressed what the LORD said in Jeremiah 3:1. Do you have an explanation for his willingness to go against what was written in Deuteronomy chapter 24? No rush, but I'd really like to hear your explanation of that if you have one. Thanks.

That's a good question brother, crossed my mind before as well. Let's look at it.

Jer. 3:1
(A) “If[a] a man divorces his wife
and she goes from him
and becomes another man's wife,
will he return to her?
(B) Would not that land be greatly polluted?
(C) You have played the whore with many lovers;
and would you return to me?
declares the Lord.

Is God posing rhetorical questions here? If you placed yourself on the other end of the questions as spiritually fornicating Israel, what would your answers be knowing Deuteronomy 24, which God is clearly referencing? Please answer a,b,c using Deut. 24.

In this light we realize Jeremiah 3:1 is a scathing attack on Israel's behavior. In other words, in light of Deut. 24 should I take you back after you've played the whore with many lovers?

With this understanding we see the verse in a different light, it actually reenforces Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which we would expect seeing how it's part of inspired Torah at the time of Jeremiah (and to this day)

As far as God actually taking back spiritually fornicating Israel, who are we to demand God adheres to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which is man's provision and guideline to actual divorce and remarriage? Is it even applicable? I dunno, I wouldn't think so

 

[Tararose]

I don't know if anybody else has already mentioned this or not, but God didn't even hold himself accountable to Moses' precept as is recorded in Deuteronomy chapter 24.

In case anyone else wondered why God doesn't always seem to go by the same rules He gives mankind, Though its something people might just wonder in passing, I think its a pretty important to address, because a byproduct is that the nature of God is questioned when we start to think like this. So, I would add my 2cents in clarifying the matter if I can. Hope that's ok.

The law was not given TO God.
It was given BY God.
It was given to people, BECAUSE they were sinful.

Many freedoms of choice are given to adults that are not given to children.
We do not allow children to wander off unsupervised, to go talk to strangers, to eat and taste and try anything and everything they want, to stay up as late as they think sensible etc.

Why? Because they are just children. They often cannot fully understand the dangers and risks, the implications of actions and choices, or do not know what is good for them in the long term. In the same way, the Lord has had to hem His children in with rules like - dont murder!

Can we really comprehend the immense depths of our (humanities) ignorance and depravity, when the Lord had to give Moses a law, had to literally command us, and even had to threaten us with the death sentence in many cases, to stop us from carrying on doing things like...

Worshiping Idols...
Sleeping with other people's spouses...
Stealing...
Murdering...
and on and on it goes.

Yes. That basic level of morality was lacking, and the commands of the law were desperately needed.
On top of that, God had to add a ton of really harsh consequences for disobeying, along with some very sweet blessings if people complied. THERE IS A LOT OF IT THERE. It all was really needed. Humanity was, and is, so very depraved. Every intent and thought of their heart was evil.

Yet even the law, with all the curses and the blessings, as glorious and good as it was, wasn't enough to stop people sinning, it simply stifled it somewhat.

So, in light of the depths of the depravity that motivated God to give His people the law, would we want to imply that God also needs, or has ever needed to come under that, or any other, law?
Does He need a law to teach, to remind, to encourage, even to threaten, and to compel Him not to do wickedness? Of course not! God cannot, and has never even begun to desire to, sin!

The law was commanded by God and given to sinners:
To deter us from acting out sinful desires.
To teach us what God demands from His people.
To reveal the depths of our depravity,.
To show us our need for a Saviour.

1 Timothy 1:9
knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for theunholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers...

So, clearly, God has never personally needed to follow any commands, or a law. He never will.

However, for a limited time in history, God did willingly and deliberately subjected Himself to being under the law, when He came to earth as the Son of God. It was only for the cause of saving Humanity, that He humbled Himself to become a man, and to be fully obedient to the law of God, in every respect, as a man, in our place, even to death. He had fulfilled the law for us in full and no longer had any reason to come under law again.

 

[notonmywatch]

However, for a limited time in history, God did willingly and deliberately subjected Himself to being under the law, when He came to earth as the Son of God. It was only for the cause of saving Humanity, that He humbled Himself to become a man, and to be fully obedient to the law of God, in every respect, as a man, in our place, even to death. He had fulfilled the law for us in full and no longer had any reason to come under law again.

If you're willing to admit that Jesus became "fully obedient to the law of God, in every respect, as a man" or during his incarnation, then didn't he, the bridegroom, seek to take back his wayward adulterous wife or the lost sheep of the house of Israel at that time? If he did, then wouldn't he have been in violation of Deuteronomy chapter 24 while doing so?

 

[notonmywatch]

The law was not given TO God.
It was given BY God.
It was given to people, BECAUSE they were sinful.

The law was commanded by God and given to sinners:
To deter us from acting out sinful desires.
To teach us what God demands from His people.
To reveal the depths of our depravity,.
To show us our need for a Saviour.

1 Timothy 1:9
knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for theunholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers...

So, clearly, God has never personally needed to follow any commands, or a law. He never will.

What you may be failing to consider is this:

Romans 7:12
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Seeing how the law itself "is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good", wouldn't Christ, the bridegroom, whether prior to his incarnation (per Jeremiah 3:1) or during his incarnation (the gospel accounts), by implication, be unholy, unjust, and evil for seeking to violate it or by seeking to take back his wayward and adulterous wife in direct contrast to Moses' precept in Deuteronomy chapter 24 if it applied the way that several people here are seeking to convince us that it applied?

When it comes to Moses' precept in Deuteronomy chapter 24, why is it that so many people seem opposed to applying the understanding of it that Jesus himself gave us?

Mark 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mark 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mark 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mark 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mark10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The proper answer to the Pharisees' question, and the proper answer to Jesus' follow-up question in regard to Moses' commandment, was found in Genesis chapter 2, and not in Deuteronomy chapter 24. Moses' precept in Deuteronomy chapter 24 was merely an allowance due to the hardness of the hearts of the people, and it in no way disannulled Moses' original commandment in Genesis chapter 2.

This is what Jesus taught, and we'd be wise to take heed to it.

 

[Tararose]

What you may be failing to consider is this:

Romans 7:12
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Seeing how the law itself "is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good", wouldn't Christ, the bridegroom, whether prior to his incarnation (per Jeremiah 3:1) or during his incarnation (the gospel accounts), by implication, be unholy, unjust, and evil for seeking to violate it or by seeking to take back his wayward and adulterous wife in direct contrast to Moses' precept in Deuteronomy chapter 24 if it applied the way that several people here are seeking to convince us that it applied?

When it comes to Moses' precept in Deuteronomy chapter 24, why is it that so many people seem opposed to applying the understanding of it that Jesus himself gave us?

Mark 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mark 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mark 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mark 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mark10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The proper answer to the Pharisees' question, and the proper answer to Jesus' follow-up question in regard to Moses' commandment, was found in Genesis chapter 2, and not in Deuteronomy chapter 24. Moses' precept in Deuteronomy chapter 24 was merely an allowance due to the hardness of the hearts of the people, and it in no way disannulled Moses' original commandment in Genesis chapter 2.

This is what Jesus taught, and we'd be wise to take heed to it.

Right...
Jesus spoke of 2 FLESH becoming one FLESH... and of God making that union a lasting one Until death seperates them.
And the law, that applies to sinful man, is certain holy and Good and fit for its use and purpose.

Does God break the law when He takes life?
NO!
He is not under the law.
If He takes life it is for a righteous and just cause, it is never murder!

There will be NO marrying in heaven and no giving in marriage, and yet there will be the marriage supper of the lamb, for He and His bride. There will be no fleshly union though! Its not remotely the same as what Jesus was talking about.

Moses permitted divorce for the hardness of mans hearts.
Does God have a hard heart?
Does He need Moses to Mae allowances and to permit Him to divorce anyone? Of course not.

God used His own commands to show Isreal they would expect better from the wife of an earthly man, and yet they, His own people were treating Him worse than any unfaithful wife would. Jesus did the same over and over in the parables. using story after story, referring to himself as bread, water, a brother, and so on. Referring to his people as sheep, as children etc.
Yes... He is the The Good Sheperd.... He is Our brother... He is also Our Holy Father... Our friend... where does this end? Do we need to assume it is all literal and wonder if it is the father... our brother... or our friend who will marry us, or does a person or a nation marry the lamb? Or is it the shepherd? Does the shepherd marry all the sheep? We dont talk in such ridiculous ways because we know full well God is not talking about earthly fleshly marriage.

He uses these terms about himself, about us, about humanity, to help us see the many aspects of his nature and to understand He is the one we belong to. He is the one who cares for us, provides for us, supports, protects etc.

God isn't under law.

 

[notonmywatch]

Right...
Jesus spoke of 2 FLESH becoming one FLESH... and of God making that union a lasting one Until death seperates them.
And the law, that applies to sinful man, is certain holy and Good and fit for its use and purpose.

Does God break the law when He takes life?
NO!
He is not under the law.
If He takes life it is for a righteous and just cause, it is never murder!

There will be NO marrying in heaven and no giving in marriage, and yet there will be the marriage supper of the lamb, for He and His bride. There will be no fleshly union though! Its not remotely the same as what Jesus was talking about.

Moses permitted divorce for the hardness of mans hearts.
Does God have a hard heart?
Does He need Moses to Mae allowances and to permit Him to divorce anyone? Of course not.

God used His own commands to show Isreal they would expect better from the wife of an earthly man, and yet they, His own people were treating Him worse than any unfaithful wife would. Jesus did the same over and over in the parables. using story after story, referring to himself as bread, water, a brother, and so on. Referring to his people as sheep, as children etc.
Yes... He is the The Good Sheperd.... He is Our brother... He is also Our Holy Father... Our friend... where does this end? Do we need to assume it is all literal and wonder if it is the father... our brother... or our friend who will marry us, or does a person or a nation marry the lamb? Or is it the shepherd? Does the shepherd marry all the sheep? We dont talk in such ridiculous ways because we know full well God is not talking about earthly fleshly marriage.

He uses these terms about himself, about us, about humanity, to help us see the many aspects of his nature and to understand He is the one we belong to. He is the one who cares for us, provides for us, supports, protects etc.

God isn't under law.

I really have no response, except to say that everyone here is free to share their takes on this topic. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on this topic, and I'm also certainly not here to fight with anybody. We've both shared our takes, and I'm okay with that. Have a blessed day.

 

[NOV25]

A woman enters the pastors office for council, she's been physically abused by her husband year after year and finally wants to divorce on these grounds.

You're the pastor, ready set go. Give her bible verses to show she must either remain in the marriage (if that's your view) or how she is able to divorce (if that's your view).

 

[Lynx]

A woman enters the pastors office for council, she's been physically abused by her husband year after year and finally wants to divorce on these grounds.

You're the pastor, ready set go. Give her bible verses to show she must either remain in the marriage (if that's your view) or how she is able to divorce (if that's your view).

Where I live it wouldn't come to that. The lady's brothers would have a few words with the husband about the proper way to treat a lady. There might be a 2x4 used in the conversation. There may or may not be some discussion on the side about how to properly maintain firearms.

If the lady didn't have any brothers, a few men from the church would have the conversation with him. You don't treat a lady like that.

 

[JohnDB]

Where I live it wouldn't come to that. The lady's brothers would have a few words with the husband about the proper way to treat a lady. There might be a 2x4 used in the conversation. There may or may not be some discussion on the side about how to properly maintain firearms.

If the lady didn't have any brothers, a few men from the church would have the conversation with him. You don't treat a lady like that.

We wouldn't use a 2x4....
They are made of soft pine.
Hickory and maple are much harder....so baseball bats are perfect and make a nice sound.

 

[Lynx]

We wouldn't use a 2x4....
They are made of soft pine.
Hickory and maple are much harder....so baseball bats are perfect and make a nice sound.

You can get 2x4s in all kinds of wood...

But for this conversation it might be best to use a pine 2x4. You want to convince him, not obliterate him.

Speaking of for-the-purpose... For the purpose of this thread, you might as well go back to moving. You were proven right. No use continuing to beat your gums, or in this case your keyboard, when it won't make a difference anyway.