Did Jesus say that adultery is grounds for divorce? - Nope.
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I was divorced by my ex-wife against my will. A later realized that it ended up being a blessing that she divorced me. I was in severe depression because of the marriage and had I remained I would have likely killed myself. After we separated, I was able to come off depression medication a couple months later.
We were not put together by God. That much I can tell you. There were red flags all along that I ignored. Her family and mine tried to warn me. I wouldn't listen. We were also pressured into getting married by her then cult leader pastor and his friends.
I will say that three good things came out of the marriage though. My two children and now knowing what a marriage not put together by God looks like.
I am now in a relationship that has God's hands in it. It is the best relationship I have ever had and we will be getting married once my bankruptcy has cleared.
My ex-wife has remarried and from what I can tell is still unhappy. She still causes me issues and doesn't really care for our children beyond the child support that I give her each month. She didn't want them for Christmas at all. She doesn't want them on mother's day or her birthday. Now, for two years I didn't want them on my birthday, but I was out of town celebrating. She just didn't want them. When I don't have them for a weekend I ask for them two weekends in a row, which turns into the weekends in a row. If she doesn't have them, she will not ask for more time with them.
Does she get them during the week? Yep, but they are in school. She just didn't want them, but won't give them up to me because she'll lose her monthly child support.
Last edited:
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
"Grace," it is, then?
I caught that; that is cute. But I think Tulipbee might be a sock. You love him too much - lol.
A likely story. Have you no shame?
Uh-huh
You're too charitable.
Well, here I go...
So, it's μοιχεύσεις which appears to be the narrower term, i.e. extra-marital affair, although I'm not really sure it matters after having a look at Matthew 19:9 more closely before my original reply. It really seems quite self-explanatory. Grace (no, I'm not going to keep doing that ;)). I know I'm not immune to any bias but help me out here, SS, this is pretty much kid's stuff.
Because a broader statement of sexual offense is not what takes place when a man remarries after an unlawful dissolution of marriage. He is, by definition, and more accurately, having an extra-marital affair.
I don't see how that it's a matter of weight at all, but of accuracy.
.
The reason Paul made the statement that a deacon must be the husband of one wife is because there were new converts who had been practicing polygamy. None of them were to be placed in authoritative positions in the church. It wasn't a condoning of polygamy. Anyone who was practicing polygamy was not qualified for leadership in the church. That would set a precedent for condoning something God did not approve.
Are you making this stuff up?
Why would the Apostle point out polygamy?
Weren't there plenty of other pagan sins to focus on?
/
Just because the Bible describes something doesn't mean the Bible prescribes it.
God always starts with one man and one woman... Adam and Eve, for instance ....and Noah, his three sons, and each had one wife. The precedent is set by God, not by man's deviation from God's original design.
Then take Paul's instruction that a deacon must not have more than one wife. He was birthing and setting up a church where there were many converts. Obviously, you'll have people coming out of all sorts of sinful lifestyles in such situations. Paul even had to set order in a church where new converts came straight out of Diana-worship. (Which led to his need of instructing women to keep silence, because in that culture, women were very dominant over the men.) Paul did a lot of this.
Are you aware that the first person in the Bible to take multiple wives was the ungodly man, Lamech? He didn't serve God.
And, btw, how do you not take Jesus' own words as the standard for marriage? Have you even read the Bible enough to study this out thoroughly, and rightly dividing the scriptures?
Matthew 19:4-6
[4]And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
[5]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?
[6]Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Jesus said the two shall be one flesh ...just like it was in the beginning. In essence, Jesus said that God set the precedent for marriage in the beginning, and that what God joins together is one man and one woman (male and female). He used the word "twain" or "two" ....and the word "wife" ...not wives. Nor did He mention more than 2 people making up a marriage relationship.
I honestly find this extremely sad and a reflection of the heart that desires more than one wife.
I'm not making anything up. Research it for yourself. Why else would Paul have to point it out? Because some people were living in ungodly relationships and they were not to be set in leadership positions in the church.
Listen ....if you're trying to find some way to wiggle and stretch the Word of God to fit your ungodly desires ....just go ahead and do it. You don't believe all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, do you?
When you are planting new churches in areas where people are coming out of sinful lifestyles, you have to sometimes state what should to most Christians be obvious.
Marriage is a picture of the love of Jesus Christ toward His bride, the Church. Ephesians chapter 5 states that the husband should love his wife as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for it. Jesus isn't a polygamist. He has one Church, with one Covenant. He doesn't have brides from other religions with multiple covenants.
That being the case, why would you use the broad definition of "fornication" as Jesus' grounds for divorce?
What became of, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
/
No need for me to split hairs with you over this.
You seem to agree that polygamy was common in the early church.
That was my only point anyway.
/
What do you make of this?
How many wives? - LOL
John 10:16 NIV
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also.
They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
/
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
I guess the timeframe here is important to note......Jesus was Jewish and some of his preaching was originally done in synagogues, as did the apostles, until after Jesus’ death, they were excluded and had to find other venues. This was often in people’s homes where small congregations met for scriptural instruction and worship. As the congregations outgrew their homes, so larger venues were sought.
Since Jesus’ audience was exclusively Jewish, it is certain that many of the Jewish men had more than one wife at that time....Jesus reinstating the original standard for marriage may have taken some time to reach the hearts of those who perhaps loved all of their wives. Mind you such household were not always happy places since these wives competed for their husband’s affections, and the children born to them were equally loved. Imagine having jealous women fighting and arguing over trivial things and trying to outdo one another......it’s human nature and it goes against all our instincts to share our mate with anyone else.
Unfaithful spouses are the primary reason for marriages to end.
Jehovah said that Israel was like an unfaithful wife when they started worshipping other gods.
Yes, it was a requirement if one was to become an example to the flock. Reinstatement of God’s original standard for marriage precluded any who might want to volunteer for privileges of service in the congregation, so it was something they had to come to terms with, because it was Jesus himself who made the statement.....”TWO” yoked together by God as “ONE flesh”.
It doesn’t “seem” that way to me at all.....”TWO” did not mean more that “TWO”.....you cannot be “one flesh” with more than one mate. Since the standard was enforced (mandatory) on those who took the lead in the congregation, the rest of the congregation would see its importance as a standard for all.
She may well have been traded to someone who valued her as a mature woman who could handle many tasks that no ditsy 20 year old could master. I’m sure she would welcome the change.
.....all the best with managing two competing 20 year olds.
St. SteVen said:
When my wife turned 40, I considered trading her in for two 20s. - LOL
Now that's funny.
Yes, that would be a terrible idea on any man's part.
We're still together after 44 years of marriage. She's definitely a keeper.
/
When my wife turned 40, I considered trading her in for two 20s. - LOL
LOLShe may well have been traded to someone who valued her as a mature woman who could handle many tasks that no ditsy 20 year old could master. I’m sure she would welcome the change.
.....all the best with managing two competing 20 year olds.
Now that's funny.
Yes, that would be a terrible idea on any man's part.
We're still together after 44 years of marriage. She's definitely a keeper.
/
Funny to consider that the church is a polygamous relationship.
- How many husbands?
- How many wives?
/
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Where does this say it is talking about wives?
This is talking about sheep having a shepherd. Jesus is “the fine shepherd” and his sheep are his disciples.
In differentiating those who would make up his “bride” (not brides) Jesus was saying that his elect are chosen to go and be with him in heaven, whilst those over whom this body will rule (mankind) as “kings and priests”, (Rev 20:6) will be in another location here on earth, whilst Christ and his bride class will govern them from heaven.
“I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:2-4)
The whole body of the elect are called one bride.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
I know, right?Uh, you just said that to a woman.
How about DISgraceful....?
I like what @BarneyFife wrote earlier.
Seems we both take the approach that fits our presuppositions.
Your rebuttal is loaded with assumptions.
/
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Yep!
www.biblegateway.com
Sexual immorality is sex outside marriage.
And that divorcee under those grounds is allowed to remarry.
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 19 - Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament
Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan River. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Pharisees came to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered...
Sexual immorality is sex outside marriage.
And that divorcee under those grounds is allowed to remarry.
Last edited:
Similar threads
