Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18

[sixth_heretic]

Adultery in marriage for the MAN:
#1. A man may not marry a wife who separated from her living husband. (Mark 10:12)
#2. A man may not marry a put away wife while her husband still lives. (Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, Luke 16:18)
#3. A man may not marry any woman after having put away his wife (while she still lives?). (Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)

Adultery in marriage for the WOMAN:
#4. A wife who separated from her husband may not marry anyone else while her husband still lives. (Mark 10:12)
#5. A put away wife may not marry anyone else while her husband still lives. (Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, Luke 16:18)

I like this list. You guys are pretty phenominal when you put your heads together. WEll done. I am going to keep this list in my bible. it rocks.

 

[Mark C]

All right. So far, so good.

That would seem to leave one major area remaining; I Corinthians 7:15 would seem to be a good indicator of where to start.

"...if the unbeliever departs, let [him] depart...the believer is not under bondage..."

The Book of Ezra tells a similar story (albeit focused on pagan women). There are "marriages" that God never recognized as such (but which can be sanctified by the believer).

I have argued here, and continue to assert, that "what God has cleansed", by His blood, is not unclean. Those who come to Him can have their marriages sanctified. But there would still seem to be those who are in "marriages" that are not.

"What God has joined, let not man put asunder." This verses (actually, by more than one witness) has become particularly poignant for me, as I have come to see first-hand how the modern Police State of Amerika claims that power on a whim. What is legal is clearly not Lawful, and vice-versa.

I have also argued that a marriage license is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a marriage before God, but that a Covenant before Him, consummated by believers, is. That leaves a lot of room in between.

Comments?

 

[Dairyfarmer]

First for a little humor my wife read this and said "now I can act up and you can't get rid of me." Then she read the last post and said "now I'm trying to find a way to get rid of her."


If I am thinking right tonight, a marriage is between man, woman and God, no one else. If one is a unbeliever there can't be a covenant to God. In the believers mind yes, but not in the unbeliever. To me this is the only case remarriage would be ok for the believer, but not for the unbeliever. Now a person can't use this for an excuse because God knows what is in the heart. He tells us not to stand in the way of sinners, so let the unbeliever go. But if they get along fine which God knows then if the believer divorces the nonbeliever and remarries I would think that would be adultery.

Now Mark you shouldn't get me started on the government! A license is just another word for tax. And with a license there is information, the more information a person has about another, the more control they have over the person. How can a government be good, when everyone in it goes against God the moment they take the oath for office? :twisted:

Dairyfarmer

 

[Anonymous]

If I am thinking right tonight, a marriage is between man, woman and God, no one else. If one is a unbeliever there can't be a covenant to God.

The marriage covenant (agreement) is between the man and the woman. As believers, it's also before God. As unbelievers, the covenant still is binding between them (unless, as previously mentioned, the marriage is invalid for some reason). Otherwise, a believer would be able to lie with another man's unbelieving wife and not commit adultery, which we know is not the case (re: Joseph and Potiphar's wife). God's Word speaks of a husband and a wife (or a man and a woman) and the only time one's faith comes into play is when there is a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever. In the Old Covenant, this is a repetitive theme contrasting holy and profane (dietary, sexual, purity, mixing different types, intermarriage, etc.) If God invalidates the marriage in such a case, Scripture seems to demonstrate that there was no marriage at all. That appears to be the testimony of both the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

Always in Him,
David

 

[sixth_heretic]

Men can only marry widows or virgins and can only divorce their wives if they commit fornication.

Women must stay married to their husband as long as he lives.

I dont know whay there is so much confusion on this. These two concepts cover everything. This full fills the adultery list and every other scripture I could find on the subject.

Adultery in marriage for the MAN:
#1. A man may not marry a wife who separated from her living husband. (Mark 10:12)
#2. A man may not marry a put away wife while her husband still lives. (Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, Luke 16:18)
#3. A man may not marry any woman after having put away his wife (while she still lives?). (Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)

Adultery in marriage for the WOMAN:
#4. A wife who separated from her husband may not marry anyone else while her husband still lives. (Mark 10:12)
#5. A put away wife may not marry anyone else while her husband still lives. (Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, Luke 16:18)

 

[Mark C]

Then keep looking.


Isaiah 4:1 tells of a time (which I believe is still to come, whether it has happened before or not) when "seven women" will ask a man to "take away my reproach".

Hosea was told BY God to take a harlot as his wife.

What about a young girl who is raped, and cried out, but was in the country where no one heard her? Is she condemned to never know the love of a husband?

Remember Deuteronomy 24, 6thH. I will suggest that a man who is filled with the love of our Savior can say to her, "I find NO uncleanness in you!"

 

[Anonymous]

Men can only marry widows or virgins and can only divorce their wives if they commit fornication.

Well, men can marry whores and defiled women as well, according to Scripture, since they do not have husbands. Remember that a father had the final authority regarding whether his daughter would be permitted to marry the man who took her virginity. If he said no, it was no. She was still permitted to marry another, even though she was no longer virgin. The same thing was true for a whore. Only a MARRIED WOMAN (one with a living husband) was forbidden to marry another man. I'm sure you would agree that God would never command someone to commit a sin, right?

Love in Him,
David

 

[sixth_heretic]

So like with jesus a man can take away a womans sin if he takes her sin on himself.
If a man marries a whore he takes that sin on to himself and then it will be up to jesus to determine if the man did so righteously.
If a man sleeps with a woman that still has a husband he commits sin.
But if that woman was abandoned then the sin was still commited but the sins are forgiven.

Does this sound right?

 

[Mark C]

So like with jesus a man can take away a womans sin if he takes her sin on himself.
If a man marries a whore he takes that sin on to himself and then it will be up to jesus to determine if the man did so righteously.
If a man sleeps with a woman that still has a husband he commits sin.
But if that woman was abandoned then the sin was still commited but the sins are forgiven.

Actually, no. (and perhaps these were intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it's not obvious.)

Numbers 30 describes the authority of a husband and father to cast down bad vows of a wife and daughter, for which he will "bear her guilt", but I don't think the leap to "taking on sin" ourselves is supportable. Adam arguably tried - but he was not a suitable sacrifice, either.

(Perhaps an aspect of confusion here is the difference between "propitiation" or redemption, and a husband's "covering" of his wife. If so, more discussion is warranted.)

As for abandonment, no - I don't think anyone has made that specific claim, either, outside of the issue of non-believers. (Again, I don't accept the "sex=marriage" supposition either, 6thH, so perhaps that affects our conclusions.)


Blessings,
Mark

 

[welltan]

Very interesting posts. Not sure if I missed it, but has someone discussed the the fact that all these scriptural divorce ideas are based in the fact that people are married. Married by who's definition? God's? The couples? The families? Of course a state document or license has been discussed in posts elsewhere. Does having sex mean you are married? One of the posts mentions marrying a harlot in the O.T. If sex means she was married then a harlot is obviously already married to someone, or not? Are two college kids sharing a room and more married? If two people have a relationship and it is a Godless one, does the scripture (that which God has joined.........let not man part....) even apply to this relationship. Does having a relationship force God to view you as married. Perhaps society is worse in God's eyes than we try to apply holy marriage rules to. We are trying to purify something..'by marriage'.....that God does not even see as marriage. The discussion of marriage is a very holy and important topic. But we will never find a pure standard if we try to drag a mixed world/God idea of marriage into a solution.

Just to stir the pot. We always think of a harlot as receiving money and leaning against a street light. But what if she receives shared apartment rent, reduced lonesomeness from not having a boyfriend, reduced peer pressure to get a boyfriend, the personal security of a companion (not from God), a father for her child, etc. If we see the cash it is easy to label a harlot. But what if it is a cashless transaction. Should we even attempt to apply all the marriage/divorce rules to her. And then if the lady turns her heart to God is she responsible to rectify all her Godless past life into something that pure marriage can be applied to? When Christ said to the woman "Go and sin no more", the simplicity of this statement is a refuge for the woman with a past. She is under no more bondage to her past then anyone else that turns to God.

I am not saying that unsaved people can never be married. God can view unsaved people as married. (The rain falls on the just and the unjust).

 

[Anonymous]

If a man marries a whore he takes that sin on to himself and then it will be up to jesus to determine if the man did so righteously.

Sixth,

I’m not sure if you were being facetious or not, but I’m having trouble understanding your question. Could you clarify your statement for me? What does her prior whoring have to do with her getting married? Adultery is having sex with another man’s wife, not simply a woman who has previous laid with another man. Whoring had no penalty in Scripture, whereas adultery warranted the death penalty. Whores tend to have sex with more than one man, so whoring can't be subject to marriage without also being subject to adultery. Prior whoring neither marries, nor invalidates for marriage, the whore. She is still entitled to marry if she can find a husband. I see no difference whether she committed whoring in the past or committed theft in the past, unless you see whoring as a form of non-consensual marriage?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

I think there’s some confusion here somewhere. Until/unless she marries, nothing related to marriage or separation from marriage applies to her, unless we're talking about a Levitical priest. When I use the term “whore” or “whoring”, I’m specifically referring to “zanah”, which I take to mean a woman who has voluntary sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband. (If she’s a married woman, then it’s also “na’aph”.) Unfortunately, we live in a nation of whores and whoremongers. Are you understanding this term to apply solely to prostitution (sex for money)?

Love in Him,
David

 

[welltan]

We agree that sexual activity before marriage, which can be labeled fornication can not be labeled marriage. It is complicated then by the various opinions of when marriage happens. I take a narrow view that marriage is not so easy to get into. So we have people trying to apply Gods marriage standards to two people that God has never viewed as married and they just need to get away from each other, plain and simple and stop sinning. But for those truly married, my opinion on divorce is as follows.

I feel that Porneia" (fornication : zanah) includes all sexual sin, a broad term including adultery. So I would not limit fornication to just premarital sin. "Moicheia" (adultery: naaph) is a more limited term. I believe that a man should more than try to forgive a wife if she repents from the limited term of naaph, perhaps a single act. However, the broader term of porneia/fornication/zana infers a lifestyle/permanent problem that makes marriage even with forgiveness impossible. In these two verses (following below), Christ states not to put away a wife except for fornication. It is a clear mandate in my opinion that forgiveness is the first and best and Christ-directed option. The husband's options are not so arbitrary, depending on his whim and personality on whether he wants to forgive a repentant wife. Her repentance for naaph/adultery (limited term) enables Christ's forgiveness. The man must continue Christ's forgiveness even into his own home. However, the lifestyle permanent zanah/fornication presupposes insufficient repentance and not actually turning away from sin. Christ's forgiveness is not in action or is being trod upon repeatedly. The wife and Christ have unfinished business in this sin area. The man is not expected to resolve(or forgive) the problem when it has not truly been given to Christ by the woman. Therefore the hard-hearted man who puts away a wife that is truly repentant, goes against God as God wants the marriage to continue. Since God wants the marriage to continue and views them as married, if she marries another (which God does not want) she is in adultery which is based not in her first (Christ forgiven) sin but in the man's refusal and discord to forgive as Christ has.

Matt. 5:32 "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."

Matt. 19:8-9 "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."

 

[Anonymous]

I take a narrow view that marriage is not so easy to get into. So we have people trying to apply Gods marriage standards to two people that God has never viewed as married and they just need to get away from each other, plain and simple and stop sinning.

I definitely agree, but I'm really struggling with some of the implications of these NT passages that I've been studying. I really want to do an extended study on the differences between the Mosaic and Messianic covenants eventually, but after the past three months going through every conceivable Scripture in the OT regarding marriage and separation, I'll be happy to just get through the rest of the NT verses and then give my mind a rest for a while. Had I realized how complex a subject this really was, I'd have set aside smaller chunks of time across a longer span, so I wouldn't become overwhelmed. I'm starting to see Greek words in my sleep now! :lol:

Anyway, I agree with your conclusions regarding marriage not being so easy to get into, at least in our culture. (Of course, the same could be said for STAYING in a true marriage as well.) Here's where I see a major problem, and one which will likely force many true believers to completely disregard what God's Word says if it means they can't continue in their sinful marriage.

Say a believing man, not knowing much about what Scripture says on the subject (but following the advice of well-meaning pastors) decided to marry a put-away woman whose husband is still alive. Neither OT nor NT Scriptures allow for any possibility of putting away a LAWFUL wife except for "whoring" (I'll leave that for another discussion), so in most every case we're likely to come across, the woman was not free to remarry, regardless of her specific circumstances. Now the new husband and/or wife discover the truth. What are their options?

(1) Ignore the truth and just remain in adultery, hoping God will just overlook their sin (contrary to 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

(2) Walk away from their adulterous marriages, destroying even more families in the process (including some which are between earnest believers with believing children).

(3) later repent, leaving her with just the one remaining husband. (I would hope no believer would seriously consider this!)

I'm not sure how I would council someone who is living in an adulterous marriage if it came to my attention. We are to speak the truth of God's Word, regardless of cost. When sin is made known to us, aren't we to depart from that sin? (I realize the same argument can be made regarding two men "married" to each other, with the same disastrous results, but we're less likely to see that particular scenario in many of our churches.) We've done so much damage to marriage in the past 40 years. How do we, as the body of Messiah, go about correcting this enormous problem?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

Say a believing man, not knowing much about what Scripture says on the subject (but following the advice of well-meaning pastors) decided to marry a put-away woman whose husband is still alive.

Perhaps at this point, David, the answer that I suggested before might make more sense. I will repeat the key argument below.

Does the woman have a certificate of divorce from this still-living "husband"?

If so, then the answer is still the one found in torah - to "choose life".

Yeshua also gave us MUCH guidance about contracts and that we are to be careful to serve only one Master! From "make no treaty" with the pagan inhabitants of the land, to the entire lesson about bondslaves who are GIVEN WIVES BY THEIR MASTER, to the warning that we cannot serve both God and the prince of this world - there is a clear lesson. And this is the one which I contend holds the key to this otherwise horrid debacle.

If a man and woman TAKE A LICENSE from Caesar, then LIKE IT OR NOT, they have agreed to abide by CAESAR'S terms for the contract. Their MARRIAGE BELONGS to CAESAR (and Caesar will claim the fruits of that marriage, too, have not doubt! From taking control of the State's children, to dispostion of the State's 'property' - Caesar will claim authority over every aspect of that relationship.)

What Caesar has joined together - he can control, or separate. AND THOSE WHO TOOK HIS LICENSE AGREED TO THIS!

God advised Joshua NOT to make any treaties - but He held Joshua to the terms of the one he made with the Gibeonites, even though it was done by FRAUD!

The solution is this:

If this woman took Caesar's license, her marriage was before Caesar, by Caesar's rules. What Caesar gives, he takes away. When she gets a "divorce" - the purely English word is used here - she does it in Caesar's court, under Caesar's rules. If she's got that piece of paper, from the same authority which gave her the piece of paper (marriage license) that claimed to CREATE the contract - she has met Caesar's terms. And read the Bible! She has met the requirements of the Bible as well.

I would advise the new husband to honor God's Law, and not man's. Avoid giving authority over his house to a false master; "choose this day Whom he will serve". Make his covenant with her before God, and take the authority over his house that God gives him. And if God can cleanse something He called unclean (whether it's pigs, our desperately wicked hearts), then let no man call it common or base.


Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Say a believing man, not knowing much about what Scripture says on the subject (but following the advice of well-meaning pastors) decided to marry a put-away woman whose husband is still alive.

Does the woman have a certificate of divorce from this still-living "husband"?

Either way, since the separation is invalid according to Mk. 10 and Lk. 16, she simply cannot marry again while her husband lives without committing adultery. No certificate can override what the Master Himself said in all those verses in the New Testament. Every other NT passage confirms the same thing. They can give each other certificate after certificate, but since she still has a husband, she commits adultery if she remarries, and the man she marries commits adultery with her. So, the problem remains.

If so, then the answer is still the one found in torah - to "choose life".

Agreed. I'm fairly certain adultery wouldn't qualify as "choosing life" though. That's a definite "choose death" idea.

What Caesar has joined together - he can control, or separate. AND THOSE WHO TOOK HIS LICENSE AGREED TO THIS!

Unless we're saying that only believers are truly married according to God, then Caesar's licenses and dissolving of licenses are irrelevant. It's still adultery if she lays with another man while her husband lives. No divorce certificate will side-step this issue, or Jesus might as well have said nothing at all. Scripture shows that God recognizes marriages between men and women, not only believing men and women. In Gen. 39, we see where Joseph asks Potiphar's wife, "How shall I do this great evil and sin against Elohim?" I'm fairly certain neither Potiphar nor his wife made their marriage vows before God.

I would advise the new husband to honor God's Law, and not man's.

Which brings us back to either not marrying her in the first place, or to walk away from the adulterous marriage he finds himself in. Any answer we would give to two men would apply to a man and woman with two husbands. We don't need to call something "unclean" or "common" or "base" to recognize than an invalid marriage doesn't suddenly become valid just by claiming to make the covenant before God. A woman with two husbands can't sanctify it regardless how she twists Scripture. Jesus was simply too clear on this point and we have to completely disregard what He said to claim otherwise. If she remarries, she commits adultery. If a man marries her, he commits adultery. We can't change sin into righteousness or adultery into marriage, so we're faced with the very same problem.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

Unless we're saying that only believers are truly married according to God, then Caesar's licenses and dissolving of licenses are irrelevant.

Well, we agree at least in part. Either Caesar's license (and thus his marriage) are irrelevant, or it is not. And it sounds like you're arguing both ways here. Caesar claims to make his own rules...but why would God accept his claim to be able to marry, but not to dissolve what he creates? And neither of us accept his claim to either "sanctify" marriages that God calls "abomination" or redefine marriage for God in any event. Caesar's claim to power over his marriages no longer even pays lip service to God's authority on the issue.

And I've already seen first-hand that "what God has joined, let not man rend asunder" is a commandment treated with contempt by the self-proclaimed Almighty State.

God clearly didn't respect "marriages" made in violation of His direction in the Book of Ezra. Yet He tells us to honor the commitments we make - even ill-advised ones. He made it clear that we are to "render unto Caesar that which is his"; so who is the creator of a marriage (or a church, for that matter) made by Caesar? AND WHAT DOES CAESAR'S CONTRACT SAY?

I contend that we CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS! "If God be God, serve Him..." It's called "choice of law"! And you simply can't have it both ways. He told us over and over, through many witnesses, and many examples.

You didn't address the central point, David. What Caesar has joined - who writes the rules for how that ends? And "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey?"


"Choose life", in this context, means "as for me and my house, we will serve Adonai" ONLY. You cannot serve both God and ...any other master.


Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Unless we're saying that only believers are truly married according to God, then Caesar's licenses and dissolving of licenses are irrelevant.

Well, we agree at least in part. Either Caesar's license (and thus his marriage) are irrelevant, or it is not. And it sounds like you're arguing both ways here. Caesar claims to make his own rules...but why would God accept his claim to be able to marry, but not to dissolve what he creates?

Yes, both state licenses and state marriages are irrelevant as far as having any significance. God defines marriage in His Word. I care about as much as God cares about what Caesar THINKS he creates. Where Caesar's definitions of marriage line up with Scripture, then they are coincidence. Where they don't line up with Scripture, then they are not marriages no matter what the state says. It's not like a man and woman who want to get married before God are somehow thwarted because the state gets involved with its marriage licenses. The state neither makes nor breaks a marriage in God's eyes. It is the commitment to one another to be married that makes them married, and getting a piece of paper or "permission" from the state changes nothing regarding the actual marriage itself.

If a believing man and woman, neither of which have been married before, go to Caesar and get a state marriage license, they are STILL married according to God's definition of marriage. They meet all the criteria that God requires for a valid marriage and they are married when they agree that they are married. Whether the state thinks it has any say in anything is not important. The agreement is between the man and the woman either way, and it is THIS agreement that God holds us to. Marriage requires no contracts, no paperwork, no signatures and no state. But having a contract, or paperwork, or signatures, or the state, in no way invalidates the marriage. It simply has nothing to do with anything. Just because the state likes to think it alone provides the right to marry, doesn't actually give it anything of the kind.

God clearly didn't respect "marriages" made in violation of His direction in the Book of Ezra.

Those marriages were in defiance of God's clearly established law. The marriages were invalid. They would have been just as invalid whether they married themselves in a tent, or had a state-recognized marriage ceremony. There was no lawful marriage according to God's Word, so they were required to put away those wives. It would be the same if they were marrying other men, marrying other men's wives or marrying animals. They are not considered valid marriages according to God's Word. He alone created the institution, so He alone defines the parameters of what a valid marriage is comprised of.

He made it clear that we are to "render unto Caesar that which is his"; so who is the creator of a marriage (or a church, for that matter) made by Caesar? AND WHAT DOES CAESAR'S CONTRACT SAY?

Caesar does not create marriages, nor does Caesar create churches, regardless what the state may say. It's no different than the state handing out licenses to heaven. It can say it controls who is and isn't going to go to heaven, but in reality, it changes absolutely nothing. The state could even hand out annulments of "heaven certificates" if they like. It makes no difference to the reality of the situation. God is the only one who creates marriages, even marriages among pagans.

You didn't address the central point, David. What Caesar has joined - who writes the rules for how that ends? And "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey?"

Caesar can no sooner marry me than my German Shepherd can. Governments exist to get in the way of its people, and that's fine by me. If they want me to walk to Bethlehem to take a census, so be it. If they want me to pay taxes to Caesar, I have no problems with that. And if the state wants to feel self-important enough to think it regulates who is and isn't married, they can think what they will. They can define what they will. I know what Scripture says and it says that God joins, never once Caesar. God alone joins EVERY SINGLE VALID MARRIAGE in existence, even if some man-made institution would like to think they invented it.

Love in Him,
David