Can a 'True Follower of Jesus' be Divorced / Re-married & still call himself a 'Christian' ?

a reply to: jjkenobi

You wrote QUOTE "This a a joke thread, right? When someone sincerely comes to Jesus and believes in Him and accepts Him any previous sins are thrown out..."

This thread is no joke.

According to the canonical Greek Gospels, R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (Gk.ho Iesous) instructed his followers that Divorce is unthinkable. Full Stop. Period. Finis. There will be no Divorce, at least according to him. It was one of the very few apodeictic laws he uttered ('Thou shalt not...')

And yet many modern Protestant congregations are pustulant with divorced and re-married couples, to say nothing of the adulteries going on behind the scenes. And nobody seems to be able to remind them of the Greek words placed into the mouth of 'Jesus' in these Gospels on the subject of Divorce :ὃ οὖν ὁ Θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω ('what God has joined-together let not man pull apart....')

But modern churches simply choose to ignore his explicit commands on this subject. Even Anita Bryant said that the Church has to wake up to the reality of Divorce and women's issues within Christianity - and for her, that's saying something - which by the way is more than a little hypocritical (if you ask me) since she divorced in 1980 and re-married in 1990 and STILL calls herself a Bible-believing 'Christian...' !!!!

Some 'Christians' (but admittedly, not all) feel that they can continue to live as they choose (divorced, remarried and all) and get forgiven 'by Jesus' at the end of the day, but this flies in the face of what we read in the canonical Greek Gospels in many instances where a 'sinner' is told to change his ways

e.g. πορεύου καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε - 'Go now and sin no more'
where a correction in behaviour is required before forgiveness is given.

This whole subject is fraught with difficulties in 'real life' especially when physical or mental abuse and/or children are involved. It's just that so few 'Christians' have the intestinal fortitude it seems to 'stand up to Jesus' and say, clearly, 'No, Rabbi, I disagree with you on this point...your stance is too inflexible.'

At least R. Shammai and R. Hillel in the 1st century CE handed down their own various reasons how/why Divorce may be acceptable (although, admittedly, only from the man's point of view). But R. Yehoshua bar Yosef's stance is something quite extraordinary for those days - and seemingly impossible to-day.

How can a person who styles himself a 'Christian' walk so rough-shod over what is clearly a set of definitive rules regarding marriage, yet elects to pick and choose what command is most convenient for him when it comes to this one subject ?

a reply to: windword

You wrote QUOTE "Thanks for the acknowledgement and commentary! I alway appreciate your threads, even if I don't always post in them! I guess the next thread should be something like "Is it ever okay to disagree with Jesus?" UNQUOTE

LOL ! If I have time tonight I might just do that - Divorce is only one of several points of contention that many moderns have with what is placed into his mouth in the Greek canonical Gospel material, e.g. calling that poor Syrophonecian woman a 'dog' in Matthew chapter 15 for example.

In the meantime, don't ever hesitate to throw in your own comments whenever you can. They are much appreciated.

a reply to: babybunnies

You wrote QUOTE "a true follower of Christianity and The Bible cannot divorce and still claim to stay in good moral and ethical standing. It boggles the mind how Evangelical Christians are following Donald Trump (on his third wife) and the likes of Sarah Palin and her family. However, when you believe in make believe, I guess you can suspend all moral and ethical standing when it comes to actually living your life the way your Good Book tells you...."

Very well said. Perhaps part of the hypocrisy has to do with the magical thinking of 'Christians' where things can just poof ! disappear if you want them to, no problem !

a reply to: randyvs

*scratching head*
I just read this 3 times:

If I'm convinced of anything it is that you have no idea what to believe
and you know even less.

randy, buddy - neither do you. You know what you've decided (or been persuaded, or both) to believe. And you think you know the absolute truth.

But, my friend.... you don't know.
You don't know, any more than anyone else does. Please don't be nasty. I agree with windword on most things....I often admire your posts, and know that you mean well - but -
c'mon now.

We Just Don't Know.
We Don't.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Context is everything for this passage. At that time the teachers of the law and the scribes were using the Moses divorce clause to toss away their old wives and marry trophy wives. Jesus called that practice adultery, calling them out on their hypocrisy.

There is an additional out for divorce by the way and that is if your spouse is an unbeliever. Thus if your spouse shacks up with someone else and is unrepentant, this is good evidence for unbelief, as an example.

a reply to: SevenThunders

Which writer said this?

Paul said if your significant other was an unbeliever, they are holy through your own belief

SevenThunders

There is an additional out for divorce by the way and that is if your spouse is an unbeliever. Thus if your spouse shacks up with someone else and is unrepentant, this is good evidence for unbelief, as an example.

I think you may be mistaken on this thought.

1 Corinthians 7:12-14

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

a reply to: Punisher75

Why did you leave out verse 15? 1 Cor 7:15 is the key teaching here:

15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

If your spouse is an unbeliever and dumps you, you are not under any bondage of sin.

originally posted by: SevenThunders
a reply to: Punisher75

Why did you leave out verse 15? 1 Cor 7:15 is the key teaching here:

15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

If your spouse is an unbeliever and dumps you, you are not under any bondage of sin.

Simple, because it says, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave;."
This is not the same as the Christian actively pursuing a divorce. The act is incredibly passive.

Can a 'True Follower of Jesus' be Divorced / Re-married & still call himself a 'Christian' in the 21st Century ?

Yes. Christ did allow for divorce (grudgingly) in the case of adultery if the wronged party could not live with it. And though remarriage would be adultery; we do know that since everyone sins it would be no more a sin than any other sin of which we are all guilty. Thus once the initial sin was forgiven (through repentance) a second divorce would be subject to the first injunction as to be avoided unless absolutely intolerable.

at the point that the 2nd marriage has already been consummated divorce again would be a new sin. then the course of action that is least problematic is to let the second marriage stand.

The reason Jesus and God are so "on" about adultery and marriage and divorce is Marriage is the same class of relationship that God and Jesus have with their church symbolically. The church being Christians and also Jews. Thus God and Jesus really dislike anyone who shows infidelity or sexual immorality because it indicates they will adulterous in their relationship with God and Christ. Of course i am not talking about Sexuality or sexual relationships but the general class of infidelity it represents.

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: SevenThunders
a reply to: Punisher75

Why did you leave out verse 15? 1 Cor 7:15 is the key teaching here:

15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

If your spouse is an unbeliever and dumps you, you are not under any bondage of sin.

Simple, because it says, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave;."
This is not the same as the Christian actively pursuing a divorce. The act is incredibly passive.

OK thats fine, but I never implied you had a right to seek a divorce if your spouse is willing to stay in the marriage. Though there are offenses (e.g. marital unfaithfulness) that do allow christian divorces.

originally posted by: SevenThunders

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: SevenThunders
a reply to: Punisher75

Why did you leave out verse 15? 1 Cor 7:15 is the key teaching here:

15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

If your spouse is an unbeliever and dumps you, you are not under any bondage of sin.

Simple, because it says, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave;."
This is not the same as the Christian actively pursuing a divorce. The act is incredibly passive.

OK thats fine, but I never implied you had a right to seek a divorce if your spouse is willing to stay in the marriage. Though there are offenses (e.g. marital unfaithfulness) that do allow christian divorces.

I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said;

There is an additional out for divorce by the way and that is if your spouse is an unbeliever.

The reason I came to this conclusion is because it seemed to me that when you said the following line;

Thus if your spouse shacks up with someone else and is unrepentant, this is good evidence for unbelief, as an example.

That you were claiming that unbelief is the underline reasoning for getting a divorce, and not the cheating.

a reply to: SevenThunders

You wrote QUOTE "Context is everything for this passage. At that time the teachers of the law and the scribes were using the Moses divorce clause to toss away their old wives and marry trophy wives. Jesus called that practice adultery, calling them out on their hypocrisy...." UNQUOTE

Just to clarify things a little (and this is really addressed to everyone on this thread) since it seems some people involved in the discussion of Jesus stance on Divorce seem to be confusing 'fornication' with 'adultery' etc. especially in the context of Matt 5:32/19:9:

Here is a quick rundown on the terms, with a focus on the difference between 'fornication' (pre-marital, illicit sex) and 'adultery' (post-marital sex outside of the marriage).

We read in the first canonical Greek gospel of 'Matthew' a brief 'exception' to Jesus normal stance on Divorce (see Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9); this exception is not found anywhere else in the canonical Greek Gospels, and may have been an insertion by later church theologians.

Matthew 5 :32
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for [fornication], makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ‹καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται› &tc.

cf: Matt 19:9
"Amen I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for [fornication] and marries another woman commits adultery.”

So...what is 'fornication' exactly?

Fornication (Gk πορνεία = porneia = 'harlotry' = Heb. זְנוּת Zanuth = 'whoredom')

Porneia πορνεία is used 32 times in the Greek New Testament and conveys many different shades of meaning - including incest.

The word appears quite commonly in writings attributed to Saul of Tarsus (Paul), who (for some reason) seemed to have fixated a great deal on sexual sins.

The New King James Bible renders πορνεία “fornication” as “sexual immorality.” The NIV renders it as “marital infidelity.” Other translations offer such attempts as 'sexual infidelity' or 'sexual uncleanliness', etc.
It is possible that the issue of Dam Bethulim (בְּתוּלִים דָם "virginal blood") is at the bottom of the exception in Matthew 5:32 = Deuteronomy 22:13ff = The blood-stained sheet (bətûlîm) was the primary evidence brought in defense of virginity.

In Deut 22:13-21 relates how a a father is able to present evidence that his daughter was a virgin on her wedding night by showing the elders her "tokens of virginity" which involved a cloth which must be stained with the blood of the hymen to prove viriginity on the wedding night. It refers to the custom of retaining a blood-stained sheet or cloth from the bed where a marriage is consummated. The blood (dam betulim) is said to “prove” the bride’s virginity as it evidences breaking of the hymen.

Here is the fuller English text of Deut 22:13ff:
"If any man takes a wife, and then has sexual intercourse with her then detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct...and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,' then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 'Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. .... And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..."

So it could be that if the 'tokens of virginity' could not be produced, R. Yehoshua might have stipulated (?) that a divorce was acceptable in that case alone (the implied fornication arising from not being found by proof of being a virgin on the wedding night) , or at any rate what would constitute a sort of post coital annulment.

The 'Book of Revelation' condemns two of the churches of Asia Minor for dabbling in 'the fornication of idolatry' = זרה הניאוף של עבודה =see Rev 2:14, 2:20 and also makes a reference to the Great Harlot of the end times, “with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication” = πορνεία see Rev 17:1-2

The Hebrew prophets (see below) often use the term 'taznuth' ('whoredom') meaning lusting after other gods, i.e. figuratively, for idolatry : וַתַּרְבִּי אֶת-תַּזְנוּתֵךְ ' you have multiplied harlotry'

Adultery, on the other hand, is a little more straightforward in that it consistently refers to the sexual sin of married people with someone other than their spouse, and the word is used in the Hebrew scriptures both literally and figuratively.

Adultery (Heb ניאוף = na'aph = 'breaking wedlock') is mentioned in the list of apodeictic restrictions ('thou shalt not') in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) placed into the mouth of YHWH as לא תנאף = Lo Tinef = 'you will not commit adultery' = and is generally translated as μοιχεία (moixeia) in Greek = Δεν θελεις μοιχεύσεις = referring to illicit sex outside of an existing marriage -

The punishment for this was death for both married person and the one whom he or she was having sex see Deut 22:22.
The Yahwistic contempt of Israel's idolatry led some of the writers of the Hebrew scriptures to use the metaphor of a wanton woman who went “whoring after” other gods which mix the idea of fornication and adultery

see Hezekiel 6:9 "I have been anguished with their straying heart [לב תעייה] which has departed from me, and with their eyes, which are gone astray after their idols.."

Lev 20:5 "...and I will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him = וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ וְאֵת כָּל-הַזֹּנִים אַחֲרָיו , to commit whoredom with Molech = לִזְנוֹת אַחֲרֵי הַמֹּלֶךְ

Numbers 25:1 And the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. וַיָּחֶל = הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב

Jer 3:9 For [Yisro'el] has committed adultery with stones and with sticks = וַתִּנְאַף אֶת-הָאֶבֶן, וְאֶת-הָעֵץ


Just a little background is all...

a reply to: Sigismundus

What if you marry someone and they totally deceive you into a sexless marriage? I know of an instance where this happened, and the person stayed married for 11 years before finally leaving when they could not take it any more. Faithfulness is not just refraining from cheating, it's pleasing your partner. If you marry someone and lie to them that there will be sex in the marriage and then withhold it, you are not being faithful to your partner and they are within their rights to leave. Also I believe that if you go out and have an affair because of this treatment, the adultery is on your spouse, not you.

a reply to: openminded2011

You wrote: QUOTE "What if you marry someone and they totally deceive you into a sexless marriage? I know of an instance where this happened, and the person stayed married for 11 years before finally leaving when they could not take it any more. ...also I believe that if you go out and have an affair because of this treatment, the adultery is on your spouse, not you..." UNQUOTE

I'm not sure what R. Yehoshua would do with that one; his stance on Divorce was so harsh, it's impossible to guess if he had any exceptions at all - he might merely (in the case you described) tell the person to adopt the Eunuch's way of life since sex was not in the cards for that person and follow him...and that marriage is a sacred act from heaven, etc.

See 'Matthew' 19:12
εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν - ὁ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν χωρείτω.

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from the womb, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuch [singers] by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

All that 'no marriage in heaven' stuff...

Ideas?

Maybe it has been mentioned already, but it is worth remembering that life expectancy was dramatically lower when Christ was alive. Whatever he had to say about marriage back then can have little bearing on the marriage agreements of today.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Hi, your post has generated many interesting replies. I've spent the time reading most of them.
I think the Protestant churches (that I was sort of raised in) have different traditions than the Catholic Churches.
The Catholics are strict followers of the letter of the law. And, now Catholic priest that are priest married before priesthood in a Protestant faith can stay married and be a Catholic Priest. There is one baptism to be Christian, so the Protestant churches are acceptable Christian because they do baptize in the Trinity.

I think a divorced person is following civil law; but not religious law necessarily. Are you saying a divorced person is a Christian with Protestant churches but not Catholic Churches? A divorced person that is baptized and accepts Jesus is still a Christian...are they entering heaven? That is for the Lord to know. Who can know the whole mind of God?

I wonder if a divorced couple found themselves drawn to the Catholic Church and love the mass but do not receive communion are they still not Christian? What if they live celibate but no one KNOWS that. Are they still sinning? Jesus said that there would be those would be persecuted for his name sake.

Can you really know for certain what a married couples sex life is or not and then should anyone but that couple, their priest or minister be involved in that? Should members of a faith look down on the poorly divorced people? Why would you not have any compassion? Nobody enjoys all of their hopes dreams smashed.

a reply to: dukederichleau666

You wrote : QUOTE "Maybe it has been mentioned already, but it is worth remembering that life expectancy was dramatically lower when Christ was alive. Whatever he had to say about marriage back then can have little bearing on the marriage agreements of today..." UNQUOTE

I suppose it boils down to the idea of relevance - i.e. is R. Yehoshua bar Yosef 'relevant' to a 21st century audience, or are his teachings out-of-date and should be shelved ?

Since times change and with them the sliding scale of 'morality' (which is more a question of Geography than Ethics), perhaps it's time to declare that the teachings of "Jesus" may not all be very useful nowadays in the West (e.g. lending without interest, or even demanding the principal back; no Divorce, ever etc.) It will be shown that many of his teachings are impractical in the 21st century capitalist West, and were coined at a specific place (Judaea/the Galilee) and time (early 1st century CE) during the time of the brutal 100 year Roman occupation.

We in the West are not occupied by foreign Imperial troops and we've come a long way from thinking illnesses are caused by daemons etc. Our Weltanschauung ('world-view') is much different than the one in which "Jesus" lived and taught.

a reply to: Sigismundus

I am disappointed in you that you could not give a reply to my post.

From what you are saying in your last post you are ASSUMING a lot of things about other people and their lives.
How are you so omniscient? How are you all omnipotent? How are you all wise? Are you a God in your own mind?

You sound like a committed "Social Engineer" who eschews people of faith. (Rolling eyes)

I ask you for your " Proof" of your statement: "Our Weltanschauung ('world-view') is much different than the one in which "Jesus" lived and taught."

I am not referring to advances in technology, but the basic emotional/mental make-up of today's human.
Where is your proof that humans on the planet, of today's world view, are emotionally different than 2k years ago? Sir, have you read any history????

Today there are over 1 billion Christians on the planet; not to mention many more of varied faiths.
I postulate that most humans have an innate need, born with an unseen antenna to connect, to something outside the material 3 dimensional paradigm. This atenna to connect isn't a material atenna and cannot be seen physically but is present. Jesus Christ has saved a lot of lives and will save many more.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1