Marriage - are the church failing us?

[tango]

Jesus didn't say everything we need to know, and Paul didn't write everything we need to know.

That's why Jesus said that when he ascended, He would send the Holy Spirit, who would teach all things.

Yes, scripture is of paramount importance, but wisdom cries in the streets while we worship a book instead of the Author is we are not careful.  Applying truth requires a relationship with the Truth that transcends the ink on the page.

True, although we also need to be careful that we're not too quick to throw it all away because we've decided on a new standard.

There's certainly a degree of merit in the idea that the Holy Spirit will convict people of their sins and, unless I got a promotion and missed the memo, I'm not the one who convicts people. At the same time if the words of Jesus himself can be disregarded because we've moved on from that sort of thing, where does it stop? Do we just figure a path that works for us, even if it flies in the face of Scripture? Do we slavishly follow every single word of Scripture even if some of it appears totally irrelevant in today's culture? How should we strike a balance?

[Athanasius]

Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.

"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."

Said Jesus, never.

Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.

It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.

We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.

The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.

We certainly need to be careful. It's easy to say what someone else should do when you're not the one having to do it (much the same applies to Paul's call to stay with a spouse, with no provision made there for abusive spouses), but at the same time we need to be careful not to simply disregard things that are very clear because they are inconvenient to us.

If we pick and choose which bits to follow based on what we want to do we might as well just throw the Bible in the trash and accept we're going our own way. The idea isn't to have some tool to beat other people over the head - "Bad Brenda. Naughty Brenda. Go back to your abusive husband right now or you get no support from us, and we don't care if he is going to beat you literally to within an inch of your life, the Bible is clear what you have to do. Don't forget to take your kids with you, and teach them to forgive him." - but I don't see how we can avoid things ultimately boiling down to the simple duality that either we follow what Jesus said or we don't.

A consideration as above is not a simple disregard. The issue is, of course, one of understanding what Scripture actually does say, and what it doesn't, and avoiding the temptation of confusing an accusation of "picking and choosing" for proper exegesis.

[tango]

Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.

"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."

Said Jesus, never.

Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.

It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.

We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.

The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.

We certainly need to be careful. It's easy to say what someone else should do when you're not the one having to do it (much the same applies to Paul's call to stay with a spouse, with no provision made there for abusive spouses), but at the same time we need to be careful not to simply disregard things that are very clear because they are inconvenient to us.

If we pick and choose which bits to follow based on what we want to do we might as well just throw the Bible in the trash and accept we're going our own way. The idea isn't to have some tool to beat other people over the head - "Bad Brenda. Naughty Brenda. Go back to your abusive husband right now or you get no support from us, and we don't care if he is going to beat you literally to within an inch of your life, the Bible is clear what you have to do. Don't forget to take your kids with you, and teach them to forgive him." - but I don't see how we can avoid things ultimately boiling down to the simple duality that either we follow what Jesus said or we don't.

A consideration as above is not a simple disregard. The issue is, of course, one of understanding what Scripture actually does say, and what it doesn't, and avoiding the temptation of confusing an accusation of "picking and choosing" for proper exegesis.

If Jesus said that remarriage after divorce is adultery, how do you argue the exact opposite without disregarding what Jesus said?

I agree it's important to interpret accurately and not get hung up on one thing out of context (e.g. the people who are happy for women in church to wear jewelry and not cover their heads but demand that they stay silent) but I don't think I've ever come across a rational explanation for why people believe passages like the one about remarriage don't say what they appear to say. All I've ever seen is some variation of "we don't do that any more", even as the very same people demand that other passages mean exactly what they say.

From what I've personally seen it usually turns into a remarkably convenient matter that if it's something we want to do then Scripture is cultural and those sections don't apply today, and if it's something we don't care about then Scripture says what it says and it's clear.

[Athanasius]

Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.

"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."

Said Jesus, never.

Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.

It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.

We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.

The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.

We certainly need to be careful. It's easy to say what someone else should do when you're not the one having to do it (much the same applies to Paul's call to stay with a spouse, with no provision made there for abusive spouses), but at the same time we need to be careful not to simply disregard things that are very clear because they are inconvenient to us.

If we pick and choose which bits to follow based on what we want to do we might as well just throw the Bible in the trash and accept we're going our own way. The idea isn't to have some tool to beat other people over the head - "Bad Brenda. Naughty Brenda. Go back to your abusive husband right now or you get no support from us, and we don't care if he is going to beat you literally to within an inch of your life, the Bible is clear what you have to do. Don't forget to take your kids with you, and teach them to forgive him." - but I don't see how we can avoid things ultimately boiling down to the simple duality that either we follow what Jesus said or we don't.

A consideration as above is not a simple disregard. The issue is, of course, one of understanding what Scripture actually does say, and what it doesn't, and avoiding the temptation of confusing an accusation of "picking and choosing" for proper exegesis.

If Jesus said that remarriage after divorce is adultery, how do you argue the exact opposite without disregarding what Jesus said?

By pointing out, the following verse (Matthew 19:9) permits divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. In the case of my example, is Jesus going to say, "Sorry, paedophilia is a funny way of spelling 'adultery'"? I think that would be absurd. Do you?

Do we think that it is God's desire for a boy or a girl to be raised in a single-parent home because their mother was taught it was a sin for her to remarry because she blew her first marriage on a man who sexually abused her children?

Let's keep in mind my example in no way softens the "exception" clause. No one is going to view molestation as lesser-than adultery.

[tango]

Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.

"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."

Said Jesus, never.

Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.

It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.

We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.

The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.

We certainly need to be careful. It's easy to say what someone else should do when you're not the one having to do it (much the same applies to Paul's call to stay with a spouse, with no provision made there for abusive spouses), but at the same time we need to be careful not to simply disregard things that are very clear because they are inconvenient to us.

If we pick and choose which bits to follow based on what we want to do we might as well just throw the Bible in the trash and accept we're going our own way. The idea isn't to have some tool to beat other people over the head - "Bad Brenda. Naughty Brenda. Go back to your abusive husband right now or you get no support from us, and we don't care if he is going to beat you literally to within an inch of your life, the Bible is clear what you have to do. Don't forget to take your kids with you, and teach them to forgive him." - but I don't see how we can avoid things ultimately boiling down to the simple duality that either we follow what Jesus said or we don't.

A consideration as above is not a simple disregard. The issue is, of course, one of understanding what Scripture actually does say, and what it doesn't, and avoiding the temptation of confusing an accusation of "picking and choosing" for proper exegesis.

If Jesus said that remarriage after divorce is adultery, how do you argue the exact opposite without disregarding what Jesus said?

By pointing out, the following verse (Matthew 19:9) permits divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. In the case of my example, is Jesus going to say, "Sorry, paedophilia is a funny way of spelling 'adultery'"? I think that would be absurd. Do you?

Do we think that it is God's desire for a boy or a girl to be raised in a single-parent home because their mother was taught it was a sin for her to remarry because she blew her first marriage on a man who sexually abused her children?

Let's keep in mind my example in no way softens the "exception" clause. No one is going to view molestation as lesser-than adultery.

Sure, if the idea of adultery is sleeping with someone else then it doesn't matter whether that someone else is adult or child, consenting or non-consenting, it's covered. The issue is whether remarriage is permitted.

Whatever we might think about God's will for the children, did Jesus make exceptions for remarriage? If not, on what basis do we decide we know better than Jesus? If God wanted to provide exceptions we might expect Jesus to have mentioned it.

There are two issues here - the first is whether the mother should leave the abusive father and the second is whether she's allowed to marry someone else if she does so.

[Athanasius]

Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.

"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."

Said Jesus, never.

Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.

It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.

We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.

The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.

We certainly need to be careful. It's easy to say what someone else should do when you're not the one having to do it (much the same applies to Paul's call to stay with a spouse, with no provision made there for abusive spouses), but at the same time we need to be careful not to simply disregard things that are very clear because they are inconvenient to us.

If we pick and choose which bits to follow based on what we want to do we might as well just throw the Bible in the trash and accept we're going our own way. The idea isn't to have some tool to beat other people over the head - "Bad Brenda. Naughty Brenda. Go back to your abusive husband right now or you get no support from us, and we don't care if he is going to beat you literally to within an inch of your life, the Bible is clear what you have to do. Don't forget to take your kids with you, and teach them to forgive him." - but I don't see how we can avoid things ultimately boiling down to the simple duality that either we follow what Jesus said or we don't.

A consideration as above is not a simple disregard. The issue is, of course, one of understanding what Scripture actually does say, and what it doesn't, and avoiding the temptation of confusing an accusation of "picking and choosing" for proper exegesis.

If Jesus said that remarriage after divorce is adultery, how do you argue the exact opposite without disregarding what Jesus said?

By pointing out, the following verse (Matthew 19:9) permits divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. In the case of my example, is Jesus going to say, "Sorry, paedophilia is a funny way of spelling 'adultery'"? I think that would be absurd. Do you?

Do we think that it is God's desire for a boy or a girl to be raised in a single-parent home because their mother was taught it was a sin for her to remarry because she blew her first marriage on a man who sexually abused her children?

Let's keep in mind my example in no way softens the "exception" clause. No one is going to view molestation as lesser-than adultery.

Sure, if the idea of adultery is sleeping with someone else then it doesn't matter whether that someone else is adult or child, consenting or non-consenting, it's covered. The issue is whether remarriage is permitted.

Whatever we might think about God's will for the children, did Jesus make exceptions for remarriage? If not, on what basis do we decide we know better than Jesus? If God wanted to provide exceptions we might expect Jesus to have mentioned it.

There are two issues here - the first is whether the mother should leave the abusive father and the second is whether she's allowed to marry someone else if she does so.

You're summarising without adding anything. v9 allows for remarriage in the context already raised.

[ProDeo]

Example I witnessed -

A couple married for 22 years divorced, woman did not love her husband any longer since 3-4 years, the man still loved his wife. 3-4 years the man unhappy in his marriage, actually there was no marriage any longer, the love came from one side only. He couldn't stand the situation as the woman clearly stated things were over and thus there was no hope for him any longer and he decided to divorce her.

There was no adultery from both sides.

Following Jesus words, he can not get into a new relationship and has to live the rest of his life in loneliness.

[MattTheCricketBat]

Jesus didn't mention domestic abuse (probably because women were not considered equal during his time...) but obviously this is also grounds for divorce.  Call me a heretic for adding to scripture, I don't care.

[The Parson]

Jesus didn't mention domestic abuse (probably because women were not considered equal during his time...) but obviously this is also grounds for divorce.  Call me a heretic for adding to scripture, I don't care.

You're not a heretic Matt. The Bible says in Malachi 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 2:16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
These verses condemn treachery or unfaithfulness toward your wife, which can be understood to include abuse.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
These verses also teach husbands to love their wives sacrificially, following the example of Christ, which precludes any form of abuse.

Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
This verse directly commands husbands to treat their wives lovingly and without harshness.

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Husbands are instructed to honor their wives and treat them with understanding, recognizing the spiritual inheritance they share my friend. Just because Jesus isn't quoted directly as saying this, he is the Word, and his word through Peter, Paul & Malachi said it pretty plainly.