A Total Distortion of Jesus On Divorce (13 minute vid)

[@kevingeorge1095]

There are two different words used in the Matthew texts, both of which are translated as “divorce”, but they are not the same. One word is “apolysē” (Strong’s 630) and means to send away, or to dismiss, as when Jesus dismissed “apolysē” the crowds in Mat. 14:22. The other word is “apostasiou” (Strong’s 647) and more specifically means divorce in the full legal sense. The first, “apolysē” (Strong’s 630), does not necessarily include the second, “apostasiou” (Strong’s 647), and that is what Jesus is pointing to. Many were apparently simply sending their wives away (like the Romans did), throwing them to the street, and not taking the step to formally divorce. In these cases, the wife was still legally married but had been thrown out and her only recourse in that society was to shack up with someone for personal survival or live in prostitution, as it was not normal for a woman to live alone. This dismissal without papers is why Jesus BLAMES THE MAN for causing her to commit adultery - he shares fault with her for not having taken the proper step of granting full divorce. 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a roll of divorce (with divorce papers) [St. 647] AND send her away [St. 630]? [Notice these are TWO steps.] 8 He said to them, “Moses, in view of the hardness of your heart, allowed you to send away [St. 630] your women. However, from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I tell you that whoever shall send away (with no divorce papers) [St. 630] his woman except for porneia [which grants divorce] and marries another commits adultery and he who sends away (with no divorce papers) [St. 630] commits adultery. Matthew 5:31 Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever sends away (with no divorce papers) [St. 630] his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce (with papers) [St. 647].’ 32 But I say to you that whoever sends away [St. 630] (no divorce papers) his wife for any reason except sexual immorality CAUSES her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is sent away (no divorce papers) [St. 630] commits adultery. [He is guilty because he forced her to find another man without having formalized the divorce.]

[@firstlast3137]

@kevingeorge1095 Thank you much for stating this explanation. It seems mr. Wingers "rabbit hole of research" didn't accomplish much. I don't think he is willing to accept the fact that he has been incorrect about this subject for many years. Jesus was speaking with Jewish people, and it was assumed they knew the Torah. The problem, as I see it, is with Christians commenting and preaching with a non-Torah-based understanding of the New Testament.

[@natashamoore5681]

This is all very confusing and gives abusers power to keep abusing their victim spouses in the name of biblical teaching. Many Christians stay in abusive marriages where the abuser has zero desire to leave. Meanwhile the victim fears never being able to remarry and then being in a state of fornication if they mess up over the rest of their lives. Do you guys really believe that God loves marriage more than he loves victims of marital abuse? I feel confident that after so many years of abuse, God has given me clearance to divorce. And, I do hope and pray that one day I’ll meet a man who loves me as Christ loved the church.

[@Natecarricart]

You are correct in you assessment. Don't ever let yourself be put under other people's understanding and bias. The torah which was given by God determines sin. If Jesus taught against torah, he'd been a false prophet, and not our sinless spotless lamb. Jesus was fulfilling torah once again by appropriately applying it. If someone tells you that the Bible has a permanance view of marriage, in other words, you cannot divorce at all..ONLY death can end the covenant..then not only are they teaching against the instructions of torah, they are flat out going against what Jesus himself plainly said, since he said that adultery was room for divorce.

[@stevesmith7843]

Nowhere in the scriptures, is a woman given permission to divorce, for ANY reason. Only men as the authority could get a divorce, and as taught by Jesus this is now only permissible on the grounds of porneia... the apostle paul is clear that a woman SHOULDN'T EVEN SEPARATE..... but IF she does, she's to remain unmarried....... let the Lord guide you if you're in this situation, and by his grace and mercy may your husband be brought to repentance, but i'm afraid the truth is there's NOTHING in the ENTIRETY of the scriptures to say a woman can get a divorce, she literally does NOT have the authority to do so. The only woman who can leave without payment, is a PURCHASED wife who's a believer, whom if the husband marries another woman, and decreases her food, clothing or rainment intentionally as a result, is free to leave without payment. That is the ONLY circumstance, outside of that, no a woman doesn't have the authority to leave or get a divorce, but as paul says though you should NOT do so, IF you disobey and you DO separate, you MUST REMAIN UNMARRIED...... seek the Lord and let him not your heart guide you, but the Lord will NEVER command someone to sin against him, and sin is the transgression of the Law. God bless and keep you, may your husband be brought unto repentance, and may you seek the Lords wisdom in all things, and may your Godly conduct soften your husbands heart unto repentance, and may he be redeemed by the blood of Christs forgiveness.... if you belong to a church, and you're experiencing genuine abuse, such as unjustified beatings etc, then have the church elders speak to your husband, and hopefully by the grace of God they too may be able to help.

[@seanword8742]

Lots of divorced remarried people are upset in these comments!!

[@jpduster1]

@@seanword8742what gives you that idea?

[@rockkstah2550]

dont marry the bad boy thinking you can change him... you emasculate your man then there's hell to pay..

[@TheBevandy]

I saw a video that explained that when a man "put away" his wife, he could keep her dowry; if he "divorced" her, she had legal proof that her dowry (meant for her children basically) could return to her so that she was not without a way to live. It also said men would do that to several women, keeping their dowries, etc. Don't know if this is at all true, but it was supposedly a Jewish custom during that time.....

[@biaberg3448]

This is still going on today.

[@PaulSmith-tf8uh]

According to Torah, the husband is required to return her dowry if he puts her away.

[@debbiewareing1178]

My husband divorced me not on grounds of adultery, however, we had both committed adultery against each other. Not something I am proud of and thankfully, I have been forgiven. My ex husband went on to remarry a very few years later. I have never remarried and I have no intention of doing so. Over 20 years have now passed and I feel at 58 that I am betrothed to the Lord and I am happy to wait for the arrival of the bridegroom. However, as a newly born again Christian I didn’t always think this way. I am thankful now that I never remarried.

[@BelovedOne21]

Mike, you’ve been very gracious to address this question. Thanks for being so thorough and considerate on this subject as a whole.

[@philipbuckley759]

this is his job....

[@truthmonger7]

While your motives are clearly honorable your treatment on the subject lacks the full Bible perspective. There are several principals which beg for consideration. Not the least of which is use of definition. The problem is modern translators apply modern definitions to fit a narrative into their view of a subject. (In this case "divorce") But rather than rely on this esteemed site or this esteemed colleague we should seek to find, within the Holy Writ, how God defines a word by how He uses it in a text. Modern translation are full of this error. We believe that the Word of God is infallible and without error as it was spoken by God to the prophets. But translations of the Word of God are fallible and nowadays also politicized. (Word for word translation are by nature more de-liberate than the paraphrased translation.) If we were to consult The Septuagint or a Tanakh we would clearly see a separate meaning for divorce and putting away. My Tanakh says in Isa 50:1 " Where is the bill of divorce Of your mother whom I dismissed?" Clearly God is asking Israel what right they had to worship idols when they were still obligated to Him. Further, an example of putting away without divorce is 2 Sam 20:3 "....So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood." (KJV) These are David's wives that were defiled by Absalom. Then there is the modern problem of "what is marriage?" In Matt 19:4 Jesus responded to the Pharisees questions of the legality of divorce by referring to a time before sin had entered into humanity. But the idea of "covenant" didn't come until after sin. Covenant wasn't even necessary until after sin. This is because a covenant provides the framework for two that are contrary to operate as one... that is to "agree." Adam and his "woman" (check your Hebrew) were already "bone of bone and flesh of flesh". Jesus was clearly pointing the Pharisees back to a faithful approach to the Holy union of man and wife when they came at Him from a legalistic, "lawful" approach. (Matt 19:3) Just look at what modern society has done to redefine marriage from a legalistic standpoint. Just as a tangent.... should the church be so bothered by divorce when we have allowed the world to redefine marriage in the first place. But then the Apostle Paul writes in Rom 8:7 that the carnally minded cannot be subject to the law of God. Maybe also that is why he said that a brother or sister is not in "bondage" in cases of abandonment. Let me now ask, If a spouse becomes physically abusive have they not abandoned the principal of Holy union of man and woman. Are they (the abusive) allowed to gain advantage of oppression over the abused by perverting God's intended gift? Maybe that's why also the Apostle Paul also said "if a woman put herself away let her remain unmarried". She / He has the right to determine a course of action based on conscience toward God whether it be putting away, divorce, or prayerful tolerance of a situation which God did not intend. And Grace will rule the day. (God forbid we point out all the legal failures in the roles of husband and wife.) At the risk of stirring a hornets nest let me ask a hard question, If a man, a citizen, from a country that legally authorizes polygamy has 40 wives and then becomes a Christian does he have to divorce 39? Where does you morality fit now? The whole issue is not one of sin but of finding God's perfect will. If we truly want to win the lost we have to prefer faith over legalism. The command of Moses to give the writing was so that she could remarry. (De 24:2) What a shame it is that Christians take a more legalistic approach than the Pharisees. The preferred method of study is to AVOID commentary. Read the Word and pray, read the Word and pray, read the Word and..... then we will learn first to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit. Or we can just run to an endless source of often misguided opinions and we will learn to hear the voice of men. Let each one of us follow our conscience as the Holy Ghost enlightens the Holy Word. Thanks for tackling the subject. Peace to all. DP

[@endi.queiroz]

Thank you Dewayne for your time exposing your perspective, i have learned a lot with your words. After doing my own research i have found that the immediate context of Isaiah 50:1 absolutely confirms the reading of your Tanakh. It is perfect. To anyone that is interested take a look at Isaiah 50:1: Isaiah 50:1 This is what the LORD says: "Where is your mother's certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away. Does God have a creditor? No. Do you see? This is a rethorical question wich the answer is obvious. God has no creditors and Israel has not a certificate of divorce. The conclusion is clearly stated in the next part of the verse where God says that it was for transgression and sin that Israel was sent away. Not that God had a creditor. He is God. Not that Israel had a certificate of divorce, Israel still belongs to God. Thanks again Dwayne i was blessed by your comment. Also Mike, thanks a lot for the video and your perspective as well.

[@ajlouviere202]

Hello "DP" I would like to ask if you are either a pastor, or a divorced man who has remarried, or both? You do not have to answer my question if you feel that you do not want to share your testimony.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

Yes, he looks as having very good intentions but, he lacks of understanding.

[@DarkKnightofThrones]

Honestly, this just sounds like you're trying to justify something that is spelled out so clearly in the Bible, because it doesn't fit your world view. The only point I will counterpoint in this comment is that you said sin had not yet entered the world. Sin entered the world the second Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge. It's one thing to sin. It's another thing to justify sin. And yet even another thing to lead others to sin. The Lord rebuke you.

[@ajlouviere202]

Most people who teach that Matthew's gospel provides an allowance to remarry after a divorce later discover that Mark 10:1-12, is the same biblical account as Matthew 19:1-12, without any exception. This is easily explained by the fact that Matthew's gospel was the first gospel account, and it was given to the house of Israel, as Paul clearly states in Romans 1:16. When we understand that Jesus was speaking directly to the Jews, and that they were following the law in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, we understand the nature of the exception in both of these verses in Matthew. We also understand that Jesus is making a reference to a woman who was called a wife during betrothal (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Luke 2:5-7), and after she has become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage (Genesis 2:23-24, Malachi 2:12-16, Matthew 19:4-8, Mark 10:3-9), in Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9. This is the only time we witness all 8 of the New Testament scriptures, that govern this topic, maintain harmony with one another. Jesus was clearly making a reference to wife, who unless she comitted fornication during betrothal (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), which would have resulted in her being stoned to death, is now a divorced wife being caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her. It was an abomination before God to allow an adulteress, and the man found with her, to remain living (Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10) and be given a bill of divorce in order to remarry.

[@rosiej.1473]

How does this fit into Gen 21:14 when Abraham dismissed Hagar and Ismael? In Matt 5:31-32 Jesus says only to divorce on grounds of adultery will commit fornication. Here is where I am coming from. I am coming out of a cult. The cult taught that only on grounds of adultery could one divorce based on scripture. If the spouse beat you, you may get a separation but could not divorce and therefore never marry another. If the spouse was a demon worshiper and did evil things to the family they could separate but again NOT divorce. There is an interview on KZbin where another person coming out of this cult was married to a drug mule (she did not know at the time of marriage) she was not allowed to divorce. Is that what Jesus meant? That no matter what horrible thing you or your children suffer unless it is adultery you MUST not divorce?

[@clairebearie87]

Seems totally illogical to stay

[@rosiej.1473]

@@clairebearie87 I agree.

[@rosiej.1473]

@@kmountain5533 It is Jehovah's Witnesses. Protect yourself and the ones you love.

[@Natecarricart]

Unfortunately Many so called followers of the Bible lack the compassion that they claim God has and meddle in the affairs of others like it's their job to dish such things out. They cheery pick certain passages and with a heart of stone tell people to remain in such personal hell...just to uphold a rule that they interpret to be a certain way. They don't take into account the entirety of scripture and the character of God. Funny how these same people love to quote Jesus by calling those that divorce having a hard heart but can't see the forest for the trees in how heartless and icecold they are being with others on topics like this. It's not to say that standards shouldn't be upheld, but let's make sure they are God's standards and not some random person that heard a sermon, read the passage, and studied some theology. Keep in mind that the jews had their theologians and still ended up rejecting Jesus. Don't ever confuse academia for being the final authority and having all the answers. God is not a cruel monster. Satan would love for you to see him this way though, and this is why he puts these foolish doctrines that are heavy burdens in the mind of certain believers to put it on others. Pharisees had a spirit about them, that same spirit is contrary to the holy spirit, and is alive and well in many churches. Don't fear them, fear God. Don't let men become your master. You will not answer to them in the end.

[@Rahel8811]

I thought Hagar was a concubine and not an official wife. Abraham didn’t choose hagar she was his wife’s servant and she was made to have a baby with abriaham because Sarah thought she was barren and took it on herself to make an offspring so it can’t be used in this context of divorce.

[@Jericho-xs3ju]

And you proved the whole “theory “ to be true. When it sais. Give a certificate of divorce AND put her away.

[@Chrissiela]

I didn't "fall for" this teaching. It's the understanding I came to a long time ago by reading the text. Your explanation that both terms would not be used together in the same verse unless they meant the same thing seems counter-intuitive to me. I would make the exact opposite argument and say that if they meant the same thing there was no need for the redundancy, nor the need for Moses to command the writing of the bill of divorcement "AND" to put her away. And the fact that they appealed to Moses brings Moses into the argument, especially for anyone claiming that divorce is a sin and remarriage is adultery. To make that argument is to claim that Moses commanded men to sin and that he allowed adultery, something that was punishable BY DEATH under the law. Do we really want to go there? I know I don't, especially since God himself is a divorce' (having put away Israel, with a bill of divorce, no less! Sparing her the penalty of the law?). The issue, it seems to me, was that men were "putting away" their wives "for every reason" (which is exactly what they were asking Jesus about), not for adultery (no divorce was needed for that). So Moses commanded the men to give their wives a certificate of divorce which was their protection against accusations of adultery (again, punishable by death). Jesus did not say that they sinned or that Moses sinned, only that it was not what God wanted. Whether or not "scholars" agree or disagree, I will go with what the Bible says every single time, even if I am the only one who understands it a certain way. That way my conscience is clear before God and He can correct whoever He needs to correct (even if that is me). But not on single argument you made makes any sense to me in light of the what the scriptures (seem to) clearly say (as I understand them). The way you put it make it sound like "getting in the car" is the same things as "driving to the store," just because getting in the car might be "how" someone might get to the store. But that doesn't make the statements synonymous. Just as putting someone away might be "how" someone might divorce their spouse doesn't mean that being "put away" mean the same thing as "divorced." They certainly do not mean the same thing today. And I do not believe they meant the same thing then, even if such was the practice among the Greeks. I am certainly not trying to be dismissive of the marriage relationship, nor am I trying to downplay the sanctity of the marriage covenant. Far too many divorces take place these days, even among believers; I think that should be discouraged whenever possible. But I don't think it is ever a sin or that it can be the cause of adultery.

[@debpratt52]

Thank you. I found his explanation confusing, but yours seems clearer.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

That's right, that example you made about getting into the car vs driving to the store is fantastic!

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@debpratt52 Yes her explanation is much more accurate, she is right. I'll keep learning English to publish more about this on future, but I do have a couple of videos on my channel is you wanna check them and subscribe if you like

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@Survival Grandpa no, it don't become one by using the word "and". Linked doesn't make things become one, linked is just linked.

[@ajlouviere202]

Chrissiela, what is your interpretation of the following verses? Mark 10:10-12: 10In the house the disciples [began] questioning Him about this again. 11And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

[@JadonPage]

Hey Mike, this has nothing to do with the topic today, but could you please do an in-depth study/teaching on the book of Job sort of like you did with Romans, especially on the ending chapters (37-42). I just feel like I and many others are missing so many overlooked/hidden gems in this book. So is that something you’d be willing to do?

[@JadonPage]

Yeah I’ve never looked at it that way. That’s cool! What I found interesting in Job is when god says all the things that humans didn’t know when job questioned him. And used an argument apologists use today when talking about the morality of god. I know all these intricacies of the earth and created them, so who are you to tell me I’m wrong or immoral. Also when he explains how he created what we call a dragon and dinosaurs! Very interesting book that I feel needs more attention.

[@brittybee6615]

@@JadonPageIf you’re still interested, the channel One Hour One Book from GCBI has a series of videos on Job. That channel and this one are tied for first place in my mind when it comes to learning about the Bible.

[@JadonPage]

@@brittybee6615 Thanks, I'll have to check it out!

[@CBeck444]

The problem is not defining the word but Jesus' intention regarding remarriage unless adultery was used to justify divorce. The penalty for adultery was stoning! You weren't rewarded with a divorce.

[@muratazaarzai]

.. Ohh . God.. U are the only one... Who explained in simple sentence.... Itzz so simple ...

[@maraiavavaitamana1780]

The teaching by Rabbi Steve (MTOI) on Divorce, Remarriage and Putting Away was helpful

[@Natecarricart]

THAT is the best source on the topic. There's a lot of Christian bias otherwise based on traditions of man, and not on understanding torah. Yeshua didn't contradict torah, he upheld it and gave us the correct interpretation. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar and to be avoided.

[@timothythompson4036]

Mike, this was a technical but excellent video. What is really disturbing is that you never hear the subject of divorce and remarriage discussed in the Christian churches. The pastors are completely silent on the issue. It is such an important issue and they are agraid to discuss it.

[@prophecyclub]

That is why, when Israel comes to Christ, it will be like "reviving the dead". The Jewish roots of the Word of God are THE KEY to really understanding the Bible. There is a great difference between legal divorce and putting away and this really clarifies the absurdity and cruelty of the classical Christian views on divorce and remarriage

[@Tummyrubsrus]

Hebrew, not really Jewish.

[@DevotedDanitra]

??? I'm surprised at this.. as someone living through this.. it's not just theory for me.. my life (as someone who desires to follow scripture and honor God in so doing) depends on SOUND teaching.. seperation, divorce and being put away are all different. Men still "put away" their wives these days.. I know I can't possibly be the only one whose gone through this. 👀 These situations leave a "put away" spouse trapped in a marriage .. praying for change .. while the other spouse goes on living their life. Should it be so . . No absolutely not.. but it's completely ignorant to think this doesn't still go on. . like in the day of Moses. 😓

[@zhjannawillumsen3494]

@@DevotedDanitra It is unfortunately true. You are not alone. Me too- “put away”. My “ husband” refuses to divorce me. We have been living apart for over 3,5 years. I was and still faithful. He has convinced many that he wants restoration of marriage. But this is just empty words. He refuses and sabotages all help from church. . He was influential in our church. Pastor and leaders in church know all our situation, but tolerate this. They tried to speak to him, but he ignores all of them. I am trapped. It is living hell. I will soon divorce him by myself for my sanity sake. I cant trust in people, only in God. Man are week.

[@DevotedDanitra]

@zhjannawillumsen3494 will be praying for you sis... he is not pleased to dwell which biblically is grounds for divorce... you are living as a "divorced" person where the "marriage" is in name only.. by what you're sharing 🙏 that sounds soo painful.. I'm sorry you're going through this. If he's truly not "pleased to dwell", you are not in bondage in such cases and are called to peace... don't just take my word for it study it out. Prayers for you ✝️🙏💕✨️

[@windzhun9700]

The question now how do we solve all this problem we creating in the churches by remarrying divorce ppl?

[@PracticalD]

This video just tells me you don't know about the agunahs (women in chained marraiges) in Israel till this day.

[@MikeWinger]

That would have zero bearing on the question of a 1st century understanding of the terms I am discussing.

[@PracticalD]

@@MikeWinger Of course it would. When a woman is put away without a get, she becomes an agunah. This is still happening today, just look it up. And if it is happening day, I'm pretty sure it was happening then. Man hasn't changed and there's nothing new under the sun. Add to which lets not forget polygamy was still happening in Jesus' day, though not as prevalent. The wealthy most likely could afford multiple wives. It was not abolished until the 11th century. I watched your 3 hour video and you barely mention any of this to my disappointment. Why is it relevant? Because some of the Pharisees were wealthy and, according to the Bible, loved riches (Luke 16:14). It is very likely some were polygamists. Add the hardness of the heart, and you have husbands putting away their least favorite wives and keeping the dowry. This would explain Jesus' seemingly random reference to putting away in Luke 16:18. It's in the context of the love of money. You can say Jesus only addressed divorce and not putting away, sure. But I assert to you that He could also be confronting the putting away practice as well. This is not something you should just blow off as unreasonable and deceptive. These are historical facts.

[@Sirazucar]

Amen! Sorry Mike but your dismissiveness here betrays your ignorance. You can fix that.

[@Brian-y6n]

@@MikeWinger I love you brother, but I have to disagree here Mike. Don't think you can just blow this off. While I agree that today's culture doesn't affect the meaning of the message given to a first century audience, it very much could show a persistent culture that may have its roots deep into the first century and even the 18th century BC. I think it is very important to remember that at the time of Jesus he was speaking to people whose understanding of God and His law came from their understanding of the Torah. It's probably safe to say that cultures didn't change nearly as quickly then as they do now, and historically, the Jewish community has been very resistant to cultural shifts. I'm afraid there is way too much "American culture" and English language bias in our interpretation of the scripture today. This has led to some horrible interpretations of Jesus' words by many who have not carefully studied the word of God in its completeness but have taken to interpreting things out of their correct historical, cultural and literary contexts. Sometimes cherry-picking verses to fit their conclusions. (Just check out some of the comments) These dangerous interpretations are causing some to make unfortunate decisions regarding current marriages, and sometimes are so "pharisaical" in their application they have some people "crawling out onto the window ledge" to jump because they feel hopeless and don't understand that the true message of the Bible is the redemption of sinners through the finished work of Jesus on the cross. Still love you brother, and still support your work. Just think you might be a little too dismissive on this point and the larger point of the difference between "apolyo" and "apostasion". Don't think you can just dismiss this as being "silly". You are too scholarly for that kind of logic.

[@eflint1]

This is one of the only times I have found myself in disagreement with Mike.

[@thereafterentertainment1315]

Which part do you disagree with?

[@jpduster1]

There are some holes in your explanation. If put away meant divorce, the verse wouldn't make much sense "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce AND to divorce."

[@nealdoster8556]

Both words describe the procedure of divorce and they are NEVER used in God's Word to say that one part of the procedure occurred but not the other. That is an imaginary argument that might be possible, but there is no actual narrative saying that. Blessings

[@JKMreina]

Pastor Mike if apoluo, means divorce, then how do you explain Matthew 14:15, 22, 23 (Dismiss); Matthew 15:23,32,39 (send her away); Matthew 27:15 (release). I do appreciate, all the work you do, to help our understanding. I see that the word Porneia is also used in Matthew 1519, John 8:41, Acts 15:20, 1Corint 5:1, referring to whoring. Would that be what Jesus implies in Matthew 19 as an exception or growns for divorce, even though we understand that divorce is not the will of YHVH.

[@KatrinaTahar]

What about the pharasees response to jesus in Matthew 19? Best not to marry then. Not oh cool I'll just go get the divorce in paper. Bc it wasn't the point. Romans 7 read it

[@crosbyllc5426]

Apoluo means to set free to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. to send one's self away, to depart

[@JEY-discipledcities]

Finally someone who agrees with me. Actually you barely touched on the subject because it is a more complex subject but you did a beautiful job. Modern day marriage and divorce is not very similar to the Hebrew teachings. I'm a 74 year old Bible teacher and I have had, as you probably have, discussions with Pastors and other teachers and am appalled at the lack of understanding many so called "learned" people have. I call it "denominational theology". I have listened to many of your teachings and have found a breath of fresh air your explanations. I firmly believe it is because of the fact that you research topics from multiple venues. Thank you for your understanding of God's Word.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

I can help you with more understanding on this, I've been studying this for years

[@clairebearie87]

I always found the way it's translated now to not make any logical sense. Half the camp take it as literal and there's all sorts of messes going on like telling people to end 2nd marriages. So so sad!!!

[@Jericho-xs3ju]

Mike. You have lost all credibility It’s what scripture actually sais. The word they use is in the original text of sending away. It’s the same word Jesus uses when he is saying he can’t send away the 5000 when they are hungry. Why are you talking about some guys book. Read the scriptures. It does not make sense the way you interpret it. In contradicts the law of Moses which is Gods law and would mean Paul contradicts Jesus You are in love with your man made doctrines and cultures.

[@gloryfire6301]

I’ve been looking forward to your opinion on these translations for a long time. God bless your study.

[@elizabeths5896]

Can you look at this "Putting away vs. divorce," as it is addressed in Ezra 10?? Thanks.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

Ezdra is a situation that fits on what Jesus taught, in case of fornication you can putting away, no need of letter of divorcement.

[@elizabeths5896]

Mmmm? In Ezra’s situation, it was the Jewish husbands that had disobeyed the Lord, by taking pagan wives. They pledged to “put away” their wives and children.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@elizabeths5896 there was a exceptional situation

[@deborahleclerc7733]

Mike thank you, I send your 200 Hrs teaching to all who ask my opinion on the subject of divorce and it has given them clarity and peace.

[@thegreatjohndough1364]

But no the two words have two distinct meanings seriously when he fed the ppl fish when the disciples didn't have enough food he said no don't apaluo the people we'll feed them.. no it does mean that

[@aminahdean7468]

Thank you for always being thorough.

[@GeorgeEnke]

How do explain King David, who was highly favored by God?

[@meaganalexander789]

Mike thank you for this teaching. I have read over and over and over the scriptures about divorce and remarry and I couldn’t understand the straight blunt do not divorce approach that the Bible talks about. There are extreme situations that the Bible doesn’t address. Thanks you for clarification in the word. I would love you to debate pastor Gino Jennings on this topic. His approach “do not divorce and if you do separate and If your currently in a second marriage pack up and leave. To me, this would be breaking up a second home when two people are trying to make things right in God’s eyes.

[@chinedurommy4281]

True, what happens to the kids in such cases

[@andrewatson3992]

Gino? Just say Gee! No!!

[@Thomas116-m2n]

@@andrewatson3992 I still want to hear Gino Jenkins sing "Funky Cold Medina" by Tone Loc.

[@georgemiranda-nz2fd]

It's an abomination to go back to the first spouse after they were married to a second husband

[@theamazingchannel470]

First, you come off too arrogant. A different view to yours is not automatically deception, lies and nonsense arguments. Learn to be more humble. Second, separation and divorce makes total sense as it is an absolute reality today. Many people get separated and go on to live like they're single when they are still legally married. Why? The legal hassles and fees and headaches, etc. Such was the situation in ancient Israel. So much easier to just separate. This is what Moses allowed, i.e., this had nothing to do with what God stated in the law, this is what MOSES allowed; a waiver of sorts due to the hardened hearts of the Hebrews. The question was why did M-O-S-E-S allow separation to be just as valid as a legal divorce. So Jesus was putting an end to THAT custom that Moses allowed, He wasn't making changes to the law, otherwise Jesus would be a liar when He said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass. Separation and divorce are two different things just like betrothal and marriage were two different things in the Bible, what we call in our culture engagement and marriage. 2 steps to getting married, 2 steps to getting divorce. It's biblical. And apoluo does not mean divorce, otherwise Jesus divorced an entire crowd of people in Mat. 14:22 where it is written he APOLUO the crowd.

[@Tummyrubsrus]

💯

[@3dboobtuber]

I've watched for years.. but this strikes a tender nerve..

[@Tatiana-cp1fc]

God is concerned about hard hearts, not paperwork. Good job Mike! :)

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

The heart hardness was the lack of paperwork because it put women in a miserable situation. If paperwork is not important why He commended to do so and also practiced it??????

[@James-li8cm]

I'd say the paperwork is important too... but then again... which court system should we rely on is probably a bigger question...

[@James-li8cm]

@@RedPillOfTheBible you might want to take one of those red pills and relax a bit... your getting worked up

[@johnruiz3059]

I agree with Mike on this one... but not to be confused with agreeing with is incorrect understanding on remarriage while the original covenant spouse is still living, that is still adultery.

[@Tatiana-cp1fc]

@@johnruiz3059 yes me too.

[@FightForTruthMedia]

MIKE IS THE ABSOLUTE MAN! He inspired me to create my own Christian KZbin Channel to refute the lies of cultural Christianity! Check it out!

[@lindaingham3476]

I suggest you listen to Rabbi Steve of MTOI. Rabbi Steve gets into the Torah's teaching and how Jesus never abolished Torah but upheld it.

[@JesseChasteen]

So according to you Jesus was saying get a divorce a get a divorce twice? I'm confused

[@James-li8cm]

thank you mike... This was a teaching used to distort divorce and remarriage on the fly while I was in a religious cult (Fellowship of the Martyrs)

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

I replied you on the other comment there

[@SabastianDuke]

Matthew 5:31 defeats the argument. ““It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:31-32‬ ‭ESV‬‬ This clarifies Jesus’s stance on ACTUAL divorce, and the rendering of this text cannot be twisted as easily. Also, I’ve noticed the more liberal, 7th day and Hebrew roots church’s are the primary groups that are pushing this twisting of scripture. It’s all about finding the loopholes in the text. They grow so accustomed to “unlearning the lies” that they eventually cannot accept simple, plain truths.

[@debpratt52]

Yes, it does, Sabastian.

[@ajlouviere202]

Amen. This teaching questions whether or not adultery is a sin, and attempts to redefine it as a covenant of marriage. The reason Jesus is not calling for divorcing a second, or third, marriage after a divorce is because he only designates it as sin, not a covenant of marriage. So Jesus is calling remarriage after a divorce the sin of adultery in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18. He is commanding the married (not divorced and remarried), and separated, such as the abandoned husband in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, "not to divorce" his wife, and the wife abandoning him to "remain unmarried or be reconciled" to her husband. To call for a divorce of an adulterous union would be to invalidate what God joins together as one-flesh, and allow man to define this sin as God's will. Remarriage after divorce is clearly stated as sin, by Christ, and all sin requires repentance, according to Luke 13:1-5 and Galatians 5:19-21.

[@KatrinaTahar]

So so so true!

[@timsadventures1954]

@@ajlouviere202 You still have not answered my simple direct question, do I need to ask it again???

[@Brian-y6n]

Well, no. It really doesn't. Let me tell you why in brief. When you lift Matt 5:31-32 like this and declare Jesus is teaching about divorce you are taking the verse out of its full context. Notice this. In 5:17 Jesus said " Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Then notice verse 20. Jesus said "unless your righteousness EXCEEDS (emphasis mine) that of the scribes and pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Then over the next 28 verses he gives 6 examples of ways in which He has called us to a HIGHER application/interpretation of the scripture then they had heard of. Their understanding of divorce is just one of them (v31-32). He ends this section by saying in verse 48 " You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The message of the larger section is that Jesus was showing us the complete futility of patting ourselves on the back for checking off all the boxes and keeping the law. He raised it to such a high level that NO ONE could claim to be righteous on their own. That is where Jesus comes in. He fulfilled the law and became sin for us to die in our place. The ONLY way we will enter heaven is to have faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 3:21-26 (read the whole section, I will here just write this portion) "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it - The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." THAT is the ONLY way our righteousness will ever surpass the righteousness of the pharisees and measure up to God's standard of perfection. So you see, THAT is the truth of this passage. What we are sometimes tempted to do is take a portion of this and apply it to one issue - in this case divorce- to tell people that they are sinners by divorcing and remarrying and then try to convince them that the only way to remedy their problem is by divorcing a second wife to stop what we believe is a perpetual state of adultery. Well, before you take that position you need to go back to verse 27 of the passage (Matt 5) where Jesus deals with another type of adultery - adultery in your heart. There He says that looking at a woman with lustful desires/intent is adultery also. He says that if your right eye offends you (v29) you should pluck it out and cast it away. So, I wonder, how many people do you know that have looked lustfully after a woman (or man), and how many one-eyed people do you know? Would you recommend that someone actually pluck out their eye or cut off an offensive hand? Probably not, nor should you, because the real truth here is that only through Jesus can we have the righteousness that God requires. To be sure the teaching illustration that Jesus gives on divorce has meaning. We NEED to understand that God's intent for marriage was from the beginning "one man, one woman, one lifetime." But let us be careful to avoid the temptation to lift one verse or passage out of its intended context (historical, literary, cultural) to attempt to prove our point. Im not going to go into the debate about the "apolyo" (sending away) or "apostasion" (Writ of divorce) at this point but just say this. That was indeed a part of Jewish culture of the time and still has remnants of that in today's time. So, I think the only way you can "defeat the argument" is by understanding the whole of the context. There remains too much "English bias" and too much American culture in our interpretations of scripture and it frequently clouds our understanding of what Jesus really meant. Food for thought. Respectfully written in love for all of you!!

[@numbers6246]

Mike, you have not discussed Deuteronomy 24. How explain the reason God repeats the order of how things should happen: give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. How about there where it says: put the certificate of divorce in her hands and send her away. So why is this specific order? Thanks

[@ajlouviere202]

@Dodo Limbuta are those who divorce, and marry another, justified by the law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4?

[@KatrinaTahar]

Divorce doesn't allow for a remarriage. Romans 7! Mark 10! Just because we see the hard hearted liar of a woman in deuteronomy 24 doing it doesn't mean it's law. She broke reconciliation and repentance by remarrying . An abomination

[@maunder01]

@@KatrinaTahar or did he do the wrong thing by divorcing her?

[@KatrinaTahar]

@@maunder01 Sheppard of hermas says you must divorce with cases like this. Leave but repentance is ultimately the goal for return. Even Yah waits for us for reconciliation

[@Sirazucar]

This is sloppy Mike, and ignores actual Jewish writings which address this very issue. The GET (divorce certificate) is very important in Judaism and God makes it clear He is "putting away" Israel correctly by stressing the divorce certificate in Isaiah. If "put away" ALWAYS includes the GET then why point it out? In Deut 24 if "put away" ALWAYS includes the GET, why point it out? Why ensure the man puts it in her hand, as a Lawful command? Could it be that God took issue with men NOT obeying this law as Malachi 2:18 shows? The GET would protect the woman from the accusation of adultery (a literal death sentence!) if she remarried and she couldn't even get remarried without it at most synagogues, and if she did both were shunned and their children considered illegitimate. This had many real world consequences that Jewish writers acknowledged. Women without the GET would be shunned so many Jewish leaders began shunning men who wouldn't provide a Get when they "sent away" their wives. Why wouldn't men provide a GET you ask? The vindictive, controlling and greedy motives are well established. Why do you ignore it? In Mark the hard hearted Pharisess did not ask Jesus about divorce, they asked specifically "is it LAWFUL to put away one's wife for any reason?". They asked, tempting him, leaving out important details as usual trying to ensnare Him, as when confronted they could quote the very law they were trying to skirt like the others. Jesus, as usual, responds with a question of His own as He was constantly dealing with them making up rules to suit their greed while ignoring the actual Law. "What. Did. Moses. Command. You?" "Give her a certificate of divorce and put her away" In their question they left out a key part that the Law makes explicit. If "put away" ALWAYS includes the GET, then why was that detail added when quoting the Law but lacking in their question? If you ignore the reality that "putting away" was a real problem for Jews then it's redundant. If you acknowledge the truth, you see their treachery. He made it clear to His disciples that sending away without a certificate of divorce would result in adultery if they remarried. If you assume "putting away" by default necessitates a divorce certificate then Jesus is directly contradicting Moses without any qualifications given. The "putting away" reality removes this contradiction, validates the Law, and condemns the actual adulturers.

[@Tummyrubsrus]

💯 percent

[@elizabeths5896]

Mike! I haven't even listened yet, I'm just awed at your choice of topic, and how the Holy Spirit works within His Bride! Just two weeks ago I finished a personal study on this, as I was in my final chapters Ezra. Look forward to hearing your wisdom later today. Thank you!

[@mailnellys]

Could you please make a response to Pastor Gino Jennings and his views to the Holy Trinity? And the use of the other books in the Bible? We would greatly appreciate it.

[@3dboobtuber]

People divorce on the drop of a hat and trample vows... Yes.. However, How can it be "encouraging" as you say, to be cursed with decades of loneliness and want and desire, by a divorce you didn't see coming (which had nothing to do with infidelity on either part).. and all married preachers may as well say it so gleefully.. "You are Out of Luck... only to be continuously frustrated sexually, with no release.. and lonely all your days , Pal, Hey, I didn't write it.. so... Go in peace.. ("haha.. glad I don't have to deal with THAT! I'm happily married." )" (and try to find a real friend in a church, no one wants to know anyone, anymore in this world.. They run for their cars!) Why are preachers so non-sympathetic with divorced people? a little empathy? Most people who are cruel with this topic have been married for years.. confident.. calloused. Slap them with the verse.. take away all hope.. END of subject..sucker! Or burn in hell! Cause Jesus' blood can not forgive the saved re-marriage!!!! The real unpardonable sin???? So all you people who remarried and trust in the saving Blood of Jesus Christ , go to church, and read your Bible and pray, will burn in hell... because you re-married after you were saved (the pastor's loophole: "But it was before salvation.. so I can be a pastor")??? (1 Cor 6:9 No Adulterers..) So what do you tell people who were saved and DID re-marry? Avoid it?? Say it! You believe they will burn, right? Your position is .. Divorced? Oh, well that's tough. You are a eunuch now! Re-married? 1 Cor 6:9, You are gonna burn! Please Respond. 200 hours? (I've reached out several times live.. got more help from the chat room, Pastor)

[@Sirazucar]

Read 1 Corinthians 7 after reading this. You are not bound brother.

[@kevinelvington9569]

Mike, sorry bro, you are so wrong. This issue still happens today. Have you heard of a Jewish woman being called an "agunah?" An (Hebrew: עגונה‎, plural: ( עגונות‎); literally "anchored" or "chained") is a Jewish who is stuck in her religious marriage as determined by halakha (Jewish law). Even today, just like in the OT, Jewish men can "put away" theirs wives, but NOT DIVORCE them. This happens all the time. Jesus was talking about divorce add remarriage in a Jewish sense, not in an American sense. This is what everyone misses on this subject. You need a few more 100's of hours. ;-).

[@paulagonzalez1721]

I agree. I watched a documentary about this. Men who are angry with their wives avoid legally divorcing them to keep them in limbo.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

I also studied this subject

[@johnpowell3721]

Mike, absolutely love your teaching but I agree you need 100 more hours LOL. Google 'agunah organization'. The 'sending away' situation in Malachi still happens today. There are organizations that deal with this very problem in Jewish culture. I confirned this also with a Rabbi and a Jewish family I knew. While this probably has little effect on American marriage/divorce issues, the Jewish divorce process is more complicated than covered in your answer.

[@ajlouviere202]

This teaching questions whether or not adultery is a sin, and attempts to redefine it as a covenant of marriage. The reason Jesus is not calling for divorcing a second, or third, marriage after a divorce is because he only designates it as sin, not a covenant of marriage. So Jesus is calling remarriage after a divorce the sin of adultery in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18. He is commanding the married (not divorced and remarried), and separated, such as the abandoned husband in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, "not to divorce" his wife, and the wife abandoning him to "remain unmarried or be reconciled" to her husband. To call for a divorce of an adulterous union would be to invalidate what God joins together as one-flesh, and allow man to define this sin as God's will. Remarriage after divorce is clearly stated as sin, by Christ, and all sin requires repentance, according to Luke 13:1-5 and Galatians 5:19-21.

[@kevinelvington9569]

@@ajlouviere202 Again, you fail to understand what Jesus is saying. He is saying, if you "put away" your wife and get married to another, you are committing adultery, because you are not "divorced." Put Away and Divorced are the not the same thing. This is what the modern church fails to understand. Marriage after divorce is not a sin. Paul states directly, 27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But if you marry, you have not sinned. Paul says that a man who has been "released" or divorced from his wife, should not seek a wife, but if he does, he has not sinned. In 1 Cor 7:10-11, the woman is not to leave her husband, and if she does, she is to remain unmarried.....because she is not Divorced, she just simply left her husband. Divorce was a remedy God put in place to help women, because the men were dealing treacherously with them, by "putting them away" and not actually divorcing them. This is what Christians miss. Divorce was a good thing because it gave the woman a chance at having a life and not being stuck in chains because of evil men.

[@tedvinessr7187]

Jesus denied both the sending away and the writing of divorce documents with His statement in Matthew 19.6. Here Jesus uses a different word than either apoluo or apostasion. Instead He uses the word chorizeto ( seperate). By stating not to separate Jesus is denying both the sending away and the writing of divorce documents . Of which means no divorce. Without separation there is no sending away or a divorce document.

[@doctortabby]

So important to be a "good Berean" (Acts 17:11). Thanks, Pastor Mike. God bless.

[@IamGrimalkin]

It's important to check things with your bible, yes. The issue is that Acts 17 : 11 isn't talking about that, which you can find out by checking with your bible. The Berean Jews were more noble than the Thessolinans. Why? Was it because the Berean Jews were reading the bible more than the Thessalonian Jews? No, it was because the Berean Jews were giving Paul the benefit of the doubt, while Thessalonian Jews immediately incited a riot and chased Paul out of the city; as you can see from reading the rest of the chapter. While it was good that the Berean Jews were daily checking the scripture to see if what Paul said was true, it would have been even better if they immediately accepted that what Paul said was true and got baptised, like the Jerusalem Jews did at Pentecost (although in that case it was Peter, not Paul). I know it sounds pedantic because I agree with your sentiment; but because I agree with your sentiment, I have issues with the bible being misrepresented, regardless of the ultimate conclusion.

[@johnruiz3059]

@Mike Winger Although I disagree with your views on the permanency of marriage, I find that we have just about the same understanding on other topics. I watched the videos on Mormonism and Catholicism and was hoping you could do one one Seventh Day Adventist. Do you have anything like that cooking?

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

Permanency of marriage?????

[@johnruiz3059]

@@RedPillOfTheBible It was a small typo. Marriage permanency

[@punishednomorefreetoprotec2165]

For betrothal not marriage there is NO divorce clause all one has to do is read scripture synoptically but I say to you Jesus even when GOD “divorced he said now RETURN to Me. Marriage is synoptic with God & His bride it’s not for us it for the Kingdom ANYONE (saved or not) who divorces his wife and married another commits ADULTERY

[@Ian-ve9xc]

Hard hearts destroy any hope for marriage rebuilding, reconciliation. So when someone has the hard bitter heart best thing is to help the person who is helpless to fix the marriage.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

How such assumption of the the heart hardness meaning!

[@KatrinaTahar]

Agree! The woman in deuteronomy 24 DESTROYED THE CHANCE OF RECONCILIATION BY REMARRYING. HARD HEARTS

[@tedvinessr7187]

The old Testament regulations of divorce and marriage are of the old covenant and have been fulfilled by Christ.The topic of divorce and remarriage is adultery for all that teach wrongly, or practice adultery, and are condemned as adulterers. Those who teach should measure twice before cutting once (teaching).

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

So, if putting away means divorce, how about when Jesus dismissed the multitude like in Mathew 14:15 and uses the word put away, is He divorcing the people???????

[@Janzig100]

Remember Jesus did not speak English, so he definitely did not use the word put away.Words meaning changes based on the context.

[@James-li8cm]

you seem a little worked up here... care to site the verse you are referring to. I'd like to look it up

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@James-li8cm Sure, You can see it for exemple on Mathew 15:39 Mathew 14:22 and 23. Also when God repels, or cast off Adam and Eve from the Garden in Genesis is the word put away used there.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@James-li8cm And yes I'm worked up because I know this subject is very important for many and there is a lot of misunderstanding due to catholic inheritance.

[@XeenMusic]

PART003B: DEFINING ‘RELEASED’ & ‘TO SEND FORTH FROM’ The next Greek word, which will be consistently rendered as “RELEASED” is the Greek word APOLUO, or LUO, depending on the grammatical context. According to Friberg’s Greek Lexicon, this word is defined as, “to free, release, send away, dismiss, let go / “literally, freeing someone or something that is tied or bound; loose, set free, release”. Other lexicons define it as “to loose, set free, dismiss”. It is used in many contexts, including setting a prisoner free, dismissing or sending away or releasing a wife, dismissing a crowd or assembly, and even related to being released from this present life. Also in the context of physical bondage; a legal obligation, free, release; spiritual bondage, set free; breaking something up into its component parts, tear down, break up; breaking up a crowd, disperse; bringing something to an end, away with, undo; of commandments or laws, set aside, annul, invalidate. The Strong’s defines this word as “to set free, to let go, dismiss (to detain no longer), to send away, which would be used in the following contexts: loosing the bonds of a captive and setting them free, to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty, indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart, to divorce a spouse. This is an active deed, where one party releases the other. The jailer would RELEASE the prisoner, the husband would RELEASE the wife. The captive does not RELEASE themselves, nor does the wife RELEASE herself. Despite this proper use of who RELEASES who, during the time of Jesus, women were sinfully RELEASING their husbands without permission in the law to do so, as may be seen from the Judean historian Josephus, who wrote about 90AD (though the customs of the Judeans, whom Jesus rebuked, should not be used in making any conclusive doctrinal decisions): But some time afterward, Shelome happened to quarrel with Kostobar, and straightaway she indeed sent him a bill of divorce, RELEASING herself from the marriage, a practice which was not in accordance with the Judean laws. For it is indeed permitted by us for only a man to do this. But a woman, if she SEPARATES, may not marry another, unless her previous man sets her aside. (Antiquities 15:259) Now there is only a slight difference between LUO and APOLUO. LUO means “to release”, whereas APOLUO means “to release from” (the APO prefix in Greek means “from”). It is interesting to note that much of the terminology used in a marriage situation are parallel to terms used by slaves/masters and prisoners, releasing tied up animals, etc. For example: [Yahweh] secures justice for the oppressed, gives food to the hungry. Yahweh RELEASES prisoners. (Psalm 145:7) He said, "Go into the village opposite you, and as you enter it you will find a colt tethered on which no one has ever sat. RELEASE it and bring it here. (Luke 19:30) Overall, ‘APOLUO/LUO’ is a rare word, especially in the Old Testament, mainly occurring in the writings of the New Covenant and the most recent Old Testament books, such as Maccabees; and almost every occurrence in the books of the New Covenant are in the context of divorce. However, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the primary Greek word which is used for the concept of divorce (and which, by context, is seen as synoptic with APOLUO/LUO), is ‘EXAPOSTELLO’, which literally means ‘to send out from’, or, more pleasant sounding in English, ‘to send away from’. It is not the primary Greek word used in the New Covenant for divorce, but is the primary word used in the Old Testament for this concept. Despite that they are synoptic words, I will be using ‘send-away’ or ‘send-out’ to denote EXAPOSTELLO from APOLUO/LUO. From the following two passages, we can clearly see that APOLUO/LUO and EXAPOSTELLO are synoptic terms and refer to the exact same situation: When a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and therefore he writes out a BILL OF DIVORCE and hands it to her, thus SENDING her AWAY from his house. (Deuteronomy 24:1; also see 24:3) They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a BILL OF DIVORCE and RELEASE her from him?" (Matthew 19:7; also see Mark 10:4) Now a few Old Testament passages in relationship to marriage: Moreover, she shall remain his woman, and he may not SEND her AWAY from him as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:21) When a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and therefore he writes out a BILL OF DIVORCE and hands it to her, thus SENDING HER AWAY from his house: if on leaving his house she goes and becomes the woman of another man, and the second man, too, comes to dislike her and SEND her AWAY from his house by handing her a BILL OF DIVORCE; or if this second man who has married her, dies; then her former man, who SENT her AWAY from him, may not again take her as his woman after she has become defiled. That would be an abomination before Yahweh, and you shall not bring such guilt upon the land which Yahweh, your God, is giving you as a heritage. (Deuteronomy 24:1~4) Thus says Yahweh: Where is the BILL OF DIVORCE with which I SENT-AWAY your mother from me? Or to which of my creditors have I sold you? It was for your sins that you were sold, for your crimes that your mother was SENT AWAY from me. (Isaiah 50:1) If a man SENT AWAY his woman from him and, after leaving him, she marries another man, does the first man come back to her? Would not the land be wholly defiled? But you have sinned with many lovers, and yet you would return to me! says Yahweh. (Jeremiah 3:1) …that for all the adulteries rebellious Israel had committed, I SENT her AWAY from me and gave her a BILL OF DIVORCE, nevertheless her traitor sister Judah was not frightened; she too went off and committed sexual-immorality. (Jeremiah 3:8) Malachi 2:16 (Hebrew MT) For I hate SENDING-AWAY, says Yahweh, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with injustice, says Yahweh of hosts; you must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith. Malachi 2:16 (Greek) But if you hate your woman and SEND her AWAY from you, says the Lord God of Israel, then ungodliness shall cover your thoughts, say the Lord Almighty: therefore take heed to your spirit, and do not forsake them, Every passage in the Old Testament, when this word is used in conjunction with marriage, always refers to the dissolving of a marriage covenant. Notice how, even here, in Jeremiah 3:8, God SENT Israel AWAY from him on account of sexual-immorality, which is the only reason that Jesus would give for such activity. Also, in the context of Matthew 19, we can see that RELEASING equals (or is the same) as a SEPARATION - they both divide what God has joined together: Therefore, what God has joined together, a human must not SEPARATE. I say to you, he who RELEASES his woman (not on grounds of sexual-immorality), and marries another commits adultery.

[@Mikedykstra]

Dear Mike, is there anyway that you and I could speak for a moment. I have another issue that is very challenging for me. You have spoken about it a little bit but I’d like to get more of a deep dive into it. Let me know please

[@michaelhosack6718]

The argument being made for a permissive view of divorce is based on the use of "apolouo" in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:7-9 instead of "apostasion." Apostasion means "certificate of divorce, or divorce." Apolouo means "put away or separate from" which can mean divorce or separation. As Mike mentions, this hair-splitting does not really hold up when you read the passages in context. The most persuasive reason, to me, for rejecting the permissive interpretation is the Disciples astonishment at Jesus' teaching, saying (Matthew 19:10 KJV) "... If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." They would not have responded in such a way if Jesus was only re-stating the common understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that divorce was okay as long a piece of paper was provided to the woman. My interpretation is Jesus uses apolouo instead of apostasion exactly because God does not view marriage as piece of paper.

[@XeenMusic]

The original Old Testament command allowed divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality (otherwise the woman would have been stoned and she would never have the opportunity to get married again). Jesus limited it to sexual immorality, which was the same reasons for a stoning.

[@nickhalsey7161]

Your right God's marriages were covenant not contracts! By the government! That why believers and non believers get this wrong all the time!✌

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

Basing a doctrine in the astonishment of the disciples is very wise! 👏👏👏

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.João 2:19 The context beginning on verse 14 totally indicates that Jesus would be referring to the Jewish temple, but now we know it wasn't so. So be careful with the context, the context is not always conected, Jesus in several times spoke things out of the blue or enigmatically.

[@kerryterry]

Sooo so good!!! God bless you brother Mike!!

[@God4all777]

Matthew 11:25 ! God’s Spirit opens our minds when He dwells in us! Luke 24 : 16 and 24 : 45. Apostles had no scholars :)).

[@preciousbell4573]

Agreed, well done. You only need to read the bible not a book interpreting the bible. It’s like reading the Talmud without reading the Torah and the rest. By the way it’s Jesus’ words not Jesus’s words because Jesus ends with s, so you don’t need to add s to indicate possession, just apostrophe is enough when it comes to writing. Whereas ‘nurse’ for example can be added with s thus ‘nurse’s uniform’ because even though the pronunciation ends with s, the spelling ends with e.

[@amcds2867]

Mike you have an amazing online Ministry, however the Bible mentions nothing about Moses allowing remarriage. Only widows can remarry according to GOD's Word, but remarriage among the divorced is adultery. The one flesh covenant once marriage is consummated (what GOD has joined for the earthly lifetime no man can separate) can only be severed if one of them dies. Therefore even a divorce paper does not end the one flesh covenant. That's why Jesus calls divorced people that remarry, adulterers - Matthew 19:9, Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7.

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

I think the phrase in the KJV "put away" comes from the distinction in the story about Mary and Joseph, that Joseph desired to put Mary away privately. That simply means he desired to simply have a legal divorce rather than having her stoned for adultery.

[@nickhalsey7161]

I agree 👍

[@clairebearie87]

Can't divorce if not yet married, and they weren't yet at that stage when he knew she was pregnant

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

@@clairebearie87 They were at the stage of marriage, but marriage in their culture was DIFFERENT than marriage in our culture. The marriage wasn't complete, and thus, a written divorce was still possible. If they were in a full marriage, Joseph wouldn't have had that choice. He would have had to either forgive her and stay married OR have her stoned to death.

[@stevensudan8606]

Hey Mike. Firstly, this is a tough subject so kudos for tacking it. To be transparent, I have not heard the full audio of your hour long presentation on divorce, but let me lay out my understanding: * Matthew 5, 19 - Jesus give only one reason for Divorce: Porneia. This was correctly translated as "fornication" in the King James. How can a married couple fornicate? This is only possible if the woman has relations during the betrothal period. This is why the disciples think it is better not to marry. Even if your wife commits adultery, you CANNOT divorce her. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience who would understand the betrothal period. * Luke 16 - Gospel written to gentiles and has no exception for divorce * Mark 10 - Jesus does not answer the Pharisee's question of divorce. In private, He tells his disciples that there is no exception for Divorce. Paul in Romans 7 - A married woman is bound by law to her husband and if she remarries while he is still alive, she is called an adulteress. Paul in 1 Cor 10 - Wife should not leave her husband, but if she leaves, she cannot remarry Paul in 1 Cor 13 - if an unbeliever leaves, let them leave. The brother or sister is not under bondage. (Does this passage CLEARLY give grounds for divorce?) As far as the new testament, if someone is going to base their case for divorce based on their "understanding" of the word "under bondage", I think it is a big mistake. How can we ignore all the clear passages that deny divorce as an options, and cling to an unclear passage. Let's keep in mind that divorce was not allowed until the reformers came along. For 1500 years, the Church clearly understood that Jesus has removed divorce as an option. Thoughts? By the way, you are doing a great job teaching the body of Christ (even if I disagree with you on some points!!).

[@khole15]

this is my understanding also, i dont see how one can come to any other conclusion than this, any thoughts?

[@Aquaseventytree]

You ask how can a married couple fornicate? This is only possible.........etc. Paul said regarding marriage, 'let the bed be undefiled'. How can a married couples' bed become 'defiled' then? Paul explains..'for fornicators and adulterers God will judge'. Heb 13:4 Porneia, the only ground for biblical divorce.

[@stevensudan8606]

@@Aquaseventytree If a married man sleeps with a single woman, the woman commits fornication while the man commits adultery.

[@stevensudan8606]

@@khole15 Agreed. I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself. I realize that divorce is very complicated, especially if children are involved, but that can't negate God's Word on the subject. This is the only way to make sense of every think Jesus and Paul said on the matter.

[@khole15]

@@stevensudan8606 totaly agree, seems like other poeple don't take all the verses into account (Paul, Jesus, Moses and so on) everything fits with this "interpretation" not with others

[@JeffLegg-k6p]

Mike, Respectfully, I don’t believe you are understanding the meanings of the Greek words correctly and in context with the culture and what was happening in that time and place. Perhaps because it doesn’t fit what you and most everyone else has been ingrained with. Just because “most” Bible scholars hold to your view doesn’t mean they are right. You might want to do a study on the Greek word for “put away” to see how it’s actually used throughout scripture. It never means divorce. There is a completely different word for divorce. Sadly, the faulty analysis of this text is keeping so many people in terrible bondage.

[@mikearcuri406]

Some rabbinical scholars would disagree with you that put away (apoluo) means the exact same thing as divorce. It either does or it doesn’t. You claim it does, but are you certain? Your entire argument as well as the arguments of virtually every advice giving Christian you tuber hinges upon the King James interpretation of apoluo as meaning the same as divorce. If King James interpretation is correct, then so are you. If King James interpretation is incorrect, then again so are you. The question becomes which scholars should we believe? The ones that say apoluo means the same as divorce or the ones that say it doesn’t?

[@tedvinessr7187]

Jesus denies both APOLUO AND APOSTASION (Mt.5:32).

[@nealdoster8556]

Grace to you That text is not denying the procedure of divorce, Jesus is merely explaining what ensues by a marriage ending before death. You are obviously starting from false presuppositions. Blessings

[@paulhershey9943]

Does a biblical marriage require legal marriage in modern society?

[@BillGillette-v8u]

no

[@skerrc]

Isn’t this what Paula White Caine used to justify her third marriage to Jonathan Caine?

[@FRN2013]

How did she justify her fling with Benny Hinn?

[@e.l.243]

Exactly. She is an ungodly person. It does not apply to her

[@HogboyBiff]

You’re mistaken, maybe this will help. In Matthew 5, the sermon on the mount, Jesus lists commands then speaks to the heart. Thou shall not kill but I say unto you… Thou shall not commit adultery but I say unto you… Whoever sends away his wife must give her a divorce certificate but I say unto you… The last listed command is no different than the others in that it’s a command derived from OT law aka. his word. However, some switch gears when reaching this portion of Matt. 5 essentially claiming Jesus comes to destroy the least of these commands (right after he warns us he would never do such a thing). Remember, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which allows for divorce and remarriage for reasons including but not limited to fornication, is as inspired as the rest of our beloved scripture, we must treat it as such. I’m happy to labor with you on this topic if you would like to set up a call.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

Minute 9:52, SO if putting away is equal divorce, then God divorced His people and gave a certificate of divorce???? Don't you see it is REDUNDANT. Not even today, no one says: I'll get the bill of divorce and divorce, it is REDUNDANT, no sence!!!

[@Janzig100]

The context here is marriage. Unless you are ignoring the context on purpose

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@Janzig100 No, I'm not ignoring the context, I also don't ignore that there is many words and many practices in the marriage context.

[@Chrissiela]

I was thinking the same thing. I would have made the opposite argument.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@Chrissiela Finally someone understood me. And people often mention the context, but the context does not all the times means connection on the text flow, specifically on Jesus interactions and much more when he was interrogated...

[@Chrissiela]

@@RedPillOfTheBible Jesus' answers always went deeper than the question that was being asked. And for good reason; the questions were usually not very deep, demonstrating a somewhat shallow understanding the scriptures.... generally, the letter vs the spirit.

[@archielang7427]

What difference does it make that putaway may or may not mean separate rather than divorce? I mean outside of scholarly curiousity, by context obviously the pharisees wanted to know about divorce not just separation because they are the ones who introduced the writ of divorce into the conversation. And even if you were confused by Jesus again not using the verbage of the writ of divorce in his response, the disciples are clearly spooked like they had a night terror. Would they be so concerned if Jesus merely meant that husbands seeking separation needed an official writ of divorce to avoid adultery? I think that the words did indeed have a different meaning, but Jesus explains to the pharisees and his disciples that God doesnt care for marriages the end for no good reason, and God has open hostility to marriages entered into thereafter, whether in just a put away situation or with a writ of divorce.

[@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi]

You are right. The "marriage permanence" folks are wrong. I like your take. Why does the exception allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of a premarital betrothal, where (please excuse me, but this must be said, to make the point) she willingly spreads her legs for another man before marriage, but (in some folks view) not so, if she spreads her legs for another man AFTER marriage? It makes no sense. No sense whatsoever, does it make. Is not marriage to be holy also, just like the betrothal? If the betrothal view only does not fit, then the answer for you is you must acquit. My point is clearly this: There are TWO exception scriptures, not just one. The exceptions are an option under certain conditions ONLY, or Jesus would not have mentioned them. He was not trying to waste words, or waste paper in Bibles, or He would not have spoken the exceptions into His Word, into existence, just like He created the worlds. The exceptions are real stuff, spoken for a reason. Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32, are two clear concise Bible verses, and we are to do what they say, and say what they do say, instead of something else. They do not contradict other scriptures against divorce, which I agree with. The exceptions are there for a reason: Immorality in marriage is NOT HOLY. The exception is a deterrent to adultery, and to fornication, and to immorality in general, especially since the exception was spoken to the husband by Jesus, but not to the wife specifically. Before she spreads her legs for another man, she should think that she could, would, and should possibly lose her husband for spreading her legs for another man, married or unmarried, single or betrothed. Immorality is a "no no," and immorality is unholy.

[@georgemiranda-nz2fd]

@ 2:30 Mike the word in Hebrew for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 is Keritut and send away/put away is shalach. They are two different words when you read the hebrew in the Torah so don't dismiss that as bad teaching or misusing words. This is what the israelites were doing in Malachi 2 , putting or sending away the wife of their youth and marrying strange wives. You need to understand that the oracles of God were given to the jews as Paul the apostle points to their advantage , you must also understand the process of marriage and divorce in the jewish culture with theregulation on both matters that still apply to the jews today , if a woman has a husband in the israeli army if there is no proof for his death she cannot remarry , so they have other paperwork that states that in the event he is dissappeared and cannot be found she can remarry if not she can't. You need to keep in mind that Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel , he even called the canaanite woman with the daughter a dog , and not giving the food of the children to the dogs to which she replied about how tge dogs eat the crumbs. So with this said there should ve no doubt , that His ministry was to Israel. HE was speaking in the terms they could understand because they were in the Torah, HE qouted Gen 1:27 & 2:27 in all 3 gospel events on the topic of divorce and remarriage HE gave them Torah , there were no otger scriptures. And if Jesus is God , HE was the one who gave Moses the Torah which means Instructions; Teaching and within those instructions told Moses what was and wasn't acceptable in these terms and it mentions giving the certificate of divorce and putting/sending away.

[@georgemiranda-nz2fd]

Devarim ( Deuteronomy 24: 1) כִּֽי־יִקַּ֥ח אִ֛ישׁ אִשָּׁ֖ה וּבְעָלָ֑הּ וְהָיָ֞ה אִם־לֹ֧א תִמְצָא־חֵ֣ן בְּעֵינָ֗יו כִּי־מָ֤צָא בָהּ֙ עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר וְכָ֨תַב לָ֜הּ סֵ֤פֶר " כְּרִיתֻת֙" וְנָתַ֣ן בְּיָדָ֔הּ" וְשִׁלְּחָ֖הּ " מִבֵּיתֽוֹ⁠ Keritut - " כְּרִיתֻת֙" Hashalah - " וְשִׁלְּחָ֖הּ " Same thing when you read Malachi 2:16: כִּֽי־שָׂנֵ֣א" שַׁלַּ֗ח" אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְכִסָּ֤ה חָמָס֙ עַל־לְבוּשׁ֔וֹ אָמַ֖ר יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם בְּרוּחֲכֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א תִבְגֹּֽדוּ׃ Shalach-" שַׁלַּ֗ח" The word keritut is not mentioned in Malachi 2 which says God hates divorce , it actually says HE hates putting away. Jeremiah 3:8 you see the word for divorce here again "keritut" where I put the quotation marks : וָאֵ֗רֶא כִּ֤י עַל־כׇּל־אֹדוֹת֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נִֽאֲפָה֙ מְשֻׁבָ֣ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל שִׁלַּחְתִּ֕יהָ וָאֶתֵּ֛ן אֶת־סֵ֥פֶר "כְּרִיתֻתֶ֖יהָ" אֵלֶ֑יהָ וְלֹ֨א יָרְאָ֜ה בֹּגֵדָ֤ה יְהוּדָה֙ אֲחוֹתָ֔הּ וַתֵּ֖לֶךְ וַתִּ֥זֶן גַּם־הִֽיא׃ Keriteteicha-Divorce Same thing again in Isaiah chapter 50:1 The word there is not Shalach or sending/putting away it's Keritut or divorce where quotations are : כֹּ֣ה ׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה אֵ֣י זֶ֠ה סֵ֣פֶר "כְּרִית֤וּת" אִמְּכֶם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר שִׁלַּחְתִּ֔יהָ א֚וֹ מִ֣י מִנּוֹשַׁ֔י אֲשֶׁר־מָכַ֥רְתִּי אֶתְכֶ֖ם ל֑וֹ הֵ֤ן בַּעֲוֺנֹֽתֵיכֶם֙ נִמְכַּרְתֶּ֔ם וּבְפִשְׁעֵיכֶ֖ם שֻׁלְּחָ֥ה אִמְּכֶֽם

[@georgemiranda-nz2fd]

None of these commentators are more right than The Torah of God. A lot of bible translations have been tainted with human theology like the trinitarian bible society , etc that change wordings or verbage to mean what they want it to mean. That's why we have to go back to the scriptures ( law and the prophets ) to see if it is sound doctrine.

[@ajlouviere202]

The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39. Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel. The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death. The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15. Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife. Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15. Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16. The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions. The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24. Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication" or "divorced", in Mark's Gospel, because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.

[@timsadventures1954]

Will you take the time to explain why you claim to have never been married is giving advice to married couples? Then, explain where Jesus told those married again must divorce to repent specifically. Should Christians just live with partners rather than getting married as you claim to have done? In detail, explain the difference and explain how the ancients were declared married. Your long-winded comments have no specific detail backed by historical and biblical facts. They are just more of your cut and paste routine.

[@brotherhiram4789]

Is there any historical proof that men were putting away without giving a bill of divorce back in the Messiah’s day?

[@Sirazucar]

Yeah, Mark 10. If you divest your mind of Mike's preconceived ideas and the 2 millennia of nonsense we're conditioned with, the plain speech of the text says just that. The Pharisees' question makes no sense if "put away" necessarily meant "divorce by giving a certificate" when Jesus made them recite the actual command which they were trying to skirt. A GET (divorce certificate) protected the woman and her rightful assets from being abused by the man. Deut 24 expects remarriage

[@brotherhiram4789]

@@Sirazucar if you go verse by verse in Matthew 19, you will see that the clear context of “put away” was as a final stage of the divorce process. Biblically speaking, you can put away without divorce but you can’t divorce without putting away.

[@Tummyrubsrus]

Absolutely. They could keep the dowry that way.

[@ajlouviere202]

Most people who teach that Matthew's gospel provides an allowance to remarry after a divorce later discover that Mark 10:1-12, is the same biblical account as Matthew 19:1-12, without any exception. This is easily explained by the fact that Matthew's gospel was the first gospel account, and it was given to the house of Israel, as Paul clearly states in Romans 1:16. When we understand that Jesus was speaking directly to the Jews, and that they were following the law in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, we understand the nature of the exception in both of these verses in Matthew. We also understand that Jesus is making a reference to a woman who was called a wife during betrothal (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Luke 2:5-7), and after she has become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage (Genesis 2:23-24, Malachi 2:12-16, Matthew 19:4-8, Mark 10:3-9), in Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9. This is the only time we witness all 8 of the New Testament scriptures, that govern this topic, maintain harmony with one another. Jesus was clearly making a reference to wife, who unless she comitted fornication during betrothal (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), which would have resulted in her being stoned to death, is now a divorced wife being caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her. It was an abomination before God to allow an adulteress, and the man found with her, to remain living (Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10) and be given a bill of divorce in order to remarry.

[@timsadventures1954]

You still have not answered my simple direct question, do I need to ask it again? Now for your lengthy suppositional reply. In order for your suppositions and abuses of scripture to work you must allow scriptures to contradict scriptures. One must also believe God, Moses, and Jesus are in conflict rather than harmony. It is the work of Satan that makes God less than holy and immutable. It is apparent that this is your goal that drags others into your lies and supposition. Jesus directly said if you do not believe Moses you will not believe him. Do you believe Moses was an inspired by God and wrote the first five books of the Pentateuch? This is referenced in John 5:33-47, which is actual scriptures rather than your supposition . Should those that read your comments disregard the actual words of Jesus to buy into your deceptive rantings ??

[@ajlouviere202]

​@@timsadventures1954why have some of my replies to this profile, on the Standing Strong For Marriages channel's video titled "Discussing Divorce to Repent with Tim", being blocked from public view?

[@timsadventures1954]

@ajlouviere202 I think youtube is fact-checking your posts.

[@JesusDoctrine]

I wish Mike had answered this more conclusively. My understanding of this wasn't refuted well by Mike considering his great teaching on the topic. Put away and Divorce are different words in the Greek and in the Old Testament, God hates divorce and yet divorced himself. Is God a hypocrite? This was the line of inconsistency that has made me question churches teaching on marriage and divorce. It made me question Gods own stance, did God hate his broken relationship with Israel? Was God's divorce wrong? Unfortunately that's how pastors tend to present it, so God looked like his own divorce was sin. Unfortunately, I have never seen a minister go into this topic thoroughly like Mike. The result is, people study this for themselves and the concept that putting away by divorce can easily be seen as two separate steps, as they constantly are mentioned seperatly in the same sentence. This leads many to not recongise there connection in a simple reading. People without extensive knowledge, have no reason to think put away and divorce are the same, they use different Greek words. Many actually think its a poor translation and God doesn't hate divorce but, God hates leaving a spouse (putting away) but, keeping them bound by religious laws, like in the days of Moses. If there was a topic I think Mike could of addressed better, it would have been this one. Many in error like myself previously, have been asking for years and ended on this path due to a lack of guidance and scripture allowing an alternative reading that can be applied throughout, by separating divorce and putting away. I like to see Does God hate divorce mentioned along side this answer. Its the next step in peoples questioning on this topic, from this view.

[@jk6653]

I’m separated and will NOT get a divorce and will never be with another man. I will be alone for the rest of my life rather than risk my salvation and be in perpetual adultery and then going to hell. God hates divorce!

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

No, being alone is against God's will, He said is not good for for men being alone. And you're actually doing contrary to what Jesus, He said, what God had joined let men no separate, so you're separated. please don't do that, this idea of no remarriage is from Catholic church.

[@thomasmiddlebrooke1012]

If you’re truly saved, you can’t lose it.

[@pauldmckee]

I am living the same way. But you should understand that remarriage is not a act that will cause you to loose salvation. It will greive God's heart but he will always love you if you belong to him.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@thomasmiddlebrooke1012 Yes, you can loose salvation if you don't want it anymore.

[@thomasmiddlebrooke1012]

@Bible RedPills Show that in scripture. You can’t. It’s not there.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

The total distortion of Jesus on divorce was made by Catholicism during the dark age and now those who are getting enlightened with the right understanding are been labeled as a minority who do the distortion. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[@3leon306]

what? the Catholic Church has remained steadfast in its teaching on divorce unlike the inconsistent carnival that is modern protestants which their Starbucks rock show “praise” festivals

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@3leon306 Catholic church has poisoned the mind of human race, about God and the scripture, specially in the dark age. How will you convince me that catholic church has the right biblical teaching knowing that they hid the Bible during 1000 years?????

[@KatrinaTahar]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CALLING IT AS IT IS! THIS ARGUMENT IS A HORRIBLE STRETCH TO BE ABLE TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT LIVING IN ADULTERY! MATTHEW 19 10 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10👉🏻👉🏻 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”👈🏼👈🏼👈🏼 Please explain to me why they didn't just say, "oh ok cool all I need a certificate???? " Nope they said better not to even marry, bc death separates not fornication, not adultery, not abuse. You make a vow you keep it. Period. Yahusha was clear!

[@ChrisPyle]

Please explain to me how a loving god is fine if a wife being beaten and abused, forced to watch her children be abused and risk their precious gift of life, just because she made a vow that she can’t possible keep. The husband broke the vow by threatening her life and safety. She is under no obligation to stay if her life is at risk, in fact staying would be the same as taking your own life, which in itself is forbidden by god. That man is a threat, should be locked away from society and the woman should continue to care for herself and her children. I give god, who is the most fair and just, more credit than what you’re claiming.

[@ebozion32]

@@ChrisPyle I just wanna know why Christ says he did not come to erase from the law of the prophets but yet Moses says you can divorce? The "putting away" of a wife would have to be what the Pharisees were talking about if this is the case because Christ never sinned and never taught to sin! Sin is the breaking of the law!

[@ChrisPyle]

@@ebozion32 Jesus did say regarding Moses that divorce was not always like the way Moses had instructed due to their “hard hearts” and that ultimately things would go back to the original intent of adultery being the only reason. That said, I think placing someone’s life in harms way by forcing them to stay with an abusive spouse breaks too many biblical principles

[@ebozion32]

@@ChrisPyle I agree with you, Christ did say that, BUT the phrase "hard heart" isn't only used for divorce in scripture (it's used in many places). My point is there is a translation error in my opinion. If you notice Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman with 5 husbands and one she was living with without being married. He validated the 5 marriages! Which proves imo Yes, God hates divorce but it is allowed because humans are flawed.

[@Apologia14]

So what does “except for sexual immorality” mean then? Was it just a pointless phrase Jesus inserted?

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

Nobody for 1500 years believed that you can divorce, until Henry VIII decided that he did not like his wife. The Marriage formula is "until death do you part" not "until divorce do you part".

[@MikeWinger]

That’s not accurate. Please see my big video on this topic where I show that the Bible teaches divorce under certain circumstances and I have a whole section dealing with the church fathers and how we got to Roman Catholic theology through extra-biblical and non-apostolic traditions. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGPTdGmQntCVj9E

[@Mayoyaquiwarrior]

Your incorrect !!! Please go to book of Deut ch 24:1-4

[@kateleurs5012]

Historically incorrect!

[@andrewvangils3112]

People just want to hear what benefits them. Let’s see: “What Jesus explicitly says” Vs “What someone is interpreting Jesus is saying and filtering for you” Listen to Jesus. The Bible is clear.

[@timsadventures1954]

Another point clarified very well. Thank you

[@Hodge863]

Hey you should do a video on Steve karesh and the Davidians

[@joerichardson1982]

David Karesh and the Branch Davidians are an offshoot of the Miller movement (Jehovah’s Witnesses).

[@pamdelaney5149]

@@joerichardson1982 Did you know almost all were Seventh Day Adventists?

[@BillGillette-v8u]

@@pamdelaney5149The Branch Davidians were not regular SDAs anymore than the UMC apostate church is the same as the old time Methodists. The regular SDAs are a pretty straight evangelical church. The Davidians were a cult ran by D. Koresh

[@petersmith2691]

HI Mike, if APOLUO only means in the context of divorce, then Pilate divorced Barabas. MATT. 27:15 and 27:17 ???

[@clairebearie87]

The word has several uses

[@julianaranda5496]

@mike winger ive asked on other videos in hopes you'd see. PLEASE speak on the modern cultish movement of black israelites who claim to be from judah and still follow and preach the old testament law. Its a heavy influence on minority races because they say they are israelites and fit prophecy. They are very influential in public and on social media. And their tactics are brute.

[@LevyVisuals]

You should probably go to vocab Malone’s channel. Probably the most educated on the topic and highly regarded in this area.

[@heidirobinson6406]

Thank you for this video!! 🧐🧩💃♥️

[@ctbt1832]

You cannot divorce, your wife or husband. You just can’t do it Romans tell you that and other places

[@nicolasreinaldet732]

1:20 the reason why is becase it is in the end a futile point. In the best of cases this would legalize divorce in the old covenent not in the new one.

[@Sirazucar]

Divorce was legal in the OT. That's the point of Deut 24. Remarriage as well.

[@johnralphmission3986]

Hi bro can I talk to you on Facebook or Gmail? I just want to ask something.

[@sarahfaith316]

johnralph mission Hi there! Every so often, he will do a Q&A video. If you join the live chat at that time, you can submit a question for Pastor Mike! Click the bell icon to be notified about when he will be going live. 🙂

[@sbcburgos2300]

Mike Winger, you are wrong about the definition of "apoluo", because the word for letter of divorcement is "apostasion" , found in Matthew 5:31 (but not verse 32 where only apoluo appears). Same thing applies to Matthew 19:7, where "apostasion" appears, but only "apoluo" appears in verse 9. Therefore, apoluo means "putting away". Apoluo also appears in Matthew 14:15, 22 used for the word "dismiss" or "send away", so it has nothing to do with giving a letter of divorce!

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

It has been said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce: Mathew 5:31 Look that Jesus is not talking about what is written, but what has been said, so you can compare and see that what has been said according to this verse, is different of what is written in Deut 24. Jesus was correcting the pharisees teaching, not the God's word. (There is still othere evidences for to back up this understanding, but only that one is enough.)

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@Survival Grandpa I didn't say this understanding is only applicable to this verse, it is applicable to all the verses in this context. If you think Jesus is talking about the law, so he would be contradicting himself on vs 17. When you forcely speaks about divorce on this chapter you are adding words to the scripture because the word divorce is not here. If put away and divorce were synonymous, then why theses words are written together in Matthew 19 and Deut 24 for example, it would be a total redundancy.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@Survival Grandpa If you still think this chapter is about the law, then try to find in the law, the commandment to hate the enemies, vs 43, good luck!

[@ajlouviere202]

@@RedPillOfTheBible Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, in Matthew 5:31.

[@RedPillOfTheBible]

@@ajlouviere202 No, not at all.

[@ajlouviere202]

@@RedPillOfTheBible what do you think he is referring to when he says "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:"?

[@ibelieve3111]

Hey

[@Servant_of_Christ]

Is it okay to not get a woman? I can't stand them anymore.

[@MikeWinger]

You probably shouldn’t if you can’t stand them.

[@samuelcharles9017]

Mike Winger fr 😂

[@wyattwahlgren8883]

If Jesus did not get a woman, it's okay to not get a woman.

[@marjoriebourgouin2782]

@@wyattwahlgren8883 neither did Paul who encouraged celibacy

[@paulabrant9299]

No woman would have you with your attitude anyway.

[@KatrinaTahar]

Robin is a wolf. She blocked me after I sent a few emails explaining how her book was not rightfully dividing the word.

[@krakoosh1]

Mike I came across a video you might want to do a video on. The channel is Capturing Christianity. The video title is, 7 catholic things Protestants can start believing right now. They are teaching you can believe these things and still be Protestant

[@kcmuanpuia]

According to Jesus, "Unless you are dead, or either committed adultery - NO DIVORCE". No separation. What's so hard to understand?

[@kcmuanpuia]

Jesus in Matt 19 is not talking about PAPERS... He is talking about TWO FLESH BEING ONE, UNTIL DEATH DO THEM APART....

[@khole15]

actually, He said, unless you are dead or commited FORNICATION (obviously paraphrasing), not adultery. fornication can only be committed during the betrothal period, you can not divorce for adultery

[@ajlouviere202]

@@kcmuanpuia agreed. This teaching questions whether or not adultery is a sin, and attempts to redefine it as a covenant of marriage. The reason Jesus is not calling for divorcing a second, or third, marriage after a divorce is because he only designates it as sin, not a covenant of marriage. So Jesus is calling remarriage after a divorce the sin of adultery in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18. He is commanding the married (not divorced and remarried), and separated, such as the abandoned husband in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, "not to divorce" his wife, and the wife abandoning him to "remain unmarried or be reconciled" to her husband. To call for a divorce of an adulterous union would be to invalidate what God joins together as one-flesh, and allow man to define this sin as God's will. Remarriage after divorce is clearly stated as sin, by Christ, and all sin requires repentance, according to Luke 13:1-5 and Galatians 5:19-21.

[@christinachildofGod]

So dangerous that you seek a theologian. The Lord said to me that He is testing His church to see who denies Him by seeking man and who seeks revelation from Him in the quiet place. A form of godliness but denying the power. You are following the broad way. The Lord allowed satan to i filtrate the theology institutions awhile ago to test His church. The Lord confounds the wise. I praise you Lord Jesus that you hide your revelation from the prideful and reserve it for the childlike.

[@petersmith2691]

I forgot to quote these last night when I wrote a comment. MATT.14:22 & 23. Jesus sent the multitude away, he did not divorce them. APOLUO is used.

[@punishednomorefreetoprotec2165]

The Bible the Word of God is made simple they even a child can comprehend it no one will have an excuse they don’t need to know Greek or Hebrew interlinear however it doesn’t hurt to be a berean study don’t take any mans opinion

[@david.petrey]

Cool bookcase.

[@myothergem]

Hi Mike, i am sorry about the loss of your sister, i hope and pray God has comforted you and given u the time u need to get back on track... I was wondering though, can demons cause accidents and physical pain? I just been having so many problems with my back recently , two surgeries for two dfferent things last month, and sudden breathing problems, and slipping on things a lot and getting hurt and bruised from stupid accidents. Also sleep deprivation, its all happening at once and came about suddenly in the last month. Right now at this very moment, feel like ive been run over by a car with all these bizarre physical injuries that been happening to me. Im laying in bed with aches bruises and pains all over my body!!! Am i under demonic attack? Or am i just super clumsy and coincidentally having a number of issues at one time?

[@KeniGid]

And here goes the permanence no matter what brigade tantrum (Mike Winger, this is respectfully for you; you're brilliant but you're not our mediator...): As long as one's spouse is alive, the person commits adultery when remarried. So reconcile or stay single for the rest of your life. 1 Corinthians 7:39 paraphrased. The latter is far better than ending up in hell due to wilful disobedience. Let's not be like the rich young man who wouldn't let go of his idol (wealth in that case) to follow Christ . See also Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 (from the Lord Himself. Our eternity is far too important to take a chance of potentially conjured up loopholes (passed from interpreter to interpreter) on. Revelation 21:8: ...and idolaters...

[@Bigbird4000gt]

Apoluo itself is a two part word... Apo+luo Away from +loose The opposite of luo (loosed) is deo (bound) - Matthew 18:18 uses luo and deo as polar opposites here A wife is bound (deo) as long as the husband lives - Romans 7:2 Apo+luo itself is a LOOSING , luo, of a BINDING , deo of marriage