Change on Adultery

[Marina]

I'm hearing that the Shepherd the Flock of God book has changed so that people can separate and remarry without the need to prove the guilty party has committed adultery. If they are separated that's all that matters. Source is supposedly John Cedars. So if you wish to confirm, that's where to look unless you have access to the new book.

If the above is true, this could allow for someone to say 'oh my spouse no longer believes GB' and support could be given to that person to divorce their spouse regardless of the principle that Jesus laid down. Am aware of similar things like this which have happened in past.

This is what Jesus actually said about divorce
(Matthew 19:9)

[Get out of her]

This situation reminds me of what is being conveyed to us in scriptures like 2 Timothy 4:3,4 or even the prophetic illustration Jesus furnished us at Luke 16:1-8.

Agape love;
Sol

[Marina]

Hi Sol - accumulating teachers that tickle their ears. Yes. Regarding Luke 16:1-8 I take your point they are applying it the wrong way. If you are the innocent party in a marriage, they are effectively making life worse, raising the debt (so to speak) not lowering it.

The Catholics have been doing similar

He spoke out against Annulments, which is the Church's way of saying "you know how the Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman for life, and that divorce is a big no-no and not allowed? Well we're gonna basically do the opposite of that". The Church was trying to expedite the process of annulments and make it easier for people to get divorced in the eyes of the Church, Fr. Korapi spoke out against it, and they excommunicated him for it. The Deep Church is real, and if you speak out against them you get silenced.

https://greatawakening.win/u/SFAM1A/

Then the poster goes on to say

Our church used to be cool; we used to kill people for being that kind of a heretic. It's time for another Crusade; this time we need to retake the Vatican.

Now that's one thing the WT can't do isn't it. It can't have a Crusade, even to retake Warwick - despite their Knights Templar roots. With their love of Star Wars they are more likely to put on alien invasion with stick on beards.

[Proselytiser of Jah]

I've tried looking it up, haven't found anything on it yet.

[investigate]

Here you go

ATTACHMENT
(See Shepherd, chapter 12, paragraphs 10-12.)

If a Christian divorces his wife without Scriptural grounds and then marries another person, how does the congregation view the previous marriage and the new marriage?

In such a situation, the congregation would view the previous marriage as having ended when the man remarried and would view the new marriage as binding. To understand the reasons for this conclusion, let us consider what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage.

As recorded at Matthew 19:9, Jesus identified the only Scriptural basis to end a marriage. He stated: “Whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” From Jesus’ words, we learn (1) that sexual immorality is the only Scriptural basis for ending a marriage in divorce and (2) that a man who divorces his wife without that Scriptural basis and marries another commits adultery. 1

Do Jesus’ words mean that a man who commits sexual immorality and divorces his wife is Scripturally free to remarry? Not necessarily. When adultery occurs in a marriage, the innocent mate decides whether she will forgive her husband or reject him. If she rejects him and a legal divorce is obtained, both are free to remarry once the divorce is final.

On the other hand, the innocent mate may have a sincere desire to preserve the marriage and thus express her willingness to forgive her husband. What, though, if the adulterous husband rejects his wife’s offer of forgiveness and obtains a unilateral legal divorce? Be- cause she is willing to forgive him and continue the marriage, he would not be Scripturally free to remarry. If he persists in an unscriptural course and marries another person when he is not Scripturally free to do so, he commits adultery again, which would make him subject to further congregation judicial action.—1 Cor. 5:1, 2; 6:9, 10.

When a man who is not Scripturally free remarries, how does the congregation view the previous marriage and the new marriage? Does the previous marriage still continue intact from a Scriptural standpoint? Can the innocent mate still decide to forgive or to reject her former husband? Would the new marriage be viewed as adulterous?

In the past, the congregation viewed the new marriage as adulterous as long as the innocent mate was alive, remained unmarried, and was not guilty of sexual immorality. How- ever, Jesus did not mention the innocent mate when he discussed divorce and remarriage. Rather, he explained that a man who obtains a divorce without a Scriptural basis and then marries another, commits adultery. In such a case, the divorce and remarriage, which Jesus equated with adultery, end the previous marriage.

When a marriage ends as the result of divorce and remarriage, forgiveness or rejection on the part of the innocent mate is no longer possible. Thus, she would not be burdened with the responsibility of deciding whether to forgive or reject her former husband. Further, the congregation’s view of the new marriage would not depend on whether the innocent mate subsequently died, remarried, or was guilty of sexual immorality. 2

[Footnotes]

1 For simplicity, we will refer to the adulterous mate as a male and the innocent mate as a female. However, as recorded at Mark 10:11, 12, Jesus made it clear that his counsel on this matter applies equally to men and women.

2 This adjusts our previous understanding that such a marriage would be viewed as adulterous until the innocent mate died, remarried, or was guilty of sexual immorality.

In the example considered above, the husband committed adultery, which led to divorce. What if the husband had not committed adultery but got a divorce and then remarried? Or what if the husband had not committed sexual immorality before the divorce but did so after the divorce and then remarried despite his wife’s willingness to forgive him? In all these examples, the divorce and remarriage, which constitutes adultery, would end the previous marriage. The new marriage constitutes a legally binding relationship. As stated in the November 15, 1979, issue of The Watchtower, page 32, “now he has entered a new marriage and so cannot simply end it and return to the way things were before; the former marriage ended with the divorce, adultery and remarriage.”

This adjusted view does not undermine the sacredness of marriage or minimize the seriousness of adultery. A man who divorces his wife without Scriptural grounds and then marries another person without being Scripturally free to do so would be subject to judicial action on the charge of adultery. (If the new marriage mate is a Christian, she would also be subject to judicial action on the charge of adultery.) Although the new marriage would not be viewed as adulterous, the man would not qualify for special privileges of service in the congregation for many years and not before living down any notoriety or reproach associated with his wrongdoing. This would include taking into consideration the current circumstances of the previous mate who may have been dealt with treacherously and any minor children who may have been abandoned by the guilty mate.—Mal. 2:14-16.

In view of the serious consequences of unscriptural divorce and remarriage, Christians wisely cultivate Jehovah’s view by upholding the sanctity of the marriage arrangement. —Eccl. 5:4, 5; Heb. 13:4.

[investigate]

Matt 23:24

[Marina]

Thus, she would not be burdened with the responsibility of deciding whether to forgive or reject her former husband. Further, the congregation’s view of the new marriage would not depend on whether the innocent mate subsequently died, remarried, or was guilty of sexual immorality. 2

Waaaaa??????

So innocent party doesn't have to be burdened with ... thinking. And the congregation don't have to be burdened with thinking and talking about it.

Incidentally in summary of those who commit adultery deliberately because they have neither fear of God nor love for their spouse - the score over here is Men - 2, Women 3. Also one COBE lived it all down, got reappointed, remarried, then went on to repeat adultery on a larger scale. I assume it was a larger scale. Seemed pretty massive to me. He's awfully sorry now that he disfellowshipped in the meantime. I don't know what that means? Does it mean he wishes he hadn't disfellowshipped fellow fornicators?

[Get out of her]

Isn't this "new light" so very illuminating, encouraging and liberating???!!! Or not.

Mt 6:23

Very much seems to much more resemble the "delicacies of the king and his drinking wine" spoken of symbolically in accounts like Daniel 1:8 or the "leaven" of the figurative "Pharisees." ((Mt 16:6)

Agape love;
Sol

[Proselytiser of Jah]

Here you go

ATTACHMENT
(See Shepherd, chapter 12, paragraphs 10-12.)

If a Christian divorces his wife without Scriptural grounds and then marries another person, how does the congregation view the previous marriage and the new marriage?

In such a situation, the congregation would view the previous marriage as having ended when the man remarried and would view the new marriage as binding. To understand the reasons for this conclusion, let us consider what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage.

I'm not sure if I'm seeing what is wrong here.

At first I thought they were saying divorce and remarriage with adultery was fine, which of course it isn't.

But from what I understand here, they are just saying what I thought was common sense? And was what I had assumed what always was. That if a man/woman divorces and then remarries, he/she is committing adultery? Just like Jesus said?

JWs do a lot of wrong things, but on this one I'm not seeing anything that contradicts Jesus. It's just a technicality, adultery is adultery, whether that be marrying someone else whilst married, or divorcing them and then getting married to someone else, both are acts of adultery which end the original marriage. So... no big deal?

It's certainly not what the OP's source accused the organisation of (that divorce without adultery is permissible).

[Proselytiser of Jah]

At first I thought they were saying divorce and remarriage WITHOUT adultery was fine, which of course it isn't.

*corrected a typo