PDA

View Full Version : On Divorce



pekoe
Apr 19th 2009, 09:37 PM
There was a topic that closed on Mt.5:32 about infidelity being the only reason for divorce. Maybe this has been discussed already in that thread but if anyone still cares, I have a cousin who was married to a guy who put a gun to her head and threatened to kill her in front of their children. She was raised (as I was) Catholic and her father (my uncle) told her how sinful it would be if she got divorced, because the church only recognized adultery as justifiable means for ending marriage. <MOD EDIT>

Athanasius
Apr 20th 2009, 05:15 AM
I think the hard answer is separation without remarriage. Either that or this 'man' - though I use the term lightly - accepts Christ.

matthew7and1
Apr 20th 2009, 05:37 AM
Getting out of the situation seems imperative from what you describe. However I am no authority on such things. I do know that the cathoic church can anull a marriage but it is a lengthy process....

Tonton
Apr 20th 2009, 08:22 AM
This is complex.

Firstly, the question can be asked whether her husband is still regarding them as married - seeing that he wanted to kill her.

Secondly, the husband should be charged with attempted murder and put away deep and far.

Thirdly, the Church may have their rules for anulment / divorce, but all that matter is God's rule. If the church decides to "anul" a marriage, it means nothing.

Finally, you may not divorce, except for fornication/infidelity (of you partner) and if you are divorced, you may not remarry.

May god bless her and give her the outcome that he promises with every temptation (1 Cor 10:13)

Anton

pekoe
Apr 21st 2009, 12:36 AM
Thanks for your responses. I thought from my post that it was clear my cousin "was" married to this man. She divorced him years ago, after the gun incident and it was that episode that brought my uncle to his senses. But before that, she endured years of physical and emotional abuse by husband because her father believed the Catholic churchs idiotic teaching that divorcing for any reason other than infidelity is sin.

Tonton said,

Secondly, the husband should be charged with attempted murder and put away deep and far.
I agree, but she never even had him arrested. She just took the kids and left.


Thirdly, the Church may have their rules for anulment / divorce, but all that matter is God's rule. If the church decides to "anul" a marriage, it means nothing.
I agree, but years ago it meant everything. <MOD EDIT>


Finally, you may not divorce, except for fornication/infidelity (of you partner) and if you are divorced, you may not remarry.
I disagree. If my cousin stayed married she would have been killed. And where is the Biblical justification for no remarrying after divorce?

Athanasius
Apr 21st 2009, 01:41 AM
Moving to Bible chat.

Butch5
Apr 21st 2009, 01:48 AM
I disagree. If my cousin stayed married she would have been killed. And where is the Biblical justification for no remarrying after divorce?

Whether you agree or not, that is what the Scriptures say. And there is no option for remarriage, unless one's spouse passes away.

Tonton
Apr 21st 2009, 10:41 AM
...where is the Biblical justification for no remarrying after divorce?

MK 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.(KJV)

MK 10:11-12 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."(WEB)

Anton

Alyssa S
Apr 21st 2009, 12:17 PM
And where is the Biblical justification for no remarrying after divorce?

1 Cor 7:39
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

1 Cor 7:10
To the married I give this command not I, but the Lord: A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Romans 7:2
For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

Luke 16:18
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

It is a hard teaching as was already mentioned on here. But it is biblical.

God bless,
Alyssa

OkieRob
Apr 22nd 2009, 01:05 AM
1 Cor 7:39
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

1 Cor 7:10
To the married I give this command not I, but the Lord: A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Romans 7:2
For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

Luke 16:18
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

It is a hard teaching as was already mentioned on here. But it is biblical.

God bless,
Alyssa

Ummm....I'm only reading this time; first and last post. I enjoy these conversations because everyone is so open and willing to listen to new ideas!!! Quite refreshing! :B

Hi Alyssa...nice to "read" you again!!!

OkieRob

MontanaCowboy
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:27 AM
I'll throw a little curve ball into this divorce mess. 1st off, I agree that the only biblical cause for divorce is either an affair or an unbeliever leaving a believer. All the rest of us, we have to make it work through faith. No exceptions because other wise it is sin. For the abused, definitely go to a safe & if need be, a confidential place & from there do your best to work on it safely.

Now why is it that the Christian divorce rates are equal to secular divorce rates? Is not marriage to a Christian man or woman also a Covenant with God as well? WHERE IS OUR FAITH, OUR CONVICTION, OUR SUBMISSION TO HIS WILL?

When I was not a Christian, I divorced without care. But since I have been saved in 2000 I find a Christian divorce is an abomination to me because it is to God. Why are so many Christians so willing to get divorced so freely, knowing that we are not meeting God's standard for a divorce and thereby knowingly sinning in God's face? Why are Christians so willing to disobey Jesus and throw our marriages away so easily? What is driving this tend?

Is it the failure of the church? I mean many churches today only preach the feel good message. They don't talk about Jesus coming back as a Lion & judging people, casting the ones he does not know, or who were luke warm for him, into hell. Nor do they ban the sinful spouse who seeks the divorce from the church unless he/she repents. Its like well OK Joe (or Sue), just keep sending the check every week & you can get a divorce, Jesus will forgive you.

Or is it simply the selfishness of ourselves who are to blame? We don't want to fight for the righteous act of keeping a marriage together anymore. No we would rather take the easy way out, even though it is a horrible sin that tears apart what God has joined together as well as crushes our children & other loved ones & families.

I remind you, Faith without works is dead & dead faith equals hell. Use Jesus's blood not to just forgive your sins but to also be born again & to change your evil ways. What did Jesus say to the prostitute, the woman at the well, etc? He said, Go and sin no more. We can't keep sinning freely like this, as an individual Christian, as an individual church or as the body of Christ as a whole.

It just fills me with anger & embarrassment that we who call ourselves Christians can disobey the Lord so easily & so often. Christian marriages should remain together 100% of the time. Even if we are having a "bad year" as Christians overall, maybe 95%. But to be consistently equal with the secular population at a 50% divorce rate, we are failing Christ beyond belief & our moral inability to witness to the secular people is at the very least, worthless and worse, part of the reason for all the immorality in the world.

Think about it. Are we not damned if we continue on this path of selfish behavior? Is this not the most urgent thing Christians need to correct? Per God's command, Marriage is forever, right? A Christian Marriage glorifies God, a Christian divorce only bears false witness against God that he is impotent to keep marriage as a sacred & holy Covenant of his people, of his flock. Of course we know the truth, it is our selfish flesh we would rather serve then the Covenant of marriage & all of our past testimony for God all becomes nothing but hypocritical hype.

So I ask you all, what can we do to start to change this downward to hell trend NOW?

Is His sacred blood only to be used for forgiving us & we give nothing back? Or to change our selfish heart to love, serve & forgive?

matthew7and1
Apr 22nd 2009, 12:53 PM
well, i was under the impression that supposing my husband left me and remarried t that point i would be free to re-marry myself... is that right?

MontanaCowboy
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:20 PM
Well from what I have read in Scripture it says (I am paraphrasing) If anyone divorces their spouse & they remarry, you cause them to commit adultery. Unfortunately I can't remember exactly which verse or translation that was (old mind ain't what it used be;-).

So my take is that if you leave your spouse, & they remarry, then they do commit adultery. God hates divorce & any divorce is sin, even the ones that are biblical OK as Jesus sad God allowed for divorce because He knows or evil hearts.

However because the Scripture says YOU cause them to commit adultery, I believe the sin is charged against the person that leaves, not the one that was left.

I stress caution here because different translations say different things so we need to get someone much better versed in the original translations than I am.

BroRog
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:23 PM
There was a topic that closed on Mt.5:32 about infidelity being the only reason for divorce. Maybe this has been discussed already in that thread but if anyone still cares, I have a cousin who was married to a guy who put a gun to her head and threatened to kill her in front of their children. She was raised (as I was) Catholic and her father (my uncle) told her how sinful it would be if she got divorced, because the church only recognized adultery as justifiable means for ending marriage. Some people have no common sense.

Let's put it this way, if a husband puts a gun to the wife's head, the divorce has already taken place.

cindylou
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:27 PM
God is the only descerner of the heart. God will find one righteous when the rest of us yell hypocrite because only he knows the state of the heart.

I am cautioning everyone against judging a woman who leaves a husband who threatens the life of her and her children.

I wouldnt think twice. Not one second would I think twice.

MontanaCowboy
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:13 PM
Not judging Cindylou, just stating scripture. The fact is she is forced to make a choice from a horrid situation. But her choice is to serve self or Christ. Yes, to serve Christ could cost her her life. But then she dies as a Saint, for the cause of Jesus. Or she may bring her hubby around to find Christ & actually find a Brother & a Hubby in Christ. That happens too. Again no one says do not flee to safety, all we are saying is do your best to follow the Lord's commands.
I do not know if I could do it so I am not judging anyone. Just trying to understand & live by the Word.

cindylou
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:23 PM
Not judging Cindylou, just stating scripture. The fact is she is forced to make a choice from a horrid situation. But her choice is to serve self or Christ. Yes, to serve Christ could cost her her life. But then she dies as a Saint, for the cause of Jesus. Or she may bring her hubby around to find Christ & actually find a Brother & a Hubby in Christ. That happens too. Again no one says do not flee to safety, all we are saying is do your best to follow the Lord's commands.
I do not know if I could do it so I am not judging anyone. Just trying to understand & live by the Word.

To understand the Word is to understand WHY marriage is so important to God and why he is so angry at divorce. The man holding the gun to his wife's head has shamed that. God is the judge of the secret thoughts and actions of the heart. Staying would just endanger her children. God does not want that, nor did he intend marriage to function in that matter. I suppose if she left the house to NEVER return but also never remarry would be an option. Staying to bring "hubby" to Christ is dangerous advice. She will end up dead if she stays. No doubt. The statistics on these situations are unbelieveable.

I understand your desire to understand and live by the Word. :)

MontanaCowboy
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:29 PM
I hear you Cindylou, and I agree, this is probably the hardest choice a lady coul face, except maybe finding out she is PG from rape or incest. And please don't think I am for 1 second advising woman to physically stay in a marriage if they are not safe. She & the kids need to be in a safe place. I would suggest that she also be trained & armed for self defense of her & the kids.
But biblically speaking, that is not a reason for divorce. Why not? I don't know, nor do I understand it, you'll have to ask God why he chooses to make it that way. All I know is if she wants to follow Christ all the way, that is the command.
Something tells me though that these control freaks will not wait long, he will be out looking for a new victim as soon as he knows he has lost control of his wife & then she will be free, free without sin. But either way, what a horrific situation to be put in by a man who "loves" you. And as our society turns more & more to satan we will only see more & more of this abuse. Let us pray for the victims & the perks as well that the love of Jesus will enter their hearts & that they will repent before they get to this point.
Blessings<><

Butch5
Apr 22nd 2009, 11:53 PM
well, i was under the impression that supposing my husband left me and remarried t that point i would be free to re-marry myself... is that right?

No, according to Scripture you should remain unmarried.

MontanaCowboy
Apr 23rd 2009, 12:27 AM
tayariswife, At least until he finds someone & has an affair, then you are freed & justified. But until then pray for reconciliation and to glorify God with your faith & obedience weather it works out or not.

9Marksfan
Apr 23rd 2009, 09:16 AM
tayariswife, At least until he finds someone & has an affair, then you are freed & justified. But until then pray for reconciliation and to glorify God with your faith & obedience weather it works out or not.

I used to believe this for 25 years but don't any more - I really struggle to understand how you can advocate this and yet also advocate that she could have stayed with this man and just let him kill her - and the kids too, presumably?!? :B

We are NOT free to remarry if we find that our spouses (or even our exspouses) have committed adultery - we've had a few threads recently that have dealt with this subject very fully.

I think the relevant scripture for this lady is this one:-

Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. 1 Cor 7:10-11a NKJV

I don't think she can really be faulted for leaving her husband for her own and her kids' protection in this situation. While divorcing him was understandable, it was unbiblical and wrong - however, if he had wanted to divorce her, then I think she should just have let him. It sounds like she was acting out of anger and revenge and seeking to punish him - that's fighting the flesh with flesh - two wrongs don't make a right - but she can still acknowledge her wrongdoing and be forgiven - but is she a true, born again Christian? Or would she just call herself a Roman Catholic? Sorry if that offends anyone but remember this is a Protestant forum.

cindylou
Apr 23rd 2009, 09:54 PM
No, according to Scripture you should remain unmarried.


if he remarries - isnt he commiting adultry??

MontanaCowboy
Apr 24th 2009, 12:00 AM
Cindilou to answer you, YES! But hten the wife has a biblical way out.



I really struggle to understand how you can advocate this and yet also advocate that she could have stayed with this man and just let him kill her - and the kids too, presumably?!? :B



(Mark, AGAIN I do not advocate she stay in danger, I said she needs to flee to a safe place & work on the marriage from there. Knowing this guy is a goof ball chances are he will probably have an affair with 1 to 12 months & then she is biblicaly free from him.
I do advocate anyone who has taken the Covenant to honor it until the end, no matter what. That does not mean she needs to be a punching bag.

victoriouswmn
Apr 24th 2009, 04:49 AM
Hi guys,

I can very much relate to the girl's cousin. I am currently going through thoughts of divorce and my husband threatened and put his hands on me when we were married. I am separated. I have two kids. I am glad to hear that I am not the only one of a few that still believe strongly in the Bible (God's word). I had not even considered divorce unless he committed adultery. I have pondered this very topic over and over. I agree that the woman in the example should have left her husband (but not divorced). The Bible states that a woman should not depart her husband, but if she does she must not remarry or be reconciled to her husband. God knows why he put the word ".but..." I go back and also always read the scripture Proverbs 27:12 "A prudent man forsees evil and hides himself. The simple pass on and are punished." We must be prudent. When we see danger, we must hide or flee. She did right. A violent man needs a lot of therapy just like a child predator, just like a rapist. These are very serious issues. Because a man apologizes and admits he made a mistake, but never gets treated/counseling he cannot begin to get healed. Looking at the past, I think back now I made mistakes, I should have left him pay his time in jail. Scripture (Proverbs 19:19) "A man of great wrath will suffer punishment; For if you rescue him, you will have to do it again." And yes, he did wrong more than once, more than twice. A woman has very strong instincts and they are almost always right. Thanks be to God, that I am alive!!!!! My husband has since cheated on me (and that's another story), but I trust God and His Word not what any man says I should or should not do. I am an educated woman, but I am human and fear God more.

MontanaCowboy
Apr 24th 2009, 05:25 AM
victoriouswmn (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=36240)

Thank you for sharing that. That was an awesome 1st post! I am glad to see you are a woman of faith. It is east for me to be an arm chair quarterback telling others not to divorce because that is what God would say but when you come along & give this awesome testimony, that I believe really helps others stay strong.
As a man all I can say is I am sorry for the way you were treated & I hope you will find peace & tranquility in your forgiveness of him as a Sister in Christ.

9Marksfan
Apr 24th 2009, 10:43 AM
The fact is she is forced to make a choice from a horrid situation. But her choice is to serve self or Christ. Yes, to serve Christ could cost her her life. But then she dies as a Saint, for the cause of Jesus. Or she may bring her hubby around to find Christ & actually find a Brother & a Hubby in Christ.

This is what I was referring to - you seemed to be advocating that she stay and let her violent husband kill her!

You seem to be advocating that fleeing to safety to avoid this psycho would be serving self, when she was protecting her kids! :giveup:

truthseeker2
Apr 24th 2009, 12:43 PM
Getting out of the situation seems imperative from what you describe. However I am no authority on such things. I do know that the cathoic church can anull a marriage but it is a lengthy process....


....

Do you really think that an annulment is valid? Where in the word did the church come up with this? This seems to be an excuse for the wealthy or prominent in the church to get re married when they should not be.

pekoe
Apr 24th 2009, 01:20 PM
Hi Butch5.

Whether you agree or not, that is what the Scriptures say. And there is no option for remarriage, unless one's spouse passes away. Well, it looks like most if not all of the people who have responded to this thread are in agreement with you. I think we should examine the scripture references they have provided.

pekoe
Apr 24th 2009, 01:27 PM
Hi Tonton.

MK 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.(KJV)

MK 10:11-12 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."(WEB)

Anton
Jesus said this in response to the teachers asking him about what Moses permitted them to do (writing a bill of divorcement). The problem here (I have heard) is that in Moses day, people wanted to get divorced for any old reason and Jesus response to them was that divorce under trivial circumstances was not permitted by God. Moses let them have an easy out.

pekoe
Apr 24th 2009, 01:36 PM
Hi Alyssa A.

1 Cor 7:39
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

1 Cor 7:10
To the married I give this command not I, but the Lord: A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
This passage goes on to say,
"If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases...1 Co.7:15.
Again, this passage says nothing other than what Jesus taught, which is that you can't divorse your spouse for any silly reason. If an unbeliever leaves a believing spouse, the believing spouse is free to remarry.

pekoe
Apr 24th 2009, 01:45 PM
Alyssa S.

For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
This is the kind of thinking that permitted many women to suffer abuse. Neither Jesus or Paul intended this passage to be taken so rigidly (as the Catholic church did) that a woman would suffer broken bones at the hands of her husband.

pekoe
Apr 24th 2009, 01:47 PM
Hi BroRog.

Let's put it this way, if a husband puts a gun to the wife's head, the divorce has already taken place.
Common sense level headed thinking is all I can say.

Tonton
Apr 27th 2009, 09:46 PM
Hi Tonton.

Jesus said this in response to the teachers asking him about what Moses permitted them to do (writing a bill of divorcement). The problem here (I have heard) is that in Moses day, people wanted to get divorced for any old reason and Jesus response to them was that divorce under trivial circumstances was not permitted by God. Moses let them have an easy out.

Hi pekoe,

The way I see the scripture is that Jesus saw how the people who did not have the Law in their hearst manipulated the Law to suit themselves and then to justify their actions by what Mosos wrote. Moses never wrote the Law to be abused, and Jesus illustrates how the Law works if it is in your heart.

He (Jesus) understands the heart of God, who'se Law it is.

Regards,
Anton

Partaker of Christ
Apr 27th 2009, 11:01 PM
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by men, and some make themselves eunuchs.

Semi-tortured
Apr 28th 2009, 12:00 AM
"1 Corinthians 7:27-28: Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned."


The way I read this is don't seek a divorce if you are married. And if you're divorced don't look to get married, but if you do get married, you haven't sinned and if you are a virgin that gets married, you haven't sinned.



You guys can all show me the verses that are stating that If you divorce and remarry, you commit adultery, but I think they are being taken out of cultural context. It was common in those days to divorce and remarry someone else that you already KNEW you were going to marry. I am married to my first wife and I will not get a divorce. But I honestly don't think that if my wife decided to cheat on me one day and divorced me to be with her lover that I have to sit in loneliness for the rest of my life. It's also taking the verse and ignoring others.



"Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."


How does one explain this verse? I've seen some weak attempts at it by using the different meanings of porneia or moicheia, but it seems pretty clear cut. I mean porneia as best as I can define it would include moicheia and a lot of other stuff. So those who use the porneia excuse, that it isn't the word used for adultery, actually create a broader spectrum as to which divorce seems permissable.

Alaska
Apr 28th 2009, 04:47 AM
"Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."


How does one explain this verse? I've seen some weak attempts at it by using the different meanings of porneia or moicheia, but it seems pretty clear cut. I mean porneia as best as I can define it would include moicheia and a lot of other stuff. So those who use the porneia excuse, that it isn't the word used for adultery, actually create a broader spectrum as to which divorce seems permissable.



To the contrary, by understanding that they in their culture had a premarital divorce on account of the "wife's fornication (not adultery) and the persons involved in that divorce were regarded as husband and wife while as they had not yet gotten married; this betrothal-divorce understanding disallows all post marital divorces, whose sexual offenses are more precisely called adultery and not fornication.

This understanding provides an explanation for the last clause in the above scripture:

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Any lawfully married wife is completely off limits after she has been divorced. As long as her husband is alive, who divorced her, anyone else marrying her commits adultery.
Taking that last clause at face value, is exactly the meaning it has if the exception clause is understood to have been spoken exclusively with regard to the betrothal divorce.

Try to assign a meaning to that last clause while holding the assumption that the word "wife" when applicable to the wife divorced for fornication does not shift to the betrothed wife, (which is an acceptable grammatical function when parallel meanings exist in such contexts).
In other words, see what happens when you try to make that last clause make sense under the assumption that "fornication" in this context means adultery.

I can tell you before you even begin to experiment: it doesn't work.

Alaska
Apr 28th 2009, 05:29 AM
Alyssa S.
For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.




pekoe
This is the kind of thinking that permitted many women to suffer abuse. Neither Jesus or Paul intended this passage to be taken so rigidly (as the Catholic church did) that a woman would suffer broken bones at the hands of her husband.


This is unacceptable.
Your response appears to be assuming how Alyssa is thinking with regard to this scripture.
Has Alyssa somewhere said that Rom. 7:2,3 or 1 Cor. 7:39 means the poor woman has to stick around and get her bones broke?
What kind of thinking are you talking about?
Are you aware that your phrase, "this is the kind of thinking" was made with regard to what Paul wrote?


Departing or separating done by the wife is acknowledged by Paul as something that may happen, but if it does, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled with her husband. Remarriage is not an option for as long as he is alive as the scripture above states. Yes rigid, no remarriage for as long as he lives. No, not foolish to stay and suffer abuse instead of departure.

No one should assume that these two things are inseparable; 1) keeping faithfulness to honour the sanctity of marriage til death, and 2) remaining in a violent situation and suffering broken bones.
A woman can get out of an abusive situation and yet honour God's word concerning her marriage by not remarrying and maintaining that he is still her husband for as long as he is alive.

This is a cross that many bear.

Some are in prison for preaching God's word, that is the cross they have to bear.

Whatever particular cross we bear individually as the result of abiding in the truth, let us not be ashamed of it. Rather let them be ashamed who attempt to persuade those bearing their crosses to compromise against the truth.

Miranda42
Apr 28th 2009, 05:44 AM
Hello Everyone,

After reading some of the responses that are listed here, I felt a dire need comment on this issue.
I am a divorced mother of two. I grew up in a family where my parents have been married for 43 years now, so of course I wanted that also. However, due to the fact that my husband decided to become physical, I decided that it was time to go.
I considered staying, even though he clearly cheated on me, plus other women called my home. I went to my church for help, and we decided to go through the counseling program there. This says a lot for me, because before, I said that if he cheated, that's all. Yet, he decided to make excuses not to continue. It takes two to make a marriage work, not one. No one can do it all!
Deciding to divorce was the hardest thing I'd ever done. But, before I did this, I prayed, hard! The Lord let me know that he does not mean for his children to be abused. We deserve to have peace.
Unless you have gone through this, it's easy to judge. Too easy. Consider the fact that this man was willing to take this woman's life, in front of their children. What is right in that? What is wrong with Christians who are willing to spit out scriptures without looking at the love of God? Do you want your child to constantly hurt? We are his children, and because he loves us, he wants us healthy and happy.
To answer the questions about the high divorce rate, well, we don't always seek God before we date, let alone marry. We decide when to marry, we decide when it's time, we decide to listen to family members who nag us because we haven't "taken that step". When we go on our own, that's when we mess up.

Take Care and God Bless you all.

pekoe
Apr 29th 2009, 11:32 AM
Hi Tonton.

....Moses never wrote the Law to be abused,....
Jesus said that Moses wrote this precept "because of the hardness of your hearts..." Mt.19:8. They were already violating Gods will. Moses permitted them to do it without violating the written law for conscience sake.

pekoe
Apr 29th 2009, 11:42 AM
Hi Alaska.

This is unacceptable.
Your response appears to be assuming how Alyssa is thinking with regard to this scripture.
Has Alyssa somewhere said that Rom. 7:2,3 or 1 Cor. 7:39 means the poor woman has to stick around and get her bones broke?
What kind of thinking are you talking about?
Are you aware that your phrase, "this is the kind of thinking" was made with regard to what Paul wrote?
My contention from the beginning of this thread is how the Catholic church interpreted what Paul wrote and how women suffered abuse because of it.


A woman can get out of an abusive situation and yet honour God's word concerning her marriage by not remarrying and maintaining that he is still her husband for as long as he is alive.
Gods word allows an abused woman to divorce and remarry. 1 Co.7:15
It seems that most people posting here don't want to acknowledge that.

pekoe
Apr 29th 2009, 11:53 AM
Hi Semi-tortured.

But I honestly don't think that if my wife decided to cheat on me one day and divorced me to be with her lover that I have to sit in loneliness for the rest of my life. It's also taking the verse and ignoring others.
The spouse who has been abused doesn't have to sit in lonliness for the rest of his/her life.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 29th 2009, 02:17 PM
This is unacceptable.
Your response appears to be assuming how Alyssa is thinking with regard to this scripture.
Has Alyssa somewhere said that Rom. 7:2,3 or 1 Cor. 7:39 means the poor woman has to stick around and get her bones broke?
What kind of thinking are you talking about?
Are you aware that your phrase, "this is the kind of thinking" was made with regard to what Paul wrote?


Departing or separating done by the wife is acknowledged by Paul as something that may happen, but if it does, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled with her husband. Remarriage is not an option for as long as he is alive as the scripture above states. Yes rigid, no remarriage for as long as he lives. No, not foolish to stay and suffer abuse instead of departure.

No one should assume that these two things are inseparable; 1) keeping faithfulness to honour the sanctity of marriage til death, and 2) remaining in a violent situation and suffering broken bones.
A woman can get out of an abusive situation and yet honour God's word concerning her marriage by not remarrying and maintaining that he is still her husband for as long as he is alive.

This is a cross that many bear.

Some are in prison for preaching God's word, that is the cross they have to bear.

Whatever particular cross we bear individually as the result of abiding in the truth, let us not be ashamed of it. Rather let them be ashamed who attempt to persuade those bearing their crosses to compromise against the truth.

Question:

If the woman who is threatend with her life stays, but has not the faith or the love, has she pleased God the Father?

ZAB
Apr 29th 2009, 04:36 PM
There was a topic that closed on Mt.5:32 about infidelity being the only reason for divorce. Maybe this has been discussed already in that thread but if anyone still cares, I have a cousin who was married to a guy who put a gun to her head and threatened to kill her in front of their children. She was raised (as I was) Catholic and her father (my uncle) told her how sinful it would be if she got divorced, because the church only recognized adultery as justifiable means for ending marriage. Some people have no common sense.


The Bible says in Matthew 19:5-6, "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Has God joined the two together? I would be so bold to say that a significant amount of marriages today (even among believers) have been joined by flesh and carnality. People get married for the wrong reasons all the time. If God hasn't joined you, then do not be condemned. Do not remain unhappy (or unhealthy) for religiosity's sake.

Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

It is Biblical to try and make it work (1 Cor 7), but God would rather you be serving Him freely than be in bondage all your life.

MontanaCowboy
Apr 29th 2009, 04:47 PM
If God hasn't joined you, then do not be condemned. Do not remain unhappy (or unhealthy) for religiosity's sake.



If you took your vows, with God's name in it then your Covenant is not just to you & her to broke at will, which is something a secularist may do because he/she/they are not part of God. But if you took your vow with God in it then you best not break it.

And where in the bible does it say he does not want you to live with burdens? He in fact says a Christian's life will be harder & we will suffer more. Keeping faith & obedience to our Lord, even in the hard times is what brings him glory. Bailing out & justifying sin just because things get tough is exactly why Christian marriages rates are so dismal. Where is our faith to carry us through, where is our conviction to honor our vows to God & remain faithful?

Of course if we can not reeamin faith to our Lord when things get tough than I guess we not worry about staying in our marriages when things get tough either. I mean why worry about keeping our word to our spouse when we won't keep it to God?

MontanaCowboy
Apr 29th 2009, 04:53 PM
Here is another horrific failure. Mel Gibson, who was once a stand up man for Christ has gone through some tough times. falling to alcohol & rantings of condemnation to others.

Recently he filed for divorce, something that shames God & bears witness that Christians do not believe God's words or promises. Well it appears that the reason for that divorce is now clear. Mel paraded his new arm candy girlfriend to the press, His new love. Amazing her found her in just 2 or 3 weeks. Once again, Jesus is weeping. What a sad sad state for Christ. A man that once stood strong & proud vs the evil empire of Hollywood has no joined it & is giving witness that it is better to break a marriage than to save it & he also glorifies the gold digger life style. May God have mercy on their souls.

Alaska
Apr 29th 2009, 04:58 PM
Gods word allows an abused woman to divorce and remarry. 1 Co.7:15



That interpretation of 7:15 contradicts the more plainly spoken foundational verses in Mk. 10:11,12 Luke 16:18 Mt. 5:32 and 19:9.
The last clause in the last three references directly contradict that interpretation.

Interpreting 7:15 after that manner also causes Paul to contradict himself in the same chapter verse 39:

The 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.


Paul's context in 7:15 has to do with the couple staying together, continuing to live together though one is an unbeliever. He is speaking to the believer obviously because it is a letter to the church. The goal for the believer to continue to dwell with the unbeliever is to bring about a conversion, if possible and if peaceable. If the unbeliever departs, the believer is not under guilt or bondage to continue to live with the unbeliever. The immediate context here has to do with the effort and obligation to stay together. The liberty referred to, ("not under bondage") has to do with being relieved of that obligation in such cases when the unbeliever departs. To extend this "liberty" to mean the allowance to commit adultery by remarriage only adds to the list of crimes committed by modern Christianity in turning the grace of God into lasciviousness.

1 Cor. 7:
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Jude:
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Dani H
Apr 29th 2009, 05:06 PM
There was a topic that closed on Mt.5:32 about infidelity being the only reason for divorce. Maybe this has been discussed already in that thread but if anyone still cares, I have a cousin who was married to a guy who put a gun to her head and threatened to kill her in front of their children. She was raised (as I was) Catholic and her father (my uncle) told her how sinful it would be if she got divorced, because the church only recognized adultery as justifiable means for ending marriage. Some people have no common sense.

That topic was closed because people were using it to stand on personal soapboxes to sling their pet doctrines around, and nothing was being accomplished, which is what normally happens with these things (and is again happening here because certain folks just don't know how to let anything go). So this thread is already being kept a close eye on and may also be headed for closure, just FYI so you're not surprised when it happens.

Of course God wouldn't want a woman to remain in a relationship where she is being abused. How does that glorify Him? It doesn't. He has called us to peace, not martyrdom.

MontanaCowboy
Apr 29th 2009, 05:41 PM
He has called us to peace, not martyrdom.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if Stephen, the Saints, & all the other Martyrs knew this? I guess they did not need to die for their Lord after all. Nor de we as Cjrsitians need to suffer though hard times faithfully & obediently.

Please, No one on this thread is saying the woman should live in harms way. All we are saying is she needs to follow scripture & remain married & committed to her Covenant to the Lord above all dangers, threats & fears.
Staying married & trying to work on her marriage from a safe place would Glorify God by her witness & faith in him to handle it & it may just turn her hubby into a man of God who would go out & help others too.

pekoe
Apr 29th 2009, 05:43 PM
Interpreting 7:15 after that manner also causes Paul to contradict himself in the same chapter verse 39:
No it doesn't, and I'll show you why.


The 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.
The wife is "bound by the law...", meaning she is under bondage to stay married to her husband as long as he is alive and only upon the death of her husband is she freed from the bondage the law places on her. Right?


Paul's context in 7:15 has to do with the couple staying together, continuing to live together though one is an unbeliever.
Correct.


If the unbeliever departs, the believer is not under guilt or bondage to continue to live with the unbeliever. The liberty referred to, ("not under bondage") has to do with being relieved of that obligation in such cases when the unbeliever departs....
The bondage referred to has to do with the law of Moses, not guilt or the bondage to continue to "live with" your spouse. And since Paul means the law, he means if an unbeliever abandons a believer, the law doesn't recognize the married anymore. You are in no way bound by the law to your former spouse.


To extend this "liberty" to mean the allowance to commit adultery by remarriage only adds to the list of crimes committed by modern Christianity in turning the grace of God into lasciviousness.
Only a married person can commit adultery. Lasciviousness has to do with the instigator, which in this passage is not the believer. But here is the problem with how this text has been so maligned over the years, that the "holy people" of the church saw fit to condemn the innocent.

Alaska
Apr 29th 2009, 05:46 PM
Of course God wouldn't want a woman to remain in a relationship where she is being abused.


No one in this thread has even hinted that an abused woman should remain in the relationship. She can depart. But separation and divorce are two separate things.
To divorce is a declaration that the married couple are no longer married, and God has already declared as a matter of absolute certainty, that only death terminates their status of husband and wife. To not have a fulfilling married life may be a suffering that a Christian has to face as a result of the Word.

To argue against the inevitable suffering necessary for a believer to face as the result of faithfulness to Christ, is in my opinion, a plain contradiction of Christianity.
This contradiction is not unlike what Peter said to Jesus and is also worthy of the same reaction:

Mt. 16:
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Mt. 13:
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Dani H
Apr 29th 2009, 05:47 PM
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if Stephen, the Saints, & all the other Martyrs knew this? I guess they did not need to die for their Lord after all. Nor de we as Cjrsitians need to suffer though hard times faithfully & obediently.

Please, No one on this thread is saying the woman should live in harms way. All we are saying is she needs to follow scripture & remain married & committed to her Covenant to the Lord above all dangers, threats & fears.
Staying married & trying to work on her marriage from a safe place would Glorify God by her witness & faith in him to handle it & it may just turn her hubby into a man of God who would go out & help others too.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But there's more that goes into it. If a woman is being abused by her spouse, then her children are learning that it's quite okay for others to beat on you and you have to sit there and do nothing "because of God". No sir. Believing women in these kinds of marriages are usually not being abused because of their faith. They're being abused for completely different reasons by hateful, angry men who have deeper issues that need hashing out between them and God, and for that reason, a wife can actually be a hindrance in that situation for her husband coming to Christ, because she's an easy target and simply by her presence there, enabling the behavior of a person who is too cowardly to address God directly.

There is true martyrdom for the cause of Christ, and there is a different animal altogether, and wisdom dictates that we understand the difference and act accordingly. :)

pekoe
Apr 29th 2009, 05:48 PM
That topic was closed because people were using it to stand on personal soapboxes to sling their pet doctrines around, and nothing was being accomplished, which is what normally happens with these things (and is again happening here because certain folks just don't know how to let anything go). So this thread is already being kept a close eye on and may also be headed for closure, just FYI so you're not surprised when it happens.

Thanks DaniHanson.
I hope I have not offended anyone here by any comment I made. The only points I was trying to make were that if a woman is being abused, get out and don't worry about God condemning you for getting remarried. the Bible permits it.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 29th 2009, 06:22 PM
No one in this thread has even hinted that an abused woman should remain in the relationship. She can depart. But separation and divorce are two separate things.

That's interesting. Can you show scripture for this?

If one spouse were to 'seperate' from the other, are they not then defrauding the other?

1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Is not seperating from a spouse, putting them in the way of temptation from Satan, because of their lack of self-control?

Is that ok with God?

Alaska
Apr 29th 2009, 06:33 PM
That topic was closed because people were using it to stand on personal soapboxes to sling their pet doctrines around, and nothing was being accomplished, which is what normally happens with these things (and is again happening here because certain folks just don't know how to let anything go). So this thread is already being kept a close eye on and may also be headed for closure, just FYI so you're not surprised when it happens.


Unless you get specific on what you understand is a pet doctrine that you see is being slung around here, we will not be able to determine what we can or cannot say with regard to this impending closure of the thread.
It would be a lot clearer if you said something like, "if so and so, say this or that, one more time, I'm closing the thread." Then we would know what offends you and can avoid going there so the thread can stay open.



certain folks just don't know how to let anything go


Please clarify, who and what.
It is an honour for me to apply that to myself on the topic at hand. As it is, I'm sure, for you to apply that to yourself also with regard to the stubborn tenacity of maintaing that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father but by Him.

Dani H
Apr 29th 2009, 07:09 PM
Unless you get specific on what you understand is a pet doctrine that you see is being slung around here, we will not be able to determine what we can or cannot say with regard to this impending closure of the thread.
It would be a lot clearer if you said something like, "if so and so, say this or that, one more time, I'm closing the thread." Then we would know what offends you and can avoid going there so the thread can stay open.

Please clarify, who and what.
It is an honour for me to apply that to myself on the topic at hand. As it is, I'm sure, for you to apply that to yourself also with regard to the stubborn tenacity of maintaing that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father but by Him.

Since you asked:

First of all, if people make statements in threads that I find personally offensive, that's no reason to close a thread or edit somebody's statement. Mods here don't get petty about these things; but rules are in place for a reason, and we enforce them, regardless of personal feelings. So just because I find a statement offensive, doesn't mean a thread is headed to closing just because I'm a mod here and somebody else isn't.

Now, to address your question:

I personally find the "if you're divorced and remarried, then you're in sin, and I don't care because the Bible backs me up and not you" approach very offensive.

I understand that you consider it an honor to stand for the principles of marriage and hold it in high regard, as you well should, as a believer, and I commend you for taking such an approach, and wish that more believers would, quite frankly.

However, as a divorced and remarried person, I would caution people here to reconsider the hardline approach to this matter because I know I'm not in sin, I know I'm not in adultery, and marriage is God's invention, and for Him to control as a means to make people holy, and not for us to make judgment on. When we make these types of posts in the future, I would encourage us to keep our audience in mind, because while certain Scriptures may seem very obvious to me in their application, I can greatly grieve a brother or sister whose walks and experiences are different from my own and who are in a different place in their lives, led there by God for His own reasons, and are serving Him there, and they see these Scriptures in a totally different light from my own interpretation.

That's all. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry, but I thought it best to get these things out in the open so that everyone know where we stand. I could have probably worded things differently, and so forgive me for getting irritated where I shouldn't have been and for making something personal, that isn't.

And yes, there are things I consider "pet doctrines" especially when I see somebody harping on the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, without actually engaging in dialogue with another person, unless it's to the effect of burying our heads in those doctrines even further and drawing the line in the sand deeper and deeper, until it becomes a rut and communication shuts down altogether. That is something I personally find very troubling.

Hardline approaches are the reason many threads get out of hand and are shut down, and it would behoove us all to show one another more grace. It is simply not my place to use God's Word to judge another person and tell them what they are, or aren't. It is God's Word, not mine. It is His to wield, not mine. I don't really care where anyone stands on an issue, I care more about how it's being brought across and that people are communicating with one another and exhibit a teachable spirit and are submissive to one another. I'm here to learn, not debate and argue. I love God's Word because it is spirit and it is life, and that is what I look for, always. I'm not here to teach either. If God uses anything I have to say, to teach another person, then hallelujah. But my intention is to learn and to fellowship. Which is something I personally find missing in a lot of threads of this nature.

That's all. :)

ZAB
Apr 29th 2009, 08:00 PM
If you took your vows, with God's name in it then your Covenant is not just to you & her to broke at will, which is something a secularist may do because he/she/they are not part of God. But if you took your vow with God in it then you best not break it.

And where in the bible does it say he does not want you to live with burdens? He in fact says a Christian's life will be harder & we will suffer more. Keeping faith & obedience to our Lord, even in the hard times is what brings him glory. Bailing out & justifying sin just because things get tough is exactly why Christian marriages rates are so dismal. Where is our faith to carry us through, where is our conviction to honor our vows to God & remain faithful?

Of course if we can not reeamin faith to our Lord when things get tough than I guess we not worry about staying in our marriages when things get tough either. I mean why worry about keeping our word to our spouse when we won't keep it to God?

Well, the bottom line is "what God hath joined" let not man seperate. You can be "faithful" all you want to, but quite honestly, if Jesus did not ordain it, it is FRUITLESS, vow or not. I dont want to build with wood hay or stubble; I am only interested in the gold, silver and precious stones. This is the means by which our "works" can withstand the fire; this is where the reward is found (1 Cor 3:10-15), not in vain and psuedo-religious "committments" that will bear no fruit. If I got married to a woman in carnality before I knew Jesus, and then later found out she had no desire to follow Him with me, and was a hinderance to my walk with God, it would be over. That's Biblical. Paul said, "if she be pleased to dwell with him" (see below).

I want to do His will, not my own. I'm not talking about hard marriages (all marriages are difficult), I'm refering to those "acts" we should never have commited, such as marrying someone outside of the will of God. The Bible is clear, that if it is a hinderance to your growth, then be free:
1 Cor 7:12-15 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

Bottom line: the kingdom of God takes priority over everything in life: Jesus even said to let the dead bury their own dead (Matt 8:22), and to "forget also thine own people, and thy father's house" (Ps 45:10) . Obviously we shouldnt use that as an excuse, but it remains true. We should always strive to honor our words.

Paul said, "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ..." (Phil 3:8).

Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Alaska
Apr 29th 2009, 08:23 PM
1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Is not seperating from a spouse, putting them in the way of temptation from Satan, because of their lack of self-control?



Paul is addressing couples anticipating that both are believers. This was not intended to imply that a woman in an abusive situation cannot depart. Acknowledging that a departure may happen, and perhaps not even for abuse, Paul says she is not to get remarried.

1 Cor. 7:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
39 The 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.

Paul's reference to "the law" above in verse 39 is in reference to that from the law which is also carried over into the NT. The other instructions earlier in the chapter are also binding on believers. In 1 Cor. 7:15, Paul is speaking to those already very grounded in the basic Christian doctrine, understanding that only death terminates their status as husband and wife. So when they had read "not under boindage in such cases" it seems they would have been embarrassed to discover that someone in the Corinthian church could be so unstable as to actually think that a liberty is being provided to commit adultery by remarriage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2059095#post2059095)

No one in this thread has even hinted that an abused woman should remain in the relationship. She can depart. But separation and divorce are two separate things.

That's interesting. Can you show scripture for this?


The answer is simple: Does a separation necessarily end their status as husband and wife? Cannot they be away from one another to resolve a matter between them and yet maintain that their separation does not mean they are divorced?
Divorce by definition brings an end to their status of husband and wife. This was clearly seen by the concession for the hardness of their hearts in Deut. 24:1-4. Here, some form of documentation is involved and it is seen here to reveal the finality of divorce.

And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts ... Mark 3:5[/COLOR]
They wanted it, he gave it to them, and he wasn't going to skimp on the definition of divorce. In a follow-through to their hard hearts, they were also forbidden to take the wife back if she had gotten remarried. They wanted something evil, he gave it to them.]

Yet this had a necessary purpose, as in all bodies of law governing secular people: the lesser of two evils is often necessary to be conceded.
But this, (Deut. 24:1-4) like other OT laws not carried over into the NT (those that stayed crucified and not brought back in the resurrection) were only intended to perform a necessary purpose [I]until Jesus came to lay judgment to the line, and righteousness to the plummet.

Isaiah 28:
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.


Gal. 3:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;

RabbiKnife
Apr 29th 2009, 08:34 PM
Paul also taught that he who does not support his wife and family is worse than an infidel. An infidel, or unbeliever,-- a believing spouse is not bound to such a person.

pekoe
Apr 29th 2009, 08:54 PM
Paul also taught that he who does not support his wife and family is worse than an infidel...
Starvation is another form of abandonment where remarriage is permissable.

9Marksfan
Apr 29th 2009, 08:55 PM
Gods word allows an abused woman to divorce and remarry. 1 Co.7:15
It seems that most people posting here don't want to acknowledge that.

No - that is NOT what the verse means - there is NOTHING in either that verse or any other that says that a person is free to remarry if an unbeliever leaves them.

9Marksfan
Apr 29th 2009, 09:04 PM
Mel Gibson, who was once a stand up man for Christ.

Hardly - he was a devout Roman Catholic, but by your fruits you will know them - and his fruits recently and over the years have been of the flesh...

9Marksfan
Apr 29th 2009, 09:08 PM
Paul also taught that he who does not support his wife and family is worse than an infidel. An infidel, or unbeliever,-- a believing spouse is not bound to such a person.

So in these recession ridden times, a spouse is free not only to divorce her husband who can't find a decent job - and then free to remarry? Wow - what Bible are YOU reading?!?

9Marksfan
Apr 29th 2009, 09:10 PM
Starvation is another form of abandonment where remarriage is permissable.

Any more reasons? Alcoholism? Taking drugs? Being selfish? I can just see the unhappy spouses reading these posts saying "Yes! I CAN get divorced and remarried! Praise God!"

Millstones and necks come to mind......

Alaska
Apr 29th 2009, 09:37 PM
Paul said, "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ..." (Phil 3:8).



May I suggest then that you do the same thing and count that losing the privilege of having a wife is something that may occur as a result of faithfulness to Jesus?
But you justify getting rid of one and getting another under the guise of building with "gold silver and precious stones".
And then to turn around and refer to "vain and psuedo-religious "committments"?


James refers to pure religion, which we are supposed to be partaking of, which among other things keeps someone unspotted from the world.
With regard to the plain meaning of "whosoever" along with the plain definition of what constitutes marriage; justifying what Jesus calls adultery is hardly unspotted. Neither can it easily escape the charge of being psuedo-religious.


Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Mark 10:
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


God's stamp of that which he has joined together is afforded all who have entered lawful marriage after the classic Adam and Eve scenario (neither party having been previously married).
He made them male and female and intends that they enter marriage, therefore when they do, they have done that which he has ordained from the beginning, and hence their designation as that which he has joined together.
Hence the 'whosoever' in Luke 16 above.

I understand your understanding of "what God has joined together" to be at variance with the plain simple NT teaching as revealed above in Mark.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 29th 2009, 11:34 PM
Paul is addressing couples anticipating that both are believers. This was not intended to imply that a woman in an abusive situation cannot depart. Acknowledging that a departure may happen, and perhaps not even for abuse, Paul says she is not to get remarried.

1 Cor. 7:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
39 The 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.

Paul's reference to "the law" above in verse 39 is in reference to that from the law which is also carried over into the NT. The other instructions earlier in the chapter are also binding on believers. In 1 Cor. 7:15, Paul is speaking to those already very grounded in the basic Christian doctrine, understanding that only death terminates their status as husband and wife. So when they had read "not under boindage in such cases" it seems they would have been embarrassed to discover that someone in the Corinthian church could be so unstable as to actually think that a liberty is being provided to commit adultery by remarriage.


The answer is simple: Does a separation necessarily end their status as husband and wife? Cannot they be away from one another to resolve a matter between them and yet maintain that their separation does not mean they are divorced?
Divorce by definition brings an end to their status of husband and wife. This was clearly seen by the concession for the hardness of their hearts in Deut. 24:1-4. Here, some form of documentation is involved and it is seen here to reveal the finality of divorce.

Sorry, but you have not shown that seperation is different from divorce?

you quote these verses from Paul:

1 Cor. 7:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
39 The 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.

Paul says that if she depart, then she is unmarried, and she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled.

What does unmarried mean?

pekoe
Apr 30th 2009, 12:26 AM
Hi 9Marksfan.

No - that is NOT what the verse means - there is NOTHING in either that verse or any other that says that a person is free to remarry if an unbeliever leaves them.
It says the believing spouse isn't under the bondage in such cases. "Not under bondage" means the marriage doesn't exist as far as the law is concerned. Paul is saying that an unbeliever who abandons his wife causes the law to view the wife as unmarried. Therefore she is free to remarry.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 30th 2009, 12:52 AM
May I suggest then that you do the same thing and count that losing the privilege of having a wife is something that may occur as a result of faithfulness to Jesus?
But you justify getting rid of one and getting another under the guise of building with "gold silver and precious stones".
And then to turn around and refer to "vain and psuedo-religious "committments"?


James refers to pure religion, which we are supposed to be partaking of, which among other things keeps someone unspotted from the world.
With regard to the plain meaning of "whosoever" along with the plain definition of what constitutes marriage; justifying what Jesus calls adultery is hardly unspotted. Neither can it easily escape the charge of being psuedo-religious.


Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Then what did Jesus say?

"Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given"

Matt 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Matt 19:10 The disciples *said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."

Matt 19:11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

Matt 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

You see, what the religious folk do, is paint a false picture of Jesus being some kind of Pharaoh task master. "You will make bricks without straw"

Jesus said, 'only those to whom it has been given, can accept this statement'

If you have not been given it, then you cannot do it. The only other option you have is to go, and get yourself castrated.

Having a desire for sex is a natural God given gift. Some have a stronger desire then others. Resisting that desire is resiting a gift from God.
It is like a law that is built in us, for God desires us to be fruitful.

This law is like the natural law of gravity. If you held out your arm for long enough, eventually your arm will weaken from the law of gravity. You can resist for a while, but eventually you will fail.

The only way you can overcome this law, is by a greater law.
The 'law' of the Spirit of Life, sets me free, from the 'law' of sin and death.

Did you know that the Spirit of Life, is a law? (Romans 8)
It is a greater law, then the law of sin and death, that reigned in our mortal bodies.

Now the thing is, that sexual desire is not a sin, but a gift.
Some have been given another gift of being a eunuch from birth, and Paul would say that he had this gift.

pekoe
Apr 30th 2009, 01:20 AM
Any more reasons? Alcoholism? Taking drugs? Being selfish? I can just see the unhappy spouses reading these posts saying "Yes! I CAN get divorced and remarried! Praise God!"

Millstones and necks come to mind......
As I said from the beginning of this thread, common sense should prevail. That includes our interpretation of scripture. 1 Ti.5:8 does not depict a guy who is out looking for work but can't support his family because of a recession. The implication is that he refuses to support his family, either out of selfishness or laziness isn't clear, but does it really matter? The fact is he has denied the faith. He has denied God by leaving his family, divorcing them....abandoning them. I do not advocate divorce for frivolous reasons. The key in whether remarriage is allowed is in who left who.
When Paul said a believing wife who leaves her unbelieving husband must remain unmarried (1 Co.7:11), he didn't mean she can't remarry due to divorce caused by abuse or neglect of basic needs (food etc.). He's speaking of divorce without remarriage caused by differences in faith. Jesus will not condemn anyone who chooses to remarry because of a divorce where they were physically or mentally abused.

MontanaCowboy
Apr 30th 2009, 01:36 AM
You ever wonder if God is looking down on us laughing or shaking his head at such wide & unyielding interpretations of his word? fact is we are mpst likely wrong since we can not begin to comprehend his level of thought, which in actually will probably turn out to be the simplest.

ConqueredbyLove
Apr 30th 2009, 01:43 AM
You ever wonder if God is looking down on us laughing or shaking his head at such wide & unyielding interpretations of his word? fact is we are mpst likely wrong since we can not begin to comprehend his level of thought, which in actually will probably turn out to be the simplest.

I think He is more grieved :cry: It is amazing to me how much misteaching there is on the issue of divorce and remarriage that has caused so many innocent Christians to be further wounded :cry:

Alaska
Apr 30th 2009, 01:43 AM
If you have not been given it, then you cannot do it. The only other option you have is to go, and get yourself castrated.

Having a desire for sex is a natural God given gift. Some have a stronger desire then others. Resisting that desire is resiting a gift from God.
It is like a law that is built in us, for God desires us to be fruitful.

This law is like the natural law of gravity. If you held out your arm for long enough, eventually your arm will weaken from the law of gravity. You can resist for a while, but eventually you will fail.

The only way you can overcome this law, is by a greater law.
The 'law' of the Spirit of Life, sets me free, from the 'law' of sin and death.

Did you know that the Spirit of Life, is a law? (Romans 8)
It is a greater law, then the law of sin and death, that reigned in our mortal bodies.

Now the thing is, that sexual desire is not a sin, but a gift.
Some have been given another gift of being a eunuch from birth, and Paul would say that he had this gift.


This misunderstanding of how the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets one free amounts to nothing less than turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. As if to say forget self denial and crossbearing and enduring hardness as a good soldier, and make way for fulfillment of strong sex drives which are a gift not to be wasted.
I believe Jesus agrees: This is disgusting heresy.
I agree with 9Marksfan, the millstone terror slumbereth not.

Titus 2:
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

ZAB
Apr 30th 2009, 01:51 AM
May I suggest then that you do the same thing and count that losing the privilege of having a wife is something that may occur as a result of faithfulness to Jesus?

I agree that is a definite prospect.



But you justify getting rid of one and getting another under the guise of building with "gold silver and precious stones".
And then to turn around and refer to "vain and psuedo-religious "committments"?

I was not referring to remarrying, only one's escaping from an unhealthy situation. Also, the "wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver and precious stones" is referring to one's fruit. For someone to fruitlessly remain in an abusive relationship which hinders personal growth is to do themselves wrong (from an eternal perspective). This does not promote sanctification and therefore is to be considered building upon their foundation with mere wood, hay and stubble.





Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Again, we are talking about escaping an abusive relationship, that's it. Not hopping from one marriage to another.



Mark 10:
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


God's stamp of that which he has joined together is afforded all who have entered lawful marriage after the classic Adam and Eve scenario (neither party having been previously married).
He made them male and female and intends that they enter marriage, therefore when they do, they have done that which he has ordained from the beginning, and hence their designation as that which he has joined together.
Hence the 'whosoever' in Luke 16 above.

I understand your understanding of "what God has joined together" to be at variance with the plain simple NT teaching as revealed above in Mark.


I disagree. Just because the institution of marriage is timeless, does not influence the fact that we shouldnt marry whomever our flesh and "old man" cry out for. I believe, as has been repeatedly proven, that there is a spouse God intends you to have (for those whom are to be married). Personally, my wife and I were miraculously brought together. In that context, "let not man put asunder". The fact that your understanding of the passage is "plain and simple" in no way hinders me from seeing it differently.

Alaska
Apr 30th 2009, 02:09 AM
Again, we are talking about escaping an abusive relationship, that's it. Not hopping from one marriage to another.



If you didn't mean hopping from one marriage to another, you shouldn't have
justified that.



I am only interested in the gold, silver and precious stones. This is the means by which our "works" can withstand the fire; this is where the reward is found (1 Cor 3:10-15), not in vain and psuedo-religious "committments" that will bear no fruit. If I got married to a woman in carnality before I knew Jesus, and then later found out she had no desire to follow Him with me, and was a hinderance to my walk with God, it would be over. That's Biblical. Paul said, "if she be pleased to dwell with him" (see below).

I want to do His will, not my own. I'm not talking about hard marriages (all marriages are difficult), I'm refering to those "acts" we should never have commited, such as marrying someone outside of the will of God. The Bible is clear, that if it is a hinderance to your growth, then be free:

Alaska
Apr 30th 2009, 02:53 AM
I disagree. Just because the institution of marriage is timeless, does not influence the fact that we shouldnt marry whomever our flesh and "old man" cry out for.


The fact that institution is timeless has everything to do with establishing all lawful marriages as that which he has joined together.
The institution of marriage is what we are defending here, not the personal problems and failures of those entering into it, as though the institution will move aside and change its rules.
Marriage was instituted from the beginning before the introduction of the "new man" in Christ. It was way back before they even had the knowledge of good and evil that it was proclaimed that a man would leave and cleave in marriage and they would be one flesh and thereby being that which God had joined together.
Though the individuals from way back were not regenerated because Jesus had not yet come, the institution itself was always sacred.
This attempt at nullifying lawful marriage because the marriage was not influenced by the new man in Christ, turns the institution of marriage into something that mere men can put asunder at their whim.


This is the means by which our "works" can withstand the fire; this is where the reward is found (1 Cor 3:10-15), not in vain and psuedo-religious "committments"

Were all marriages before the NT vain and psuedo-religious "committments"?
Here, Christianity, which is to cause a greater respect for marriage, is being used to diminish its sanctity. Jesus' pronouncement, 'let not man put asunder', is nothing more than a mockery by those getting rid of one and justifying getting another in the name of liberty in Christ.
Again, this is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness.

2 Pet. 2:
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

ZAB
Apr 30th 2009, 03:25 AM
The fact that institution is timeless has everything to do with establishing all lawful marriages as that which he has joined together.
The institution of marriage is what we are defending here, not the personal problems and failures of those entering into it, as though the institution will move aside and change its rules.
Marriage was instituted from the beginning before the introduction of the "new man" in Christ. It was way back before they even had the knowledge of good and evil that it was proclaimed that a man would leave and cleave in marriage and they would be one flesh and thereby being that which God had joined together.

Exactly. They were yet unsullied. Sin was not present yet.



Though the individuals from way back were not regenerated because Jesus had not yet come, the institution itself was always sacred.
This attempt at nullifying lawful marriage because the marriage was not influenced by the new man in Christ, turns the institution of marriage into something that mere men can put asunder at their whim.

Were all marriages before the NT vain and psuedo-religious "committments"?
Here, Christianity, which is to cause a greater respect for marriage, is being used to diminish its sanctity. Jesus' pronouncement, let not man put asunder is nothing more than a mockery by those getting rid of one and justifying getting another in the name of liberty in Christ.
Again, this is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness.



No one is diminishing the sanctity of marriage; of course it is a holy thing! I in no way approve of ungodly relationships (whether they be between divorced, single or married people). I simply am emphasizing one's walk with God as FAR more important on the grander scale of things. If you do not see that the eternal far outweighs the temporal, then I think we should just agree to disagree.

Also, you should try to be a bit more loving in your rebuttals, they come across with strife. I'm new here, but I hope Christian message boards are not regularly prone to this.

Alaska
Apr 30th 2009, 03:52 AM
No one is diminishing the sanctity of marriage; of course it is a holy thing!

It is just that it is so frustrating trying to communicate with you. You say you do not mean going from one to another when you were justifying that with regard to abandoning a marriage done before being a christian and then getting a better wife afterwards because the eternal outweighs the temporal.
So above, you claim to not diminish the sanctity of marriage, yet a marriage done before becoming a Christian is given the same basic status as a sin claiming the vow was worthless and the marriage was vain and pseudo religious.

I agree, we should agree to disagree.

9Marksfan
Apr 30th 2009, 08:53 AM
Hi 9Marksfan.

It says the believing spouse isn't under the bondage in such cases. "Not under bondage" means the marriage doesn't exist as far as the law is concerned. Paul is saying that an unbeliever who abandons his wife causes the law to view the wife as unmarried. Therefore she is free to remarry.

That is a MASSIVE assumption to make - care to give us some authoritative, historic Greek useage to support your contention?

The word Paul uses for "bound" in v27 is dedesai from dew = to bind - which can mean "to be married" (also "betrothed", which I believe to be the most natural reading in context - the "essentially literal" ESV bears this out). However, Paul uses a completely different word in v15 - ou dedoulwtai = under bondage - from douloo = to enslave - I'm not aware of ANY instance in Greek useage where this meant "married." Rather, I believe Paul meant that if an unbelieving spouse left, then the belieiving spouse wasn't enslaved to go after him (to try to save the marriage at all costs). Instead, it was OK to let him go, because that would probably result in a more "peaceful" situation - and how did the believing spouse KNOW that THEY would save their unbelieving spouse (by going after them)? There's no guarantee. But, taking the chapter as a whole, it does NOT entitle the believing spouse to remarry, even should her unbelieving husband divorce her.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 30th 2009, 12:37 PM
This misunderstanding of how the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets one free amounts to nothing less than turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. As if to say forget self denial and crossbearing and enduring hardness as a good soldier, and make way for fulfillment of strong sex drives which are a gift not to be wasted.
I believe Jesus agrees: This is disgusting heresy.
I agree with 9Marksfan, the millstone terror slumbereth not.

Titus 2:
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;


Not surprisingly, I think you misunderstood the whole thing.

The point is, that the law of the Spirit of Life, sets us free from the law of sin and death.
The sexual drive given as a gift from God, is not of the law of sin and death.

Gluttony is sinful, but hunger is not
Drunkenness is sinful, but thirst is not
Lust is sinful, but sexual drive is not

How long can you resist hunger for? How long can you resist thirst?

Jesus said:
"Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given"

So men (and women) have been given the 'gift' of celibacy. If you have not been given the gift of celibacy, then you would have need to castrate yourself.

pekoe
Apr 30th 2009, 12:38 PM
Hi 9Marksfan.
I don't think my interpretation is a massive assumption. I'm not sure how to go about doing a word search on the original greek usage of the word "bondage", but I believe the enslavement spoken of in vs. 15 refers to the law, as in 1 Co.7:39, Gal.4:24.
I think if you take the chapter as a whole it shows that there was a question of whether new converts to the faith should stay married to unbelievers (you know, don't be unequally yoked). So Paul said if your unbelieving spouse doesn't have a problem with your faith in Jesus, stay married 1 Co.7:12-13. He goes on to say that if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believer isn't enslaved anymore. Here is where we disagree. I believe Paul meant bondage to the law of Moses. You believe he meant bondage to go after the unbeliever.
In a nut shell, I believer the Lord permits remarriage for three reasons....death of a spouse, adultery, or abandonment.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 30th 2009, 12:51 PM
It is just that it is so frustrating trying to communicate with you. You say you do not mean going from one to another when you were justifying that with regard to abandoning a marriage done before being a christian and then getting a better wife afterwards because the eternal outweighs the temporal.
So above, you claim to not diminish the sanctity of marriage, yet a marriage done before becoming a Christian is given the same basic status as a sin claiming the vow was worthless and the marriage was vain and pseudo religious.

I agree, we should agree to disagree.

You have not yet answered my question, so I will repost:


Sorry, but you have not shown that seperation is different from divorce?

you quote these verses from Paul:

1 Cor. 7:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
39 The 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.

Paul says that if she depart, then she is unmarried, and she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled.

What does unmarried mean?

ZAB
Apr 30th 2009, 01:54 PM
You say you do not mean going from one to another when you were justifying that with regard to abandoning a marriage done before being a christian and then getting a better wife afterwards because the eternal outweighs the temporal.


I never once said anything about remarrying, or about getting a "better" wife afterwards. That falls into a whole different category, I agree. I think you may have misunderstood me. I was referring to the first post on this thread: escaping an ungodly and abusive relationship. The Bible is clear about this sort of situation. Paul said, "the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him" (1 Cor 7:13). Clearly, this is open to interpretation as well, but I believe someone who puts your life in danger and mocks your walk with God is not "pleased to dwell with her". In that case, you have to ask yourself, "did God even join this relationship? Or did we carnally join ourselves, before God?" I believe there is a difference, you may not. Yes, the institution of marriage is holy, but that doesn't mean that we are unable to make bad choices in it.
Of course that opens us up to abusing the grace of God, and making even more bad decisions for "liberty's sake", but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a sincere believer who wants to do what's right. In this unique scenario, I believe there is grace for someone who is escaping ungodliness; it falls into the "for my name's sake" category: "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" (Matt 19:29).
God would rather us grow up into Him, than be continually tormented and weakened by our past ungodly choices, which in turn hinders our growth. That's what I mean by saying an "eternal perspective".

Dani H
Apr 30th 2009, 02:16 PM
This misunderstanding of how the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets one free amounts to nothing less than turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. As if to say forget self denial and crossbearing and enduring hardness as a good soldier, and make way for fulfillment of strong sex drives which are a gift not to be wasted.
I believe Jesus agrees: This is disgusting heresy.
I agree with 9Marksfan, the millstone terror slumbereth not.



How do you interpret "crossbearing"?

The cross isn't some burden we carry around with us for years and years. It's a place of death and resurrection, and victory over the self, the world and the devil. It's something God has already done, because we're crucified with Christ, and something we enter into, because the cross is voluntary (Jesus chose to lay down His life) and not a place of man-made, life-long burden. I'm not quite sure I understand your reference to it nor the context you're using it in??

Also, please refrain from using the word "heresy" against people whose interpretation of Scripture disagree with your own. That's a no-no around these parts. :)

threebigrocks
Apr 30th 2009, 02:42 PM
There are only 3 ways that one can be freed from their marriage to their spouse and free to remarry. Scripture is very clear, leaving no doubts.

1. They die.
2. An unbelieving spouse leaves of their own accord.
3. Adultery is committed.

If the wife symbolizes the body, the church, and the husband symbolizes Christ - let that play out. Will Christ put up with us being in "adultery" with Him? Will Christ put up with continued unbelief unendingly? Answer to both of those - no. God didn't put up with it when dealing with Israel, they saw themselves beaten down to nothing more than once because of unbelief and sin, turning from Him. He is not going to put up with it from us now that we approach Him through Christ anymore than He has in the past.

In our marriages it ought to reflect Christ and the church. This world makes it too complicated, and we interject worldly junk into what scripture lays out as so terribly simple.

Everyone, please use scripture. Keep the personal jabs out. I am not saying any of you is better or more right, or worse or more wrong. But let's take scripture and hold it up to our questions and desire for understanding. If something is "heretical" - let scripture do it's work. If it's not - it will hold fast to the truth.

ZAB
Apr 30th 2009, 03:00 PM
How do you interpret "crossbearing"?

The cross isn't some burden we carry around with us for years and years. It's a place of death and resurrection, and victory over the self, the world and the devil. It's something God has already done, because we're crucified with Christ, and something we enter into, because the cross is voluntary (Jesus chose to lay down His life) and not a place of man-made, life-long burden.

Hi, I just wanted to add one thing. I too think we can arrive at a place of freedom and victory, however, we still must choose to "die daily" (1 Cor 15:31). This is bearing one's cross. While we have been (past tense) crucified with Christ relationally, we still are walking it out practically (present tense). Each and every choice we make to "die" to ourselves yields a resurrection of life (2 Cor 4:10-11). Someone may be living "ressurected" so to speak regarding one sin in their life, but not another. Why? Because they haven't died to that thing. I think this is a problem with the body of Christ today. We assume we are unshakable and thus let our guards down. Maybe this is one reason why so many ministers have been falling into gross sin? Ephesians says, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil" (4:26-27). We interpret this sometimes to mean that we shouldn't go to bed angry, but what is it really saying? I believe it warns us not to let the sun go down on our righteous indignation! BE ANGRY AND SIN NOT... neither give place to the devil.
I believe we are a tripartite being (spirit, soul and body). Man is a spirit, has a soul, and lives in a body (1 Thess 5:23). Our spirits have been permanently redeemed and made perfect (Heb 12:23; 1 Cor 6:17; 1 Pet 1:23). Our souls, however, are being redeemed (2 Cor 1:10; Rom 5:9; Ps 130:7). We have a choice in this matter, as you said (Ps 101:2; Heb 6:1). The soul of man, I believe, is composed of what Proverbs calls "chambers": "Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches" (24:3-4).
The Word of God, the dealings of God and the glory of God are changing us day by day, until finally, every chamber of our souls will exude Him. We will be fully in His image (2 Cor 3:18). Satan desires to sift through our souls (chambers) like wheat (Lk 22:31). But eventually, we will be like Jesus when He said, "for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14:30).

Dani H
Apr 30th 2009, 03:03 PM
Thank you for your response, z alan bridges.

It was just a comment that had jumped out at me. Of course by doing so, there is a danger of derailing the thread, and I apologize. Maybe I'll start another thread on the cross to keep things on topic.

And now ... :OFFT: :)

Alaska
Apr 30th 2009, 08:43 PM
There are only 3 ways that one can be freed from their marriage to their spouse and free to remarry. Scripture is very clear, leaving no doubts.

1. They die.
2. An unbelieving spouse leaves of their own accord.
3. Adultery is committed.



I agree there are no doubts about 1) above.
But 1 Cor. 7:11, 39 contradicts the assumption of 2).

And if there are no doubts, as you confidently assert, about 3) then the questions surrounding the main verse from where this assumption is derived should be easily answered. (I do not expect you to answer this, and I fully understand your avoiding this altogether)

Here is the scripture most often used to support your assumption of 3) above, (that the NT sanctions divorce for adultery), but which in reality is most useful to destroy it:

Matthew 19:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

This last clause is obviously very connected and inseparable from the rest of the verse.

Under the assumption that adultery is grounds for divorce, the following must be answered in order to validate that assumption.


But let's take scripture and hold it up to our questions and desire for understanding.

If it is assumed that adultery is grounds for divorce, (which I understand to be heresy) then what woman, under this assumption, is this last clause referring to?

It must be referring to either:
1) the wife divorced for adultery, or to
2) the wife divorced for an unjust cause.

Look what happens when it is decided that the wife the last clause refers to is 1) the wife divorced for adultery (under that assumption that the NT sanctions divorce for adultery):

and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Can it be true that this last clause refers to the woman divorced for adultery? If that is true, then wouldn't that mean that her husband who divorced her must still be designated as her husband in order for adultery to be committed by the man who marries her? This creates the awkward need to justify her still being married to him, while he is free to marry another lawfully. How can she still be married to him while as he is not married to her, which free status is necessary in order for him to be able to marry another lawfully?`

So under this assumption that fornication means adultery in Matthew 19:9, the marriage is allowably terminated (which is what divorce means) for her adultery and therefore the man can marry afterwards and it is not adultery as the grammar dictates. But the woman who he divorced for adultery cannot get married because if she does, any man marrying her commits adultery by so doing. So the quagmire this creates (the assumption that adultery is grounds for divorce) is found in the question: what man is she still married to that necessitates the charge of adultery against the man who would marry her?

Such a messy quagmire does not exist while holding the correct understanding that the phrase "except it be for fornication" was very literally in reference to "fornication" (possessing in this context its common premarital definition), thereby being an interjected side point referring to the long established cultural "betrothal divorce" under which system the terms husband wife and divorce were also used. Matthew 1:18-24
In other words, Jesus was not going to such an extent in prohibiting a man divorcing his wife as to also prohibit the divorces of wives not yet married, which types of divorces and shared definitions were clearly understood by those in that culture. By their complete familiarity with such premarital divorces, this interjected-side-point 'exception clause' served in effect to make the statement of emphasising the NT prohibition of divorce from lawful marriage.
The statement being; unless you divorce your wife premaritally, you cannot divorce. If you do divorce and marry another, you commit adultery.
If you do divorce and someone else comes along and marries your wife who you divorced, they commit adultery. And this is the plain message we get from the verses that do not have this misunderstood exception clause.

By Jesus:
Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Mark 10:
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

By Paul:
Rom. 7:
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
1 Cor. 7:
39 The 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.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 30th 2009, 09:16 PM
I agree there are no doubts about 1) above.
But 1 Cor. 7:11, 39 contradicts the assumption of 2).

And if there are no doubts, as you confidently assert, about 3) then the questions surrounding the main verse from where this assumption is derived should be easily answered. (I do not expect you to answer this, and I fully understand your avoiding this altogether)

Here is the scripture most often used to support your assumption of 3) above, (that the NT sanctions divorce for adultery), but which in reality is most useful to destroy it:

Matthew 19:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

This last clause is obviously very connected and inseparable from the rest of the verse.

Under the assumption that adultery is grounds for divorce, the following must be answered in order to validate that assumption.

If it is assumed that adultery is grounds for divorce, (which I understand to be heresy) then what woman, under this assumption, is this last clause referring to?

Matthew 19:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

It is quite simple if you are willing to see it.

If a man put away his wife *except it be for fornication* and then shall marry another, committeth adultery.
That would surely then mean, if she has committed fornication, and he puts her away, and then marry another, he would not be committing adultery.

And whoso marrieth her that is put away.
Who is 'put away', but her who committed fornication?

So, whoso marrieth her that [because she committed fornication] is put away, does commit adultery.

If she has not committed fornication, and is yet put away, then she would be allowed to marry, without it being adultery.

Alaska
Apr 30th 2009, 10:27 PM
So, whoso marrieth her that [because she committed fornication] is put away, does commit adultery.



This answer has serious implications, which you have not answered. By declaring what woman you believe the last clause pertains to does not answer the reasonable questions which that position begs. I am very willing to hear the answers to what must be able to be answered in order to validate that the verse is sanctioning divorce for adultery. By assigning an interpretation of fornication to mean adultery in this context, the rest of the grammar and meaning would fully support that designation if it was in fact correct.



and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Can it be true that this last clause refers to the woman divorced for adultery? If that is true, then wouldn't that mean that her husband who divorced her must still be designated as her husband in order for adultery to be committed by the man who marries her? This creates the awkward need to justify her still being married to him, while he is free to marry another lawfully. How can she still be married to him while as he is not married to her, which free status is necessary in order for him to be able to marry another lawfully?`

So under this assumption that fornication means adultery in Matthew 19:9, the marriage is allowably terminated (which is what divorce means) for her adultery and therefore the man can marry afterwards and it is not adultery as the grammar dictates. But the woman who he divorced for adultery cannot get married because if she does, any man marrying her commits adultery by so doing. So the quagmire this creates (the assumption that adultery is grounds for divorce) is found in the question: what man is she still married to that necessitates the charge of adultery against the man who would marry her?

Partaker of Christ
Apr 30th 2009, 10:52 PM
This answer has serious implications, which you have not answered. By declaring what woman you believe the last clause pertains to does not answer the reasonable questions which that position begs. I am very willing to hear the answers to what must be able to be answered in order to validate that the verse is sanctioning divorce for adultery. By assigning an interpretation of fornication to mean adultery in this context, the rest of the grammar and meaning would fully support that designation if it was in fact correct.

[color=#000080]

I think you are asking if is 'lawfully' possible for one to be free to marry, and the other cannot be 'lawfully' free to marry.
If I understood your question correctly, then the answer is yes.

If one has broken the covenant, they have broken the law, and face the consequences of being the law breaker. The other person has not broken any law, and still holds all the covenant rights. They can either forgive, or if they have a hard heart, they may not forgive.

Alaska
Apr 30th 2009, 11:25 PM
I think you are asking if is 'lawfully' possible for one to be free to marry, and the other cannot be 'lawfully' free to marry.
If I understood your question correctly, then the answer is yes.

If one has broken the covenant, they have broken the law, and face the consequences of being the law breaker. The other person has not broken any law, and still holds all the covenant rights. They can either forgive, or if they have a hard heart, they may not forgive.


This does not at all answer the very practical questions in the previous post:



and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Can it be true that this last clause refers to the woman divorced for adultery? If that is true, then wouldn't that mean that her husband who divorced her must still be designated as her husband in order for adultery to be committed by the man who marries her? This creates the awkward need to justify her still being married to him, while he is free to marry another lawfully. How can she still be married to him while as he is not married to her, which free status is necessary in order for him to be able to marry another lawfully?`

So under this assumption that fornication means adultery in Matthew 19:9, the marriage is allowably terminated (which is what divorce means) for her adultery and therefore the man can marry afterwards and it is not adultery as the grammar dictates. But the woman who he divorced for adultery cannot get married because if she does, any man marrying her commits adultery by so doing. So the quagmire this creates (the assumption that adultery is grounds for divorce) is found in the question: what man is she still married to that necessitates the charge of adultery against the man who would marry her?




If one has broken the covenant, they have broken the law, and face the consequences of being the law breaker.


A consequence that I suspect is being skirted around is the declaration by Jesus in that verse that any man marrying her commits adultery. You will need to address the basic definitions of divorce and adultery.
In the above quoted section from post 86, four questions are posed: I invite anyone to answer them. I also invite all questions concerning the betrothal-divorce explanation of the exception of fornication, which is briefly touched on in post 86. This explanation does not face the apparent embarrassment of not being able to answer simple questions.

9Marksfan
May 1st 2009, 09:25 AM
Hi 9Marksfan.
I don't think my interpretation is a massive assumption. I'm not sure how to go about doing a word search on the original greek usage of the word "bondage", but I believe the enslavement spoken of in vs. 15 refers to the law, as in 1 Co.7:39, Gal.4:24.

Get a copy of Vine's! The word in both those verses is from deo - so it's not the same word as in v15.


I think if you take the chapter as a whole it shows that there was a question of whether new converts to the faith should stay married to unbelievers (you know, don't be unequally yoked).

Agreed - but it's far more than that - pretty much every category of marital/spiritual status is covered!


So Paul said if your unbelieving spouse doesn't have a problem with your faith in Jesus, stay married 1 Co.7:12-13. He goes on to say that if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believer isn't enslaved anymore.

Agreed.


Here is where we disagree. I believe Paul meant bondage to the law of Moses. You believe he meant bondage to go after the unbeliever.

I don't think we're that far apart - I think the scenario is that, if the unbelieving spouse files for divorce, the believing spouse shouldn't try to oppose it and save the marriage - she's not enslaved to it at all costs! To do so would just cause more aggro - and God has called us to peace. Where we DO disagree is in your next comment.


In a nut shell, I believer the Lord permits remarriage for three reasons....death of a spouse, adultery, or abandonment.

Sorry - even in this chapter, it's clear that Paul only allows for the first one. I know the verse you're going to use to justify remarriage after adultery, but can you show me where remarriage is permitted after abandonment? I'll accept it's OK (although never ideal) to BE divorced by the unbelieving spouse in those cases - but to remarry?

9Marksfan
May 1st 2009, 09:30 AM
How do you interpret "crossbearing"?

The cross isn't some burden we carry around with us for years and years. It's a place of death and resurrection, and victory over the self, the world and the devil. It's something God has already done, because we're crucified with Christ, and something we enter into, because the cross is voluntary (Jesus chose to lay down His life) and not a place of man-made, life-long burden. I'm not quite sure I understand your reference to it nor the context you're using it in??

Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. Lk 9:23 NKJV

Alyssa S
May 1st 2009, 04:14 PM
It says the believing spouse isn't under the bondage in such cases. "Not under bondage" means the marriage doesn't exist as far as the law is concerned. Paul is saying that an unbeliever who abandons his wife causes the law to view the wife as unmarried. Therefore she is free to remarry.

I pekoe...

As most already know on here, I was divorced 12 years ago as an unbeliever. My believing husband had had enough of my unbelieving ways and divorced me. I can't say I completely blame him. I was saved soon after when the Lord stripped me and broke me. He married someone else.

Not until a little over two years ago did I believe remarriage is adultery. I spent two years in deep study regarding this topic hoping to FIND an "out" from my covenant. The only one that I honestly truly see is found in 1 Cor 7:39...which says a woman is bound until DEATH. It does not say bound until adultery, bound until abandonment, bound until abuse, until starvation, until boredom... One is bound until death.

NOTE: ( I am not encouraging a woman or man to stay in the same house with one who is using her/him as a punching bag...as Paul says, if one DOES divorce, they should remain unmarried.)

I think we can all agree that Scripture must harmonize. If it doesn't, then the problem doesn't lie within the Word, but with our understanding of it. Some on here may want to claim that those of us who believe in No Remarriage have our "pet doctrines," and that is their perogative. But quite honestly, this doctrine of "mine" is certainly no "PET!!" I embrace it not because I think it's the coolest thing since sliced bread, but because I believe it is TRUTH. It is not an opportunity to "stand on a soapbox" and cling to a dilusional idea as some may say. Why? What would be the purpose, especially for a girl like me who would LOVE to be married. Why would Jesus call remarriage adultery in several verses and then in one verse "seem" to say that adultery allows for remarriage? Why would adultery allow for remarriage if Paul said one must remain unmarried? There is overhwhelming evidence that marriage is binding until DEATH.

As 9Marksfan has already noted, Nowhere does Paul tell the believer in 1 Cor 7:15 they are free to remarry. We never read these words. The Greek word Paul uses that our English translates as bondage is NOT the same word he uses in the context of a marriage bond in the other verses. This word he uses refers to ENSLAVEMENT. We are not enslaved to live under the same roof. Why? Because the Believer is called to PEACE. But how does this whole section end? Does Paul tell the believer, "You may now go remarry?" No, he ends the section by saying, "How do you know wife (or husband) whether you will save your husband (or wife)?" If one has been given permission to remarry, then how could he end with this statement? The hope in this statement is that the unbeliever would be led to salvation by the Believing spouse. How long that takes is up to God... not to us when we decide to move on and start over. We do not have that option. The Scripture does not give it to us. It is simply not there. Who would have ever thought that the abusive, persecuting Saul would be blinded on the road to Damascus and led to salvation? God doesn't give up on us... nor should we give up on the possibilities of our mate's salvation.... like my husband gave up on me!

The church believed in No Remarriage for the first 1,500 years, and the majority of modern day Scholars agree with this teaching (from what I have heard from another Scholar). I realize it is a hard teaching, but we are called to take up our cross....daily!

God bless! :)
Alyssa

Dani H
May 1st 2009, 04:58 PM
I pekoe...

As most already know on here, I was divorced 12 years ago as an unbeliever. My believing husband had had enough of my unbelieving ways and divorced me. I can't say I completely blame him. I was saved soon after when the Lord stripped me and broke me. He married someone else.

Not until a little over two years ago did I believe remarriage is adultery. I spent two years in deep study regarding this topic hoping to FIND an "out" from my covenant. The only one that I honestly truly see is found in 1 Cor 7:39...which says a woman is bound until DEATH. It does not say bound until adultery, bound until abandonment, bound until abuse, until starvation, until boredom... One is bound until death.

NOTE: ( I am not encouraging a woman or man to stay in the same house with one who is using her/him as a punching bag...as Paul says, if one DOES divorce, they should remain unmarried.)

I think we can all agree that Scripture must harmonize. If it doesn't, then the problem doesn't lie within the Word, but with our understanding of it. Some on here may want to claim that those of us who believe in No Remarriage have our "pet doctrines," and that is their perogative. But quite honestly, this doctrine of "mine" is certainly no "PET!!" I embrace it not because I think it's the coolest thing since sliced bread, but because I believe it is TRUTH. It is not an opportunity to "stand on a soapbox" and cling to a dilusional idea as some may say. Why? What would be the purpose, especially for a girl like me who would LOVE to be married. Why would Jesus call remarriage adultery in several verses and then in one verse "seem" to say that adultery allows for remarriage? Why would adultery allow for remarriage if Paul said one must remain unmarried? There is overhwhelming evidence that marriage is binding until DEATH.

As 9Marksfan has already noted, Nowhere does Paul tell the believer in 1 Cor 7:15 they are free to remarry. We never read these words. The Greek word Paul uses that our English translates as bondage is NOT the same word he uses in the context of a marriage bond in the other verses. This word he uses refers to ENSLAVEMENT. We are not enslaved to live under the same roof. Why? Because the Believer is called to PEACE. But how does this whole section end? Does Paul tell the believer, "You may now go remarry?" No, he ends the section by saying, "How do you know wife (or husband) whether you will save your husband (or wife)?" If one has been given permission to remarry, then how could he end with this statement? The hope in this statement is that the unbeliever would be led to salvation by the Believing spouse. How long that takes is up to God... not to us when we decide to move on and start over. We do not have that option. The Scripture does not give it to us. It is simply not there. Who would have ever thought that the abusive, persecuting Saul would be blinded on the road to Damascus and led to salvation? God doesn't give up on us... nor should we give up on the possibilities of our mate's salvation.... like my husband gave up on me!

The church believed in No Remarriage for the first 1,500 years, and the majority of modern day Scholars agree with this teaching (from what I have heard from another Scholar). I realize it is a hard teaching, but we are called to take up our cross....daily!

God bless! :)
Alyssa

Alyssa,

I appreciate your candor and conviction. You're living out what you believe, and I completely respect that, would that more believers did that. And if I've offended you with what I said, then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention.

We all have our own choices to make in light of Scripture. You make yours, I make mine, we both stand before God and know we're in the exact place He has called us to. I wasn't going to get remarried, I wanted nothing to do with it. I was perfectly fine with Jesus alone. Then God brings a man into my life, uses me to save him right under my nose, and lets me know in no uncertain terms that we are to be together. What does one do with that? Obey, that's what. To me, there wasn't even a choice involved. It was God said, now go do it. Now, God isn't divided, and doesn't contradict Himself. And again, the same people who quote the Scripture in Matthew where Jesus goes into divorce and adultery, always skip over the fact that He also stated that any of our body parts offend us and we use them for sin, then we are to remove them. Does anybody do that? Nope. Yet there it is, right there, in the same paragraph. I don't get it, quite frankly. We don't get to choose to obey one verse and disregard the one right next to it. We don't get the privilege to build doctrine on one verse and ignore the other, like it's not there and Jesus never said it.

The issue I take is being accused of being in adultery, when I know I'm not. And if I am, then that's God's business, and nobody else's, quite frankly, and it's nobody's place to judge me for obeying God as best as I know how. God is God, and bigger than all these things. I live life out in the open, for all to see, I've nothing to hide, never did, or I wouldn't put myself out here like that. And God, right on through my second marriage, has been there with me, day in and day out, fellowshipping with me, speaking to me, teaching me and growing me into the person He wants me to be, and so I'm not going to sit here and tell God what He can and cannot use to teach me what I need to know and to guide me to where He wants me to be. I know full well about the cross. I haven't hopped off of it yet, and it has continued its work right on through my new marriage. Being single is no harder than being married, and I wish people could quit viewing marriage as a "cure" for anything, when it's not. God came up with it to make us holy and to teach us about Himself and about covenant and to raise godly children. Any lesser view makes marriage a selfish thing, which it isn't. It's a God thing!

I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and that we can let these things lie between us. If there is anything you ever need from me, you've but to ask. :hug:

Alaska
May 1st 2009, 06:05 PM
And again, the same people who quote the Scripture in Matthew where Jesus goes into divorce and adultery, always skip over the fact that He also stated that any of our body parts offend us and we use them for sin, then we are to remove them. Does anybody do that? Nope. Yet there it is, right there, in the same paragraph. I don't get it, quite frankly. We don't get to choose to obey one verse and disregard the one right next to it. We don't get the privilege to build doctrine on one verse and ignore the other, like it's not there and Jesus never said it.



27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.


Nothing is worth going to hell over. Even if it was to the extreme to lose one of our limbs or body parts in order to stop a sin that would keep us out of heaven, it is far better to do that than to go to hell. This is how severe and grave the situation is.
It is profitable that one abandons their adulterous remarriage (if in fact their particular remarriage is adulterous) and not that their soul be cast into hell.
There was that account of the hiker in Utah, I think, who was alone and got his arm trapped under a large boulder. He was faced with cutting off his own arm or dying out there alone. He took his own arm off with a pocket knife and walked the distance out until he found help.
Spiritually speaking, if we are attached to something that will put us into hell, we better get rid of it no matter what it is, even if somehow it were our own eye or body part.
Nothing is worth hell. This is the effect that Jesus is making, because he loves us.

Alyssa S
May 1st 2009, 06:27 PM
Alyssa,

I appreciate your candor and conviction. You're living out what you believe, and I completely respect that, would that more believers did that. And if I've offended you with what I said, then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention.


Thank you for your words, Dani. I will be honest and say that I was a tad offended by these comments:

"people were using it to stand on personal soapboxes to sling their pet doctrines around "

I am not a fan of this kind of approach. It is unnecessary and quite frankly, I believe it is untrue, but I certainly appreciate your apology. You might be surprised to learn that a couple of us who defend what we believe is true are divorced and are committed to remaining single as long as we believe that is what Scripture tells us. So there is no ulterior motive or joy that comes from "slinging" so-called "pet doctrines" around, especially when WE would love to believe we are free to remarry.

"folks just don't know how to let anything go"

Of course not!! Because it is our conviction! It is what we believe is TRUTH. Jeremiah had "fire in his bones" to defend the words of Scripture... I believe that is what drives me as well. I can't quite explain it. Why would my FLESH want to defend something like this, when my desire is to be married? I can only explain it as the Holy Spirit. I will "let it go" when the Lord tells me to. I will let it go when I find SCRIPTURE that proves my belief is wrong. Until then, I will proclaim what I believe to be true. To do otherwise, would be to sin.

"So this thread is already being kept a close eye on and may also be headed for closure"

For what reason, Dani? I think it is sad that opinions and feelings are what often determine the outcome of ones doctrine, instead of the words of the Bible. And because people get offended when certain Scripture is mentioned or examined or even ignored, the thread is closed. Let's look at Scripture...Let's examine it. Let's compare it... Let's wrestle with it. Let's find harmony within the hard verses. But let's leave feelings and emotions out of it. Let's let the Word speak for itself even if the outcome is not what we like. I am totally open for correction. But the Word has to harmonize and the Word has the final say, not what God has told me or you or anyone else in their quiet time.



What does one do with that? Obey, that's what. To me, there wasn't even a choice involved. It was God said, now go do it.

Dani, I apologize for being so blunt, but I had a gay friend who loved Jesus with all of her heart and she believed...was convinced...and knew without a shadow of a doubt that God had called her and her "wife" together into ministry. She was 100% positive she had "heard from God." But we know what the bible says about gay marriage. Again, the Word is the final authority. If our feelings don't line up with Scripture, then they are just that... our feelings.


Now, God isn't divided, and doesn't contradict Himself.

I totally AGREE!! And so when ALL the verses about remarriage are called adulterous, what do we do with the ONE obscure verse that (appears) to say something else? Do we throw the 6 others aside and settle on the one, or do we examine the true meaning of that one obscure verse? As you said yourself, God does not and cannot contradict himself.



And again, the same people who quote the Scripture in Matthew where Jesus goes into divorce and adultery, always skip over the fact that He also stated that any of our body parts offend us and we use them for sin, then we are to remove them. Does anybody do that? Nope. Yet there it is, right there, in the same paragraph. I don't get it, quite frankly. We don't get to choose to obey one verse and disregard the one right next to it. We don't get the privilege to build doctrine on one verse and ignore the other, like it's not there and Jesus never said it.


So what do you suggest? Obey some. Ignore others? Obey ALL? What is the solution? I believe it is called rightly dividing the Word. There is figurative speech and there is literal. I think it easy to discern which is figurative and literal in this case. The church didn't have a problem doing so for the first 1,500 years.


The issue I take is being accused of being in adultery, when I know I'm not.
Maybe you're not. But how many times did Jesus call remarriage adultery? And what constitutes adultery? And how permanent is a one time repentance of adultery? Does it take care of the following acts within that relationship? Can a forgiven murderer who has repented return to murdering and call himself repentant because he did it one time? Does Jesus' death on the cross cancel out covenants? Or does it cancel out sin? What does the bible say? And I will be honest and transparent with you and say that I do not know what one is to do who is involved in an adulterous marriage. This is where I am torn. Honestly.

All I am certain of...and I have Scripture to back me is: Anyone who marries while their covenant spouse is still alive is called an adulterer. (Romans 7:1-2) What should I do with that verse along with the others that say the same thing? Do we call them non-literal?


And God, right on through my second marriage, has been there with me, day in and day out, fellowshipping with me, speaking to me, teaching me and growing me into the person He wants me to be,

And no one is saying that he isn't with you and he isn't teaching you and fellowshipping with you. I believe that he IS!! :)


Being single is no harder than being married, and I wish people could quit viewing marriage as a "cure" for anything, when it's not.
AMEN sister!!




I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and that we can let these things lie between us. If there is anything you ever need from me, you've but to ask. :hug:


I think I totally understand where you are coming from. And I am not on here to tell you what a terrible Christian you are and that I think any less of you or accuse you or judge you. I believe you are a child of God as am I. And I believe we are both seekers of truth. BUT... I do hope that Scripture can be discussed without feelings getting involved. I know that is hard to do at times. But it would be nice if we all could discuss this topic in detail without it getting so personal. I simply want to know the truth. And right now where I stand, I have a conviction that is like fire in my bones. If I am wrong... I pray with all of my heart that God shut me down and open my eyes...until then, I press on in the amazing peace that he has given me.

God bless you,
Alyssa

Dani H
May 1st 2009, 06:42 PM
All I am certain of...and I have Scripture to back me is: Anyone who marries while their covenant spouse is still alive is called an adulterer. (Romans 7:1-2) What should I do with that verse along with the others that say the same thing? Do we call them non-literal?

I've always understood the marriage covenant to be a picture of that between Christ and His Bride. Sealed by blood (His). Which is why there is blood shed when a woman knows a man for the first time, by God's design (these things are that way for a reason). What happens when a person bound by that blood covenant goes and mingles with strange blood (so to speak) and will not repent? Is that covenant still valid?

There are people quite alive and well who according to Hebrews have forsaken the blood covenant of Jesus and have reverted to the blood of goats and such in their search for salvation because they've discarded the Savior as not being enough, and by doing so, have trampled the blood of Jesus underfoot, and so God is no longer bound to it and they have already heaped His judgment upon themselves and they're worse off than if they didn't believe to begin with. And these people are not physically dead yet, you see. So in my way of thinking, that all goes into it, and is all part of rightly dividing the Word.

I understand that fire in the bones, Alyssa. My bones aren't exactly fire-free either. And maybe it's that we ought to be careful with, lest we burn others, because it's God's fire, no? And no, when I hear from God, it's nothing to do with my feelings, because much of what He tells me is exactly contrary to them, and then I have to repent first, and then do what He says to do. But I fully understand where you're coming from about your friend and her "wife". :)

Alaska
May 1st 2009, 08:10 PM
Paul says that if she depart, then she is unmarried, and she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled.

What does unmarried mean?

1 Cor. 7:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

The sense of the word unmarried in verse 11 is seen to be defined by the fact that she has left her husband. She is not necessarily unmarried as what a divorce would decree, but she is "unmarried" in the sense that she is not living with a husband.


If she was "unmarried" after the legalistic sense of the word (under the false assumption that the NT frees a woman to remarry while her husband lives) then she could very well get married again. But here, Paul is saying that in this state of her being "unmarried" she must remain so or be reconciled to her husband. So here we have the usage of the word "unmarried" describing a wife who has a husband. This is simply explained by how the word unmarried here is not the legalistic usage. She is unmarried in the sense of not being joined with her husband; she is living alone without a husband. But at the same time she is married after a legal sense of the word because her husband is still alive:

1 Cor. 7:
39 The 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.

The sense of the word "unmarried", in verse 11 above, revealed by its context, would have been easily discerned by the 1st century Christians who had been taught by the Apostles themselves or teachers who had been directly influenced by the Apostles. Coming from the foundational view that only death terminates a lawful marriage (neither had been previously married) the usage of the word "unmarried" in this context could absolutely not have been assumed to be referring to a contradiction of the above verse 1 Cor. 7:39.

I believe her departure does not mean divorce. Paul is apparently speaking to Christians who knew that their bond of marriage is until death. Obviously they cannot agree to divorce proceedings where they are forced to declare that which they know is impossible to truthfully declare. They cannot and will not declare that they are no longer husband and wife because they know once marriage is entered into, only death grants the release from the titles and status of husband and wife.

So in the case of Alyssa's husband, (who may have been encouraged to divorce her by his church using a twisted understanding of 1 Cor. 7) he committed the grievous sin of turning the truth of God into a lie by getting a divorce where he basically spit in Jesus' face to declare that Alyssa was no longer his wife. But according to Jesus she still is and she knows it. Her husband also faces charges of causing Alyssa to commit adultery by divorcing her. I believe that even if she were to not commit adultery by remarriage or by fornication, the charge still is on the books against her husband because of the treachery done against her by putting her away and making her vulnerable. Further to the consequences of divorce and remarriage, Alyssa's husband has brought another person into adultery; the woman who he is now married to.

Look at the result of the selfishness and unwillingness of one man to bear the Christian cross:

Alyssa being defrauded and endangered for as long as he does not return to her, his rightful wife, which may be for the rest of her life,
himself now living in an ongoing state of unrepentant adultery which is guaranteed to put such a one outside the gates,
and an unsuspecting victim, his new wife, who has also been dragged into this life of adultery, for which her salvation also is set aside since adulterers and adulteresses shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
And if this situation continues until Alyssa's husband is dead, those teachers who may have encouraged or justified his action of divorce and remarriage will also stand in judgement before Him who is known as Jealous.

Heb. 10:
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

[No one has yet made an attempt at answering the questions in post 86 on page 6 of this thread, which failure to responsibly answer, prove that Matthew 19:9 does not sanction divorce for adultery.]

pekoe
May 2nd 2009, 12:54 AM
Hi 9Marksfan.

Sorry - even in this chapter, it's clear that Paul only allows for the first one. I know the verse you're going to use to justify remarriage after adultery, but can you show me where remarriage is permitted after abandonment? I'll accept it's OK (although never ideal) to BE divorced by the unbelieving spouse in those cases - but to remarry?
Actually, adultery carried a death sentence, so I guess that would fall under category #1, as you would be free to remarry after the death of your spouse. (Sorry....bad joke.)

I cannot offer any verse of scripture where it is emphatically stated that remarriage is permissable in the event of adultery or abandonment. What I can offer if you are interested is my view of what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage.

I believe what Jesus taught about divorce was in response to the incorrect belief that men could divorce there wives for any reason:

"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" Mt.19:3

Here is the mindset that from hereon is discussed between Jesus and the teachers. Jesus begins with what Gods will is (no divorce) and then in answer to their objection of Gods will, explains why Moses did what he did. Here is His summation.

"And I say to you whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." Mt.19:9

The adulterer in this passage is the one who divorced his wife for "any reason." Is the wife also guilty of adultery?

"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, causes her to commit adultery..." Mt.5:32

Why is the wife considered an adulterer? Not because she started sleeping around, but because Jesus expected her to remarry and in the eyes of the law that constituted adultery (Ro.7:3). In other words, Jesus was holding them responsible, not the wife. Of course this works both ways.

I don't know what else to offer you about the abandonment part other than what I believe except what 1 Co.7:15 says. At the beginning of this thread, I spoke of the unrighteousness with which my cousin was viewed by certain people. I believe those people took what Jesus said to an extreme that was never intended. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think it was necessary for Jesus to explain every single reason why it is right or wrong to get divorced. To me, His intention was to show us that it's not ok to divorce your wife because you don't like the color of her toenail polish. But for a woman who wanted to raise a family, I don't believe God would condemn her just because someone else decided to physicaly abuse her.

Alaska
May 2nd 2009, 01:17 AM
"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" Mt.19:3



Jesus' answer amounts to;
It is unlawful for a man to divorce his lawful married wife for any reason.

pekoe
May 2nd 2009, 01:24 AM
Hi Alyssa.
I'm sorry for the past mistakes you shared about your life before Jesus.
When I read the teachings about divorce, I see the passages saying that remarriage is only prohibited for the one who caused the divorce. I don't see God limiting the innocent anywhere. It's ok if we disagree, because we have to live our convictions.
I'm glad you're my sister. :hug:

pekoe
May 2nd 2009, 01:27 AM
Jesus' answer amounts to;
It is unlawful for a man to divorce his lawful married wife for any reason.
I think He meant for no good reason.

Dani H
May 2nd 2009, 01:31 AM
Jesus' answer amounts to;
It is unlawful for a man to divorce his lawful married wife for any reason.

No it doesn't.

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Which part of the "except for marital unfaithfulness" got past you?

pekoe
May 2nd 2009, 01:33 AM
Alyssa,

The church believed in No Remarriage for the first 1,500 years
Not only remarriage, but divorce as well. That's why my cousin had a gun put to her head.

SeekerOfGod
May 2nd 2009, 01:38 AM
A human being should not have to be put through such troubles. A man who puts a gun to a wife/mother's head infront of their children should be divorces within seconds. Love is not in such a relationship, so this is not even a real marriage. How can you break something that doesn't exist?

Alaska
May 2nd 2009, 02:30 AM
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Which part of the "except for marital unfaithfulness" got past you?



"marital" and "unfaithfulness" are two separate words, neither of which of their equivalents were used in the Greek.
"Marital unfaithfulness" means adultery, plain and simple. The Greek word for adultery was not in the exception clause. 'Bibles' that paraphrase so shamelessly should all be burned in my opinion because they are deceitful and can cause people to go to hell.

But look carefully at the full context of the verse. The last clause, fully connected to the rest of the verse, underlined below, has to have a practical meaning:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.


These are questions that must be able to be answered with regard to that inseparable last clause in order to validate that the verse is sanctioning divorce for adultery. By assigning an interpretation of fornication to mean adultery in this context, the rest of the sentence, the grammar and meaning would fully support that designation if it was in fact correct. Plain and simple, that is how language works.

and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Can it be true that this last clause refers to the woman divorced for adultery? If that is true, then wouldn't that mean that her husband who divorced her must still be designated as her husband in order for adultery to be committed by the man who marries her? This creates the awkward need to justify her still being married to him, while he is free to marry another lawfully. How can she still be married to him while as he is not married to her, which free status is necessary in order for him to be able to marry another?`

So under this assumption that fornication means adultery in Matthew 19:9, the marriage is allowably terminated (which is what divorce means) for her adultery and therefore the man can marry afterwards and it is not adultery, as the grammar dictates. But the woman who he divorced for adultery cannot get married because if she does, any man marrying her commits adultery by so doing. So the quagmire this assumption creates (the assumption that adultery is grounds for divorce) is found in this question: What man is she still married to that necessitates the charge of adultery against the man who would marry her?

Dani H
May 2nd 2009, 03:16 AM
Why do you overcomplicate matters? And why do you threaten people with hell who think differently than yourself? Is that really your place? And is it your place to say which Bibles should be burned and which shouldn't be? Is it God's Word, or yours? And by the way, the KJV has its own variety of translational errors too. Feel free to research. :)

It is most certainly implied in Scripture that in case of adultery and an unbeliever abandoning a believer, that believer is no longer bound and is free to remarry. The burden of sin rests on the adulterer and on the abandoner, not on the other party. Really, we know the spirit of the law so there's no need to get hung up on all these letters.

Now, somebody who has been committed adultery against, and is willing to forgive and make it work, is also free to reconcile to their spouses. God didn't call us to bondage, but to freedom and peace. Adultery doesn't mean people have to get divorced. Of course there can be forgiveness and reconciliation if both are willing and can get over themselves, and it often happens. But often it doesn't, and in those cases, people are no longer bound.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you're reading things into things that simply aren't there. Scripture is pretty clear, in my book.

VerticalReality
May 2nd 2009, 03:24 AM
How many times can the same things be said over and over and over and over and over again?

This thread is a broken record and it's going in circles as always. I'm closing it . . .

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77