PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Marriage, divorce and remarriage



Pages : [1] 2

Brendac
Jul 20th 2008, 04:16 AM
Hi there

I have done my assignment on the above, however, the one thing that bothers me is that the Word says that one can only get divorced and be able to remarry in the case of fornication or rather adultery or if an unbeliever no longer wants to stay with the believing partner. However, what bothers me is what provision does the Word make for maybe a wife or a husband that is being contantly battered, or where the one partner is an alcoholic and abuses the other partner with constant belittling and cussing and swearing etc. Are we just supposed to pray for that partner and endure it because if we get divorced we cannot remarry? I mean it may be a women with four children who could not afford not to remarry! I know in Malachi 2:14 - 17 it says that a husband should treat the wife of his youth treacherously. We know that all divorce is basically a result of sin on one of the parties' sides and bearing this in mind I have spent hours looking up the word "porneia" (fornication) to see if there is some other meaning to that, but there isnt. I believe each case would have its own merits in this, however, I cannot find anything to substantiate this.

Comments please.:help::help:

Thanks
Brenda

Alaska
Jul 20th 2008, 06:02 AM
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.


Mark 10:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
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.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
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.

The NT does not allow a divorce after the couple are living together as husband and wife.
By the above verses I see that promoting what God hates is heresy and that allowing divorce for adultery is heresy.

Bethany67
Jul 20th 2008, 08:40 AM
If I were the wife in the situation you describe, I would possibly separate from my husband if there was physical abuse, especially if there were children involved. It really would depend how bad it was and in what danger we were all in; I would see separation as a last resort. I can't think of any verses which address this point of an abusive husband, but common sense says go. Some might call that lack of faith, but I couldn't in all conscience advise a woman to keep herself and her children in a dangerous or deadly situation. I've been in a marital situation of extreme verbal abuse, and God made it clear He wanted me to stay and He would give me the strength to get through it (and He did).

But as I said in another thread last night, even if I left, I wouldn't initiate divorce and wouldn't remarry while my husband was still alive, even if he was a non-believer and/or adulterous.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 1 Cor 7:10-11

crawfish
Jul 20th 2008, 02:01 PM
I can't do this topic justice myself. But here is a few sermons on the topic by Rubel Shelley:

Rubel Shelly - "How Jesus Feels About Divorced People" (http://campusministryunited.com/audio/t2008_rshelly1.mp3) (44:53)
Rubel Shelly - "How Churches Should Treat Divorced People" (http://campusministryunited.com/audio/t2008_rshelly2.mp3) (45:14)

Essentially, he questions the traditional evangelical feelings about divorce and remarriage, and walks through scripture to do so. I think he's got an excellent point.

Here is a story he tells: A woman and her children are being beaten regularly by their husband and father. She finally gets up the nerve to leave him, and divorces him shortly after. The man never remarries, but he never admits to the damage he's done. The woman meets a very good, kind Christian man and marries him, and he is an excellent husband and father. In the eyes of their church, both the woman and her new husband are living in sin and should be disfellowshiped; only the first husband, unrepentant and violent, is living pure here. There is simply something wrong with that.

Brother Mark
Jul 20th 2008, 02:11 PM
Marriage is a covenant and we need to understand what it means to keep a covenant and to break a covenant.

Personally, when one is divorced for biblical reasons, I see no problem with marrying again.

ServantofTruth
Jul 20th 2008, 05:28 PM
The scripturethat the OP refers to as fornication, can be translated/ to mean marriages that were sinful in the first place. Meaning marrying a relative, listed as too close to marry. Your sister/ aunt for example.

IF this is the correct meaning, i am not knowledgeable enough to know, then all divorce is wrong from the Christian person's side - apart from error in the original joining.

I feel a few things are very important. Love and support needs to be shown be everyone involved, family, friends, church members, and even those just discussing it casually on web sites, who have no direct involvement.

Also the divorce and remarriage issues must be looked at totally seperately and always BIBLICALLY. It is no good saying we are seperated, i want to marry someone else, therefore divorce is alright. They are seperate issues.

To divorce, would put you back at square one - and Paul's comments on staying single for the kingdom would be wise to consider - as they would be for ALL single christians. I know how much a wife and children take my time away from doing God's work of spreading the gospel and helping those in need.

I just hope this topic remains a loving upbuilding discussion between brothers and sisters of Christ's family. :hug: But i am a .....




BIG SofTy

Alaska
Jul 20th 2008, 07:14 PM
Here is a story he tells: A woman and her children are being beaten regularly by their husband and father. She finally gets up the nerve to leave him, and divorces him shortly after. The man never remarries, but he never admits to the damage he's done. The woman meets a very good, kind Christian man and marries him, and he is an excellent husband and father. In the eyes of their church, both the woman and her new husband are living in sin and should be disfellowshiped; only the first husband, unrepentant and violent, is living pure here. There is simply something wrong with that.

Of course the man is not pure. He will give account to God for causing his wife to commit adultery as per Matt. 5:32.
The wife on the other hand has no right to take another wrong and make that a 'right'. She will be judged as will her 2nd husband for what Jesus defines as adultery. Mark 10:11,12. The marriage and the persons are 2 separate issues. The marriage itself is still holy, though the persons may not be, and that marriage is written in God's book as still valid because they are both still alive. Only death terminates a lawful marriage.
The curse really messed everything up. Jesus didn't come to throw out reality, but rather, in the sobering painfulness of it, He give us power to deny ourselves and stand for the truth even if that means living as a single person for the rest of our lives.

Alaska
Jul 20th 2008, 07:30 PM
But as I said in another thread last night, even if I left, I wouldn't initiate divorce and wouldn't remarry while my husband was still alive, even if he was a non-believer and/or adulterous.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 1 Cor 7:10-11

Now there's a gal that loves the truth if you ask me!!

AngelAuthor
Jul 20th 2008, 09:17 PM
But as I said in another thread last night, even if I left, I wouldn't initiate divorce and wouldn't remarry while my husband was still alive, even if he was a non-believer and/or adulterous.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 1 Cor 7:10-11

Beautiful, Bethany.

Perfect!

To the abused spouse in a situation where their life or that of their children is in danger. God never said you had to stay there and take that. God only said you can not divorce.

Leave. Get to safety. But you are still married to that person, no matter what a judge may say to the contrary. Pray for them (this is scriptural), pray for reconciliation with them, even if it takes the rest of your life.

Or until your spouse remarries or dies, therefore releasing you of your commitment.

crawfish
Jul 20th 2008, 10:09 PM
Well, I encourage you to listen to the sermons I referenced above. I once felt like much of you, and that the bible was pretty clear on the subject. But I heard a lesson two years ago that completely changed my mind by putting the subject in context; the author above is giving a very similar lesson.

Perhaps it won't change your mind like it did mine, but it's worth looking into IMO.

Brendac
Jul 21st 2008, 02:34 AM
Well, I encourage you to listen to the sermons I referenced above. I once felt like much of you, and that the bible was pretty clear on the subject. But I heard a lesson two years ago that completely changed my mind by putting the subject in context; the author above is giving a very similar lesson.

Perhaps it won't change your mind like it did mine, but it's worth looking into IMO.

We need to bear in mind that where sin abounds grace abounds much more! (Rom 5:20) - there is always forgiveness. However, I know that with God all things are possible and He can change the partner who is doing wrong. I mean we can just look a the life of Smith Wigglesworth and his wife. However, surely if we confess our sin, we are free to remarry as the slate is then wiped clean. How else then can we explain pastors who get divorced (not always for adultery) and remarry and their ministries continue to be blessed and flourish? Could the adultery also mean putting things before your wife and your family, be it your job, your ministry etc?

Brenda

Oma
Jul 21st 2008, 03:06 AM
If I were the wife in the situation you describe, I would possibly separate from my husband if there was physical abuse, especially if there were children involved. It really would depend how bad it was and in what danger we were all in; I would see separation as a last resort. I can't think of any verses which address this point of an abusive husband, but common sense says go. Some might call that lack of faith, but I couldn't in all conscience advise a woman to keep herself and her children in a dangerous or deadly situation. I've been in a marital situation of extreme verbal abuse, and God made it clear He wanted me to stay and He would give me the strength to get through it (and He did).



I think the common sense part about leaving a phsically abusive husband would be based on the commandment not to commit murder. I think it would a wife's duty to protect herself and her children if they were in a deadly situation.
I commend you for staying with your husband. :)

Oma
Jul 21st 2008, 03:16 AM
We need to bear in mind that where sin abounds grace abounds much more! (Rom 5:20) - there is always forgiveness. However, I know that with God all things are possible and He can change the partner who is doing wrong. I mean we can just look a the life of Smith Wigglesworth and his wife. However, surely if we confess our sin, we are free to remarry as the slate is then wiped clean. How else then can we explain pastors who get divorced (not always for adultery) and remarry and their ministries continue to be blessed and flourish? Could the adultery also mean putting things before your wife and your family, be it your job, your ministry etc?

Brenda


But we can't do wrong deliberately and think "Oh well, There's always forgiveness"
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

A preacher's ministry continuing is no sign that the man is in favor with God.
Remember when Moses did wrong in smiting the rock instead of speaking to it as God had instructed him. Well the people still got water to drink. But God was displeased with Moses.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

amazzin
Jul 21st 2008, 03:17 AM
But we can't do wrong deliberately and think "Oh well, There's always forgiveness"
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

A preacher's ministry continuing is no sign that the man is in favor with God.
Remember when Moses did wrong in smiting the rock instead of speaking to it as God had instructed him. Well the people still got water to drink. But God was displeased with Moses.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Hello
For those of us who are older and visually impaired, can you pleas use a larger font?

AngelAuthor
Jul 21st 2008, 04:22 AM
How else then can we explain pastors who get divorced (not always for adultery) and remarry and their ministries continue to be blessed and flourish?

We can not expect that just because a certain Ministry flourishes, that God is behind it or the man running it. I'll name you a dozen people who preach contrary to God and make millions doing it.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 21st 2008, 02:43 PM
So are we suggesting that if somebody makes the mistake of remarrying after divorcing for the wrong reason that God casts them aside and is done with them?

BCF
Jul 21st 2008, 03:11 PM
I know in Malachi 2:14 - 17 it says that a husband should treat the wife of his youth treacherously.

Hi Brendac, my friend, you only quoted part of what it says in Malachi. If you read the rest of what it says it makes more sense to you. Here is the rest that you did not say.....

16. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (divorce): for one covereth violence with HIS (meaning Gods) garment, saith the Lord of host:
Therefore take heed to your SPIRIT, that ye deal not treacherously.

My friend if you read those verses again (Malachi 14-16) you will get the understanding that God not man or the writer of the book of Malachi..... BUT OUR LORD GOD, is giving his explanation of his perfect plan of marriage just like he did in the beginning........which is through SPIRIT AND NOT FLESH.


If we would only listen.........

CoffeeCat
Jul 21st 2008, 03:57 PM
I had a very long, convoluted post... and deleted it, mostly so as not to give you all a headache. I can sum it up in a few short(er than they were) sentences:

As the child of divorced parents who could have made their marriage work but didn't because one of them refused to try, I can tell you how much divorce hurts a family, especially when it's done although it doesn't have to be. To say "we're getting a divorce because we don't get along any more" doesn't cut it. I didn't buy it as a 12 year old; I don't buy it now. Two married people SHOULD talk it out, seek help, forgive one another, and respect one another enough to TRY to make it work when it is simply a case of them no longer "getting along". I *do* believe it's Biblically permissable to divorce for reasons of infidelity/cheating or abuse, when the partner committing the evil acts has no intention of ceasing them or of reconciliation. I would not tell any woman to stay in a marriage where her husband willingly could and would harm her, and I wouldn't stay in such a marriage myself.

I have no opinion on remarriage; in my parents' relationship, the parent who refused to get help and marriage counselling and who also asked for the divorce was the one who happily re-married and left us behind, so any opinion I could offer would be badly biased, I'm afraid.

I do know that when I marry, I will fight for my marriage, delight in it, cherish my husband, work to save it if needed, treasure it as a good gift from God..... and ONLY if it ended in death would I remarry, because the end came from neither of us. If, despite my best efforts it ended in divorce, I'd remain divorced and would not remarry. One trip around the carousel's enough for me, thanks.

I pray that people in marriages do EVERYTHING they can to save a marriage. Even in a case of infidelity, if my spouse were to ask for my forgiveness and seek help.... and turn from his ways... I believe I could forgive and go on.... once. If there was one instance where my spouse lost his temper and his control and hit me, and was truly shocked by it, and remorseful, distraught that he did it, and got help and swore never to do it again, and was truly repentant, I believe I could forgive and forget.... once. We're all human. But to do either again would mean, for me, counselling that I'd drag him to or go alone to, and it would mean I'd leave. I refuse to be put in harm's way.

MOST marriages do NOT end because of adultery or abuse. They don't. They end because the spouses convince themselves and each other that "it wasn't meant to be" or they "don't get along" or they've "grown apart".... and that's the kind of attitude towards marriage that sickens me, one that's as casual as no longer seeing a friend for lunch because they're annoying you. And most remarriages happen just as casually, it seems... "oh, my last marriage didn't work, but this one maybe will..." -- and then you get people who have been married 6 or 7 times.

We need to wake up.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 21st 2008, 05:51 PM
Very true Coffe cat, and i agree. Marriage ios not for whimps. It is something that takes more work out of you than anything ever esle that one has done. This is only rivaled by raising kids.

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jul 21st 2008, 08:26 PM
I can't do this topic justice myself. But here is a few sermons on the topic by Rubel Shelley:

Rubel Shelly - "How Jesus Feels About Divorced People" (http://campusministryunited.com/audio/t2008_rshelly1.mp3) (44:53)
Rubel Shelly - "How Churches Should Treat Divorced People" (http://campusministryunited.com/audio/t2008_rshelly2.mp3) (45:14)

Essentially, he questions the traditional evangelical feelings about divorce and remarriage, and walks through scripture to do so. I think he's got an excellent point.

Here is a story he tells: A woman and her children are being beaten regularly by their husband and father. She finally gets up the nerve to leave him, and divorces him shortly after. The man never remarries, but he never admits to the damage he's done. The woman meets a very good, kind Christian man and marries him, and he is an excellent husband and father. In the eyes of their church, both the woman and her new husband are living in sin and should be disfellowshiped; only the first husband, unrepentant and violent, is living pure here. There is simply something wrong with that.

Why would you conclude the first husband is living purely? He still never repented so he is far from pure.

Also, the sins of another have no baring on one's own sins. In other words, the wife ought to concern herself over her own sins and God's judgment of her as opposed to keeping track of what sins her first husband has committed and God's judgment of him.

crawfish
Jul 21st 2008, 08:36 PM
Why would you conclude the first husband is living purely? He still never repented so he is far from pure.

Also, the sins of another have no baring on one's own sins. In other words, the wife ought to concern herself over her own sins and God's judgment of her as opposed to keeping track of what sins her first husband has committed and God's judgment of him.

I'm not talking about personal guilt...in the eyes of the church he's the one who is ok because he hasn't remarried. I should've added that he's not admitting his lack of forgiveness; simply that, in his heart, he still has the same ugliness.

seamus414
Jul 21st 2008, 08:38 PM
Hi there

I have done my assignment on the above, however, the one thing that bothers me is that the Word says that one can only get divorced and be able to remarry in the case of fornication or rather adultery or if an unbeliever no longer wants to stay with the believing partner. However, what bothers me is what provision does the Word make for maybe a wife or a husband that is being contantly battered, or where the one partner is an alcoholic and abuses the other partner with constant belittling and cussing and swearing etc. Are we just supposed to pray for that partner and endure it because if we get divorced we cannot remarry? I mean it may be a women with four children who could not afford not to remarry! I know in Malachi 2:14 - 17 it says that a husband should treat the wife of his youth treacherously. We know that all divorce is basically a result of sin on one of the parties' sides and bearing this in mind I have spent hours looking up the word "porneia" (fornication) to see if there is some other meaning to that, but there isnt. I believe each case would have its own merits in this, however, I cannot find anything to substantiate this.

Comments please.:help::help:

Thanks
Brenda


I personally believe that the Bible is clear: no divorce except (maybe) for sexual infidelity or the Pauline exception. Other than that, there is no such thing as Christian divorce and the spouse "in the right" can leave but cannot divorce. If the spouse "in the wrong" secures a divorce the spouse "in the right" cannot remarry despite what civil law says as God's law forbids it. S/he is to live in holy chastity.

As far as finances are concerned, every state in the USA, at least, has support provisions and property division provisions that serve to keep the parties somewhat balanced.

In saying the above, I have seen the following argument: when one takes vows to marry s/he makes certain commitments to the other. Terrible conduct from one spouse (such as abuse) indicates that the person who allegedly took the vow may not have actually assented to the commitments and vows the other spouse thought s/he took. As a result, the parties never actually married as only one party actually took the vows. Consequently, as no marriage occured, the "wedding/marriage" that allegedly occured ought to be declared nulled.

seamus414
Jul 21st 2008, 09:31 PM
This issue is extremely important as it touches upon issues that are far beyond the divorce/remarriage issue.

When it comes down to it, the entire issue can be narrowed to one question: what is the appropriate context for sexual relations? Biblically speaking, the only appropriate forum is between a husband and wife (assuming first marriages of each or one or both is a widow/er).

One of the things that has to be understood is that the UNIVERSAL Christian teaching until the 20th Century was that divorce is forbidden amongst Christians as unbiblical. Following the strong modernist movement of the 20th Century amongst Protestants and Anglicans, each has, in various places, slowly and progressively become more and more permissive in allowing divorce and remarriage and therefore farther and farther from biblical Christian teaching. As a result, present Protestant and Anglican teaching, in many circles, essentially allows divorce/remarriage as a matter of course.

This has far reaching implications as it touches not just on marriages, but on the homosexual movement. The argument flowing from the homosexual movement is persuasive given the liberalization of divorce/remarriage and is as follows: the biblical forum for sexual relations is husband and wife in their first marriage (or widowed). Liberalization among Christians has expanded the forum for sexual relations beyond the Biblical standards to include divorced/remarried persons. Therefore, so says the homosexual, as the Biblical standards of sexual relations have been expanded beyond that established by the clear teaching of Scripture to include divorced/remarried persons, then there is no logical reason why it should not also be expanded to included homosexual relations.

I think the homosexual argument is persuasive. If you can bend the rules once for what the appropriate forum for sexual relations is for divorced/remarried persons, you can bend them again to include homosexual relations. There is no logical reason why you cannot. Either the Bible says what it says, and you follow that, or you do not. There is no middle ground. If divorce/remarriage in the church had not occurred, the homosexual movement in the church would not be nearly as strong; but the fact is, once the biblical standards are compromised, no biblical argument can be raised to prevent any other sort of similar behavior.

Either sexual relations is for husband/wife of one marriage (or widowed) or it is not. If it is, then you comply with biblical standards. If it is not, then you make it up as you go as it is clearly not biblical and other sorts of standards for sexuality are employed as clearly the Bible is not the standard. As a result, divorced/remarried sex is permissible, homosexual sex is permissible, and any number of other sorts of sexual relations.

(Disclaimer: it is my belief that sex is reserved for husband/wife (first marriage or widowed). I only say that the homosexual argument is persuasive if one accepts the bending of the biblical standards is permissible.)

seamus414
Jul 21st 2008, 09:52 PM
I can't do this topic justice myself. But here is a few sermons on the topic by Rubel Shelley:

Rubel Shelly - "How Jesus Feels About Divorced People" (http://campusministryunited.com/audio/t2008_rshelly1.mp3) (44:53)
Rubel Shelly - "How Churches Should Treat Divorced People" (http://campusministryunited.com/audio/t2008_rshelly2.mp3) (45:14)

Essentially, he questions the traditional evangelical feelings about divorce and remarriage, and walks through scripture to do so. I think he's got an excellent point.

Here is a story he tells: A woman and her children are being beaten regularly by their husband and father. She finally gets up the nerve to leave him, and divorces him shortly after. The man never remarries, but he never admits to the damage he's done. The woman meets a very good, kind Christian man and marries him, and he is an excellent husband and father. In the eyes of their church, both the woman and her new husband are living in sin and should be disfellowshiped; only the first husband, unrepentant and violent, is living pure here. There is simply something wrong with that.


He makes an interesting point but fails to answer one very basic question: Christian teaching was universal and unchanged amongst Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and all strains of Protestants from the time of the Apostles until the 20th Century. What do we know now that we did not know for over 19 centuries? What makes his interpretation on Scripture more persuasive or more authoritiative or more wise than the entire history of Christianity?

crawfish
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:22 AM
He makes an interesting point but fails to answer one very basic question: Christian teaching was universal and unchanged amongst Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and all strains of Protestants from the time of the Apostles until the 20th Century. What do we know now that we did not know for over 19 centuries? What makes his interpretation on Scripture more persuasive or more authoritiative or more wise than the entire history of Christianity?

Well, part of his argument is that remarriage was never prohibited from the beginning. He gave an alternate explanation of the verses we've always accepted as being against it.

And, most of us will admit that there are many things the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox churches have believed since the early days that we think are wrong.

Tradition has always held that we take some of the SotM dead seriously, and some we regard as simply allegorical. Thus, in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus is dead serious; however, in Matthew 5:29-30 is just exaggeration. The simple answer is, the SotM is not about giving law; it is about interpreting law, taking it from a "legal" matter to a matter of the heart. The original divorce laws were there to prevent the victimization of women; by Jesus time, they had been turned around to be used for that purpose. Now, we've turned Jesus words around and are doing the same thing - forcing women, mostly, to stay in bad situations.

I don't like divorce. I have been married 20 years; there are no divorces in my immediate family, as far back as we know. However, my wife's parents are divorced, and I saw the destruction it caused in the lives of her and her sister, and not to mention each of her parents themselves. Just to make that clear.

Alyssa S
Jul 22nd 2008, 01:27 AM
He makes an interesting point but fails to answer one very basic question: Christian teaching was universal and unchanged amongst Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and all strains of Protestants from the time of the Apostles until the 20th Century. What do we know now that we did not know for over 19 centuries?

Amen seamus!

I have been divorced 11 years and my husband has since married someone else. I spent the last two years studying in depth the Scriptures even to the point of getting the PC Bible Study program to look into the Greek and Hebrew in hopes to better understand what the Lord says about marriage, covenants and divorce.

After hundreds and hundreds of hours of study... I am convinced that remarriage is adultery. I think the bible is clear that marriage is until death. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to be re-married. I even know the guy I would like to marry!! But I can't. I am convicted that I am not free. Though the idea pains me, there is something that drives me and gives me fire in my bones, as well as peace, and I can only explain it as the Holy Spirit.

I agree that If we go back to the earliest church fathers, beginning with Justin Martyr all the way to Augustine of the Reformation, we will read that remarriage was not allowed in the church. Was it practiced? According to the historian, Josephus, divorce and remarriage was much like today, but it was not accepted within the church and was denied in the Creeds of the Fathers. Augustine believed and taught that marriage was in-dissolvable until death and this was the earthly picture given of the heavenly reality of Christ’s relationship to the church, therefore no remarriage was allowed if one did suffer a divorce.For the first 500 years, “no remarriage” was the early church position and essentially was an undisputed teaching. Not until the mid 1600’s did divorce and remarriage begin to be accepted by the church. As time has gone on, the church has fallen little by little away from the truth until we have reached the point we are at today. What truly concerns me is what the Word says about how men will not love a sound doctrine in the last days but they will gather around them teachers who will tell them what their itching ears want to hear. Is this where we are with this subject of re-marriage? (2 Timothy 3 & 2 Timothy 4:3).


I believe that "porneia," the Greek word that is used in Matt 5:32 and 19:9 in regards to the "Exception Clause", was meant specifically for the betrothment period... not after the marriage had been consummated. That is why we see Joseph seeking to DIVORCE his (FIANCE) Mary when he thought she had committed porneia (fornication). Also we see this same picture in Deut 22:13 of a man taking a wife and realizing that she is not a virgin at the consummation.


It is interesting to recognize that this “Exception Clause” is ONLY found in the book of Matthew. The ones questioning Jesus about divorce were the Pharisees who were obviously very familiar with the Jewish Law. Jesus was directing his answer to them. Many have suggested that the reason we don’t see the Exception Clause in the books of Mark or Luke is because the audience was the Gentiles: Romans and Greeks. They would not have been familiar with the betrothal concept since they did not practice it in their culture. Also, the verse in the book of Mark 10:10-12 is the same account as Matthew 19:9. But you will notice that Mark does not include the “Exception Clause.” One must ask, “If it is the same exact account, has not the author left out some pertinent information?” On the contrary, I believe the author clearly expressed what the Lord wanted him to: “Remarriage for “ANYONE,” “EVERYONE,” and “WHOEVER” is Adultery (while the spouse is still living).”


And if re-marriage, while the spouse is still living, is ok in the eyes of the Lord, then why don't we have just one example of it in the bible? Instead, we have Hosea taking back his adulterous wife, God taking back adulterous Israel, John the Baptist losing his head for telling Herod he was in an unlawful marriage, King David retrieving his wife after Saul had given her in marriage to someone else.


All these people were involved in an adulterous situation and yet, it did not sever the marriage covenant....the theme here as well as all throughout the Scriptures is forgiveness, faithfulness and repentance.

I believe when we become ONE... we are ONE till death.

I realize this is a very difficult subject, but God's grace is big enough to give us strength through singleness if the marriage has dissolved. I pray that those that are still in a marriage will fight in the Lord to press on. But if your life is in danger...I would never encourage one to stay... but instead, separate and pray for the other's salvation.

ALL things are possible with God!!!


God bless... Alyssa :hug:

VerticalReality
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:07 AM
I'm personally beginning to believe more and more that those who are dead spiritually are not joined by God in marriage. It seems to me that those who are born again are those who are joined by God in marriage. And those who are joined by God in marriage are not, under any circumstances, permitted to break that union. Any attempt to break that union and be joined to another is adultery, and any union with another when someone is married is sin that those guilty must repent of.

That being said, I don't believe, nor do I see anywhere in the Scriptures, that God is joining a bunch of dead pagans in marriage. Many folks continue to talk about some "institution" of marriage that comes about when a man and woman meet some physical criteria of living together and having sex, but I do not believe the Scriptures support such theology. The Scriptures support that a man and woman can both live with one another and have sex and not be married. The Scriptures declare to me that marriage joined by God is a spiritual union that will produce a godly seed. If God is Spirit then it seems to me that those He joins are spirit also.

That's my view on the matter. This also explains clearly to me why the early church did not permit remarriage for those who are born again and part of the church. The church didn't go about trying to enforce this ban on remarriage with pagans. The pagans "married" and "remarried" many. However, that doesn't mean they were joined by God.

CoffeeCat
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:43 AM
I'm personally beginning to believe more and more that those who are dead spiritually are not joined by God in marriage. It seems to me that those who are born again are those who are joined by God in marriage. And those who are joined by God in marriage are not, under any circumstances, permitted to break that union. Any attempt to break that union and be joined to another is adultery, and any union with another when someone is married is sin that those guilty must repent of.

That being said, I don't believe, nor do I see anywhere in the Scriptures, that God is joining a bunch of dead pagans in marriage. Many folks continue to talk about some "institution" of marriage that comes about when a man and woman meet some physical criteria of living together and having sex, but I do not believe the Scriptures support such theology. The Scriptures support that a man and woman can both live with one another and have sex and not be married. The Scriptures declare to me that marriage joined by God is a spiritual union that will produce a godly seed. If God is Spirit then it seems to me that those He joins are spirit also.

That's my view on the matter. This also explains clearly to me why the early church did not permit remarriage for those who are born again and part of the church. The church didn't go about trying to enforce this ban on remarriage with pagans. The pagans "married" and "remarried" many. However, that doesn't mean they were joined by God.

Interesting take. So, you believe that those who are born again are the ones who God joins together in marriage, while those who are not born again can CALL themselves married, but aren't in fact married in God's eyes. Is that about right?

If so, then just curious, let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

Situation 1 - two born again Christians who love God, are devoted to Him, get married and stay married for 20 years. Suddenly, with little warning, one of the two declares that he/she no longer believes in God and is NOT a Christian anymore. Does one of the two former Christians becoming atheist somehow "undo" the joining that God did in their marriage? Is it in fact no longer a marriage, by your definition, in God's eyes?

Situation 2 - two atheists get married. They're married for a while, and one of them becomes Christian. A while later, the other does too. They're now both born again. According to your idea, God only joins those who are born again in marriage -- so, is it at the point they both become Christian that their marriage is now "valid" to God, when it wasn't a moment before? Or was it valid all along, since God knew both would come to Him?

Just some food for thought. Not trying to derail, but if we seriously entertain the idea that God ONLY joins those who are born again in marriage, then we should come up with a good way of defining and qualifying that idea. If we can't fully, then the other option is to say that God created marriage between one man and one woman, joins all men and women into marriage who enter into it, and means and intends each marriage to BE holy, fruitful and blessed, although many who don't walk with Christ abuse marriage and make it something far cheaper than what it ought to be. I side more with THAT idea, but I'm looking forward to seeing if you'd be willing to elaborate on yours more.

Bethany67
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:46 AM
After hundreds and hundreds of hours of study... I am convinced that remarriage is adultery. I think the bible is clear that marriage is until death. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to be re-married. I even know the guy I would like to marry!! But I can't. I am convicted that I am not free. Though the idea pains me, there is something that drives me and gives me fire in my bones, as well as peace, and I can only explain it as the Holy Spirit. ...

And if re-marriage, while the spouse is still living, is ok in the eyes of the Lord, then why don't we have just one example of it in the bible? Instead, we have Hosea taking back his adulterous wife, God taking back adulterous Israel, John the Baptist losing his head for telling Herod he was in an unlawful marriage, King David retrieving his wife after Saul had given her in marriage to someone else.


I think you're right, and God bless you in being obedient.

Alaska
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:58 AM
Is It True That What Jesus Said About Marriage Applies Only To Believers?
A person has been both married and divorced before becoming a Christian; he becomes a Christian and is lonely. He wants to know if he can remarry.

Let us now look at what Jesus said:
"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." Luke 16:18
"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." Mark 10:11,12

In answer to his question about remarriage, his pastor tells him that he is eligible to become remarried because that first marriage and divorce took place before becoming a Christian. Has this man been told the truth? To answer this question let us ask other questions:

Does the Old Testament commandment, [which is included in the New Testament, (Matt. 19:16-22)] "Thou shalt not commit adultery" apply only to believers? Cannot an unbeliever also commit adultery? What about another of the Ten Commandments which is also included in the New Testament: "Thou shalt not steal"; Is it possible that this commandment can only apply to believers? Cannot an unbeliever also be guilty of theft? Can we be so arrogant as to assume that an unbeliever cannot be held guilty of theft because as an unbeliever he is incapable of grasping the concept of the ownership of possessions and that it is wrong for someone to take into their possession that which does not belong to them?

Similarly, can we be so blind as to assume that an unbeliever, because he is an unbeliever, cannot grasp the concept of marriage; one man and one woman belonging to one another only and that it is wrong to engage themselves in a sexual relationship with anyone other than their partner to whom they have committed themselves in marriage?

In the same way that it would be foolish to say that the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" applies only to believers, so likewise, it would be foolish to say that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" applies only to believers. Marriage is one of those things that unbelievers do by nature that gives evidence of the knowledge of good and evil in their hearts, as Paul said:
"(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" Romans 2:13-15.
It is hoped that the reader of this paper can appreciate what their accepting that an unbeliever can commit adultery implies. The acknowledgement that an unbeliever can commit adultery is in effect an admission that the unbeliever’s marriage is recognized by God. Otherwise, a sexual relationship with someone other than his or her spouse could not be regarded as adultery.

Since God made man and woman and since he instituted marriage, all those partaking of it are bound by the regulations he has placed on it regardless of whether or not they are aware of them. Jesus, in the process of teaching and introducing the New Covenant, plainly revealed the truth concerning marriage. "Whosoever", in the above quoted statements made by Jesus, literally means whosoever. Believer or unbeliever, if you are remarried and your first lawful [1] husband or wife is alive, you are committing adultery. You cannot repent of your lawful marriage. It is holy.



[1] By "lawful" I mean both parties in the first marriage had not been married before. The only way that someone may lawfully marry a previously lawfully married person is if that person’s spouse is dead. See Rom. 7:1-3 and 1 Cor. 7:39.

Bethany67
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:06 AM
Situation 2 - two atheists get married. They're married for a while, and one of them becomes Christian. A while later, the other does too. They're now both born again. According to your idea, God only joins those who are born again in marriage -- so, is it at the point they both become Christian that their marriage is now "valid" to God, when it wasn't a moment before? Or was it valid all along, since God knew both would come to Him?

According to this hypothetical logic, I wasn't really married because I came to Jesus subsequent to the marriage (about a year later) and my husband hasn't (so far).

I've had people argue this with me. In fact some told me it was my duty to leave my husband because God wasn't in our marriage, I was therefore living in adultery, and demon-possessed by being intimate with a non-Christian. In fact, apparently it was my duty to destroy all personal records and photos because we had a civil wedding followed by a Pagan handfasting. This was a major cause of the conflict in my marriage because these people told my unsaved husband this, creating immense panic and fear in him, despite my pointing out it was false teaching. I reject the argument - 1 Cor 7: 13-14 tells me:

And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Not that my husband is saved in any way by virtue of being married to me, but the marriage is not illegitimate in God's eyes. If I took the logic of this 'argument' on board, that I'm not really married, then there would have been no reason for me to stay when the marriage went through a very difficult patch; I could've let my husband divorce me through the courts, and been free to marry a Christian. But God specifically and personally told me No - I was validly married for life, and I was to stay married on the basis of His word. That's not to say that when my husband gets saved (as I believe he will) we won't get our marriage blessed in a church we will both eventually attend - I can think of nothing more fabulous than celebrating the fact that God has saved us both and a testimony to His faithfulness, but that's one for the future, in His timing.

VerticalReality
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:09 AM
Interesting take. So, you believe that those who are born again are the ones who God joins together in marriage, while those who are not born again can CALL themselves married, but aren't in fact married in God's eyes. Is that about right?

I wouldn't say they are "not married". I would say they are not married by God. We can see in Ezra that the children of Israel joined themselves with wives of foreign gods. The Scriptures still declare them wives. However, I don't believe God was at all happy with the fact that they did such a thing. So did God join those marriages anyway? I don't believe so.



If so, then just curious, let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

Situation 1 - two born again Christians who love God, are devoted to Him, get married and stay married for 20 years. Suddenly, with little warning, one of the two declares that he/she no longer believes in God and is NOT a Christian anymore. Does one of the two former Christians becoming atheist somehow "undo" the joining that God did in their marriage? Is it in fact no longer a marriage, by your definition, in God's eyes?


How is it possible for someone to have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and then become an atheist? Is it possible for me to not believe in my wife any longer now that I've known and had a relationship with her for years?


Situation 2 - two atheists get married.


They're married for a while, and one of them becomes Christian. A while later, the other does too. They're now both born again. According to your idea, God only joins those who are born again in marriage -- so, is it at the point they both become Christian that their marriage is now "valid" to God, when it wasn't a moment before? Or was it valid all along, since God knew both would come to Him?

I'm not speaking of "valid" marriages. I'm speaking of marriages joined by God. "Marriage" is a very loose term in the sight of many. We have in the United States what many call "gay marriage" that is about as abominable as anything you could imagine. I believe that the Scriptures are clear that an ungodly union that moves into a godly one is blessed. We can see by the Scriptures that the one who accepts the Lord sanctifies the one who hasn't yet, so I would imagine that after both have accepted the Lord then their household will be fully blessed and in union with God and His will. To flip the script, the Word of God declares that we are not to yoke ourselves with unbelievers. So, if we are disobedient with God and choose to do so anyway, are when going to declare then that God has joined us with this unbeliever regardless of the fact that His Word commands us not to do so? Additionally, if we do disobey God and join ourselves with an unbeliever does this mean that the covenant we have made is not binding or "valid"? I think the covenant is binding. I just don't believe it's joined by God. Therefore, if the unbeliever would choose to depart from this covenant the believer is no longer in bondage to it.

I mean what folks are saying here is that God is commanding us not to yoke ourselves with unbelievers but then at the same time they are saying that God is putting on and joining that yoke. That doesn't make much sense to me.

VerticalReality
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:32 AM
Here's something else to consider . . .

We always think today that the verse, "What God has joined together let not man separate . . . " is something that is happening after the fact.

For example, we look at it in this order . . .

1) Man seeks woman

2) Man and woman find they are attracted to one another

3) Man and woman date

4) Man and woman get engaged

5) Man and woman set wedding date

6) God joins man and woman on their wedding day

Why is it always about God honoring our decision? Why is it never about us listening to God and honoring His? Did God join the above scenario or did man join himself to the woman and just ask God to bless it? In some cases the man and woman never do ask God to bless it. I'm not saying the above scenario cannot be blessed by God. I'm simply saying that perhaps the above scenario is the overall reason why divorce is so rampant and out of control today. Perhaps if we allowed God a little more say so rather than a "bless my choice, God" type of situation we would see that divorce rate drop significantly.

Bethany67
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:42 AM
I think the covenant is binding. I just don't believe it's joined by God. Therefore, if the unbeliever would choose to depart from this covenant the believer is no longer in bondage to it.

I presume you're thinking of 1 Cor 7:15:

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

The Greek is 'ou dedoulwtai,' the perfect passive of 'doulw,' to enslave. The one thing it cannot mean is free to remarry, since this would contradict Mt 5:32 and Mt 19:9. It also cannot mean that the marriage was never valid in God's eyes because that would contradict scripture a couple of verses earlier, where Paul is reiterating that the believer and unbeliever are married and the believer is not free to choose to leave.

The use of the 'doulw' version is not referring to marriage and now being free of it; when Paul discusses the marriage bond in Romans 7:2 he uses a different Greek word, deo, meaning bind/tie/fasten. Paul uses this 'deo' when confirming that the marriage bond lasts until one half of the couple dies:

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

Instead he is saying in 1 Cor 7:15 by 'doulw' that the believer is not bound or enslaved to renounce their faith in Christ for the sake of maintaining the marriage. The peace they must maintain is peace with God which takes priority over maintaining a marriage at all costs. It is not giving approval to the freedom to remarry; it doesn't actually address the issue of remarriage at all, because scripture has already stated in Rom 7:2 and elsewhere that this is not an option while the spouse/ex-spouse still lives.

CoffeeCat
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:51 AM
Alaska, that was a nice little article you presented. I'm sure the folks at achurchinfortcollins.org who wrote it think so, too. So, unless you're one of them, what are your personal thoughts on the issue we're discussing? ;)

Bethany, I like what you said. And I'll be praying for you and your husband.

Vertical, you said...


I wouldn't say they are "not married". I would say they are not married by God. We can see in Ezra that the children of Israel joined themselves with wives of foreign gods. The Scriptures still declare them wives. However, I don't believe God was at all happy with the fact that they did such a thing. So did God join those marriages anyway? I don't believe so.

Hmm. Well, whether or not those who do not invite God to their marriages have His blessing on their marriage is something I'm unsure about, still. People seem to be blessed with health, with kind spouses, with nice, happy kids whether or not they're Christian... what their marriage LACKS is a growth in faith together, a reliance on God, salvation for both people in it, service to God.... but as to whether or not God refuses to bless/join someone in such a marriage, I'll reserve judgement awhile until I mull it over. But, different idea. Got me thinking. I DO agree with you, I think, in that I can say that if two people are in a marriage and at least one of them doesn't believe in Christ, then both husband and wife cannot enter into the Christian marriage 'covenant' - ie, love your spouse as Christ loves you. A non-believing spouse wouldn't want to hold to this.


You also said...


How is it possible for someone to have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and then become an atheist? Is it possible for me to not believe in my wife any longer now that I've known and had a relationship with her for years?

It is very possible, and many have done it. And before you say "then they couldn't have been true Christians in the first place" I can tell you that not only have I met people who loved God with all their hearts and gave up faith in Him completely, I've known a few very, very well. They were alive in Christ, living for Christ, sharing the gospel, following Christ -- and became weary, burnt out, deceived, disillusioned, and gave up the faith they had. How can this be? Unfortunately, the relationship you have with your wife doesn't quite work as an analogy. Not only have you been with your wife for some years and not only do you know her.... but you can SEE her. You can TOUCH her. You can carry on an intelligent conversation with her, laugh with her, debate with her. Imagine being blind, deaf, numb to all touch and getting married to someone... you can't see or hear or feel them.... THEN, the marriage example would work. And you'd almost be able to see how possible it would be for someone to wonder if they were really married at all, after a while... especially if they lost hope or grew bitter. Sometimes, those who CAN'T see, touch, hear, have concrete proof of something.... sometimes they can fall away. They lose confidence in the trust, and in the truth they held. They reject Christ, reject God. It's possible. It's also horrible.

What you said after..... again, I'll think about it some more. Thanks. :)

theothersock
Jul 22nd 2008, 07:07 AM
1 Cor. 7:
By the above verses I see that promoting what God hates is heresy and that allowing divorce for adultery is heresy.

Close, but not quite.

MATTHEW 5 : 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."

Christ's words, not mine.

JesusPhreak27
Jul 22nd 2008, 08:42 AM
Ok..... here goes.... Im going to attempt to add my 2 cents to this discussion as best I can......

My parents never divorced (thank the Lord) or anything (though my mother did divorce her first husband for a miriad of reasons...[abuse, etc]). Now that being said...... my first wife and I were married while I was agnostic. I did not necesarily believe that there was no God but that He was not for me.....

During that 7 year time I was brought back by the Messiah and have been a faithful follower of our Lord Jesus Christ since 2005.

In 2006, while I was on vacation my ex wife had an affair (at least one) I divorced her in 2007 and was remarried later last year to my wife now... and she has since remarried as well.... My ex wife and I have a child together and she had a child from a previous relationship...... she now has another child with her current husband...... my wife and I do not have any other children yet.....

All that being said....I want to not focus on the adultry in what I am going to say...... To do so IMO would take away from the point....so please ignore the adultry....

My first marriage was a mistake on my part...... I should have never married my ex wife as we were only together 3 months before being married and we did not truly know each other...... That being said the fighting and general contempt towads one another caused us to become truly ugly people (we brought the worst out in one another) and we became vocally (and physically on her side -- towards me) abusive to one another.

The other problem is that we were horrible parents while we were together and the two children (my son and my then step daughter) suffered mightily because of the anger and hatred in the household.....

Now move forward to this year....... though I no longer have contact with her, my ex wife's daughter is excelling greatly, and the relationship between my son and myself has been repaired and is now flourishing to a level that I never thought possible.....

Now I know htat many will say that there is NO reason for divorce other than adultrry...... but I present to you the following for discussion....

My pastor told me (while he was counseling me during the seperation period) that even though God hates sin, divorce, etc..... He is still able to use all things, circumstances, situations etc. for His glory and His good.....

My son is beginning now to follow God in his own way (he is only 6 so it is on a totally different level then the way I foolow God)..... He knows that we love God and that God is our creator.....good enough for me right now....

Had I stayed in the first marriage this may have not been possible..... If this situation leads me down a life that I am able to minister and evangelize to them using it then God is using it for His good and for the Kingdom.

What I am trying to say is that if a person is being beaten or abused I dont believe that the Word tells them that they MUST stay with their spouse just because they are a "Non-believer" or because they are not being aldutrous.......

Many will claim that I am too liberal on this topic and that is fine...... But there is no way YHWH will allow His children to be left in a situation like that....

JesusPhreak27
Jul 22nd 2008, 08:45 AM
According to this hypothetical logic, I wasn't really married because I came to Jesus subsequent to the marriage (about a year later) and my husband hasn't (so far).

I've had people argue this with me. In fact some told me it was my duty to leave my husband because God wasn't in our marriage, I was therefore living in adultery, and demon-possessed by being intimate with a non-Christian. In fact, apparently it was my duty to destroy all personal records and photos because we had a civil wedding followed by a Pagan handfasting. This was a major cause of the conflict in my marriage because these people told my unsaved husband this, creating immense panic and fear in him, despite my pointing out it was false teaching. I reject the argument - 1 Cor 7: 13-14 tells me:

And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Not that my husband is saved in any way by virtue of being married to me, but the marriage is not illegitimate in God's eyes. If I took the logic of this 'argument' on board, that I'm not really married, then there would have been no reason for me to stay when the marriage went through a very difficult patch; I could've let my husband divorce me through the courts, and been free to marry a Christian. But God specifically and personally told me No - I was validly married for life, and I was to stay married on the basis of His word. That's not to say that when my husband gets saved (as I believe he will) we won't get our marriage blessed in a church we will both eventually attend - I can think of nothing more fabulous than celebrating the fact that God has saved us both and a testimony to His faithfulness, but that's one for the future, in His timing.

Bethany

I must ask......

in my first marriage I was Atheist/agnostic prior to marrying my ex wife.....and did not come to the Father until a few years later.....does this mean that that marriage was not a "real" marriage?

Alaska
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:40 PM
Alaska, that was a nice little article you presented. I'm sure the folks at achurchinfortcollins.org who wrote it think so, too. So, unless you're one of them, what are your personal thoughts on the issue we're discussing? ;)


Well, if I were to post something here without clarifying that I was not the author, then yes, I reckon that would seem dishonest; as if I make myself out to be the author when in fact I am not the author. Don't the rules on this forum disallow that? If they don't, then they should.
For the poster to not clarify that they did not write what they post, it is reasonably understood that they are indeed the author.

I haven't visited the site for the Fort Collins, CO church for some time, do they still have a link to those documents?
Glory to God for the love for truth those good folks have.

seamus414
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:44 PM
crawfish
Well, part of his argument is that remarriage was never prohibited from the beginning. He gave an alternate explanation of the verses we've always accepted as being against it.

Well the speaker claims this but it is not altogether accurate. The relevance of semitic practice and/or OT law on Christian teaching is limited. The fact is, Christians have never permitted divorce/remarriage until recently.

And, most of us will admit that there are many things the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox churches have believed since the early days that we think are wrong.

That may be true, but in this instance the RCC and EOC were united with virtually all Anglicans and Protestants until very recently. In other words, Christians spoke with the same voice on the issue until some just recently started saying something else. Were ALL of the Anglicans and Protestants historically wrong?

Ultimately you, and the speaker you posted, do not address the core question: was the ENTIRE Christian community -from the Apostles until the 20th Century - wrong? If yes, that's a pretty bold statement.

Tradition has always held that we take some of the SotM dead seriously, and some we regard as simply allegorical. Thus, in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus is dead serious; however, in Matthew 5:29-30 is just exaggeration. The simple answer is, the SotM is not about giving law; it is about interpreting law, taking it from a "legal" matter to a matter of the heart. The original divorce laws were there to prevent the victimization of women; by Jesus time, they had been turned around to be used for that purpose. Now, we've turned Jesus words around and are doing the same thing - forcing women, mostly, to stay in bad situations.

No one is forcing a woman to stay in a bad situation. Women still have the freedom to flee from victimization. To equate that with having the right to commit adultery is misplaced.

Alyssa S
Jul 22nd 2008, 01:39 PM
I think you're right, and God bless you in being obedient.

Thank you Bethany67... I appreciate the encouragement. :)
Bless you for your obedience as well!!

Alyssa S
Jul 22nd 2008, 01:55 PM
quote=VerticalReality;1718869]I wouldn't say they are "not married". I would say they are not married by God.
King Herod and Herodias were surely not believers and John the Baptist lost his head for telling them that their marriage was unlawful. Why would he even bother with them since they were evil minded? Was Herodias' first husband, Philip, a believer? God apparently recognized this marriage.



I mean what folks are saying here is that God is commanding us not to yoke ourselves with unbelievers but then at the same time they are saying that God is putting on and joining that yoke. That doesn't make much sense to me.


God told Joshua/Israel NOT to yoke themselves in a covenant with pagans... but COULD they still do it? Of course. They made a peace treaty with the Gibeonites who had lied to them about who they were. And still... God took the covenant so serious that 500 yrs later He brought a 3 yr famine on the land when Saul broke this covenant.

If Jesus wanted us to know that he only recognizes marriages between BELIEVERS.... then he would not have said ANYONE who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. His audience were Non Believers as well as Believers. When he said "Anyone" he met "Everyone"...so I believe.

God bless....
Alyssa

Alyssa S
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:20 PM
I presume you're thinking of 1 Cor 7:15:

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

The Greek is 'ou dedoulwtai,' the perfect passive of 'doulw,' to enslave. The one thing it cannot mean is free to remarry, since this would contradict Mt 5:32 and Mt 19:9. It also cannot mean that the marriage was never valid in God's eyes because that would contradict scripture a couple of verses earlier, where Paul is reiterating that the believer and unbeliever are married and the believer is not free to choose to leave.

The use of the 'doulw' version is not referring to marriage and now being free of it; when Paul discusses the marriage bond in Romans 7:2 he uses a different Greek word, deo, meaning bind/tie/fasten. Paul uses this 'deo' when confirming that the marriage bond lasts until one half of the couple dies:

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

Instead he is saying in 1 Cor 7:15 by 'doulw' that the believer is not bound or enslaved to renounce their faith in Christ for the sake of maintaining the marriage. The peace they must maintain is peace with God which takes priority over maintaining a marriage at all costs. It is not giving approval to the freedom to remarry; it doesn't actually address the issue of remarriage at all, because scripture has already stated in Rom 7:2 and elsewhere that this is not an option while the spouse/ex-spouse still lives.

I 100% agree with you.

Paul did not finish that section with "You are free to remarry."
Paul commands the believer NOT to leave.
Paul then says if the unbeliever leaves... let him...the believer is NOT BOUND.
Not Bound to what? Not bound to enslavement to an unbeliever who has nothing in common with you where the situation can be quite UN-PEACEFUL.
He then says...God has called (US)... who is "US"? (BELIEVERS)...He has called us to live in peace.
Paul THEN says... "How do you know, wife/husband, whether you will save your husband/wife?"

As you stated, Paul did NOT use the same Greek word (DEO) that he uses everywhere else in reference to the marriage bond. If Paul wanted us to know that the believer was free to remarry... I am sure that he would have made it plain and clear as he does to the widow in 1 Cor 7:39.

When my husband divorced me 11 yrs ago.... he was a believer and I was a non believer. He had good reason to leave, but not remarry. I was saved several years later, but he had already "remarried." I recently wrote him a letter telling him of my conviction... that he is still in covenant with me and that we are still married in God's eyes. He wrote back and politely asked me not to contanct him again because he had entered into a new covenant with someone else and he requested that I respect that covenant.

I respect his wishes but I cannot respect his "new covenant" because his covenant with me has not ended, in my opinion. Nobody died. Had he been a little more patient and WAITED... the Lord was in the process of breaking me and changing my heart and he would have had a God-fearing loving wife. In defense of him, he DID wait for me to lose my selfish ways... he just didn't wait long enough. Isn't this the same story we see with God and Israel? God divorced Israel in Jeremiah 3:8... but God still considered himself her husband (Jer 3:14) and WAITED patiently for her to change her ways, repent and RETURN to him. And of course, God always patiently waits for us with open arms. Does He not expect the same from us towards others?

"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..." 1 Cor 7:39

VerticalReality
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:34 PM
The Greek is 'ou dedoulwtai,' the perfect passive of 'doulw,' to enslave. The one thing it cannot mean is free to remarry, since this would contradict Mt 5:32 and Mt 19:9.

I don't believe it contradicts at all. Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 also do not say that a person is free to remarry after the death of their spouse. However, we do know by other Scriptures that if their spouse is dead this individual is free to remarry. We wouldn't know this, though, if we only looked at Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. We have to take the entirety of the Scriptures under consideration. The fact is, if this person is not free to remarry then they are indeed still in bondage to that unbeliever.


It also cannot mean that the marriage was never valid in God's eyes

I've never talked about validity. I'm talking about what God has joined together. Again, a covenant can still be valid even though God didn't bring it about or sanction it.


because that would contradict scripture a couple of verses earlier, where Paul is reiterating that the believer and unbeliever are married and the believer is not free to choose to leave.

The believer is not free to leave the unbeliever because the believer is now under God's covenant and they must honor God's will on marriage. The unbeliever, on the other hand, couldn't care less about what God thinks about the matter. They are not in covenant with God, and they are going to reject anything God would have them do. They are their own god, and they will be judged accordingly.


The use of the 'doulw' version is not referring to marriage and now being free of it; when Paul discusses the marriage bond in Romans 7:2 he uses a different Greek word, deo, meaning bind/tie/fasten. Paul uses this 'deo' when confirming that the marriage bond lasts until one half of the couple dies:

Do both Greek words not mean bondage? Therefore, what difference does it make which one is used?


Instead he is saying in 1 Cor 7:15 by 'doulw' that the believer is not bound or enslaved to renounce their faith in Christ for the sake of maintaining the marriage. The peace they must maintain is peace with God which takes priority over maintaining a marriage at all costs. It is not giving approval to the freedom to remarry; it doesn't actually address the issue of remarriage at all, because scripture has already stated in Rom 7:2 and elsewhere that this is not an option while the spouse/ex-spouse still lives.

I never stated it mentions anything about remarriage. However, it also doesn't mention anything about this being a declaration that a believer is not enslaved to renounce Jesus. Honestly, that interpretation just doesn't make much sense to me. Not renouncing Jesus is a given.

VerticalReality
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:43 PM
It is very possible, and many have done it. And before you say "then they couldn't have been true Christians in the first place" I can tell you that not only have I met people who loved God with all their hearts and gave up faith in Him completely, I've known a few very, very well. They were alive in Christ, living for Christ, sharing the gospel, following Christ -- and became weary, burnt out, deceived, disillusioned, and gave up the faith they had. How can this be? Unfortunately, the relationship you have with your wife doesn't quite work as an analogy. Not only have you been with your wife for some years and not only do you know her.... but you can SEE her. You can TOUCH her. You can carry on an intelligent conversation with her, laugh with her, debate with her. Imagine being blind, deaf, numb to all touch and getting married to someone... you can't see or hear or feel them.... THEN, the marriage example would work. And you'd almost be able to see how possible it would be for someone to wonder if they were really married at all, after a while... especially if they lost hope or grew bitter. Sometimes, those who CAN'T see, touch, hear, have concrete proof of something.... sometimes they can fall away. They lose confidence in the trust, and in the truth they held. They reject Christ, reject God. It's possible. It's also horrible.

To lose confidence or trust in something and not believe in its existence all together is two different things. I agree that many can and will fall from faith. However, that doesn't mean they are an atheist. I, personally, do not believe in atheists. I believe in folks who try to suppress the knowledge of God that He has placed in them, but I do not believe in atheists. An atheist is someone who believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God. Someone who has had a true and genuine relationship with Jesus Christ cannot get to such a point because if you truly know someone you cannot just erase their existence from your mind. It's just not logical. The only folks who could possibly say such a thing are those who never really knew Jesus to begin with. The only thing they knew was a theological figure from a book.


What you said after..... again, I'll think about it some more. Thanks. :)

Okey doke. :)

VerticalReality
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:04 PM
King Herod and Herodias were surely not believers and Moses lost his head for telling them that their marriage was unlawful. Why would he even bother with them since they were evil minded? Was Herodias' first husband, Philip, a believer? God apparently recognized this marriage.

Who was King Herod the king over? Additionally, you are speaking of John the Baptist . . . not Moses. ;)

And indeed . . . Herod and Herodias' marriage was unlawful.

Leviticus 20:21


God told Joshua/Israel NOT to yoke themselves in a covenant with pagans... but COULD they still do it? Of course. They made a peace treaty with the Gibeonites who had lied to them about who they were. And still... God took the covenant so serious that 500 yrs later He brought a 3 yr famine on the land when Saul broke this covenant.

Absolutely they could still do it. People make covenants all the time. It doesn't mean that God joined it. It simply means that God is still going to make them honor it even though He didn't want it. However, you do not see Scripture where God holds the unbeliever accountable. He only holds those who are His accountable. He held the Jews accountable, and He will hold a Christian accountable. Those who are not His He will do nothing to. The only thing they have is a judgment to come upon their death, and they will be judged by their works.


If Jesus wanted us to know that he only recognizes marriages between BELIEVERS.... then he would not have said ANYONE who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. His audience were Non Believers as well as Believers. When he said "Anyone" he met "Everyone"...so I believe.

No, I believe His audience was the Jews. He was addressing the law of Moses concerning marriage. This law was not given to the unbeliever. It was given to the Jew.

Alyssa S
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:12 PM
Who was King Herod the king over? Additionally, you are speaking of John the Baptist . . . not Moses. ;)



Duh! Thanks for catching that!! How funny! Yah... Of Course I meant John the Baptist. :)

King Herod was not Jewish though.... was he?

"King Herod was not a Jew, nor was he a Roman, but a descendant of Hellenistic rulers going back to the time of Alexander. He acted as a "client king" for the Romans - effectively a puppet who did whatever the Romans said."

Jesus compared him to a fox, an animal that was ritually unclean. Surely we cannot consider him a BELIEVER?





No, I believe His audience was the Jews. He was addressing the law of Moses concerning marriage. This law was not given to the unbeliever. It was given to the Jew.



His audience was the Jews in Matthew, but Mark and Luke were written to the Romans and Greeks... was it not? They were not Jews... nor were they familiar with the Jewish law.

Too, Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10 are the same account... and still, Jesus says "ANYONE" who divorces his wife. The "Exception Clause" is found in Matthew but it is not in Mark. Again... this is because the Romans and Greeks did not practice the Jewish custom... nor were they familiar with it...I doubt.

VerticalReality
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:24 PM
King Herod was not Jewish though.... was he?

Depends on who you ask. Probably also depends on whose side of this debate you are referencing.;)

However, John the Baptist was confronting a person who was in the position of a king over the Jews with the law given to the Jews.


Jesus compared him to a fox, an animal that was ritually unclean. Surely we cannot consider him a BELIEVER?

No doubt he was unclean. What makes a person unclean? Sin is what makes a person unclean. We were also unclean until we put our faith in the Lord to save us.


His audience was the Jews in Matthew, but Mark and Luke were written to the Romans and Greeks... was it not? They were not Jews... nor were they familiar with the Jewish law.

All the gospels are recording the same event. Jesus was addressing Jewish law to the Jews who asked Him.



Too, Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10 are the same account... and still, Jesus says "ANYONE" who divorces his wife. The "Exception Clause" is found in Matthew but it is not in Mark. Again... this is because the Romans and Greeks did not practice the Jewish custom... nor were they familiar with it...I doubt.


I'm not personally addressing this "exception clause". I don't think the Jewish law had an exception to those who were already married. I think the "exception clause" applied to those who found that their would-be spouse broke the law before their union and now they are free to not continue on with the covenant they promised.

Alyssa S
Jul 22nd 2008, 10:52 PM
[quote=VerticalReality;1719368]

All the gospels are recording the same event. Jesus was addressing Jewish law to the Jews who asked Him.



I agree that all the gospels are the same event. But there has to be a good reason why Mark and Luke (who are recording the same event) have left out the "Exception Clause". I truly believe it is because of "who" they were writing their letter to. It was the Greeks and Romans, who obviously did not practice the Jewish custom of betrothment. And I realize now what you believe in regards to the "Exception Clause"... thanks for clarifying.

Let me make sure I am understanding you correctly in regards to "who" Jesus was addressing. You believe since he is responding to the Pharisees question about Moses' law, that his answer is ONLY meant for them? Do you think that the non-believers that were standing around listening to this same sermon somehow knew that they were exempt from this teaching? And if they did, then how come there is no mention of it? It would seem that Jesus would have made it clear that this law applied to everyone EXCEPT the non-believers. Or he would have said something like... "To all believers... I give this command...." Or maybe we would see a verse revealing some Roman rasing his hand and saying, "Jesus does this apply to me as well?" Obviously we don't. I believe Jesus knew that his audience was a mixed crowd and that his teachings were for everyone who was there and listening.

Also... it is clear that these Pharisees were not believers... and yet, this message was directed to them. They may have been Jews... but that doesn't qualify them as a Believer.

Why couldn't we say that Jesus' teachings and commands about everything else was also non-believer exempt? Why stop at divorce and remarriage?

Thanks VR! God bless! :)

VerticalReality
Jul 22nd 2008, 11:30 PM
I agree that all the gospels are the same event. But there has to be a good reason why Mark and Luke (who are recording the same event) have left out the "Exception Clause". I truly believe it is because of "who" they were writing their letter to. It was the Greeks and Romans, who obviously did not practice the Jewish custom of betrothment.

The Greeks and Romans were also not given the law of Moses, so this could also be a reason why Mark and Luke do not mention an exception that was part of Jewish law.


Let me make sure I am understanding you correctly in regards to "who" Jesus was addressing. You believe since he is responding to the Pharisees question about Moses' law, that his answer is ONLY meant for them?

In Mark 10 Jesus didn't even give the Pharisees the entire answer. He ended up giving additional information when He and His disciples were behind closed doors. The additional information is almost identical to the information given in Matthew 19 except that the "exception clause" is not in it. One can assume that the Matthew 19 passage was given behind closed doors with His disciples as well to be consistent with the entirety of the Scriptures. Maybe the reason Mark and Luke didn't address this exception clause was because there was simply no need. Maybe for the reason you mentioned above when you stated that betrothals weren't the custom of the Greeks or Romans. I don't know. Maybe there was just no need for those Greeks and Romans to worry about Jewish law because Gentiles aren't under that law, and those Gentiles who are born again are part of a New Covenant that also need not worry about Jewish law.


Do you think that the non-believers that were standing around listening to this same sermon somehow knew that they were exempt from this teaching? And if they did, then how come there is no mention of it? It would seem that Jesus would have made it clear that this law applied to everyone EXCEPT the non-believers. Or he would have said something like... "To all believers... I give this command...." Or maybe we would see a verse revealing some Roman rasing his hand and saying, "Jesus does this apply to me as well?" Obviously we don't. I believe Jesus knew that his audience was a mixed crowd and that his teachings were for everyone who was there and listening.

Where does it state He was teaching unbelievers or Gentiles there? The only parties I see involved in these teachings are the Pharisees and Jesus' disciples. One might be able to assume He was teaching others, but the Scriptures do not declare it so.


Also... it is clear that these Pharisees were not believers... and yet, this message was directed to them. They may have been Jews... but that doesn't qualify them as a Believer.

They were believers in the law they were questioning Him about. What do you think qualifies a believer? These Pharisees were under the law of Moses and they tried to live that law. The problem was that they thought they were good enough to be justified by it. They were self-righteous and wicked. They thought that their works of the law justified them. However, that doesn't mean they were a Gentile or a pagan who was never given the law of Moses.


Why couldn't we say that Jesus' teachings and commands about everything else was also non-believer exempt? Why stop at divorce and remarriage?

I don't stop and just divorce and remarriage. I don't believe any of the law of Moses was given to the Gentile.

Alaska
Jul 23rd 2008, 01:33 AM
Close, but not quite.

MATTHEW 5 : 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."

Christ's words, not mine.

Looks like you are making 5 assumptions:

1) the word fornication means adultery there, when that word can mean, depending on its context, the premarital sin exclusively.
2) the divorce for fornication that is revealed in Matt. 1, where Joseph was about divorce Mary, which is a premarital divorce, cannot be the definition of the allowable divorce for fornication.
3) that since Matt. 5:31 relates to the postmarital divorce (Dt. 24) the exception clause in the next verse, 32, cannot be an interjected side-point-reference pointing to the premarital divorce only, even though it can be demonstrated by practical examples that exception clauses can in fact be interjected in that manner and with that effect.
4) the word "wife" in 5:32 above, can only pertain to a woman completely married, [even when applying "wife" with what is allowed by the exception clause] even though there is clear scriptural evidence that the word "wife" was also used in Bible times to describe a betrothed woman.
5) the verses in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, which, as written, undeniably forbid divorce and remarriage [which is clearly marked as adultery in those verses] cannot be the truth, and those adopting a childlike faith to accept the meaning of those verses would then become decieved by those verses as long as it is assumed that Jesus allowed divorce in 5:32 above

Alyssa S
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:31 AM
[quote=VerticalReality;1719836]
Where does it state He was teaching unbelievers or Gentiles there? The only parties I see involved in these teachings are the Pharisees and Jesus' disciples. One might be able to assume He was teaching others, but the Scriptures do not declare it so.


Well, first off, I want you to know that I am not arguing with you just for the sake of arguing or (discussing)... I like that word better. :) I really am considering what you are saying... just so you know.

But here is what I find when reading the verses surrounding this marriage issue: All throughout the Gospels we see the wording "And the crowds followed him," or "Large crowds followed Jesus or 'gathered'." You are correct that Jesus is addressing the Jews and/or the disciples. But in regards to "who" was in the crowds that were hearing this message we get a clue from the following verses:

Before Jesus addresses the marriage issue in Luke 16:18, Chapter 15 opens with: "the tax collectors and "sinners" were all gathering around to hear him." But the Pharisees were disgruntled over this since Jesus was eating with the "sinners." I understand that even though I am saved, I still sin. But I think this is clearly revealing "sinners" who are not converted....hence the response by the Pharisees. The funny thing is... even the Pharisees were not "converted" or saved.

In other places of Scripture where the "Crowds" were gathered around Jesus, we read that He cast out Demons. Matt4:24, Matt 8:16, Matt 8:28, Matt 9:32, Matt 12:22....

So I think that it is safe to consider that the "Large crowds" that followed Jesus when he spoke about divorce possibly contained non-believers or demon possessed people when we see this is common throughout the Gospels. The "Large Crowd" that Jesus fed with the fish consisted of 5,000!! Surely we cannot assume in a crowd that size that ALL are believers. Perhaps they were by the time he finished feeding them!! :)


They were believers in the law they were questioning Him about. What do you think qualifies a believer?
But was this belief in the law good enough to get them into the Kingdom of Heaven? I think not. They did not BELIEVE in Jesus as the Messiah. One who accepts Jesus as Savior and obeys his commands is a Believer.



These Pharisees were under the law of Moses and they tried to live that law. The problem was that they thought they were good enough to be justified by it. They were self-righteous and wicked.

My point exactly! They were wicked which means they were not Believers/Saved.



They thought that their works of the law justified them. However, that doesn't mean they were a Gentile or a pagan who was never given the law of Moses.


I agree. And their works didn't make them followers and believers of Jesus.



I don't stop and just divorce and remarriage. I don't believe any of the law of Moses was given to the Gentile.


I wasn't insinuating that the law was given to the Gentiles.

"For the LAW was given through Moses (to the Jews); Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ." John
1:17



God bless...

VerticalReality
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:08 AM
Before Jesus addresses the marriage issue in Luke 16:18, Chapter 15 opens with: "the tax collectors and "sinners" were all gathering around to hear him." But the Pharisees were disgruntled over this since Jesus was eating with the "sinners." I understand that even though I am saved, I still sin. But I think this is clearly revealing "sinners" who are not converted....hence the response by the Pharisees. The funny thing is... even the Pharisees were not "converted" or saved.

Matthew was a tax collector. He was also a Jew. Just because the Scriptures refer to some as tax collectors or sinners does not mean that they aren't still Jews.


In other places of Scripture where the "Crowds" were gathered around Jesus, we read that He cast out Demons. Matt4:24, Matt 8:16, Matt 8:28, Matt 9:32, Matt 12:22....

He casted demons out of Jews as well. In Luke 13 He casts a demon out of who He calls a "daughter of Abraham".


So I think that it is safe to consider that the "Large crowds" that followed Jesus when he spoke about divorce possibly contained non-believers or demon possessed people when we see this is common throughout the Gospels. The "Large Crowd" that Jesus fed with the fish consisted of 5,000!! Surely we cannot assume in a crowd that size that ALL are believers. Perhaps they were by the time he finished feeding them!! :)

I'm not saying Gentiles were never around Jesus when He taught. However, the Scriptures bare out very clearly that Jesus came to the house of Israel. Additionally, I think it is a very large assumption to say that Jesus was also teaching Gentiles in Matthew 19 when the Scriptures simply do not declare that this is the case. Jesus came to the Jews. One does not need to assume when stating such a thing. The Scriptures make this very clear.


But was this belief in the law good enough to get them into the Kingdom of Heaven? I think not. They did not BELIEVE in Jesus as the Messiah. One who accepts Jesus as Savior and obeys his commands is a Believer.

I made it very clear in my response that their attempts at justification through the law was futile. My point of view on these passages of Scripture is not whether or not they believed on Jesus. Such a thing really has nothing to do with what I've said here. I'm talking about the fact that Jesus was addressing those who were under the law of Moses, which the Pharisees were. This has nothing to do with whether or not the Pharisees were Christians. One only has to read a little bit of the bible to know that they were not Christian.


My point exactly! They were wicked which means they were not Believers/Saved.

I never stated they were saved. I'm unsure as to what your argument here is. You seem to be disputing something I haven't said anywhere in here.


I wasn't insinuating that the law was given to the Gentiles.

"For the LAW was given through Moses (to the Jews); Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ." John
1:17



God bless...

So then if the Gentiles were not given the law that Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19, why is it that you believe He is including them in His teachings to the Jews there?

Alaska
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:13 AM
Hi Alyssa,
Jesus was prophesied to be a light to the Gentiles. He brought universal truth. It makes sense for him to speak things that [though at the time primarily speaking to Jews and of course the now-and-again Gentile that might be in the crowd] would apply to all people at all times.

Any man in the OT who used Deut. 24 to divorce for anything from his first and lawful wife was dealing treacherously against her. And if he went further and married another woman, that was adultery. The truth has never changed from the moment God spoke it in the garden with regard to they being one flesh.
Moses' provision was written for the hardness of their hearts.
The law came by Moses. but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
This is just one topic of many where something that was hid from ages and from generation has been brought to light for all of mankind. The truth applies to both Jew and Gentile. It does not discriminate.

Whosoever divorces and remarries commits adultery.
Are they a Jew? Are they a Gentile? They are a "whosoever".

This whosoever, in context is referring to a lawful marriage, meaning one man one woman neither of whom had been married before as is the context Jesus used because he refers to the first marriage and equates that to all others, after that pattern, from which any divorce followed by a remarriage is in fact adultery and condemned.

VerticalReality
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:35 AM
The truth applies to both Jew and Gentile. It does not discriminate.

I can certainly agree with this. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. However, in Christ the Jew and the Greek are both part of the same body that is of the Spirit. There can be no carnality in the spirit, and therefore the law is not needed for those who live by the Spirit. There will be no divorce because those who are spiritual are no longer under law. We have died to the law so we can be joined with Christ. In the beginning it was God who joined a marriage. God gave Eve to Adam. They were joined with God and He joined them. Jesus came to restore how things were "In the beginning".

BCF
Jul 23rd 2008, 01:35 PM
In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. However, in Christ the Jew and the Greek are both part of the same body that is of the Spirit. There can be no carnality in the spirit, and therefore the law is not needed for those who live by the Spirit. There will be no divorce because those who are spiritual are no longer under law. We have died to the law so we can be joined with Christ. In the beginning it was God who joined a marriage. God gave Eve to Adam. They were joined with God and He joined them. Jesus came to restore how things were "In the beginning".

A-MEN........VR,

I PRAISE GOD FOR THE WAY THAT HE IS USING YOU....

Preach it Brother.....nobody listens to me when I tell them, so God will get His message through by using another.......

I Praise The Holy Name Of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Word......

Preach it Brother, Preach It..........

Alyssa S
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:02 PM
I'm not saying Gentiles were never around Jesus when He taught. However, the Scriptures bare out very clearly that Jesus came to the house of Israel.

I totally agree that the Scriptures are clear that He came to the House of Israel. But does that mean that everything that Jesus preached was strictly meant for the Jews?? That would be leaving out quite a few details for us Gentiles wouldn't it?



Additionally, I think it is a very large assumption to say that Jesus was also teaching Gentiles in Matthew 19 when the Scriptures simply do not declare that this is the case. Jesus came to the Jews. One does not need to assume when stating such a thing. The Scriptures make this very clear.


So today, are the rules different for believing Jews than they are for believing Gentiles? Since I am not a Jew, should I just skip over all the verses that were directed to the House of Israel? Does this mean that the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 do not apply to me? Does this mean I don't have to love my enemy? Because Jesus was strictly speaking to the House of Israel according to what you are saying. I mean, where do we draw the line? When I read my bible, I believe the Gospels are written to me and for me. How am I to know which ones to pick in order to live an obedient God-fearing life?

Here is an example...

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

You believe the "WHOEVER" in this particular case is ONLY the JEWS. But Luke was writing to the GENTILES and people everywhere. Do you think the first time they (Gentiles) heard this teaching of "WHOEVER marries a divorced woman commits adultery," they automatically knew that the "whoever" was only the Jews?

What about this?....

"WHOEVER believes in me, will live..."

"...that EVERYONE who believes in him may have eternal life."

"WHOEVER believes in him is not condemned, but WHOEVER does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

"WHOEVER believes in the Son has eternal life, but WHOEVER rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

"I tell you the truth, WHOEVER hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Does this still apply to only the Jews since Jesus was only addressing the House of Israel?

Of course it doesn't and I already know that you will say that it is not. But going with the logic you are presenting... at what point do we stop thinking the "WHOEVER" is only for the Jews?



I made it very clear in my response that their attempts at justification through the law was futile. My point of view on these passages of Scripture is not whether or not they believed on Jesus. Such a thing really has nothing to do with what I've said here. I'm talking about the fact that Jesus was addressing those who were under the law of Moses, which the Pharisees were. This has nothing to do with whether or not the Pharisees were Christians. One only has to read a little bit of the bible to know that they were not Christian.



My point is that 2 Cor 5:17 says that "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"

Many take this to mean that if we divorce before conversion, we are free from that covenant. We are a BELIEVER. These people that Jesus addressed in Matthew 5 and 19 may have been Jews... but they were not all 2 Cor 5:17 believers. They were not in Christ! That is your whole argument for your belief. My point is that Jesus' audience was not a group of BELIEVERS according 2 Cor 5:17. If they had all accepted him, then ok.. but they didn't and so that makes his crowds a mixture of BELIEVERS and UNEBELIEVERS.



I never stated they were saved. I'm unsure as to what your argument here is. You seem to be disputing something I haven't said anywhere in here.


I stated it above.



So then if the Gentiles were not given the law that Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19, why is it that you believe He is including them in His teachings to the Jews there?
[/quote]
"So my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another...." Romans 7:4

Have not all Jews as well as Gentiles, who've accepted Christ, died to the Law?

Alyssa S
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:26 PM
Something else that just doesn't sit right with me...

If 2 Cor 5:17 supposedly frees us, a new believer, from a covenant we made as a non believer prior to divorce... what other oaths are we supposedly freed from??

2 Cor 5:17 says that we are a new creation if we are in Christ and that the old has gone. What all does that entail? I believe it is speaking of sin... not covenants or oaths we made. Can we make a sinful covenant? Sure! Israel made one with the Gibeonites in the book of Joshua... but God still held them to it.

My nephew who has made an oath to the US Army to serve for a certain amount of time became a Christian. According to 2 Cor 5:17, some on here believe this frees us from oaths and commitments made as a non-believer, such as marriage. So does this mean that my nephew, who is now a BELIEVER, is no longer bound to serve out his committment as a soldier? I mean, the old life has gone and he is a new creation... If a person can walk away from a marriage covenant made as a non believer, shouldn't my nephew be able to walk away from his oath to the US Army?

Of course, we know the Army would laugh at this! If 2 Cor 5:17 frees us from ALL of our past, including oaths that were made... then people should be let out of prison, people should be released from mortgages, people should be released from credit card debt...etc etc...

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.... and I am one who was saved after my divorce.

I believe Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins... not our marriage covenants. But that's just my opinion. :)

~A

VerticalReality
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:50 PM
I totally agree that the Scriptures are clear that He came to the House of Israel. But does that mean that everything that Jesus preached was strictly meant for the Jews?? That would be leaving out quite a few details for us Gentiles wouldn't it?

When addressing the law of Moses . . . yes, everything was for the Jews. What good would it be to preach about something that did not apply to the Gentiles? The Gentiles were not God's people.


So today, are the rules different for believing Jews than they are for believing Gentiles?

Why would they be?


Since I am not a Jew, should I just skip over all the verses that were directed to the House of Israel?

Does the law of Moses apply to you? Do you still need a temple sacrifice? Why worry about some laws of old covenant but not them all?


Does this mean that the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 do not apply to me?

Why wouldn't they apply to you? When Jesus preaches about lusting in ones' heart is He talking about the law of Moses? No, He is not talking about the law of Moses. The law of Moses simply siad not to commit adultery. It was simply saying that sleeping with a married person is adultery and it is sin. However, the much deeper "in the beginning" teaching was that it goes much deeper than that. Why would this not apply to you?


When I read my bible, I believe the Gospels are written to me and for me.

Well, I guess if "rightly dividing" the Scriptures is not what we are required to do then I might need to start building another physical temple so I can perform all sorts of duties that will cover my sin.:o


How am I to know which ones to pick in order to live an obedient God-fearing life?

Rightly divide it. That's what the Holy Spirit is for . . . to lead us into all truth. Why try to apply laws that are not of the Spirit?


You believe the "WHOEVER" in this particular case is ONLY the JEWS. But Luke was writing to the GENTILES and people everywhere. Do you think the first time they (Gentiles) heard this teaching of "WHOEVER marries a divorced woman commits adultery," they automatically knew that the "whoever" was only the Jews?

Luke was writing to the Gentiles. Okay. Does that mean that Gentiles were present during this teaching and this was who He was addressing? No, it doesn't. Notice that Luke didn't include the part of the law of Moses that Matthew did in chapter 19 either. The law of Moses does not mean anything to a Gentile because they were not given them. Now not committing adultery does apply to a new believing Gentile coming into God's New Covenant. They are grafted into the true vine, and therefore everything that would apply to righteousness and holiness would indeed apply to them. They are no longer ignorant, but they have been enlightened to the truth.



What about this?....

"WHOEVER believes in me, will live..."

"...that EVERYONE who believes in him may have eternal life."

"WHOEVER believes in him is not condemned, but WHOEVER does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

"WHOEVER believes in the Son has eternal life, but WHOEVER rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

"I tell you the truth, WHOEVER hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Does this still apply to only the Jews since Jesus was only addressing the House of Israel?


I think I've been clear on what applies to the Jews and not the Gentiles.


Of course it doesn't and I already know that you will say that it is not. But going with the logic you are presenting... at what point do we stop thinking the "WHOEVER" is only for the Jews?

I'm addressing the law of Moses. What are you addressing? Was the law of Moses given the Gentiles . . . yes or no? Do the laws of Mexico apply to me if I'm not in Mexico . . . yes or no? Were Gentiles judged by a law that was not given to them or are they judged by a different standard?



My point is that 2 Cor 5:17 says that "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"

Many take this to mean that if we divorce before conversion, we are free from that covenant.


If the Gibeonites and the Hittites made a covenant . . . was our Lord there to hold them to it? Why don't you think the Lord ever got invovled in the covenants of Gentiles or pagans? Therefore, what makes you think that God now is involved in the covenants of those worshipping foreign gods?


We are a BELIEVER.

Okay.


These people that Jesus addressed in Matthew 5 and 19 may have been Jews... but they were not all 2 Cor 5:17 believers.

I have not said that they were. In fact, I've made it clear that they were not Christians.


They were not in Christ! That is your whole argument for your belief.

I don't think you understand my position well enough to declare what it is.


My point is that Jesus' audience was not a group of BELIEVERS according 2 Cor 5:17. If they had all accepted him, then ok.. but they didn't and so that makes his crowds a mixture of BELIEVERS and UNEBELIEVERS.

I never stated that they were all Christians. I know that very well, and I have said as much in this thread.



"So my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another...." Romans 7:4

Have not all Jews as well as Gentiles, who've accepted Christ, died to the Law?


Just to clarify further . . . the apostle Paul is addressing Jews in this passage of Scripture . . .

Romans 7:1
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?

It was the Jews who knew that law. The Gentiles had nothing to do with it because it was not given to them.

RabbiKnife
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:52 PM
Both Paul and Jesus were clear that some instances of divorce were permitted and that the divorced person was free to remarry.

Alyssa S
Jul 23rd 2008, 10:59 PM
Both Paul and Jesus were clear that some instances of divorce were permitted and that the divorced person was free to remarry.

Hi RabbiKnife....

Then why did the early church fathers say that all remarriage was adultery? Why is it that for 1500 years the church believed marriage was till death? I realize the early church fathers were not infallable... but doesn't it seem strange that those who lived closest to Christ and Paul's time did not allow remarriage in their creeds as well as those who lived throughout the years till the time of the Reformation?

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 01:54 AM
When addressing the law of Moses . . . yes, everything was for the Jews. What good would it be to preach about something that did not apply to the Gentiles? The Gentiles were not God's people.

Why would they be?

Does the law of Moses apply to you? Do you still need a temple sacrifice? Why worry about some laws of old covenant but not them all?


Why wouldn't they apply to you? When Jesus preaches about lusting in ones' heart is He talking about the law of Moses? No, He is not talking about the law of Moses. The law of Moses simply siad not to commit adultery. It was simply saying that sleeping with a married person is adultery and it is sin. However, the much deeper "in the beginning" teaching was that it goes much deeper than that. Why would this not apply to you?


These questions of mine were simply rhetorical my friend... I was pointing out what I "think" is silly if we pick one verse and say, "This ones for the Jews..." then we pick another verse out of that same chapter..."This ones for the Gentiles"... and then we pick another verse... "This one is for EVERYONE." I understand that often times Jesus and Paul were addressing Jews... thank you for pointing that out. And I understand that we have to rightly divide the Word. I simply have a problem when I hear that some seem to think that Jesus didn't mean what he said when he said "ANYONE" or "EVERYONE"...knowing darn good and well that his words would be heard by the Gentiles and even written down and given to the Gentiles!! Did he mean "EVERYONE" or didn't he? If he only meant the Jews.. why didn't he say "ANYONE from the House of Israel" or even "ANY of YOU..."??




Well, I guess if "rightly dividing" the Scriptures is not what we are required to do then I might need to start building another physical temple so I can perform all sorts of duties that will cover my sin.:o


Okay VR... Send me pictures when your temple is done. And keep me posted on how those duties are coming along! I'll stick to rightly dividing the Word. ;)




Rightly divide it. That's what the Holy Spirit is for . . . to lead us into all truth. Why try to apply laws that are not of the Spirit?


For real? Dude... what would I do without ya??:lol:



Luke was writing to the Gentiles. Okay. Does that mean that Gentiles were present during this teaching and this was who He was addressing?

So when Jesus commands the JEWS, since that was who he was addressing, not to commit adultery, it is meant ONLY for them since only they knew the Law? When the Gentiles got the letter from Luke... they automatically know that this verse does not apply to them? I don't think so.


The law of Moses does not mean anything to a Gentile because they were not given them.

Where does that leave the 10 Commandments? What about thou shall not murder? Is that commandment ONLY for the Jew or believing Gentile? I realize we are dealing with Moses' Law and God's Law here... but isn't the 10 Commandments for everyone? Or can anyone but God's children murder?



I think I've been clear on what applies to the Jews and not the Gentiles.

Okay.



If the Gibeonites and the Hittites made a covenant . . . was our Lord there to hold them to it?
There is no biblical record that I know of to make a comment on. But there are many things in the bible that are not mentioned or that God was silent on... doesn't mean we can assume.


Why don't you think the Lord ever got invovled in the covenants of Gentiles or pagans?

How do you know FOR SURE that he didn't or doesn't just because it wasn't recorded in the bible? You seem to believe remarriage while the former spouse is living is ok (according to 2 Cor 5:17) but we don't have ONE SINGLE God-accepted example in the Gospels of a woman or a man remarried while their former spouse is alive... but yet, you still believe it.


I don't think you understand my position well enough to declare what it is.

Forgive me. Didn't mean to step on your toes.



I never stated that they were all Christians. I know that very well, and I have said as much in this thread.



Welp... Jesus would HAD to of been talking to only BELIEVERS in order for 2 Cor 5:17 to apply regarding remarriage for a person divorced before salvation. The whole verse is about the person being NEW in Christ... and this surely doesn't describe the Pharisees. They may be the House Of Israel but this didn't automatically qualify them for the prize.

Just to clarify further . . . the apostle Paul is addressing Jews in this passage of Scripture . . .

Romans 7:1
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?

[/quote]
Thanks for pointing that out.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 02:25 AM
These questions of mine were simply rhetorical my friend... I was pointing out what I "think" is silly if we pick one verse and say, "This ones for the Jews..." then we pick another verse out of that same chapter..."This ones for the Gentiles"... and then we pick another verse... "This one is for EVERYONE." I understand that often times Jesus and Paul were addressing Jews... thank you for pointing that out. And I understand that we have to rightly divide the Word. I simply have a problem when I hear that some seem to think that Jesus didn't mean what he said when he said "ANYONE" or "EVERYONE"...knowing darn good and well that his words would be heard by the Gentiles and even written down and given to the Gentiles!! Did he mean "EVERYONE" or didn't he? If he only meant the Jews.. why didn't he say "ANYONE from the House of Israel" or even "ANY of YOU..."??

Is Jesus referring here to the law of Moses or not . . .



Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”


Yes or no? You can talk about "whosoever" and what not all night long and it isn't going to change the fact that Jesus is addressing the law of Moses here, and this law does not have anything to do with the Gentiles. The fact of the matter is that Jesus used the term "whoever" in this passage of Scripture when referring to the law of Moses, and we know for a fact that the law of Moses was never given to a Gentile. That's just bible.


So when Jesus commands the JEWS, since that was who he was addressing, not to commit adultery, it is meant ONLY for them since only they knew the Law? When the Gentiles got the letter from Luke... they automatically know that this verse does not apply to them? I don't think so.

I do think so. Again . . . yes or no. Was the law ever given to the Gentiles? Why do you keep dodging this question? Show me one spot in the Word of God where the Gentiles were given the law. Even when Gentiles were grafted in they were not given the law to follow. Reference Acts 15 and see for yourself.


Where does that leave the 10 Commandments? What about thou shall not murder? Is that commandment ONLY for the Jew or believing Gentile? I realize we are dealing with Moses' Law and God's Law here... but isn't the 10 Commandments for everyone? Or can anyone but God's children murder?

What about the 10 Commandments? The apostle Paul stated in Romans 7 that those who are born again are dead to those as well. Read 2 Corinthians 3 and see that that covenant in its glory was fading away and was replaced with a new one. Why does a born again believer of the Spirit need laws telling them not to do something bad? The Word declares that the law is not for the righteous. The Word declares that the law was only added because of transgression. Do you do the right thing because there is a law telling you not to, or do you do the right thing because you love God, you desire to please Him, and you just enjoy doing what is right and good?


There is no biblical record that I know of to make a comment on. But there are many things in the bible that are not mentioned or that God was silent on... doesn't mean we can assume.

Then why do you try to enforce something that you say the Scriptures are silent on? However, I disagree with you. I don't believe the Scriptures are silent on this issue. This is the reason why I believe that the believer is not in bondage to the unbeliever if the unbeliever chooses to depart. I believe it is because the believer is held accountable by God's standard to honor the covenants they make. I believe the same would have been true of the Gibeonites had they chose to depart their covenant with Israel. God held Israel responsible for their covenant. However, I don't believe God would have chastened the Gibeonites had they chose to break that covenant. Why? Because God doesn't chasten those who are not His. The Word clearly says this.


How do you know FOR SURE that he didn't or doesn't just because it wasn't recorded in the bible? You seem to believe remarriage while the former spouse is living is ok (according to 2 Cor 5:17) but we don't have ONE SINGLE God-accepted example in the Gospels of a woman or a man remarried while their former spouse is alive... but yet, you still believe it.

Again, I believe it is recorded. And why do you keep bringing up 2 Cor. 5:17 as if I have referenced this Scripture? Additionally, we do not have one single God-accepted example in the gospels where two unbelievers are considered joined and married by God . . . but yet you still believe it.


Welp... Jesus would HAD to of been talking to only BELIEVERS in order for 2 Cor 5:17 to apply regarding remarriage for a person divorced before salvation. The whole verse is about the person being NEW in Christ... and this surely doesn't describe the Pharisees. They may be the House Of Israel but this didn't automatically qualify them for the prize.

Where have I talked about 2 Corinthians 5:17?

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 02:57 AM
Hi RabbiKnife....

Then why did the early church fathers say that all remarriage was adultery? Why is it that for 1500 years the church believed marriage was till death? I realize the early church fathers were not infallable... but doesn't it seem strange that those who lived closest to Christ and Paul's time did not allow remarriage in their creeds as well as those who lived throughout the years till the time of the Reformation?


You can say that about a lot of the theology that gets bounced around this forum!

However, relative to divorce/remarriage, even the Reformation churches really did not permit divorce/remarriage significantly until the 20th Century. Permitting divorce/remarriage is part of the liberalization of Christians, nothing more, nothing less.

I also note that no one commented on my post about the homosexual movement. The fact is, when you move beyond biblical boundries concerning sexual relations (i.e.: permitting divorce/remarriage) there is no logical reason to stop further expansion (e.g.: to include homosexuality). Once the biblical standard is breached, anything is fair game.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 03:00 AM
Is Jesus referring here to the law of Moses or not . . .



Yes or no? You can talk about "whosoever" and what not all night long and it isn't going to change the fact that Jesus is addressing the law of Moses here, and this law does not have anything to do with the Gentiles. The fact of the matter is that Jesus used the term "whoever" in this passage of Scripture when referring to the law of Moses, and we know for a fact that the law of Moses was never given to a Gentile. That's just bible.



I do think so. Again . . . yes or no. Was the law ever given to the Gentiles? Why do you keep dodging this question? Show me one spot in the Word of God where the Gentiles were given the law. Even when Gentiles were grafted in they were not given the law to follow. Reference Acts 15 and see for yourself.



What about the 10 Commandments? The apostle Paul stated in Romans 7 that those who are born again are dead to those as well. Read 2 Corinthians 3 and see that that covenant in its glory was fading away and was replaced with a new one. Why does a born again believer of the Spirit need laws telling them not to do something bad? The Word declares that the law is not for the righteous. The Word declares that the law was only added because of transgression. Do you do the right thing because there is a law telling you not to, or do you do the right thing because you love God, you desire to please Him, and you just enjoy doing what is right and good?



Then why do you try to enforce something that you say the Scriptures are silent on? However, I disagree with you. I don't believe the Scriptures are silent on this issue. This is the reason why I believe that the believer is not in bondage to the unbeliever if the unbeliever chooses to depart. I believe it is because the believer is held accountable by God's standard to honor the covenants they make. I believe the same would have been true of the Gibeonites had they chose to depart their covenant with Israel. God held Israel responsible for their covenant. However, I don't believe God would have chastened the Gibeonites had they chose to break that covenant. Why? Because God doesn't chasten those who are not His. The Word clearly says this.



Again, I believe it is recorded. And why do you keep bringing up 2 Cor. 5:17 as if I have referenced this Scripture? Additionally, we do not have one single God-accepted example in the gospels where two unbelievers are considered joined and married by God . . . but yet you still believe it.



Where have I talked about 2 Corinthians 5:17?

I think the attempt to make Jesus' statements focues on Jews is in error. There is nothing in historic Christianity what would lend itself to that reading. Moreover, basic Christian theology is that the moral law from the OT applies across the board to all persons regardless of whether they are Jewish. Sexual morality is a universal moral law and that is what Jesus is clarifying.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 03:05 AM
I think the attempt to make Jesus' statements focues on Jews is in error. There is nothing in historic Christianity what would lend itself to that reading. Moreover, basic Christian theology is that the moral law from the OT applies across the board to all persons regardless of whether they are Jewish. Sexual morality is a universal moral law and that is what Jesus is clarifying.

Can you point out to me what Scriptures state that we are under a "moral law"? If by "moral law" you mean the Ten Commandments, again . . . Paul says we have died to those as well.

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 03:07 AM
I think the attempt to make Jesus' statements focues on Jews is in error. There is nothing in historic Christianity what would lend itself to that reading. Moreover, basic Christian theology is that the moral law from the OT applies across the board to all persons regardless of whether they are Jewish. Sexual morality is a universal moral law and that is what Jesus is clarifying.

No, I disagree. What Jesus was clarifying was what Has Father had already started in the very beginning. It's just that nobody wanted understand His teaching, just as nobody wants to understand it now.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 03:31 AM
Can you point out to me what Scriptures state that we are under a "moral law"? If by "moral law" you mean the Ten Commandments, again . . . Paul says we have died to those as well.


It appears that the issue of divorce/remarriage has panned back a bit here to a discussion on what the applicability of the Torah is upon the Christian. It is basic Christian theology to recognnize that merely because one of God's commands is contained within the OT does not mean that Christians are not obliged to obey it.

Christians have come to understand that the OT can be divided into three catagories: civil law, ceremonial law, and moral law.

Jewish civil law is just that, Jewish civil law. It applies to one group of people for their civil governance and there is no imperitive to apply this law to those who are outside of that community. In other words, the Judiasm is both a system of national government and a systen of religion. Those who are outside the government have no obligation to abide by its civil laws. Now that the New Covenant has been expanded to include all peoples, and not just one small subgroup (i.e.: Jews) such civil laws are obsolete.

The ceremonial law is the law that was established for the purpose of regulating how the Jew is to worship and relate to God and to other non-Jewish cultures. Christ's establishment of his Covenant rendered ceremonial law obsolete.

The moral law is that which is universal and eternal. The moral law reflects God's design and desire for all of mankind, not just a small subgrouping like Jews. The moral law predates Jewish Law (we can see it in action and applicable with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc) and we also see it in action and applicable in the New Covenant.

We see the above sort of logic being applied by the CHurch as early as Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem and it has continued in the Christian Community to this day as the dominant theological position of Christians.

We see the above acted out by the vast majorit of Christians today and throughout the ages. How? Here are some examples of civil/ceremonial laws inapplicable to Christians: (1) Christians do not keep kosher as that is obsolete; (2) Christians do not inflict criminal penalties (up to and including execution) for various legal infractions (it is obsolete); (3) Christians do not abide by the wide and varies Temple and Synogogue worship requirements (obsolete); (4) Christians are not sabbath observant as understood by the Law (obsolete). However, Christians oppose adultery, murder, theft, idol worship, sexual immorality - all of which are OT moral laws applicable to Christians.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus identifies the civil law concerning marriage and divorce by first discussing the Law which allows for divorce and remarriage. The Law was put in place as a direct result of the Fall and it addresses mankind's imperfection and inability to even keep this law to earn salvation. The Law reflects mankinds imperfect existance consequent to the Fall. Jesus' mission on Earth began mankind's reboot (to turn a phrase) back to the way mankind was intended in Eden. In Eden, marriage was a life long commitment. Therefore, Jesus, in rebooting mankind, first states that the imperfect system allows for marriage/divorce. However, Jesus' perfect system has marriages that last until death ends them. Christians are to seek this perfection and recognize that this perfection means that divorce/remarriage were never part of God's plan for marriage established in Genesis 2. In our effort to, with the grace of Christ, become sanctified and return to God's intentions for mankind, divorce/remarriage simply has no place.

The Church, as Christ's agent - spiritual hospital if you will - is supposed to take sick and sinful humans who need divorce/remarriage and perfect them and hold them to Christ's standards of life long marriages.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 03:34 AM
Christians have come to understand that the OT can be divided into three catagories: civil law, ceremonial law, and moral law.

I did not ask what Christians have come to understand. I asked what Scriptures declare that we are under a "moral law". Can you provide those Scriptures?

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 03:47 AM
[quote=VerticalReality;1721474]Is Jesus referring here to the law of Moses or not . . .



Yes... Jesus is referring to the law of Moses.



Yes or no? You can talk about "whosoever" and what not all night long and it isn't going to change the fact that Jesus is addressing the law of Moses here, and this law does not have anything to do with the Gentiles. The fact of the matter is that Jesus used the term "whoever" in this passage of Scripture when referring to the law of Moses, and we know for a fact that the law of Moses was never given to a Gentile. That's just bible.


He still had Gentiles in his audience.... He knew the Gentiles would hear him say "Whosoever".... I still believe that his Whosoever was exactly what he meant regardless of whether he was addressing the law of Moses.

By the way, I used to believe like you do in regards to: "IN the beginning," but the Scripture doesn't say that. Jesus said "It was not this way FROM the beginning." Greek - "APO" (from something near). "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this wasy FROM the beginning."

That kind of changes things in my opinion.



I do think so. Again . . . yes or no. Was the law ever given to the Gentiles? Why do you keep dodging this question?

I'm sorry I didn't realize I was... No, not that I know of...


What about the 10 Commandments? The apostle Paul stated in Romans 7 that those who are born again are dead to those as well.

We are dead to the Ten Commandments????

Matthew 5:17-19, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Jesus continues, Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” We are to not only obey the Commandments but Jesus more than strongly encourages us to teach them also. I don't think we are dead to them brother.


Too tired tonight... will write more tomorrow....

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 03:48 AM
Hi Alyssa S.

Nice to talk with you again, it has been awhile since our last conversation, how are you doing? I am going to attempt to try and shed some light on all of this for you and see if I can help you understand what I and VR are talking about.

In Matthew 19 Jesus is talking to a crowd of people who have followed him as you can read. These people consist of Gentiles and Jews along with the Pharisees who were also Jews. In chapter 19 verses 3-6, you have Jesus addressing a question that was given to him by the Pharisees. Now when Jesus answers this question in those verses, Jesus is talking to the Jews as well as the Gentiles. How do I know? Because in those verses Jesus took them all the way back to the beginning with his teaching.

Now in Matthew 19:7-9, Jesus is asked to address another question by the Pharisees, except this time they threw in the law of Moses into the question. Now in these verses Jesus is not talking to the gentiles anymore simply because they could care less about the law of Moses. In these verses Jesus is only talking to the Jews and that is all. Why? Because the Jews were the ones who knew and cared about the law of Moses.

This brings us to verses 10-15 of Chapter 19 where Jesus is addressed again with a question for the third time on this issue, except this time the question is coming from his very own disciples. In these verses Jesus is talking to know body but his disciples when he gives his answer and the disciples got what he was talking about. How do I know? Because the subject was never brought up again, and Paul was able to give the teachings that he gave on this issue from the disciples teachings.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 03:58 AM
No, I disagree. What Jesus was clarifying was what Has Father had already started in the very beginning. It's just that nobody wanted understand His teaching, just as nobody wants to understand it now.

Excuse me for being blunt... but brother or sister... I think you are stepping way out of line by accusing those of us who disagree with your theology as not wanting to understand God's teaching! That's a LOADED comment. I pour my heart, prayers, time and research into learning God's truth most every day. And I am determined to be obedient to what I am convicted of and I am open for correction. But your comment was a bit rude and immature. ;)

By the way, Jesus said "it was not this was FROM the beginning."

God bless...

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 04:04 AM
I did not ask what Christians have come to understand. I asked what Scriptures declare that we are under a "moral law". Can you provide those Scriptures?


Asking me to cite to verses to demonstrate how Christians have come to know that the law is civil, ceremonial and moral and its applicability (as I explained it in my post above) is to ask me to quote the entire Bible to you.

The fact is, God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - has standards by which Christians ought to live. YOu seem to be hung up on the word "law". YOu can call this the "moral law" (the traditional name), or "God's standards for living a godly life" or "what God expects from humanity" or "appropriate Christian conduct" or whatever. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The fact remains, God has expectations for humanity. To defy the expectations is to sin.

For the Christian, there is sin and there is virture. The standards by which we determine which from which can be labeled the moral law (or whatever). Whatever the name, it exisits. I am not suggesting that this moral law (or whatever your preferred term is), were the Christian to perfectly abide by it, would save the Christian. By no means. We are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone. God's grace and our faith, however, do not mean that there are no expectations on our lives and no obligation to live up to these expectations. This is the very essence of many Pauline theological arguments - especially his discourse in Romans.

In the context of this thread, divorce/remarriage is inconsistent with what God expexts from Christians and is, therefore, sin.

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 04:11 AM
Excuse me for being blunt... but brother or sister... I think you are stepping way out of line by accusing those of us who disagree with your theology as not wanting to understand God's teaching! That's a LOADED comment. I pour my heart, prayers, time and research into learning God's truth most every day. And I am determined to be obedient to what I am convicted of and I am open for correction. But your comment was a bit rude and immature. ;)

By the way, Jesus said "it was not this was FROM the beginning."

God bless...

I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone, and you are right and I agree, Jesus did tell the Pharisees that it was not this way from the beginning. But I ask you what was the question Jesus was addressing?

The question that Jesus was addressing at the time from the Pharisees was "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?" Jesus answered and said "Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female."

I never said that it was right for anyone to leave his wife for any reason. All I have ever said is that God is not in every Marriage and that Marriage is made up from Spirit and not of Flesh. That's all I have ever said.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 04:13 AM
Yes... Jesus is referring to the law of Moses.



He still had Gentiles in his audience.... He knew the Gentiles would hear him say "Whosoever".... I still believe that his Whosoever was exactly what he meant regardless of whether he was addressing the law of Moses.

So then you are claiming here that the Gentiles are under the law of Moses since you claim Jesus was including them in this teaching? In one breath you admit that the Gentiles were never given the law of Moses and that it was just given to the Jews, and yet in the next breath you state that Jesus must have known (assumption) that Gentiles were listening and therefore this must mean (again assumption . . . and assumption that goes against the Word) that the Gentiles were included in this teaching. Your view here seems to be highly inconsistent and in conflict with the clear declarations of Scripture.



By the way, I used to believe like you do in regards to: "IN the beginning," but the Scripture doesn't say that. Jesus said "It was not this way FROM the beginning." Greek - "APO" (from something near). "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this wasy FROM the beginning."

That kind of changes things in my opinion.


And what does it change? In the beginning or from the beginning doesn't change anything as far as I can see. It has been that way both in the beginning and from the beginning. Such a statement doesn't change anything at all.


I'm sorry I didn't realize I was... No, not that I know of...

So then why are you attempting to include the Gentiles as being under a law they were never given?


We are dead to the Ten Commandments????

You better be. Otherwise you have some answering to do on the day of judgment. The apostle Paul declares that we are dead to the Ten Commandments and that covenant is no longer for the Christian . . .

Romans 7:1-7
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

Thou shall not covet is one of the Ten Commandments, is it not? Paul clearly states here in Romans 7 that those who are alive in Christ have died to this law along with all the other ones. Christians have died to "thou shall not covet", "thou shall not murder", "thou shall not commit adultery", and every other law that was given. Those laws are not for those walking by the Spirit. Those laws were given to those who were carnal. Again, as the Scriptures make clear, the law was given because of transgression. Therefore, those who walk by the Spirit are not under the law. They are dead to it. Again, read 2 Corinthians 3 . . .

2 Corinthians 3:4-18
And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 3 is clear that the law is not for those of the Spirit. And this is talking about the law that was engraved on stones. This is the Commandments that were given to Moses.


Matthew 5:17-19, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Jesus continues, Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” We are to not only obey the Commandments but Jesus more than strongly encourages us to teach them also. I don't think we are dead to them brother.

Nobody is saying here that Jesus destroyed the law. The law will remain until the old heaven and earth are gone and the new heaven and earth have come to pass. However, the law that is still very much active today does not apply to those who are of the Spirit. As Paul makes perfectly clear in Galatians 5, if we walk in the Spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. And if we are walking in the Spirit we are not under law. It's those who walk after the flesh who are under law.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 04:20 AM
Asking me to cite to verses to demonstrate how Christians have come to know that the law is civil, ceremonial and moral and its applicability (as I explained it in my post above) is to ask me to quote the entire Bible to you.

The fact is, God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - has standards by which Christians ought to live. YOu seem to be hung up on the word "law". YOu can call this the "moral law" (the traditional name), or "God's standards for living a godly life" or "what God expects from humanity" or "appropriate Christian conduct" or whatever. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The fact remains, God has expectations for humanity. To defy the expectations is to sin.

For the Christian, there is sin and there is virture. The standards by which we determine which from which can be labeled the moral law (or whatever). Whatever the name, it exisits. I am not suggesting that this moral law (or whatever your preferred term is), were the Christian to perfectly abide by it, would save the Christian. By no means. We are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone. God's grace and our faith, however, do not mean that there are no expectations on our lives and no obligation to live up to these expectations. This is the very essence of many Pauline theological arguments - especially his discourse in Romans.

In the context of this thread, divorce/remarriage is inconsistent with what God expexts from Christians and is, therefore, sin.

My issue here is that you are contradicting Scripture with your statements that we are under some "moral law". Paul makes it perfectly clear that we are not under any law. In fact, he makes it clear that we are dead to it. If you are not dead to the law then you are awaiting judgment for your sins as they are not forgiven. If you are in the faith then you are no longer under the law and its charges against you have been satisfied by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. To say we are under a "moral law" is to say that you are still under a yoke that you cannot fulfill. We do not refrain from sin because we are under some law that says not to sin. We refrain from sin for an entirely different reason. The law was not given to those who chose to seek after God's heart and do what He would have them do. The law was given to those who rebelled against God and sinned. If you aren't currently rebelling against God and living in sin then you are not under any law. That is a foundational truth of God's grace.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 04:26 AM
You can say that about a lot of the theology that gets bounced around this forum!

However, relative to divorce/remarriage, even the Reformation churches really did not permit divorce/remarriage significantly until the 20th Century. Permitting divorce/remarriage is part of the liberalization of Christians, nothing more, nothing less.

I also note that no one commented on my post about the homosexual movement. The fact is, when you move beyond biblical boundries concerning sexual relations (i.e.: permitting divorce/remarriage) there is no logical reason to stop further expansion (e.g.: to include homosexuality). Once the biblical standard is breached, anything is fair game.

Hi seamus :)

I absolutely agree with you in regards to the homosexual movement. If the church is allowing remarriage when the Scriptures say a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.... I can certainly see where a homosexual would say, "Hey! Wait a minute... if it's ok for you to break the rules and get away with it.... it's ok for me!"

One of the hardest things for me to accept is the fact that our church no longer practices what it did for 1500 + years. It is evident we are in the last days.

Thanks and God bless!
Alyssa

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 04:40 AM
Once again Alyssa, this passage
a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives is taken out of Romans 7 and is also taken out of Context.

In Roman 7 Paul is talking about being Alive in Spirit, Not Alive in the Flesh

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 04:46 AM
[quote=VerticalReality;1721576]
You better be. Otherwise you have some answering to do on the day of judgment. The apostle Paul declares that we are dead to the Ten Commandments and that covenant is no longer for the Christian . . .



There's a difference from Moses' law and God's Royal Law. I am dead to loving the Lord God with all my heart and loving my neighbor as myself? Whoa!

Revelation 22:14, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, ( NOT DIE TO THEM) that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15
"IF YOU LOVE ME".... which is the GREATEST of the Ten Commandments....Loving Him!

Uhhh... I think Jesus, God himself, said to KEEP the Commandments... not die to them.

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 06:19 AM
[quote]


There's a difference from Moses' law and God's Royal Law. I am dead to loving the Lord God with all my heart and loving my neighbor as myself? Whoa!

Revelation 22:14, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, ( NOT DIE TO THEM) that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15
"IF YOU LOVE ME".... which is the GREATEST of the Ten Commandments....Loving Him!

Uhhh... I think Jesus, God himself, said to KEEP the Commandments... not die to them.

No Alyssa, Dead to the Law, But Alive to God in Spirit

Romans 7:1-6,

1. Know ye not brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he liveth (talking about living in the flesh here). 2. For the woman which hath an husband by the law (which was given to Moses) to her husband so long as he liveth; (once again still talking about the flesh here) but if the husband be dead (and again in the flesh) she is loosed from the law (which was given to Moses).
3. So then, if while her husband liveth (in the flesh) she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead (in the flesh) she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead (in the flesh) to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another (our Spirit) even Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5. For when we were in the flesh (alive in the flesh) the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter (law of Moses).

I wrote this sometime this week in another post, and I believe it is fitting to use again tonight in this one also. It is from 1st Corinthians 6:12-20 (which is what I believe Paul based his marriage principles off of) and where I believe we can all come to find out what God had planned from the beginning for marriage through the writings from Paul, who was taught by the disciples of our Lord Jesus.

12. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?
God forbid. 16. What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit.

In verses 12-17 Paul makes it clear how Gods Plan for marriage was suppose to be and still is suppose to be today. It is suppose to be between to people who are joined in one spirit, not in one flesh. The flesh has nothing to do with a marriage between two people in Gods eyes. Only the Spirit does, and Paul makes that very clear in those verses. In those verses a harlot is a non believer and we are not to be joined to them and if we are it is not a marriage in Gods eyes. So if they would get divorced it would not be held against them in Gods eyes. Jesus tells us in John 3:6-7, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

When we are first born into this world we are born into this world flesh. It is not until we become born of the Spirit that we become a servant of Christ. Unfortunately, it will be very few who reach this. Jesus says so because he says that the road is very narrow and few will be on it. And when I look at the world today and listen to some of the teaching that I hear, I can see what he is talking about in that passage, as I'm sure others can also.

Paul goes on to say in the rest of the verses starting with verse 18. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19. What? know ye not that your is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20. For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your Spirit, which are God's.

Here in verse 18 I believe Paul is telling us to leave the unbeliever if they don't want to come to Christ with us. Why? Because we are sinning against our own body or Spirit. Our new born body is holding the Spirit of God in it and we are sinning against it every single time we have intercourse with that unsaved spouse of ours.

The Commandment that Jesus gave us was to Love one another as he has Loved us. You will find that in Matthew 13:34-35 where Jesus says "34. A new Commandment I give unto you, That you Love one another; as I have Loved you, that you also love one another. 35. By this shall all men now that ye are my disciples, IF ye have love one to another.

That is the only Commandment that you will find that Jesus has told any of us to follow. The Commandment of Love. I can find that all over the place.

The very one that you are referring to is also found in Matthew 15: 9-11, "9. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 11. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full."

So you see my friend, the Commandment is to Love, and you are not dieing to Love, you are dieing to the law of the letter of Moses, which is what makes us sin because we can't fill that law. But we can fill the law of Love.

Sorry for the long post.......

Dave

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 12:06 PM
I never said that it was right for anyone to leave his wife for any reason. All I have ever said is that God is not in every Marriage and that Marriage is made up from Spirit and not of Flesh. That's all I have ever said.

I agree with you.

Civil marriage has two parties to the marriage contract: husband and wife.

Christian marriage has three parties to the marriage contract: husband, wife, and God.

Someone married in a civil marriage can always add God to the contract to make it a Christian marriage at any time when the husband and wife want to include God.

The addition of God to the marriage contract clearly applies a different dynamic to that contract as compared to the civil marriage without God. Whenever God is introduced to a situation the situation changes dramatically on its face. This is the case with marriage as it is with anything else.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 12:28 PM
My issue here is that you are contradicting Scripture with your statements that we are under some "moral law". Paul makes it perfectly clear that we are not under any law. In fact, he makes it clear that we are dead to it. If you are not dead to the law then you are awaiting judgment for your sins as they are not forgiven. If you are in the faith then you are no longer under the law and its charges against you have been satisfied by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. To say we are under a "moral law" is to say that you are still under a yoke that you cannot fulfill. We do not refrain from sin because we are under some law that says not to sin. We refrain from sin for an entirely different reason. The law was not given to those who chose to seek after God's heart and do what He would have them do. The law was given to those who rebelled against God and sinned. If you aren't currently rebelling against God and living in sin then you are not under any law. That is a foundational truth of God's grace.

After reading the above, your thread with me, and to some extent your thread with Alyssa, it has become clear to me that some of the disagreement is derived from insisting upon a very strict definition of terms - in this case "law".

You did not seem to acknowledge in my post above when I essentially said that I was not using the term "moral law" as a term of art, but just as a term of convienience. As I said, you are free to use other useful labels such as "appropriate godly behavior" or "God's standards for living" or whatever. You also do not seem to acknowledge my recognition that Christians are saved by grace only through faith only. Instead of acknowledging my position you instead focus upon the word "law" and then restate my position precisely how I specificly did not state it.

I will give it another go and maybe you'll see what I am saying. Again, I am not using the term "law" as a term of art.

The fact is that God has express desires as to how Christians are to conduct themselves. Are we saved if we fullfill these? No. Are we measured by these in a legalistic sort of way? No. What do we know about them? We know two things: (1) we, by and large, know what God's desires are for Christian behavior and (2) we know that to defy God's desires is sin and to fulfill them is righteousness. Period. Again, am I saying we earn salvation? No. There is a difference between fulfilling God's desires for our lives through love and grace and fulfilling God's desires out of an attempt at personally earned holiness through fulfillment of the law.

The point? God's universal and eternal desires for mankind's behavior does not include the ceremonial and civil laws of the Torah. God's universal and eternal desires for mankind's behavior, his moral code if you will, predates the Torah, coincides with the Torah, and postdates the Torah among Christians under the New Covenant. Among this moral code, God is clear: divorce/remarriage is inconsistent with God's desires for mankind. If something is inconsistent with God's desires it is ony one thing: sin.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 12:40 PM
Of Course! Dead to the Ceremonial Law that Moses gave... NOT the Law of God, The Ten Commandments that are Eternal... meaning that the Law OF GOD essentially existed before Moses gave it.... beginning in the Garden.

Here is a quote from a study on the TC's....

The bible is the inspired word of God as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us and never contradicts itself, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” James explains to us that Gods 10 Commandments are the “Perfect Law of liberty.” Liberty means freedom and can never equate to bondage. James 1:25, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James later continues to show that God’s royal law of love specifically includes the Ten Commandments. James 2:8-12 “If you fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbour as thyself, you do well: 9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you are become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak you, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

Notice how James tells us that if we break any of Gods 10 Commandments we are guilty of all, and it is by this perfect law of liberty that we will be judged. So how does the Bible define sin? 1 John 3:4, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God’s law, because sin is a breaking of the law.” Or, as the King James Version puts it, 1 John 3:4 “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” So according to the Bible, sin is breaking any of Gods 10 Commandments.



In verses 12-17 Paul makes it clear how Gods Plan for marriage was suppose to be and still is suppose to be today. It is suppose to be between to people who are joined in one spirit, not in one flesh. The flesh has nothing to do with a marriage between two people in Gods eyes. Only the Spirit does, and Paul makes that very clear in those verses. In those verses a harlot is a non believer and we are not to be joined to them and if we are it is not a marriage in Gods eyes.

Then why did God tell HOSEA to marry an ADULTEROUS WOMAN? And why did God tell Hosea to go and GET his Adulterous wife and bring her back and love her?? Sure seems like He joined that marriage!!!


Here in verse 18 I believe Paul is telling us to leave the unbeliever if they don't want to come to Christ with us. Why? Because we are sinning against our own body or Spirit. Our new born body is holding the Spirit of God in it and we are sinning against it every single time we have intercourse with that unsaved spouse of ours.

No... I totally disagree with you here.

Paul says NOT to leave the unbeliever in 1 Cor 7:12!!! The unebelieving person is sanctified through the believing spouse. Surely Paul is not going to contradict himself!!





So you see my friend, the Commandment is to Love, and you are not dieing to Love, you are dieing to the law of the letter of Moses, which is what makes us sin because we can't fill that law. But we can fill the law of Love.


Yes, the commandment is to LOVE.. which is the greatest commandment of the TEN COMMANDMENTS that I have not died to. We are dead to the Law of Moses.... THAT WE WERE NEVER GIVEN SINCE WE ARE GENTILES. That seems so strange. How do we die to something that we were never given inthe first place?? Vertical Reality??

God bless and I appreciate the apology... I thank you kindly. :)

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 12:48 PM
Of Course! Dead to the Ceremonial Law that Moses gave... NOT the Law of God, The Ten Commandments that are Eternal... meaning that the Law essentially existed before Moses gave it.... beginning in the Garden.

Here is a quote from a study on the TC's....

The bible is the inspired word of God as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us and never contradicts itself, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” James explains to us that Gods 10 Commandments are the “Perfect Law of liberty.” Liberty means freedom and can never equate to bondage. James 1:25, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James later continues to show that God’s royal law of love specifically includes the Ten Commandments. James 2:8-12 “If you fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbour as thyself, you do well: 9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you are become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak you, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

Notice how James tells us that if we break any of Gods 10 Commandments we are guilty of all, and it is by this perfect law of liberty that we will be judged. So how does the Bible define sin? 1 John 3:4, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God’s law, because sin is a breaking of the law.” Or, as the King James Version puts it, 1 John 3:4 “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” So according to the Bible, sin is breaking any of Gods 10 Commandments.




Then why did God tell HOSEA to marry an ADULTEROUS WOMAN? And why did God tell Hosea to go and GET his Adulterous wife and bring her back and love her?? Sure seems like He joined that marriage!!!



No... I totally disagree with you here.

Paul says NOT to leave the unbeliever in 1 Cor 7:12!!! The unebelieving person is sanctified through the believing spouse. Surely Paul is not going to contradict himself!!





Yes, the commandment is to LOVE.. which is the greatest commandment of the TEN COMMANDMENTS that I have not died to. We are dead to the Law of Moses.... THAT WE WERE NEVER GIVEN SINCE WE ARE GENTILES. That seems so strange. How do we die to something that we were never given inthe first place?? Vertical Reality??

God bless and I appreciate the apology... I thank you kindly. :)[/quote]

Allow me to reiterate my post above. The confusion in this discussion is the different uses of the word "law. Alyssa is not using the term to refer to the "Torah" and "the Law" as the thing God set down amongst the Jews for them to find ways to fufill and can only show us our inability to be holy. I think Alyssa would acknowledge that Christians are dead to the "the Law" inasmuch as Christians are dead to the terms of the Old Covenant.

If I can speak for Alyssa, she is using the term to refer to God's desires/standards for how his people are to conduct themselves. Under the New Covenant there is certainly no "law" as under there is under the Old. There is only grace and love. However, God still has expectations and tells us that some things are sin and some are not and these expectations are consistent with the grace and love of the New Covenant.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 12:50 PM
There's a difference from Moses' law and God's Royal Law.

Show me the difference laid out in Scripture. I don't need to see what you've been taught or what you have read from others. Show me from the Word of God where it distinguishes between some "royal" law and the law that Paul says we are dead to . . .

Are the clear Scriptures that I referenced for you above lying?


I am dead to loving the Lord God with all my heart and loving my neighbor as myself? Whoa!

You need a law to tell you to love the Lord your God? Is that the only reason you love Him? I don't see understanding in your comments about why the law was given. The law was not given to folks who love the Lord. They were given to folks who did not. If I were to ask you, "Why do you love the Lord," I would hope that you wouldn't say, "Because there is a law telling me I have to."



Revelation 22:14, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, ( NOT DIE TO THEM) that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15
"IF YOU LOVE ME".... which is the GREATEST of the Ten Commandments....Loving Him!

Uhhh... I think Jesus, God himself, said to KEEP the Commandments... not die to them.


Indeed, those who love Him will keep them. But the real question you don't seem to be understanding here is why. When you walk in the Spirit you will automatically fulfill the requirement of the law. Not because you are alive to the law, but because you are dead to it. Do you not see this truth? You fulfill the law because it should no longer be you who lives but Christ who lives in you. You should be crucified with Him having died to what you were held by (the law).

I mean really this is simple logic, Alyssa. Do you refrain from murdering people only because you are afraid to go to jail and be prosecuted by the law of the land, or do you refrain from murdering people because you rejoice in all that is good and holy? The Scriptures could not be more clear, Alyssa. The law is not for the righteous. The law is for the sinner.

Now, address the clear Scriptures I laid out for you above. Does Paul not say very clearly in Romans 7 that those in Christ are dead to the law? Yes or no? Does Paul not say very clearly in 2 Corinthians 3 that the old covenant, written and engraved on stones, is not for those who are part of the ministry of the Spirit? Does it say this . . . yes or no?

Additionally, here's another question for you . . .

When two parties make a covenant . . . what binds that covenant?

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 12:54 PM
I agree with you.

Civil marriage has two parties to the marriage contract: husband and wife.

Christian marriage has three parties to the marriage contract: husband, wife, and God.

Someone married in a civil marriage can always add God to the contract to make it a Christian marriage at any time when the husband and wife want to include God.

The addition of God to the marriage contract clearly applies a different dynamic to that contract as compared to the civil marriage without God. Whenever God is introduced to a situation the situation changes dramatically on its face. This is the case with marriage as it is with anything else.

This has been my point the entire time. However, some in this thread are stating that those who are not of God are still joined by Him. I do not believe this to be the case.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 12:59 PM
[quote=VerticalReality;1721800]Show me the difference laid out in Scripture. I don't need to see what you've been taught or what you have read from others. Show me from the Word of God where it distinguishes between some "royal" law and the law that Paul says we are dead to . . .



"SOME" ROYAL Law?? I quoted you Scripture brother! Did you even read what I said or are you just in it for the sake of winning an argument? What I posted for you was SCRIPTURE...

Here it is again...

The bible is the inspired word of God as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us and never contradicts itself, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” James explains to us that Gods 10 Commandments are the “Perfect Law of liberty.” Liberty means freedom and can never equate to bondage. James 1:25, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James later continues to show that God’s royal law of love specifically includes the Ten Commandments. James 2:8-12 “If you fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbour as thyself, you do well: 9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you are become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak you, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

Notice how James tells us that if we break any of Gods 10 Commandments we are guilty of all, and it is by this perfect law of liberty that we will be judged. So how does the Bible define sin? 1 John 3:4, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God’s law, because sin is a breaking of the law.” Or, as the King James Version puts it, 1 John 3:4 “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” So according to the Bible, sin is breaking any of Gods 10 Commandments.

Firefighter
Jul 24th 2008, 01:01 PM
Hi RabbiKnife....

Why is it that for 1500 years the church believed marriage was till death? I realize the early church fathers were not infallable... but doesn't it seem strange that those who lived closest to Christ and Paul's time did not allow remarriage in their creeds as well as those who lived throughout the years till the time of the Reformation?

The church for almost 1500 years also thought people like you and I were too stupid to read the bible for ourselves, so they kept it in latin.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 01:02 PM
After reading the above, your thread with me, and to some extent your thread with Alyssa, it has become clear to me that some of the disagreement is derived from insisting upon a very strict definition of terms - in this case "law".

You did not seem to acknowledge in my post above when I essentially said that I was not using the term "moral law" as a term of art, but just as a term of convienience. As I said, you are free to use other useful labels such as "appropriate godly behavior" or "God's standards for living" or whatever. You also do not seem to acknowledge my recognition that Christians are saved by grace only through faith only. Instead of acknowledging my position you instead focus upon the word "law" and then restate my position precisely how I specificly did not state it.

I will give it another go and maybe you'll see what I am saying. Again, I am not using the term "law" as a term of art.

The fact is that God has express desires as to how Christians are to conduct themselves. Are we saved if we fullfill these? No. Are we measured by these in a legalistic sort of way? No. What do we know about them? We know two things: (1) we, by and large, know what God's desires are for Christian behavior and (2) we know that to defy God's desires is sin and to fulfill them is righteousness. Period. Again, am I saying we earn salvation? No. There is a difference between fulfilling God's desires for our lives through love and grace and fulfilling God's desires out of an attempt at personally earned holiness through fulfillment of the law.

The point? God's universal and eternal desires for mankind's behavior does not include the ceremonial and civil laws of the Torah. God's universal and eternal desires for mankind's behavior, his moral code if you will, predates the Torah, coincides with the Torah, and postdates the Torah among Christians under the New Covenant. Among this moral code, God is clear: divorce/remarriage is inconsistent with God's desires for mankind. If something is inconsistent with God's desires it is ony one thing: sin.

Stating things like law, moral code, holy requirements or anything of the like all means the same thing. It's all law in the end.

What I am saying here is this . . .

Born again Christians do not do what is good and holy because:

1) They are required to
2) Because a law says to
3) Because a code says to
4) Because ***enter here any other reason other than love***

We do what is right and good because we love the Lord and we now love holiness. That is it. It's not a code that makes us do right. It's not a law that makes us do right. It is the Spirit of God that shows us the way. That's grace.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 01:06 PM
"SOME" ROYAL Law?? I quoted you Scripture brother! Did you even read what I said or are you just in it for the sake of winning an argument? What I posted for you was SCRIPTURE...

Here it is again...

The bible is the inspired word of God as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us and never contradicts itself, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” James explains to us that Gods 10 Commandments are the “Perfect Law of liberty.” Liberty means freedom and can never equate to bondage. James 1:25, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James later continues to show that God’s royal law of love specifically includes the Ten Commandments. James 2:8-12 “If you fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbour as thyself, you do well: 9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you are become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak you, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

Notice how James tells us that if we break any of Gods 10 Commandments we are guilty of all, and it is by this perfect law of liberty that we will be judged. So how does the Bible define sin? 1 John 3:4, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God’s law, because sin is a breaking of the law.” Or, as the King James Version puts it, 1 John 3:4 “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” So according to the Bible, sin is breaking any of Gods 10 Commandments.

What is James talking about, Alyssa? He is talking about love. He is not talking about a law that is written and engraved on stones. He is not talking about a handwriting of requirements. He is talking about love. That is it. No law that Paul says that we are dead to. Are you going to address those clear Scriptures I gave to you or not? Why do you insist on dodging them? You dodge them because they clearly show that your position here is faulty. You actually prove my point with your last post. We do good because we LOVE God and LOVE people. We do not do good because there is a written law saying we have to.

It's amazing to me that you continue to prove my point and all the while insist that I'm wrong.

And once again, since you continuously dodge my questions . . .

When two parties make a covenant . . . what is it that binds that covenant?

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 01:26 PM
What is James talking about, Alyssa? He is talking about love. He is not talking about a law that is written and engraved on stones. He is not talking about a handwriting of requirements. He is talking about love. That is it. No law that Paul says that we are dead to. Are you going to address those clear Scriptures I gave to you or not? Why do you insist on dodging them? You dodge them because they clearly show that your position here is faulty. You actually prove my point with you last post. We do good because we LOVE God and LOVE people. We do not do good because there is a written law saying we have to.

It's amazing to me that you continue to prove my point and all the while insist that I'm wrong.

And once again, since you continuously dodge my questions . . .

When two parties make a covenant . . . what is it that binds that covenant?

CHILL VR!! :)

I will respond to you when I get a chance! Good Gosh!
Why did you call it "SOME ROYAL LAW" as if it didn't exist??? What about answering my questions for a change? There are several posts that you didn't respond to.

Anyhoo... I think you have a good argument. And it is something that I haven't considered. So give me a break so I can digest what it is that you are saying. COOL?? When you and I discussed this months back... you didn't present this exact concept/theory what ever you want to call it. So obviously this is something new you have learned... So give me some time to digest it. I am not dodging your questions... I don't know how to answer them to be honest. And I don't want to answer from the flesh.

So please be patient with me. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for you to be right and me be wrong about this. Then Lord willing I could go get married!!! I don't have a problem being wrong about this... I just want to know what GOD says... not your opinion or my opinion. I want to be clear about what the Scripture says.

After the "bazillion" people that I have talked this over with, I have never heard it presented the way you have. So give me some time. Simma down now! ;)

Thanks for your patience.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 01:31 PM
VR... I am reposting this since you or no one else responded to it. Just curious about your thoughts on it! Thanks!


Something else that just doesn't sit right with me...

If 2 Cor 5:17 supposedly frees us, a new believer, from a covenant we made as a non believer prior to divorce... what other oaths are we supposedly freed from??

2 Cor 5:17 says that we are a new creation if we are in Christ and that the old has gone. What all does that entail? I believe it is speaking of sin... not covenants or oaths we made. Can we make a sinful covenant? Sure! Israel made one with the Gibeonites in the book of Joshua... but God still held them to it.

My nephew who has made an oath to the US Army to serve for a certain amount of time became a Christian. According to 2 Cor 5:17, some on here believe this frees us from oaths and commitments made as a non-believer, such as marriage. So does this mean that my nephew, who is now a BELIEVER, is no longer bound to serve out his committment as a soldier? I mean, the old life has gone and he is a new creation... If a person can walk away from a marriage covenant made as a non believer, shouldn't my nephew be able to walk away from his oath to the US Army?

Of course, we know the Army would laugh at this! If 2 Cor 5:17 frees us from ALL of our past, including oaths that were made... then people should be let out of prison, people should be released from mortgages, people should be released from credit card debt...etc etc...

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.... and I am one who was saved after my divorce.

I believe Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins... not our marriage covenants. But that's just my opinion. :)

~A

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 01:39 PM
Why did you call it "SOME ROYAL LAW" as if it didn't exist???

I called it "some royal law" because you are using that term out of context. The royal law that James is talking about is not the Ten Commandments. He is talking about love. Paul says that we are dead to the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are the ministry that was engraved on stones that Paul says is not of the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3. This is the same law that Paul says we are dead to in Romans 7. This law was not given to those who follow and obey the royal law that James speaks of. The law was given to those who did not love God or His ways.


What about answering my questions for a change? There are several posts that you didn't respond to.

Like?


And it is something that I haven't considered. So give me a break so I can digest what it is that you are saying. COOL??

Cool. My only request is that you digest it before you argue it. Get a clear understanding of what I'm saying before acting as if what I'm saying is absurd.


So please be patient with me. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for you to be right and me be wrong about this. Then Lord willing I could go get married!!! I don't have a problem being wrong about this... I just want to know what GOD says... not your opinion or my opinion. I want to be clear about what the Scripture says.

But according to you . . . you already are married. Why are you seeking out another marriage if you are already married? Do you seriously feel in your spirit that you are joined by the Lord with this man? If so, this is the man you should have desire for and not another.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 01:49 PM
The church for almost 1500 years also thought people like you and I were too stupid to read the bible for ourselves, so they kept it in latin.

Urban Missionary, your post above is an urban legend. That was never the position of the church.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 01:54 PM
VR... I am reposting this since you or no one else responded to it. Just curious about your thoughts on it! Thanks!


Something else that just doesn't sit right with me...

If 2 Cor 5:17 supposedly frees us, a new believer, from a covenant we made as a non believer prior to divorce... what other oaths are we supposedly freed from??

2 Cor 5:17 says that we are a new creation if we are in Christ and that the old has gone. What all does that entail? I believe it is speaking of sin... not covenants or oaths we made. Can we make a sinful covenant? Sure! Israel made one with the Gibeonites in the book of Joshua... but God still held them to it.

My nephew who has made an oath to the US Army to serve for a certain amount of time became a Christian. According to 2 Cor 5:17, some on here believe this frees us from oaths and commitments made as a non-believer, such as marriage. So does this mean that my nephew, who is now a BELIEVER, is no longer bound to serve out his committment as a soldier? I mean, the old life has gone and he is a new creation... If a person can walk away from a marriage covenant made as a non believer, shouldn't my nephew be able to walk away from his oath to the US Army?

Of course, we know the Army would laugh at this! If 2 Cor 5:17 frees us from ALL of our past, including oaths that were made... then people should be let out of prison, people should be released from mortgages, people should be released from credit card debt...etc etc...

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.... and I am one who was saved after my divorce.

I believe Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins... not our marriage covenants. But that's just my opinion. :)

~A

Did God join that covenant or did your nephew and the U.S. government join that covenant? The government would hold your nephew accountable to that covenant . . . not God.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 01:55 PM
Cool. My only request is that you digest it before you argue it. Get a clear understanding of what I'm saying before acting as if what I'm saying is absurd.

There are things that do seem absurd... and there are things that make sense. But they all have to harmonize... (The Scriptures).





But according to you . . . you already are married. Why are you seeking out another marriage if you are already married? Do you seriously feel in your spirit that you are joined by the Lord with this man? If so, this is the man you should have desire for and not another.


According to 1 Cor 7:39, "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, if he dies, she is free to remarry...."

Yes... right now I believe that I am bound because there are 7 verses in the bible in which most say that it is adultery to marry someone while the spouse is still living. Sue me for wanting to be obedient to Scripture!!

Why, Cory, do you like to be so antagonistic? Are you truly a pastor? Are you this sarcastic with yout congregation or whoever you are ministering to in person? I appreciate you brother (at times)... but sometimes you are condescending and it makes it very unpleasant to discuss Scriptures when you "attack". I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Again.... if you are RIGHT... and it lines up with Scripture.... then yes.... that would mean that I am free to remarry. Right now... I do NOT believe that I am and I have felt that way for almost 2 years now. But I am open for correction. So Please.... don't "kick me while I'm down".... while I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and admitting that you could be on to something.

Be more respectful brother...

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 02:00 PM
Stating things like law, moral code, holy requirements or anything of the like all means the same thing. It's all law in the end.

What I am saying here is this . . .

Born again Christians do not do what is good and holy because:

1) They are required to
2) Because a law says to
3) Because a code says to
4) Because ***enter here any other reason other than love***

We do what is right and good because we love the Lord and we now love holiness. That is it. It's not a code that makes us do right. It's not a law that makes us do right. It is the Spirit of God that shows us the way. That's grace.


Again, if you wish to use the term "moral code" or "moral law" in the way that you are using them, your post above is correct. However that is, by the very words of my posts, NOT how I am using the term. I agree with the substance of your post standing on its own merits. Your post contains truth. HOwever, your post does not relate to anything I posted. Instead of responding to my posts acknowledging how I am using words, you are, instead, opting to address my posts using your own definitions for the words I use. In the end, the conversation goes in circles because you are not addressing the substance of my posts.

I never suggested that any code or law "makes us do right" or anything else you say above. I NEVER ONCE mentioned motives or causes for action. So, to address that as you are is to address a topic other than what is contained in my posts. Essentially, what I am saying, is that your post above has nothing to do with my own posts.

Let's try again. I would appreciate it if you could answer the following:

(1) does God have specific desires as to how a Christian conducts himself?

(2) if the answer to (1) is "yes" then what term would you use to label God's desires?

(3) if the answer to (1) is "yes" then what do you call it when someone does not follow God's desires? What do you call it when someone does?

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 02:07 PM
According to 1 Cor 7:39, "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, if he dies, she is free to remarry...."

Yes... right now I believe that I am bound because there are 7 verses in the bible in which most say that it is adultery to marry someone while the spouse is still living. Sue me for wanting to be obedient to Scripture!!

Why, Cory, do you like to be so antagonistic?

It has nothing to do with antagonism. That comment of yours concerns me. Jesus said that if you lust after someone you have already committed adultery with them in your heart. You have stated that you believe you are married and yet you have also stated that you have already picked out another man you would like to marry but can't because you already are married.


Are you this sarcastic with yout congregation or whoever you are ministering to in person?

Perhaps you could point out the sarcasm. I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm being very serious.


I appreciate you brother (at times)...

I do not believe this is the case.


but sometimes you are condescending and it makes it very unpleasant to discuss Scriptures when you "attack".

I am discussing the Scriptures along with what you have stated. I'm simply going by what you have freely said in this forum. How about addressing that instead of asking about whether or not I'm a pastor and such other silliness?


Right now... I do NOT believe that I am and I have felt that way for almost 2 years now. But I am open for correction. So Please.... don't "kick me while I'm down".... while I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and admitting that you could be on to something.

Where have I "kicked you while you're down"?


Be more respectful brother...

Please . . . address the Scriptures and what they say. I am comfortable with my responses thus far in this discussion. That is the way it is. You are not here to address whether or not I'm being "respectful". I do not feel anything in my responses has been disrespectful. I'm simply addressing the Word here. Now . . . if you are finished questioning such silly things that have nothing to do with conversation like whether or not I'm a pastor, maybe we can then get down to the deeper truths of God's Word.

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 02:14 PM
Here is a quote from a study on the TC's....

The bible is the inspired word of God as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us and never contradicts itself, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” James explains to us that Gods 10 Commandments are the “Perfect Law of liberty.” Liberty means freedom and can never equate to bondage. James 1:25, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James later continues to show that God’s royal law of love specifically includes the Ten Commandments. James 2:8-12 “If you fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbour as thyself, you do well: 9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you are become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak you, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

All James is talking about here when he talks about the law of liberty, is the LAW OF LOVE that Jesus Himself taught him, and commanded him to teach. We can find proof of this in Matthew 22:36-40, when we read about how the Jesus shut the Pharisees up when they tried to test him once again. 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt Love The Lord Thy God With All Thy Heart, And With All Thy Soul, And With All Thy Mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment. 39. And the second is like unto it, Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself. 40. On these two commandments hang all the LAW. and the prophets.

So you see my friend James who being the half brother of Jesus in the first place (we can find proof of that in Acts 12:17 where Peter recognizes him as such) would have to teach just what Jesus instructed him to teach. And that my friend was LOVE.


Then why did God tell HOSEA to marry an ADULTEROUS WOMAN? And why did God tell Hosea to go and GET his Adulterous wife and bring her back and love her?? Sure seems like He joined that marriage!!!

I'm not going to go into great detail and explain as to why God had Hosea marry an adulterous woman, simply because it would take me for ever to write it all down. But I will tell you that if you read Chapter's 1-3 in Hosea, you will find out that Israel was in Spiritual sin. Gomer (the woman that Hosea was to marry) was Israel's ticket out of that Spiritual sin with God. That was why God had Hosea marry an adulterous woman, and yes God was apart of it. Why? Because he was freeing His People and used her to do it. Read and study the Chapters.


No... I totally disagree with you here.

Paul says NOT to leave the unbeliever in 1 Cor 7:12!!! The unbelieving person is sanctified through the believing spouse. Surely Paul is not going to contradict himself!!


Well my friend you are right about one thing. Paul did say it. But you forgot to read the rest of that verse. It is not me that you are disagreeing with my friend. It is Gods perfect plan of marriage, and I'll prove it. In 1st Cor 7:12 Paul says this, 12. But to the rest SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

You see my friend that was Paul's ruling on the problem with marriage, not God's ruling on the problem with marriage back in that time. Simply because those that were having the problems were not following Gods plan for marriage in the first place, just as we are not following Gods plan for marriage today. All Paul wanted to do was bring peace between them so that he could bring them back to God once again, and bring peace between them all, and stop all the fighting, and he did.

We need to read and look at everything. Not just what we want to see my friend.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 02:21 PM
(1) does God have specific desires as to how a Christian conducts himself?

Sure.


(2) if the answer to (1) is "yes" then what term would you use to label God's desires?

God's desires.


(3) if the answer to (1) is "yes" then what do you call it when someone does not follow God's desires? What do you call it when someone does?

I call it a person living in sin who needs a written code to show them their sin.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 02:26 PM
Sure.

God's desires.

I call it a person living in sin who needs a written code to show them their sin.

Ok, I am glad we agree on these issues. Based upon the above, you agree that God has a certain code of conduct that he desires his followers to obey out of love for Him, correct?

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 02:31 PM
Ok, I am glad we agree on these issues. Based upon the above, you agree that God has a certain code of conduct that he desires his followers to obey out of love for Him, correct?

Again, no, I do not agree. The law is for the transgressor, as the Scriptures say. Therefore, those who are declared righteous before God have no need of a law (or code as you would describe it). They freely do what God would like them to because they love God and want to please Him.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 02:31 PM
[quote=VerticalReality;1721897]It has nothing to do with antagonism. That comment of yours concerns me. Jesus said that if you lust after someone you have already committed adultery with them in your heart. You have stated that you believe you are married and yet you have also stated that you have already picked out another man you would like to marry but can't because you already are married.


Oh so since one has already lusted after them in their heart.. they should go ahead and go through with marriage??!

My "x-husband" is "remarried" with 2 kids. The bible tells me that I am bound to my husband until he DIES. Before my conviction... I met someone that I wanted to marry. He did not believe in remarriage. After 2 years of study, I was convicted that I wasn't free.

What concerns you so Cory? The fact that I want to be obedient to what I feel I am being convicted of in Scripture? Even though I would love to re-marry... I DON'T do it. What exactly concerns you truly?? I don't think you are really "concerned," because concerned Christians use a different tone than you are using.

I will respond more to you later after things have cooled down. If I feel offended by you.... there is no reason why I cannot share it with you... and ask you to be more mature with your responses. It would be nice that you refrain from DIRECTING me to answer you at your command. Use different language... or that gentle spirit that is in you... ;)

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 02:46 PM
Oh so since one has already lusted after them in their heart.. they should go ahead and go through with marriage??!

My "x-husband" is "remarried" with 2 kids. The bible tells me that I am bound to my husband until he DIES. Before my conviction... I met someone that I wanted to marry. He did not believe in remarriage. After 2 years of study, I was convicted that I wasn't free.

What concerns you so Cory? The fact that I want to be obedient to what I feel I am being convicted of in Scripture? Even though I would love to re-marry... I DON'T do it. What exactly concerns you truly?? I don't think you are really "concerned," because concerned Christians use a different tone than you are using.

I will respond more to you later after things have cooled down. If I feel offended by you.... there is no reason why I cannot share it with you... and ask you to be more mature with your responses. It would be nice that you refrain from DIRECTING me to answer you at your command. Use different language... or that gentle spirit that is in you... ;)

What you do or don't do is not what Jesus is addressing. It's what is in the heart that Jesus is addressing.

Additionally, if you do not want such comments addressed then I suggest you keep them to yourself. Why did you mention such a thing if you did not want it spoken of in this thread? You speak of cooling off, but I'm completely cool. Furthermore, in your offended condition I'm not obligated to share your view. You are offended. Okay. I still feel very comfortable with my posts in this thread.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 02:51 PM
Again, no, I do not agree. The law is for the transgressor, as the Scriptures say. Therefore, those who are declared righteous before God have no need of a law (or code as you would describe it). They freely do what God would like them to because they love God and want to please Him.


Oh come on VR you cannot possible default to this conclusion can you? Seriously? We made such great progress these last few posts for you to ignore your own conclusions.

I never addressed what one freely does or does not do or why so there is no need to raise this as an issue as you seem to want to do in each post. Let's leave that behind in our discussion as the motive behind an act is not what we are discussing.

You stated that: God has specific desires as to how we should conduct ourselves as Christians (see post #100).

--Would you agree that God's specific desires as to how Christians ought to conduct themselves addresses various situations, decisions, and mind sets the Christians encounters?

--and that some of those situations, decisions, and mind sets include sexuality and, appropos to this thread, remarriage and divorce?

--and that of those situations, decisions, and mind sets, God has a desire as to how he wishes use to act as opposed to others relative to those situations, decisiosn, and mind sets?

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 03:05 PM
Oh come on VR you cannot possible default to this conclusion can you? Seriously?

Do I really need to repeat my position again? Does one who obeys the speed limit need a law telling them to obey the speed limit? No, they do not. It's the one who chooses to live recklessly and endanger themselves and others that needs a written law telling them not to speed and if they do this is the consequence. That is the law. If what I just defined does not fit the description of what you are saying then it is not law or "code" as you would try to describe it.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 24th 2008, 03:14 PM
Does one who obeys the speed limit need a law telling them to obey the speed limit? No, they do not.I disagree! Yes, they do!!!
Based on this example let me play that out for you as a believer. While you may always want to obey the speed limit law, there are times where you will need to look at the sign/Law that says "25 MPH" How else would you know just how fast to go anywhere if you no longer need to heed the law?

I know for a fact that wanting to obey the Law and actually looking at/doing it when the need comes up are two different things.

If you missed to see the sign or ignored it saying "i no longer need the law, because i'm not under it" then i tell you if you don't observe that particular Law/speed limit sign when it comes up around the bend you can get stopped and fined because you have broken the Law/speed limit and as such have come under the Law!!!

This applies every time you come to a new area and you don't know the speed limit.
In all reality, the speed limit in an area you've driven through for years could suddenly change, and you'll be liable to having broken the law if you ignore it, and you were caught.

In this same fashion the Law applies to us everyday. And often the same one over and over....one needs to be aware.
Perhaps it's time for you to reconsider what being "under the law" actually means?

Shalom,
Tanja

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 03:16 PM
Do I really need to repeat my position again? Does one who obeys the speed limit need a law telling them to obey the speed limit? No, they do not. It's the one who chooses to live recklessly and endanger themselves and others that needs a written law telling them not to speed and if they do this is the consequence. That is the law. If what I just defined does not fit the description of what you are saying then it is not law or "code" as you would try to describe it.


Ok, so what term would you use to describe God's commands regarding Christian living?

Why do you insist on bring up motive? Your speed limit example is not relevant. NOT ONCE have I said *why* should someone do XYZ. You are telling me why someone would drive according to the speed limit. That is NOT the issue.

Allow me to restate the issue in hopfully a clearer sort of way: you insist that "the law", as you use the term, exists essentially only to guilt people into good living by thread of punishment and force. You think the alternative to this is grace where people engage in good living out of love and desire to please God. Correct?

How about this alternative: suppose a Christian in a certain situation wants to love and wants to act in a way that pleases God. However, in this certain situation he does not know what to do that would be the loving thing to do that would please God. Does God provide any guidelines as to how we should live so that we can make the right choices as they arise?

For example, apropos to this thread: a Christian single person encounters a divorcee. The Christian single wants to love God and serve him out of the joy of serving God. The Christian single does not know if marrying the divorcee is consistent with his loving intention to serve God or not. Does God provide a guidline for this?

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 03:17 PM
Do I really need to repeat my position again? Does one who obeys the speed limit need a law telling them to obey the speed limit? No, they do not. It's the one who chooses to live recklessly and endanger themselves and others that needs a written law telling them not to speed and if they do this is the consequence. That is the law. If what I just defined does not fit the description of what you are saying then it is not law or "code" as you would try to describe it.



I just thought of this and this may clear it up presciely:

Jesus commands us to obey. CHristians are to obey God out of love. What are we to obey? What are we obeying when Christians act out of love toward God?

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 03:26 PM
I disagree! Yes, they do!!!

The Scriptures say they don't. The Scriptures say clearly that the law was added because of transgression. Therefore, before the transgression there was no law. Why was there no law? Because it was not needed. That is why the law and so forth will pass away when the new heaven and new earth has come to pass. There will be no sin in the new earth. Therefore, the law is able to pass away because perfection has been brought to pass.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 03:30 PM
Ok, so what term would you use to describe God's commands regarding Christian living?

Why do you insist on bring up motive? Your speed limit example is not relevant. NOT ONCE have I said *why* should someone do XYZ. You are telling me why someone would drive according to the speed limit. That is NOT the issue.

Allow me to restate the issue in hopfully a clearer sort of way: you insist that "the law", as you use the term, exists essentially only to guilt people into good living by thread of punishment and force. You think the alternative to this is grace where people engage in good living out of love and desire to please God. Correct?

How about this alternative: suppose a Christian in a certain situation wants to love and wants to act in a way that pleases God. However, in this certain situation he does not know what to do that would be the loving thing to do that would please God. Does God provide any guidelines as to how we should live so that we can make the right choices as they arise?

For example, apropos to this thread: a Christian single person encounters a divorcee. The Christian single wants to love God and serve him out of the joy of serving God. The Christian single does not know if marrying the divorcee is consistent with his loving intention to serve God or not. Does God provide a guidline for this?

When did the law ever "guilt" anyone into good living? The Word says it did the opposite. The Word says that the law aroused the sin in our flesh and therefore killed us.

Look at the speed limit again. Does the fact that we have a speed limit guilt people into obeying it? Absolutely not. In fact, most people have zero care for the speed limit.

The law was given to show sin and a need for reliance upon a Savior to deliver us from ourselves.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 03:32 PM
I just thought of this and this may clear it up presciely:

Jesus commands us to obey. CHristians are to obey God out of love. What are we to obey? What are we obeying when Christians act out of love toward God?

We are obeying God. It's when we live in disobedience and do not hear what God says that we need a written law or code to show up our sin.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 03:34 PM
When did the law ever "guilt" anyone into good living? The Word says it did the opposite. The Word says that the law aroused the sin in our flesh and therefore killed us.

Look at the speed limit again. Does the fact that we have a speed limit guilt people into obeying it? Absolutely not. In fact, most people have zero care for the speed limit.

The law was given to show sin and a need for reliance upon a Savior to deliver us from ourselves.


You have skillfully addressed a part of my post that does not address my arguments and left my arguments without a response. Please respond to the last 2 paragraphs of my post.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 03:35 PM
We are obeying God. It's when we live in disobedience and do not hear what God says that we need a written law or code to show up our sin.


How do you know what conduct is obediance and what is not?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 24th 2008, 03:36 PM
The Scriptures say clearly that the law was added because of transgression.
Ah, and the world no longer transgresses? What about the many believers that fall daily?

The Law was added/given because of transgression....it doesn't state when it was given first. If you look at it that way then why did God give His Law concerning Adam and Eve not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE they transgressed?

The Law was needed from the beginning of time, i see the Law given and the prophecies made in the days of creation....

As for the Law passing away, it won't til heaven and earth pass away!! And that hasn't happened yet!

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 03:50 PM
You have skillfully addressed a part of my post that does not address my arguments and left my arguments without a response. Please respond to the last 2 paragraphs of my post.

The second half of your post is another topic all together. We are not discussing the conscience but rather whether are under the law or not. If you would like to change the subject we can start another thread on it.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 03:52 PM
How do you know what conduct is obediance and what is not?

What do you mean how do I know? If someone tells you to do something you either do it or you don't . If you don't it is disobedience.

valleybldr
Jul 24th 2008, 03:54 PM
As for the Law passing away, it won't til heaven and earth pass away!! And that hasn't happened yet!

In regards to D&R my gut feeling is that Moses, Jesus and Paul taught in harmony. The key is to understand how these matters were actually handled in their native cultural context. I left a very good link in the last thread we did on topic but here it is again.

http://www.divorceremarriage.com/ (http://www.divorceremarriage.com/)

todd

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 03:55 PM
The second half of your post is another topic all together. We are not discussing the conscience but rather whether are under the law or not. If you would like to change the subject we can start another thread on it.

It clearly is certainly topical to this thread as there have been several posts on the issue already without objection. Conscience is not the topic, but if it were it is still related to the law and related enough to warrant a response.

If you do not wish to discuss the matter or have no response to the matter, feel free to say so. You have skillfully dodged virtually all of the arguments and points being raised and engaged in a discussion totally seperate from others in the thread. From your post above, it is clear that you do not wish to discuss the issues and that is fine.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 03:56 PM
What do you mean how do I know? If someone tells you to do something you either do it or you don't . If you don't it is disobedience.


Ok, so when someone (God in this case) tells you to do something, it is a command, correct?

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 04:00 PM
Ah, and the world no longer transgresses?

The "world" absolutely does. However, Christians are not of this world.


What about the many believers that fall daily?

What about them? Are you suggesting that if a believer makes a mistake and sins that they are now seen by God as a sinner or are they still seen as the spiritual being they are? In the spirit there is no sin. If we make a mistake and sin our Father still sees Jesus and His perfect work.


The Law was added/given because of transgression....it doesn't state when it was given first. If you look at it that way then why did God give His Law concerning Adam and Eve not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE they transgressed?

I don't believe God did give a "law" for Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Again, if Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten from that tree it wouldn't have been because they were obeying a written law. It would have been simply that they loved God and honored Him.


As for the Law passing away, it won't til heaven and earth pass away!! And that hasn't happened yet!

That's exactly what I already said. Did you read that part of my post? The reason it will pass away is because the new earth will have no sin. If there is no sin there is no need for law. There is also no sin in those who walk in the Spirit. Therefore, they are not under law.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 04:04 PM
It clearly is certainly topical to this thread as there have been several posts on the issue already without objection. Conscience is not the topic, but if it were it is still related to the law and related enough to warrant a response.

If you do not wish to discuss the matter or have no response to the matter, feel free to say so. You have skillfully dodged virtually all of the arguments and points being raised and engaged in a discussion totally seperate from others in the thread. From your post above, it is clear that you do not wish to discuss the issues and that is fine.

Alyssa and I were discussing law and not conscience, seamus. You are the one who came in with this other topic. Again, if you would like to discuss conscience that is fine by me. However, that is not what Alyssa and I were talking about when you interjected. Whether others are talking about conscience is between you and them. That is not what I have been addressing, and the discussion has been about the law. Therefore, there is no need for me to be addressing this position on the conscience when that isn't what I've been discussing at all to begin with.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 04:08 PM
Ok, so when someone (God in this case) tells you to do something, it is a command, correct?

Yes. And just so you know when you go where you are thinking about going . . .

This does not mean that we are under the law engraved on stones (The Ten Commandments) which Paul instructs us have passed for those who believe.

The law engraved on stones were given to those who were hardened of the heart and did not love God. Those who have been born again have a new way because they have a new spirit.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 04:10 PM
VerticalReality
I don't believe God did give a "law" for Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Again, if Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten from that tree it wouldn't have been because they were obeying a written law. It would have been simply that they loved God and honored Him.


HErein lies the problem. It is all the definition of words. God said "do not eat of the tree". Most people would describe that as a command or a law.
It certainly is not The Law (i.e.: Torah) that Paul discusses. But it certainly is a law or command of some sort.

What word would you describe something like "do not eat of the tree" if not a law?

(Again you also address motive to obey God - ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. Such commands provide direction and knowledge of how to obey and love God. WIthout which, it is impossible to know HOW to love and honour God. Motive has nothing to do with it).

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 04:12 PM
Yes. And just so you know when you go where you are thinking about going . . .

This does not mean that we are under the law engraved on stones (The Ten Commandments) which Paul instructs us have passed for those who believe.

The law engraved on stones were given to those who were hardened of the heart and did not love God. Those who have been born again have a new way because they have a new spirit.


The existence of commands from God does not equate with being "under the law" - do you understand this?

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 04:12 PM
VerticalReality
I don't believe God did give a "law" for Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Again, if Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten from that tree it wouldn't have been because they were obeying a written law. It would have been simply that they loved God and honored Him.


HErein lies the problem. It is all the definition of words. God said "do not eat of the tree". Most people would describe that as a command or a law.
It certainly is not The Law (i.e.: Torah) that Paul discusses. But it certainly is a law or command of some sort.

What word would you describe something like "do not eat of the tree" if not a law?

(Again you also address motive to obey God - ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. Such commands provide direction and knowledge of how to obey and love God. WIthout which, it is impossible to know HOW to love and honour God. Motive has nothing to do with it).


Again, seamus, you are interjecting with a topic I have not been addressing. This entire topic I've been talking about the written law given to Israel. I'm not talking about the law of love. Paul says we are dead to the Ten Commandments. Paul says that the handwriting of requirements and regulations given in the law of Moses have been nailed to the cross. That is the law I have been addressing this entire topic.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 04:14 PM
The existence of commands from God does not equate with being "under the law" - do you understand this?

Now point out to me where I have equated a command of God as being "under the law" . . .

I have been speaking this entire time about God's written law. The Ten Commandments is God's written law. The law of Moses is God's written law. Paul says we are dead to those. Do you agree or not?

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 04:24 PM
VerticalReality
Now point out to me where I have equated a command of God as being "under the law" . . .

It appears that whenever anyone mentions something God commands (like "do not eat of the tree") you respond by alleging that something like that is a written law that we are free from as we are no longer under the law. If this is not correct, please clarify.

I have been speaking this entire time about God's written law. The Ten Commandments is God's written law. The law of Moses is God's written law. Paul says we are dead to those. Do you agree or not?

I agree that the Christian is not under the Old Covenant of the Law as the Jew was, but, instead, is under the New Covenant of Christ's grace. However (and this is how my posts relate that you think are irrelevant) this does not mean that what God commanded in the 10 Commandments or to Moses has no application to the Christian. The issue is to determine what precisely applies and how it applies in this New Covenant that is without the Law (Torah) as previously understood under the Old Covenant.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 24th 2008, 04:32 PM
What about the many believers that fall daily?What about them? Are you suggesting that if a believer makes a mistake and sins that they are now seen by God as a sinner or are they still seen as the spiritual being they are? In the spirit there is no sin. If we make a mistake and sin our Father still sees Jesus and His perfect work.We are physical beings with a spirit. Yes God sees us as a sinner. However God gave us His Son so we may wash our garments in His blood. He sees a sinner who is clothed right.

I'm sorry but i do not agree with your comfort theology of Grace in abundance without any sort of accountability whatsoever.
I believe that when we sin we need to repent. Without repentance there cannot be reconciliation and subsequently salvation.
While salvation has been freely extended to us i believe it to be conditional upon our repentance. In this way we either accept His gift or we don't.

This is why it says God "desires all to be saved", it doesn't say that "All will be saved"!

And if one doesn't love the truth, then one cannot be saved.... and what did Yeshua who said he was the truth and the way of life say?

Joh 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.


I don't believe God did give a "law" for Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Again, if Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten from that tree it wouldn't have been because they were obeying a written law. It would have been simply that they loved God and honored Him.Good grief!!!!

To love and honor a parent is to obey them. How do we know that we obey them? We know that we are honoring them and pleasing to them, if we obey their rules/law/instructions.
Without instructions we cannot honor and love them, because we cannot know what we are supposed to do.

The word "Law" (of God) is synonymous with instructions and commandments, and rules....So when God said to Adam and Eve that they were not to eat from that particular tree, He set down His law, gave them His instruction, His ruling, on what He wanted them not to do.
If you want to skirt the issue by not calling it a "law" then so be it, but it's still a command and a rule.. guidance or instructions.. whatever you name it, it is something God set before Adam and Eve to obey, before they transgressed, and once they transgressed the result was disastrous. If that's not a Law then i don't know what is.

Also you may want to check the scriptures to see how often God's Law is referred to as commandments, instructions, statues, etc.....

So to say if God hadn't given them that rule, then could He have held them accountable if they had eaten from that tree?

Would they have obeyed Him and not eaten from that tree had they not been told not to?

I find that unlikely, that's like putting a cookie jar in plain sight and not saying anything to your child and expecting it to stay out of it on it's own. And that doesn't just got for the first time, but repeatedly.. scriptures show that man needs repeat reminders of the commands of God.

Your view doesn't hold water for me.

Shalom,
Tanja

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 05:28 PM
Yes God sees us as a sinner.

Where, for those in Christ, does it say that God sees them as a sinner?


However God gave us His Son so we may wash our garments in His blood. He sees a sinner who is clothed right.

If you are clothed in the garments of Christ then it is no longer your nakedness (or sinfulness) that God sees. It is the righteousness of Christ that God sees . . . hence why the Scriptures call them garments. If you are naked God sees your sin and your imperfection. If you are clothed God does not see any nakedness (flaw or sin).


I'm sorry but i do not agree with your comfort theology of Grace in abundance without any sort of accountability whatsoever.

It's a shame you do not agree with my "comfort theology" as that is the reason it is called the gospel. The gospel is to be good news to those who are in bondage to sin. The yoke of the law only adds more weight.


This is why it says God "desires all to be saved", it doesn't say that "All will be saved"!

Nobody has said all will be saved.



And if one doesn't love the truth, then one cannot be saved.... and what did Yeshua who said he was the truth and the way of life say?

Joh 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.


Sure will, which is exactly why Christians are not under the law. Where have I said otherwise?


To love and honor a parent is to obey them. How do we know that we obey them? We know that we are honoring them and pleasing to them, if we obey their rules/law/instructions.

Was there some written law that Adam and Eve were supposed to look to in order to see if they were pleasing God?


Without instructions we cannot honor and love them, because we cannot know what we are supposed to do.

What does this have to do with the written law?



The word "Law" (of God) is synonymous with instructions and commandments, and rules....So when God said to Adam and Eve that they were not to eat from that particular tree, He set down His law, gave them His instruction, His ruling, on what He wanted them not to do.
If you want to skirt the issue by not calling it a "law" then so be it, but it's still a command and a rule.. guidance or instructions.. whatever you name it, it is something God set before Adam and Eve to obey, before they transgressed, and once they transgressed the result was disastrous. If that's not a Law then i don't know what is.


It wasn't a law until they broke it. You do not seem to understand what a law is. With law comes judgment. There can be no law without judgment. Not only does a law give instruction but it also demands judgment for any breaking of it. That's the entire point of the law. If folks wouldn't break the law there would be no need for it. That is exactly why the Scriptures say that the law was added because of transgression. Those who walk in union with God have no need of a law because it is not for them. Scripture could not be more plain on this issue.


Also you may want to check the scriptures to see how often God's Law is referred to as commandments, instructions, statues, etc.....

I've read the Scriptures . . . and I know what it says.


Would they have obeyed Him and not eaten from that tree had they not been told not to?

Had they obeyed him and not eaten from that tree would there ever have been a Ten Commandments or a law of Moses given? The answer is no.


Your view doesn't hold water for me.

And neither does yours, which is why a VERY LARGE majority of the entire church history has not held to it.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 05:51 PM
So anyway, back to the topic at hand before this turns into a thread completely on other things not relating to marriage/divorce/remarriage.

The reason the law was brought up is because the law is what binds a covenant.

So therefore, what binds the covenant of say a Gibeonite and a Hittite?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 24th 2008, 05:58 PM
It's a shame you do not agree with my "comfort theology" as that is the reason it is called the gospel. The gospel is to be good news to those who are in bondage to sin. The yoke of the law only adds more weight.
The real shame is that the Law is not bondage, and that you fail to realize that. Sin is what causes bondage to the Law, because then you are under it and a punishment is required.


Was there some written law that Adam and Eve were supposed to look to in order to see if they were pleasing God?
May the Lord help you.


What does this have to do with the written law?
May the Lord help you.


It wasn't a law until they broke it. You do not seem to understand what a law is. With law comes judgment. There can be no law without judgment.
It was and is a law whether it is broken or not.... judgment comes with transgression.
without transgression however there cannot be judgment
I'm sory to see you have that backwards.


Had they obeyed him and not eaten from that tree would there ever have been a Ten Commandments or a law of Moses given? The answer is no.
You missed the point.


And neither does yours, which is why a VERY LARGE majority of the entire church history has not held to it.
That's ok, broad is the way that leads to destruction.. narrow is the way to life and few be there that find it.

Shalom,
Tanja

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 05:59 PM
So anyway, back to the topic at hand before this turns into a thread completely on other things not relating to marriage/divorce/remarriage.

The reason the law was brought up is because the law is what binds a covenant.

So therefore, what binds the covenant of say a Gibeonite and a Hittite?

Well there you are going back to the law given to Moses because that is all that they had.......I would think.

When Christ came we all as a whole got grafted in with his shed blood if we accepted it no matter who you were.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 06:19 PM
That's ok, broad is the way that leads to destruction.. narrow is the way to life and few be there that find it.

Shalom,
Tanja



Amen, sister...:)
And I pray that all of us here are on that narrow road... despite our differences. I enjoy your posts, by the way. Blesshooo!

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 06:44 PM
The real shame is that the Law is not bondage, and that you fail to realize that. Sin is what causes bondage to the Law, because then you are under it and a punishment is required.

I think you should go back and read my response a little more carefully. I said the bondage of sin . . . not the bondage of law.


May the Lord help you.

He does daily. What does such a comment have to do with the conversation at hand?


May the Lord help you.

Again, the above . . .


It was and is a law whether it is broken or not.... judgment comes with transgression.

Again, the Scriptures declare otherwise. There can be no law without judgment. The Scriptures declare that before transgression there was no law. It was added because of sin. Law and judgment are one and the same. If we are still under the law then we are dead. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Your declaration that there was a law before there was transgression and the transgression just brought the judgment is completely and totally fictional. The transgression was first and the law/judgment followed. Again, that's bible.



without transgression however there cannot be judgment
I'm sory to see you have that backwards.


Which does the Scriptures declare came first? The law or the transgression? It very clearly says that the law was added because of transgression. Therefore both law and judgment came afterwards. So, I am not the one who has it backwards, and I am comfortable knowing that the Word of God backs me up on it.


You missed the point.

And you didn't answer the question. Had they not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would there have ever been a need for the Ten Commandments or the law of Moses?


That's ok, broad is the way that leads to destruction.. narrow is the way to life and few be there that find it.

Gotta love that attitude . . . :rolleyes:

The entire church throughout history is wrong and Jesusinmyheart is right.

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 06:46 PM
Amen, sister...:)
And I pray that all of us here are on that narrow road... despite our differences. I enjoy your posts, by the way. Blesshooo!

I find this response of yours to be interesting, Alyssa, considering that this entire thread you have been talking about how your position on divorce and remarriage is supported by your study of church history and its lack of support for such an issue. Then in the same breath you give a hearty amen to a comment by Jesusinmyheart where she basically states that she doesn't care about what the church throughout history has taught or believed. She's on some self-proclaimed "narrow way" that nobody throughout church history has been on.

Interesting . . .

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 07:26 PM
I find this response of yours to be interesting, Alyssa, considering that this entire thread you have been talking about how your position on divorce and remarriage is supported by your study of church history and its lack of support for such an issue. Then in the same breath you give a hearty amen to a comment by Jesusinmyheart where she basically states that she doesn't care about what the church throughout history has taught or believed. She's on some self-proclaimed "narrow way" that nobody throughout church history has been on.

Interesting . . .

Cory.....

I do believe you love to argue for the sake of arguing.

For the record... If my memory serves me correctly, Jesusinmyheart does not believe like I do regarding remarriage. I "think" she believes as you do... that a "new creation" is free to remarry if they are saved after divorce. Correct me, Jesusinmyheart, if I am wrong.

My "Amen", Cory, was to her exact quote.... Let me refresh your memory...

broad is the way that leads to destruction.. narrow is the way to life and few be there that find it.

And I still say AMEN!! Even though I don't agree with all of her belief does not mean I would "throw the baby out with the bath water!!" I sincerely enjoy some of her posts... just as I have enjoyed some of your posts....and even told you so. There are many things that you have said that I would give a hearty AMEN to! Today... is a different story. :(

In fact, your whole approach or the spirit in which you deliver does not incline me to want to listen to what you have to say... nor do I believe it would for anyone else lurking about these forums....just my opinion.

And it is a shame that we cannot discuss Scriptures kindly, respectfully, and humbly.

I would have enjoyed hearing more about this Law thing that you are adamant about... but, as before, all the little pokes and prods and bickering are wearing me out. You may be fine with your posts and think your words are A-ok.... but coming from a sister in Christ... believe me, they are not.

And as I have always said before... I want people to call me out when I am off track as well.

God bless...

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 07:36 PM
I find this response of yours to be interesting, Alyssa, considering that this entire thread you have been talking about how your position on divorce and remarriage is supported by your study of church history and its lack of support for such an issue. Then in the same breath you give a hearty amen to a comment by Jesusinmyheart where she basically states that she doesn't care about what the church throughout history has taught or believed. She's on some self-proclaimed "narrow way" that nobody throughout church history has been on.

Interesting . . .


Not to side track this thread, but I find this while thing interesting as arguments from historic Christianity do not hold much water on these boards and I am shocked someone raised it besides me.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 07:41 PM
Does anyone have an opinion of this below?



The Universal Application of the Gospel
Inasmuch as the gospel is to be preached to all nations, we necessarily conclude that all men are answerable to the law of Christ (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25). By establishing the universal appeal and application of the gospel, one also establishes that all men are answerable to the terms of the “new covenant” or “new testament.” This being true, one must either obey the terms of the covenant to inherit the blessing contained therein, or through violation of the covenant bring punishment upon oneself (which is also specified under the terms of the covenant).
That Jesus rules all men today through the word of His power (the gospel) cannot be successfully denied (cf. Psa. 110:1-3; Matt. 28:18-20; Heb. 1:3-5, 8). To reject His word is to invite God’s judgment of wrath in the last day (J. 12:48; Rom. 2:4-11; Acts 17:30-31). Since all men are under the blessings of the new covenant when its terms are obeyed, all men are also under the punishment of the new covenant when its terms are disobeyed (remember the covenant of circumcision which illustrates these points - Gen. 17:10-14).

Also....

The Bible teaches that marriage was ordained by God for all of mankind “at the beginning” (Matt. 19:4; Gen. 2:23-25). Therefore, all men are to hold marriage in honor, and those who do not face the judgment of God (Heb. 13:4). Whenever a man and woman marry each other, they come under the authority of Him who established marriage. We should remember that marriage is not a “church ordinance” which is validated by the church. Marriage existed long, long before Jesus built His church. People who are not Christians can and do enter marriage, and when they do, they will answer to God for their conduct in that relationship (Heb. 13:4; 2 Cor. 5:10).

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 07:42 PM
Well then Alyssa, how about answering my post then that I gave you a few pages ago that you never answered, unless you are still studying it.;)

I did not poke fun at you, if you feel that VR is:)

It is post #99

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 07:44 PM
Not to side track this thread, but I find this while thing interesting as arguments from historic Christianity do not hold much water on these boards and I am shocked someone raised it besides me.

Hey! Thanks for the link! I will check into it.
By the way, I am not understanding what you are saying here...

Thanks!

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 07:47 PM
Well then Alyssa, how about answering my post then that I gave you a few pages ago that you never answered, unless you are still studying it.;)

I did not poke fun at you, if you feel that VR is:)

It is post #99

No... I know you haven't poked at me.... thank you. :)

I have been overhwhelmed with posts and IM's... so yes.... I will read it tonight further and try and respond back. Thank you kindly...

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 07:47 PM
Alyssa S

The Universal Application of the Gospel
Inasmuch as the gospel is to be preached to all nations, we necessarily conclude that all men are answerable to the law of Christ (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25). By establishing the universal appeal and application of the gospel, one also establishes that all men are answerable to the terms of the “new covenant” or “new testament.” This being true, one must either obey the terms of the covenant to inherit the blessing contained therein, or through violation of the covenant bring punishment upon oneself (which is also specified under the terms of the covenant).
That Jesus rules all men today through the word of His power (the gospel) cannot be successfully denied (cf. Psa. 110:1-3; Matt. 28:18-20; Heb. 1:3-5, 8). To reject His word is to invite God’s judgment of wrath in the last day (J. 12:48; Rom. 2:4-11; Acts 17:30-31). Since all men are under the blessings of the new covenant when its terms are obeyed, all men are also under the punishment of the new covenant when its terms are disobeyed (remember the covenant of circumcision which illustrates these points - Gen. 17:10-14).

I agree with this by and large. My only caveat, for me personally, is that I believe the so-called "noble savage" is saved. I do not believe that there is a theology examination to enter heaven. I think God judges the heart and the condition of the heart is not dependant upon objective intellectual knowledge. In saying that, I think mission work is vital and should be engaged in as much as possible as the less people know, the more likely their heart will succum to the sin that is within them.

Also....

The Bible teaches that marriage was ordained by God for all of mankind “at the beginning” (Matt. 19:4; Gen. 2:23-25). Therefore, all men are to hold marriage in honor, and those who do not face the judgment of God (Heb. 13:4). Whenever a man and woman marry each other, they come under the authority of Him who established marriage. We should remember that marriage is not a “church ordinance” which is validated by the church. Marriage existed long, long before Jesus built His church. People who are not Christians can and do enter marriage, and when they do, they will answer to God for their conduct in that relationship (Heb. 13:4; 2 Cor. 5:10).

God judges everyone by their actions - Christian marriage or nonChristian marriage a like. However, there is a quantitative and qualitative difference between Christian marriage and non-Christian marriage in that God is not a party to the marriage contract of non-Christians.

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 07:47 PM
Does anyone have an opinion of this below?




The Universal Application of the Gospel
Inasmuch as the gospel is to be preached to all nations, we necessarily conclude that all men are answerable to the law of Christ (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25). By establishing the universal appeal and application of the gospel, one also establishes that all men are answerable to the terms of the “new covenant” or “new testament.” This being true, one must either obey the terms of the covenant to inherit the blessing contained therein, or through violation of the covenant bring punishment upon oneself (which is also specified under the terms of the covenant).
That Jesus rules all men today through the word of His power (the gospel) cannot be successfully denied (cf. Psa. 110:1-3; Matt. 28:18-20; Heb. 1:3-5, 8). To reject His word is to invite God’s judgment of wrath in the last day (J. 12:48; Rom. 2:4-11; Acts 17:30-31). Since all men are under the blessings of the new covenant when its terms are obeyed, all men are also under the punishment of the new covenant when its terms are disobeyed (remember the covenant of circumcision which illustrates these points - Gen. 17:10-14).

Also....

The Bible teaches that marriage was ordained by God for all of mankind “at the beginning” (Matt. 19:4; Gen. 2:23-25). Therefore, all men are to hold marriage in honor, and those who do not face the judgment of God (Heb. 13:4). Whenever a man and woman marry each other, they come under the authority of Him who established marriage. We should remember that marriage is not a “church ordinance” which is validated by the church. Marriage existed long, long before Jesus built His church. People who are not Christians can and do enter marriage, and when they do, they will answer to God for their conduct in that relationship (Heb. 13:4; 2 Cor. 5:10).

That's what I have been saying all along. What this is saying is that marriage is done in a Spiritual sense and not in a Physical. But we perform it and teach it back-wards.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 07:52 PM
Hey! Thanks for the link! I will check into it.
By the way, I am not understanding what you are saying here...

Thanks!

I almost always raise historic Christian teaching as an argument/defense of my positions on this board. As a result, I usually get accused (either overtly or impliedly) of being some heretical Romanist or belittling the Bible. Neither is true, of course, but it does not stop people.

This not particilarly apprpos to the thread, but allow me this: when it comes down to it, the Bible must be interpreted in some way. Everyone who reads it independantly understands it differently - if that were not true these boards would have no debates and there'd be one Christian church. The fact is, Lutherans understand the Bible as Luther read it; Reformed/Presbyterians understand the Bible as Calvin read it; Baptists often understand the Bible as Zwingli read it and so on. I try to understand the Bible consistent with the historic teaching of the Church.

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 07:53 PM
That's what I have been saying all along. What this is saying is that marriage is done in a Spiritual sense and not in a Physical. But we perform it and teach it back-wards.


Historically, Christians have understood marriage as a sacrament: it is a spiritual reality that is expressed through an outward and physical sign. The two (spirituality/physicality) cannot be seperated.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 07:56 PM
Alyssa S

The Universal Application of the Gospel
Inasmuch as the gospel is to be preached to all nations, we necessarily conclude that all men are answerable to the law of Christ (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25). By establishing the universal appeal and application of the gospel, one also establishes that all men are answerable to the terms of the “new covenant” or “new testament.” This being true, one must either obey the terms of the covenant to inherit the blessing contained therein, or through violation of the covenant bring punishment upon oneself (which is also specified under the terms of the covenant).
That Jesus rules all men today through the word of His power (the gospel) cannot be successfully denied (cf. Psa. 110:1-3; Matt. 28:18-20; Heb. 1:3-5, 8). To reject His word is to invite God’s judgment of wrath in the last day (J. 12:48; Rom. 2:4-11; Acts 17:30-31). Since all men are under the blessings of the new covenant when its terms are obeyed, all men are also under the punishment of the new covenant when its terms are disobeyed (remember the covenant of circumcision which illustrates these points - Gen. 17:10-14).

I agree with this by and large. My only caveat, for me personally, is that I believe the so-called "noble savage" is saved. I do not believe that there is a theology examination to enter heaven. I think God judges the heart and the condition of the heart is not dependant upon objective intellectual knowledge. In saying that, I think mission work is vital and should be engaged in as much as possible as the less people know, the more likely their heart will succum to the sin that is within them.

Also....

The Bible teaches that marriage was ordained by God for all of mankind “at the beginning” (Matt. 19:4; Gen. 2:23-25). Therefore, all men are to hold marriage in honor, and those who do not face the judgment of God (Heb. 13:4). Whenever a man and woman marry each other, they come under the authority of Him who established marriage. We should remember that marriage is not a “church ordinance” which is validated by the church. Marriage existed long, long before Jesus built His church. People who are not Christians can and do enter marriage, and when they do, they will answer to God for their conduct in that relationship (Heb. 13:4; 2 Cor. 5:10).

God judges everyone by their actions - Christian marriage or nonChristian marriage a like. However, there is a quantitative and qualitative difference between Christian marriage and non-Christian marriage in that God is not a party to the marriage contract of non-Christians.

Thankyou seamus414...

What about the Believer married to the Non Believer in 1 Cor 7? In your opinion, if the believer is not to leave the unbeliever since the unbeliever is sanctified... do you feel that God has joined that marriage? In other words, does he see it as a valid marriage?

It would seem to me that he would since the believer is told NOT to leave the unbeliever. Obviously, there is the opportunity for the unbeliever to be saved.

God bless...

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 07:56 PM
That's what I have been saying all along. What this is saying is that marriage is done in a Spiritual sense and not in a Physical. But we perform it and teach it back-wards.

Thank you BCF...

VerticalReality
Jul 24th 2008, 07:57 PM
Cory.....

I do believe you love to argue for the sake of arguing.

For the record... If my memory serves me correctly, Jesusinmyheart does not believe like I do regarding remarriage. I "think" she believes as you do... that a "new creation" is free to remarry if they are saved after divorce. Correct me, Jesusinmyheart, if I am wrong.

My "Amen", Cory, was to her exact quote.... Let me refresh your memory...

broad is the way that leads to destruction.. narrow is the way to life and few be there that find it.

And I still say AMEN!! Even though I don't agree with all of her belief does not mean I would "throw the baby out with the bath water!!" I sincerely enjoy some of her posts... just as I have enjoyed some of your posts....and even told you so. There are many things that you have said that I would give a hearty AMEN to! Today... is a different story. :(

In fact, your whole approach or the spirit in which you deliver does not incline me to want to listen to what you have to say... nor do I believe it would for anyone else lurking about these forums....just my opinion.

And it is a shame that we cannot discuss Scriptures kindly, respectfully, and humbly.

I would have enjoyed hearing more about this Law thing that you are adamant about... but, as before, all the little pokes and prods and bickering are wearing me out. You may be fine with your posts and think your words are A-ok.... but coming from a sister in Christ... believe me, they are not.

And as I have always said before... I want people to call me out when I am off track as well.

God bless...

It is your opinion that I am off track. I am not inclined to agree with you. If you feel like it is your position to address me personally rather than addressing the topic . . . I would say that speaks to the strength of your position here rather than the truth of your criticism. If you do not like the content of this thread or of my posts you are free to not read them. You have saw it fit not to speak about the issue at hand but rather to address things such as the office of which I am called and so on as if this is any of your business. When it comes to my office I answer to the Lord . . . not to Alyssa S.

Now, can you please get off this personal kick you're on and start addressing the topic of this thread?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 24th 2008, 08:03 PM
Well i didn't come here to get into that, i wanted to address marriage and divorce and state that while i'm a firm believer in working things out God permitted Moses to allow for divorce.
I cannot see that God would have permitted Moses something that was not in His own character to do if necessary.

God Himself divorced His people at one point. They were no longer His, but had played the harlot, and therefore God saw it fit to divorce.

faithfulfriend
Jul 24th 2008, 08:04 PM
I'm very late on this topic. After reading through it all I will post my studies concerning this issue. :P

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 08:05 PM
I almost always raise historic Christian teaching as an argument/defense of my positions on this board. As a result, I usually get accused (either overtly or impliedly) of being some heretical Romanist or belittling the Bible. Neither is true, of course, but it does not stop people.

This not particilarly apprpos to the thread, but allow me this: when it comes down to it, the Bible must be interpreted in some way. Everyone who reads it independantly understands it differently - if that were not true these boards would have no debates and there'd be one Christian church. The fact is, Lutherans understand the Bible as Luther read it; Reformed/Presbyterians understand the Bible as Calvin read it; Baptists often understand the Bible as Zwingli read it and so on. I try to understand the Bible consistent with the historic teaching of the Church.

Makes sense.... not that you are accused of some heretical Romanist!! haha!:lol: ..... but that you want to stay as close to historic teaching as possible. I always reference the early church.... but then there were also problems in the early church.... as with every other church, person etc. etc.

Some try to throw the early church fathers out with the bath water because many were of Catholic belief... and many were Universalists. They were fallable men and they certainly don't supercede the Word... but it is interesting to compare where we are now to where we were then as a church.

What is your opinion about the early church not allowing remarriage whatsoever...as declared in their creeds? I have never once read where they give an Exception for one saved after a divorce freedom to remarry. It doesn't mean it isn't there... but I have not personally found it.

Thanks! :)

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 08:07 PM
Thank you BCF...

Your welcome......anytime

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 08:12 PM
Historically, Christians have understood marriage as a sacrament: it is a spiritual reality that is expressed through an outward and physical sign. The two (spirituality/physicality) cannot be seperated.

Yes you are right, but it is my understanding from scripture that during intimacy that there is a Spiritual exchange before there is a physical exchange which happens to a couple. Therefore, the Spiritual exchange would be the first step in a relationship and the most important step, before the physical.

But we tend to have everything backward and teach it that way.

Alyssa S
Jul 24th 2008, 08:15 PM
When it comes to my office I answer to the Lord . . . not to Alyssa S.


Praise God!! I hope you continue to answer to the Lord!!

seamus414
Jul 24th 2008, 08:16 PM
Alyssa SMakes sense.... not that you are accused of some heretical Romanist!! haha!:lol: ..... but that you want to stay as close to historic teaching as possible. I always reference the early church.... but then there were also problems in the early church.... as with every other church, person etc. etc.

A very good book for you to read is "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" - it is extremely cerebral but well worth the time and trouble to read it. YOu will learn a lot from it.

Some try to throw the early church fathers out with the bath water because many were of Catholic belief

This is where I have a problem - and then get accused of being a Romanist. The fact is early church fathers were not Roman Catholics. Roman Catholicism developed between A.D. 1054 and A.D. 1517ish. Not to sound accusatory, but labeling the early church fathers as "catholic" (and using the term in a less than complimentary way) demonstrates that you do not read them objectively but with a bias of some sort. An objective reading of the Fathers shows us where Christians came from and where they were at the time of their writing. These writings show - much to the chagrin of many Christians - the earliest of Christians are much more "catholic" than they feel comfortable with. As a result, they tend to wash away history. As an Anglican I have no problem embracing these so-called catholic theolgians as much as I have no problem embracing Protestant ones of later ages. As one great Christian theologian once said "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

... and many were Universalists. They were fallable men and they certainly don't supercede the Word... but it is interesting to compare where we are now to where we were then as a church.

What is your opinion about the early church not allowing remarriage whatsoever...as declared in their creeds? I have never once read where they give an Exception for one saved after a divorce freedom to remarry. It doesn't mean it isn't there... but I have not personally found it.

As the earliest of Chrisitans would have the best idea of what Jesus and his APostles taught, I take them much more seriously than latter day CHristians who teach contrary to them.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 24th 2008, 08:35 PM
Some try to throw the early church fathers out with the bath water because many were of Catholic belief... and many were Universalists. They were fallable men and they certainly don't supercede the Word... but it is interesting to compare where we are now to where we were then as a church.
I'm not going to throw them out, i do like the didache... but i read it with more of a Jewish mindset.

Alyssa S,

I believe divorce can be granted much according to the link valleybuilder posted.
I believe that an unbeliever who departs leaved the believing spouse to remarry.

I believe that a believing couple should ideally not divorce, but that they should be reconciled.
However there's two ways in my view in which i believe two believers can legitimatly divorce. There are those who are not true believers in the body of Christ, and when two believers separate, hopefully to be reconciled, but one of the two cheats on the other, then this is a legitimate reason to divorce as scripture states that neither party is to put away his/her spouse during separation. But when one partnhmer cheats on the other he/she has effectively put away his/her spouse by comitting adultery.

Now in the same way when two believers for whatever reasons separate, both should remain single, not going off with another of the opposite gender. But if one spouse should die during that period, then the remaining spouse is also free to remarry.

Now in the case of a believer who separates, say because of abuse or neglect, such a person is worse than an unbeliever, and i believe in such cases too divorce is granted.

However, i would implore each of you that come to this thread seeking answers regarding divorce and remarriage to search your hearts, options and motives very thoroughly, because divorce for the wrong reasons and not under these circumstances will make you an adulterer, and the one you get together with afterwards also.

Shalom,
Tanja

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 09:47 PM
Hi Jesusinmyheart, nice to talk to you again. Hope you are doing well.:)

I am assuming (and please correct me if I am wrong with this) you are getting this assumption I am quoting


Now in the same way when two believers for whatever reasons separate, both should remain single, not going off with another of the opposite gender. But if one spouse should die during that period, then the remaining spouse is also free to remarry.
from 1st Cor 7:12-16. Correct:)

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 24th 2008, 10:20 PM
BCF,

Yes, correct.

Nice to see you again also!!! :hug:

Tanja

BCF
Jul 24th 2008, 10:41 PM
Tanja,

I hope you don't mind me calling you by your name. If you do let me know and I will use your screen name here. But anyway, In my post #99 I believe it was I wrote to Alyssa concerning these verses and along with some other scripture explaining God's perfect Plan For Marriage From The Beginning.

God's Perfect Plan For Marriage From The Beginning had nothing to do with the Flesh. It was all about a Spiritual Union between a man and a woman. Did you read my Post?

Dave:)

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 24th 2008, 11:07 PM
:blush: i don't remember what you said back then. I'll have to re-read it.

Then i'll get back with you.

Shalom,
Tanja

Alaska
Jul 25th 2008, 05:31 AM
Well i didn't come here to get into that, i wanted to address marriage and divorce and state that while i'm a firm believer in working things out God permitted Moses to allow for divorce.
I cannot see that God would have permitted Moses something that was not in His own character to do if necessary.

God Himself divorced His people at one point. They were no longer His, but had played the harlot, and therefore God saw it fit to divorce.

This was obviously like a parable: God using what they were familiar with to make a point. The point was that he was going to punish his people.
This divorce was not a literal divorce. Israel was a nation, not a woman. His relationship with Israel was not a literal, flesh and blood, husband and wife relationship etc.
I think you are mixing the parabolic with the literal. I can do that too and say that since God had two wives in a parable in Ezekiel, it must be OK for me to have two wives too.

The idea that God would not allow Moses to give a law that wasn't "right" happens to be contradicted by Jesus. Jesus said that Moses allowed it for the hardness of their hearts. It was there to give order to something that they were going to do because their hearts were not right. A hard heart is not a right heart.

The precept (Dt. 24) recognized that men were going to do this wrong thing and established a way of dealing with it. In this sense it was a good thing under the circumstances. Consider the chaos if there were no law or order to the issue of men divorcing their wives,(which is a sin because it is done though ignorance and hard heartedness.)
Deut 24 was a necessary evil, the lesser of two evils. The other greater evil was to not have a law to regulate what they would inevitably do.
Laws are sometimes not truth. They sometimes serve only to control or give order to something.

John 1:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

The truth according to Jesus was that what was established in Gen 2 still stands, and it always has stood because that is the truth. Jesus referred way back to Gen 2 and A&E to answer the question of whether or not divorce is allowed NOW.

It was not so from the beginning and it is not so now in Christ.

No man is justified by the law.

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 05:50 AM
The Greek manuscript word used for fornication is "porneia" from which the English word pornography is derived.

The Greek word porneia means "illicit sexual intercourse." It also means the worship of idols in metaph form.

If you are legally married to a person, then you are not committing illicit sexual intercourse with them.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 25th 2008, 01:08 PM
This was obviously like a parable: God using what they were familiar with to make a point. The point was that he was going to punish his people.
This divorce was not a literal divorce. Israel was a nation, not a woman. His relationship with Israel was not a literal, flesh and blood, husband and wife relationship etc.

It's not a parable, It was not supposed to be so from the beginning that man and wife would divorce. Likewise it was not so from the beginning that God and man would be separated, yet it happened because of sin.

Jer 3:6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
Jer 3:7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

It was a divorce. Divorce is all about the breaking of a relationship, whether that be a flesh and blood literal sexual relationship or a spiritual one.

Needless to say i disagree with you that Moses made up a law which is contrary to God, and God not saying anything about it.
As i stated before, yes, divorce is not what God had in mind in the beginning, but there are times it is necessary.


Laws are sometimes not truth.I disagree, and i also disagree with how you read/apply below verse.

John 1:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

I don't see "the Law being given by Moses" as a negative thing, as you do. First of all it was given by Moses because the people who stood at Mt Sinai did not want to deal with God directly
Exo 20:19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

So Moses was the mediator through which the Word of God came. However, Moses himself being a sinful human could not give the Law as Yeshua could and thereby give people life.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Remember where that glory was before in the OT?

2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,

It was brought to an end because it was not transferable from man to man meaning from sinner to sinner. This is the Law that made Moses face bright, because he understood it correctly, and tried to pass this on. This glory faded, because it was not made manifest in the heart of many, because it was passed on by man, who could not give life.

Joh 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

Now this glory is passed on by Yeshua through the Spirit. It's still the Law, but it is now being passed on by the one who has the power to give life, so therefore it will not weaken.

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,


So in viewing that verse the Law came though Moses, but Grace and Truth came through Christ, i see that the Law Moses gave could not convey the Grace and Truth Yeshua revealed when He came to fully live out and explain the Law and give His grace through the sacrifice, which Moses could not do either, as a sinful human being.

Now i also see it differently when you say "no man is justified by the Law."

True, man is sinful and therefore always condemned by the Law. However, that does not mean our deeds cannot be judged by the Law, and they will be: either the Law will condemn our deeds or justify them.
As Believers we gain the right to the tree of life/Yeshua's blood, which is needed to justify us wholly. This does not mean we have license to sin through Grace:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
You can see from there that we are to walk a life of works after His will.

How do you reconcile your statement/scripture verse with this:

Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Shalom,
Tanja

valleybldr
Jul 25th 2008, 01:57 PM
If you are legally married to a person, then you are not committing illicit sexual intercourse with them. That just begs the question as to whether one is legally (in God's eyes) married to another party while the first spouse is still alive. todd

Alaska
Jul 25th 2008, 03:45 PM
Luke 16: (Jesus speaking)
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

The second marriage as indicated in verse 18 above, [that is justifiable by Dt. 24] does not make the second marriage lawful in God's eyes. It makes it adultery by the authority of the truth of the law that Jesus revealed Gen 2 to be on this topic.
We have here a classic example of the conflict between truth and law.
Let me reitterate; we have the truth of the law and then again we have law that is not "truth" after the revelation of truth that Jesus brought to light.

Look again at Luke 16 above:
If the man's second marriage is adultery, then that has to mean that in God's eyes he is still married to that first lawful wife, otherwise who is he then committing adultery against?
Notice the last clause in verse 18. The man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
With what man's wife is he committing adultery?
Obviously, the man's wife with whom he is now married!

The divorce from a lawful marriage does NOT dissolve that marriage. If it did, then marrying the divorced person would not be adultery and marrying after getting a divorce would not be adultery.

Notice verse 17 as it ties in with verse 18 above.
If we were to respect Deut. 24:1-4 (Moses' provision for divorce), then verse 18 would not be true. Verse 18 would definately not be true if Jesus were speaking giving respect to Deut. 24:1-4 as a law that was the truth.
Rather, Jesus is speaking with respect to the truth of the law as found in Gen. 2 which he emphasises and clarifies when asked about divorce. He is not giving respect to that which was written only for the hardness of their hearts and was contrary to Gen. 2.

Paul also disregards Deut. 24:1-4 in the following:

Romans 7:
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
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.

Again, verse 2 would be false if he were speaking as acknowledging Dt. 24 as truth.
Those that know the law, will understand the revelation that Jesus brought; that Dt. 24 was written only for the hardness of their hearts, and that it was a concession to their hard hearts, hence the absoluteness and finality that the precept makes to divorce as God gives them over to what he absolutely hates as a form of judgment against them. They chose hardness of hearts and were determined to be that way so he gave them a precept reflecting hardness of hearts to its logical conclusion that would disallow a reconciliation of the first lawful wife after her defilement.

Those that know the law will agree with Rom. 7:2 above, and with verse 18 in Luke 16 above, with regard to the truth as revealed in Gen. 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."

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

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully".

Alyssa S
Jul 25th 2008, 06:44 PM
All James is talking about here when he talks about the law of liberty, is the LAW OF LOVE that Jesus Himself taught him, and commanded him to teach. We can find proof of this in Matthew 22:36-40, when we read about how the Jesus shut the Pharisees up when they tried to test him once again. 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt Love The Lord Thy God With All Thy Heart, And With All Thy Soul, And With All Thy Mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment. 39. And the second is like unto it, Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself. 40. On these two commandments hang all the LAW. and the prophets.

So you see my friend James who being the half brother of Jesus in the first place (we can find proof of that in Acts 12:17 where Peter recognizes him as such) would have to teach just what Jesus instructed him to teach. And that my friend was LOVE.


Okay! I got a little more time so I can properly respond... thank you for your patience!:)

Jesus said if you LOVE me, you will obey my Commandments... John 14:15.

We did not die to the Ten Commandments... If we did, then Jesus wouldn't say "OBEY them." We are dead to the ceremonial law that Moses gave, but we are not dead to the Eternal Ten Commandments that God gave. Now, as Vertical Reality said, it does not take knowledge of a Commandment to Love the Lord. I don't love the Lord because of a Commandment. I love the Lord because of what He did for me. BUT!! There are times when I definitely love myself and my desires more (just keeping it real) and I am reminded of that Command. I can "hear" that still small voice saying "Do you love me? Then obey me." I am not dead to that Commandment. And I am not dead to loving my neighbor. I am required to love my neighbor.... and EVEN my enemies... and I OFTEN need to be reminded about that one!!!!!



I'm not going to go into great detail and explain as to why God had Hosea marry an adulterous woman, simply because it would take me for ever to write it all down. But I will tell you that if you read Chapter's 1-3 in Hosea, you will find out that Israel was in Spiritual sin. Gomer (the woman that Hosea was to marry) was Israel's ticket out of that Spiritual sin with God. That was why God had Hosea marry an adulterous woman, and yes God was apart of it. Why? Because he was freeing His People and used her to do it. Read and study the Chapters.

I am very familiar with the the first 3 chapters of Hosea. I wrote a 30 page treatise about much of this...(not trying to impress you...just making a point). I realize Hosea's relationship with Gomer was to be a parallel/reflective example to God's relationship with Israel. I'm not so sure I would go as far as you have and say that Gomer herself was Israel's ticket out of spiritual sin. GOD was Israel's ticket out of spiritual sin as well as their repentence.

In any case, that is truly besides the point. God CAN and God DOES respect the decision we make to to join ourselves with someone regardless of salvation. The story of Gomer and Hosea is proof that God joins people who take OATHS regardless of their spiritual status.

Who created marriage? God.
Who created the concept of oaths and promises? God.
It all began from Day 1. Nothing has changed. Marriage is a creation ordinance that began in the Garden. When two people decide to be married and take and oath, the ONE who created the Marriage Institution himslef honors the choice these people make... and he joins them.

Also, 1 Cor 7:12 shows that God joins unbelievers to believers. It is very clear. The unbeliever is sanctified by being married to the believer. More than likely, both were unbelievers when they married and one of them was saved at some point. Otherwise if they were both saved at the marriage ceremony, they would have known better than to be unequally yoked. So 1 Cor 7:12 is more proof that God joins non-believers.



Well my friend you are right about one thing. Paul did say it. But you forgot to read the rest of that verse. It is not me that you are disagreeing with my friend. It is Gods perfect plan of marriage, and I'll prove it. In 1st Cor 7:12 Paul says this, 12. But to the rest SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.


All this is saying is that Jesus did not address this topic in his ministry while he lived in the flesh on earth. Only Paul did. The preceding verse, Paul says "not I, but the Lord." This is because Jesus DID address this topic in the Gospels. I'm sure Paul, full of the Holy Spirit, did not make a mistake here.




We need to read and look at everything. Not just what we want to see my friend.
[/quote]

Believe me!!! I 100% agree with you in regards to that comment!! And also... trust me when I say.... staying single the rest of my life is NOT something I just "want" to do!! haha! I looked for every loophole after the truth became obvious to (me) and God slowly shut each and every door. :eek:

But that's ok... I have peace about it.

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 06:55 PM
Luke 16: (Jesus speaking)
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

The second marriage as indicated in verse 18 above, [that is justifiable by Dt. 24] does not make the second marriage lawful in God's eyes. It makes it adultery by the authority of the truth of the law that Jesus revealed Gen 2 to be on this topic.
We have here a classic example of the conflict between truth and law.

Alaska,

Jesus is not talking about every single married couple in the world at that time here. Jesus is only talking about those who are married in God's Plan for Marriage or as I refer to it as Spiritually married together. If you would read the whole thing rather then just a few verses you would understand that there is no conflict with anything.

In Luke 16:14-18, we first find the Pharisees in verse 14 after hearing the teachings of Jesus, turn their nose up at Him. Starting in verse 15 we find Jesus saying this, "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man pressed into it. 17. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, then one tittle (smallest stroke of a letter) of the law.
18. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

In verses 15 through 17, Jesus speaks nothing about Marriage. All Jesus is doing is explaining to these poor chaps that the law as they knew it (law that was given to Moses) was preached until John. After that Jesus came unto the seen and the kingdom of God was preached from then on (meaning the Gospel's and commandments that we are suppose to be living today that Jesus gave us, which is to Love one another as he has loved us. It was not until verse 18 when Jesus actually spoke anything about divorce, and when he did he was only refer to those who were obeying God's Perfect Plan of Marriage. We know this because we can reference that scripture with CO 7:10-11 where Paul writes this, "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."

This scripture that Paul writes is for all Believers who are Born Again Believers who are brought together in Marriage by God Spiritually first. A marriage that is Spiritually brought together should never be torn apart, and if it is this verse applies to them. This is why in the very next verse, verse 12 Paul starts out by saying "BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD". W ho do you think the rest of the people were that Paul was speaking to? The unmarried? I don't think so. He was speaking to those who were and are not married Spiritually. I God ordained marriage has nothing to do with a Law. It only has to do with a Spirit. We know this because we can find it in the very beginning with Adam and Eve. In the beginning before they had flesh they were a Spirit and GOD JOINED THEM TWO SPIRITS TOGETHER AND MADE THEM ONE. As far as this so called second marriage that you are referring to goes. There was no second marriage. Simple because Jesus was not talking about the OT law that was given to Moses at all in either case.

There is no contradiction here in scripture or the law. Just a lack of understanding. And God's people get destroyed because of it.

Alyssa S
Jul 25th 2008, 06:58 PM
[quote=Alaska;1722965]This was obviously like a parable: God using what they were familiar with to make a point. The point was that he was going to punish his people.
This divorce was not a literal divorce. Israel was a nation, not a woman. His relationship with Israel was not a literal, flesh and blood, husband and wife relationship etc.
I think you are mixing the parabolic with the literal. I can do that too and say that since God had two wives in a parable in Ezekiel, it must be OK for me to have two wives too.

The idea that God would not allow Moses to give a law that wasn't "right" happens to be contradicted by Jesus. Jesus said that Moses allowed it for the hardness of their hearts. It was there to give order to something that they were going to do because their hearts were not right. A hard heart is not a right heart.


Interesting that you would say this, Alaska. In my treatise that I wrote on the Covenant of Marriage, I addressed this very thing about what Moses commanded verses what God' original plan was. Here is a portion of that paper:

Jer 3:14 "Return, faithless people," declares the Lord, "for I (AM) your HUSBAND."

This verse alone speaks volumes to me, especially after considering that he has already "divorced" them! He never stopped being their husband and they never stopped being his bride. The adultery did not KILL the covenant...it merely BROKE it...nor did the DIVORCE kill the covenant. Many people think that if they get divorced, then they are "free" to remarry. After all, Moses had given Old Testament Jews "approval" to divorce and remarry.

What’s very interesting to note about Moses’ “allowance” for divorce and remarriage is how God addresses it within his own relationship with Israel. He clearly reveals his will on the matter, twice that I know of in the bible; once in the Old Testament and then again in the New Testament. If we look at Jeremiah 3:1, we will see that God himself does not put into full practice this law. He says:

“THEY SAY, if a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; YET, RETURN AGAIN TO ME, SAITH THE LORD.”

The Lord is quoting Deuteronomy 24:1, the law that Moses gave to the Israelites because of their hard heart. Many use this verse in the Old Testament, to justify NOT going back to their first spouse, and yet, what does God say in response to this? “THEY SAY”…. BUT, “(I) SAY…. RETURN TO ME.”

We see a familiar wording of what God said in Jeremiah 3:1 in the book of Matthew in verse 5:32 when Jesus was giving the Sermon on the Mount: “IT HAS BEEN SAID, ‘ANYONE who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ BUT, (I) TELL YOU that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to become an adulteress.”

There is something very significant in Jesus’ contrasting words of: “IT HAS BEEN SAID... BUT, (I) SAY…” and His words in Jeremiah: “THEY SAY…BUT, (I) SAY…” It would be easy to skip right over this without recognizing the correlation, but it’s imperative that we not. As we look at the other Scriptures regarding this subject, we will see how they all flow together in harmony to make a very bold statement, in my opinion.

When the Pharisees, in the book of Matthew, questioned Jesus about the permanency of marriage and if it were lawful to divorce a woman for any and every reason, Jesus told them: “Moses (permitted) you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard”…. “BUT it was not this way (FROM) the beginning." It was because of their hard hearts that Moses "permitted" them to divorce. Jesus had re-established the way it was meant to be from the beginning. He came to set the record straight. “What God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matt 19.) Note that Jesus did not say “It was not this way (IN) the beginning,” He said “It was not this way (FROM) the beginning.” Does this not tell us something of importance? It would appear to me that Moses’ “allowance” was not God’s perfect plan. Twice we have heard God’s opinion on this and I think He made it quite clear. (Jeremiah 3:1, Matt 5 and 19).

Alyssa S
Jul 25th 2008, 07:07 PM
.



Just a lack of understanding. And God's people get destroyed because of it.



Gosh then!! I hope you're theology is right!!:)

So then, if you were to die today, and don't fully understand every single detail of Scripture, you will be destroyed?? Yowza!

I think the Lord looks on the heart. The fact that we are all on here spending time wanting to learn, know, and discuss his Word says "something."

God bless!

VerticalReality
Jul 25th 2008, 07:15 PM
We did not die to the Ten Commandments... If we did, then Jesus wouldn't say "OBEY them." We are dead to the ceremonial law that Moses gave, but we are not dead to the Eternal Ten Commandments that God gave.

Is "Thou shalt not covet" not one of the Ten Commandments?

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 07:26 PM
Before anybody condemns divorced people to sin, you best read Jeremiah 3:6-8

In Jeremiah 3:6-8, God gave the backsliding harlot (North Kingdom)Israel a certificate of divorce. However her harlot sister (South Kingdom)Judah he did not divorce, because then Christ would have been an illegitimate child since Christ came from the tribe of Judah.

So God is a divorce himself. God later remarries Israel in Ezekiel 16:8

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 07:36 PM
Gosh then!! I hope you're theology is right!!:)

So then, if you were to die today, and don't fully understand every single detail of Scripture, you will be destroyed?? Yowza!

I think the Lord looks on the heart. The fact that we are all on here spending time wanting to learn, know, and discuss his Word says "something."

God bless!

Don't take that personally. When you read the scripture and something jumps out at you, do you immediately get offended by it? My friend their are lots of people who read these boards and I am very careful at what I write, which is why I very rarely offend anyone, because I don't want to offend someone who may be reading who is already hurting.

I did not mean that toward anyone here, I meant that toward the world as a whole and I thought that was how it would be taken. But I guess I was wrong.

So I will right now before anyone else gets offended apologize to everyone who reads that last statement that I made in my Post #168. I am deeply sorry if I have hurt anyone with that statement.

Dave

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 07:38 PM
Before anybody condemns divorced people to sin, you best read Jeremiah 3:6-8

In Jeremiah 3:6-8, God gave the backsliding harlot (North Kingdom)Israel a certificate of divorce. However her harlot sister (South Kingdom)Judah he did not divorce, because then Christ would have been an illegitimate child since Christ came from the tribe of Judah.

So God is a divorce himself. God later remarries Israel in Ezekiel 16:8

Just to let you know Ron, I'm not condemning divorce.

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 07:46 PM
Just to let you know Ron, I'm not condemning divorce.

I know you aren't my brother.

I used to be a member of a church that condemned divorced men, and they would not let divorced men be deacons or pastors, yet they would let women be deacons or pastors. They liked to pick and chose passages of scripture to condone their secondary doctrine. It's sad.:cry:

They liked to jump right to Matthew 5:31 and condemn divorced folk, but they ignored verses 17-30 which come before?

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 07:56 PM
I know you aren't my brother.

I used to be a member of a church that condemned divorced men, and they would not let divorced men be deacons or pastors, yet they would let women be deacons or pastors. They liked to pick and chose passages of scripture to condone their secondary doctrine. It's sad.:cry:

They liked to jump right to Matthew 5:31 and condemn divorced folk, but they ignored verses 17-30 which come before?

I know the feeling. I belong to one that I just started to go back to once again because God led me back their again after a four years of absence. They too won't let divorce men be Pastors or Deacons, and they use all kinds of verses to try and support their doctrine. It's a mess I tell you.

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 08:10 PM
I know the feeling. I belong to one that I just started to go back to once again because God led me back their again after a four years of absence. They too won't let divorce men be Pastors or Deacons, and they use all kinds of verses to try and support their doctrine. It's a mess I tell you.

True.

They were quick to throw Matthew 5:32 in a man's face, but not a one of them were touching Matthew 5:29 with a 10 foot pole, because they all still had both of their eyes. You can't pick and chose scriptures, you must always read scripture in light of scripture, and in the original manuscript languages, with or without a Bible concordance.

Alaska
Jul 25th 2008, 08:17 PM
Jesus is not talking about every single married couple in the world at that time here. Jesus is only talking about those who are married in God's Plan for Marriage or as I refer to it as Spiritually married together. If you would read the whole thing rather then just a few verses you would understand that there is no conflict with anything.



You refer to a distinct group of people of whom Jesus is speaking.
That does not fit Jesus' choice of words.
To interpret "whosoever" to mean a specific group of people is hardly what I can regard as a rightly dividing of scripture.
The concept of "whosoever" is also clearly reflected on and defined in the same context:

Mark 10:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
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. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
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.

Notice "for this cause" in verse 7. This relates to their being created male and female. Because of their natural role in creation, they will get married. This natural progression to marriage is recognised as their being joined together by God since that was his creation and His design. When it works in that natural way to get married, he takes the due credit for their being no more twain but one flesh and puts his stamp upon it as that which he has joined together. That section of scripture highlighted above is in fact the definition of what God has joined together.
Or as our sister Alyssa would say:


Who created marriage? God.
Who created the concept of oaths and promises? God.
It all began from Day 1. Nothing has changed. Marriage is a creation ordinance that began in the Garden. When two people decide to be married and take and oath, the ONE who created the Marriage Institution himself honors the choice these people make... and he joins them.

Technically, it was from day 6 not day 1 :D

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 08:20 PM
True.

They were quick to throw Matthew 5:32 in a man's face, but not a one of them were touching Matthew 5:29 with a 10 foot pole, because they all still had both of their eyes. You can't pick and chose scriptures, you must always read scripture in light of scripture, and in the original manuscript languages, with or without a Bible concordance.

Yeah, I know what you are talking about with the picking and the choosing. My wife calls it the hit and run approach:lol:. When we left that Church four years ago they had about 50 people going there. When we cam back just two week ago you were do good if you counted 10. It was very very sad. Made me want to cry:cry:.

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 08:27 PM
You refer to a distinct group of people of whom Jesus is speaking.
That does not fit Jesus' choice of words.
To interpret "whosoever" to mean a specific group of people is hardly what I can regard as a rightly dividing of scripture.
The concept of "whosoever" is also clearly reflected on and defined in the same context:

Mark 10:


Know you are in Mark. Before you were in Luke. That is what I quoted you from.....Luke. Let's make up our minds here which book are you going to teach this from. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They all had different accounts at different times of Jeses life. They all saw it differently. Let's make up our mind. Where are you going.

Alyssa S
Jul 25th 2008, 08:32 PM
John 1:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

The truth according to Jesus was that what was established in Gen 2 still stands, and it always has stood because that is the truth. Jesus referred way back to Gen 2 and A&E to answer the question of whether or not divorce is allowed NOW.

It was not so from the beginning and it is not so now in Christ.

No man is justified by the law.



Yah, I tend to agree with you here.

I was walking and praying in the park earlier this morning, thinking and reflecting on Genesis and the creation. When we start at THE foundation we have GOD... regardless of anything else whatsoever, there is GOD. (Obviously).

He created the Heavens and Earth, placed the stars in the sky, holds the moon and sun in its place, brings water down on the earth to feed the plants he planted as food for Man, as well as animals, that he breathed the breath of life into. And then he gave the man a wife. And the man said "this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."

This was the Creation Ordinance.

Every single person from the beginning that has been born has been given the breath of life... by GOD.
Every single person who has eyes and ears and legs and arms were given these things by GOD.
Every single person who has a voice was given it by GOD.
Every single person who has a heart was given it by GOD.
Every single person's emotions and personality was given to them by GOD.

Every single person who has ever lived on this earth has what they physically have in their makeup because GOD gave it to them.

GOD gave them the Earth to live on, Air to breathe, Food to eat, People to Love, and a Choice... to Love Him.

GOD first loved us. He is the CREATOR of ALL living things. And He is the CREATOR of MARRIAGE.

Everything we are physically and mentally and spiritually capable of doing, we do because GOD made it possible.

We could not marry... had GOD not designed marriage and created the desire in our hearts to be married.
We could not know what an Oath or a Promise was... had GOD not created Oaths and Promises.

So when two people, whom GOD created, stand before a witness, that GOD created, and declare their love for one another, that GOD created, and make a vow/oath/promise/COVENANT, that GOD created... I believe GOD hears it, accepts it, and joins it regardless of whether they believe in Him or not. I believe THAT is how He designed it. He is omnicient, omnipresent and ominpotent and there is no way, as some would want to believe, that he is not "involved."

Because all of these things were part of the Creation Ordinance.

Does this mean we have His blessings? Not if we don't believe in Him, but He still accepts OUR CHOICE, just as He accepts our choice to not follow Him.

This is not about the Law of Moses, or only those in Covenant with Him, or those of the House of Israel... I believe this is God's Universal Law and it applies to everyone. It does not matter if one is saved or unsaved when they marry. God honors our choices and binds that which He created. Scripture teaches us that ALL will stand before God and answer for the things we have done in the Body----both the saved and the unsaved.

Just my opinion... :)
God bless,
Alyssa

Alaska
Jul 25th 2008, 08:36 PM
Quote: Alaska
You refer to a distinct group of people of whom Jesus is speaking.
That does not fit Jesus' choice of words.
To interpret "whosoever" to mean a specific group of people is hardly what I can regard as a rightly dividing of scripture.
The concept of "whosoever" is also clearly reflected on and defined in the same context:

Quote: BCF
Know you are in Mark. Before you were in Luke. That is what I quoted you from.....Luke. Let's make up our minds here which book are you going to teach this from. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They all had different accounts at different times of Jeses life. They all saw it differently. Let's make up our mind. Where are you going.


I cannot see how your position of what "whosoever" means can change from Luke to Mark since Jesus used the same kind of language in both situations to the same effect as what my former reasoning reflects:


If the man's second marriage is adultery, then that has to mean that in God's eyes he is still married to that first lawful wife, otherwise who is he then committing adultery against?
The man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
With what man's wife is he committing adultery?
Obviously, the man's wife with whom he is now married!

The divorce from a lawful marriage does NOT dissolve that marriage. If it did, then marrying the divorced person would not be adultery and marrying after getting a divorce would not be adultery.

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 08:43 PM
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;


Notice "for this cause" in verse 7. This relates to their being created male and female. Because of their natural role in creation, they will get married. This natural progression to marriage is recognised as their being joined together by God since that was his creation and His design.

Verse 7 in not a natural cause because Adam and Eve were joined together by Spirit according to verse 6.

We know this because we can cross reference verse 6 back to Gen1:27, were the writer writes this, "So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD CREATED HE HIM; MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM."

When I last looked at John 4:24, it told me that God was a Spirit. If that is true well then verse 6 of Mark would tell me that Jesus was telling those chaps that in the beginning God's plan For Marriage was by Spirit ONLY.

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 08:45 PM
Quote:
You refer to a distinct group of people of whom Jesus is speaking.
That does not fit Jesus' choice of words.
To interpret "whosoever" to mean a specific group of people is hardly what I can regard as a rightly dividing of scripture.
The concept of "whosoever" is also clearly reflected on and defined in the same context:

Mark 10:
Know you are in Mark. Before you were in Luke. That is what I quoted you from.....Luke. Let's make up our minds here which book are you going to teach this from. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They all had different accounts at different times of Jeses life. They all saw it differently. Let's make up our mind. Where are you going.


I cannot see how your position of what "whosoever" means can change from Luke to Mark since Jesus used the same kind of language in both situations to the same effect as what my former reasoning reflects:


Because Jesus is talking about two different situation's. That's how.

Alyssa S
Jul 25th 2008, 08:48 PM
Don't take that personally. When you read the scripture and something jumps out at you, do you immediately get offended by it? My friend their are lots of people who read these boards and I am very careful at what I write, which is why I very rarely offend anyone, because I don't want to offend someone who may be reading who is already hurting.

I did not mean that toward anyone here, I meant that toward the world as a whole and I thought that was how it would be taken. But I guess I was wrong.

So I will right now before anyone else gets offended apologize to everyone who reads that last statement that I made in my Post #168. I am deeply sorry if I have hurt anyone with that statement.

Dave

Aww... You have a good heart, Dave. Thank you.
You did not hurt me, no. And thank you for your words... :)

Alaska
Jul 25th 2008, 09:04 PM
Because Jesus is talking about two different situation's. That's how.

Here is Mark and Luke. How are they two situations? Isn't Jesus revealing what is truth as it pertains to marriage?

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.

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


Notice verses 11 and 18 above are saying the same thing. Or do you understand them as not saying the same thing?
And how is it, that the following reasoning in my former post is not applicable to both "situations" addressed by the two authors above? The situation is the same: what is the real state of affairs when it comes to a man divorcing his wife?

Quote:
If the man's second marriage is adultery, then that has to mean that in God's eyes he is still married to that first lawful wife, otherwise who is he then committing adultery against?

The man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
With what man's wife is he committing adultery?
Obviously, the man's wife with whom he is now married!

The divorce from a lawful marriage does NOT dissolve that marriage. If it did, then marrying the divorced person would not be adultery and marrying after getting a divorce would not be adultery.

BCF
Jul 25th 2008, 09:46 PM
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

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



Can you say cross referencing while you are during your studying. When you cross reference Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, you will come to find out that they both will take you right to the same place which is 1st Cor 7:10-11. Which once again I will write to you that Paul tells us this, "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."


Once again,This scripture that Paul writes is for all Believers who are Born Again Believers who are brought together in Marriage by God Spiritually first. A marriage that is Spiritually brought together should never be torn apart, and if it is this verse applies to them. This is why in the very next verse, verse 12 Paul starts out by saying "BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD".

Which part of this do you not understand my friend.:)

Alaska
Jul 25th 2008, 10:17 PM
Can you say cross referencing while you are during your studying. When you cross reference Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, you will come to find out that they both will take you right to the same place which is 1st Cor 7:10-11. Which once again I will write to you that Paul tells us this, "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."


Once again,This scripture that Paul writes is for all Believers who are Born Again Believers who are brought together in Marriage by God Spiritually first. A marriage that is Spiritually brought together should never be torn apart, and if it is this verse applies to them. This is why in the very next verse, verse 12 Paul starts out by saying "BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD".



I believe Paul is addressing the truth of marriage as it pertains to all married couples, whether believers or not, in verse 10 above since this originates in Gen. 2. And since he is speaking directly to believers in this context it is equally true of their marriages as well even though they may have been married long before becoming Christians.
In verse 12, he is not making a law contrary to what he just said that if she departs she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. That is still the commandment of God that is not negotiable as is verified in verse 39 where the wife is bound to her husband for as long as he is alive.
Are you suggesting that starting from verse 12, the truth as clarified by Jesus from Gen. 2, at creation, and applicable to "whosoever" is married, is somehow overridden by Paul so that "whosoever" in Luke and Mark somehow may not necesssarily apply to a believer with an unbelieving spouse?

May I kindly request that you refrain from writing things like this to me?


Which part of this do you not understand my friend.:)

It is very easy for such a statement to be seen as possibly sarcastic or condescending and I would very much like you to point out anything I write that may be taken as sarcastic or condescending and I will refrain from using such language.



Can you say cross referencing while you are during your studying.


This is also suspect to me. Is this what you meant?
Can you say "cross referencing" while you are doing your studying?
If this is what you meant, then I say,
God forbid that I should speak to you in that way.

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 10:30 PM
1st Cor 7:10-11. Which once again I will write to you that Paul tells us this, "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."


You do realize that this is not talking about divorce, right?

In verse 10, Depart in the Greek is "chorizo" which means: to separate from or depart.

In verse 11, put away in the greek is "aphiemi" which means: to send away, neglect, go away from.

The context of 1 Corinthians 7 is Paul talking about the ministry, and that it's better to be single like he is, because then you don't have to leave your family behind when you go on your mission trips. But Paul also says that if you can't control your sexual desires, then by all means please get married, because sexual immorality is wrong.

The NKJV and NIV Bibles translate the word "divorce" into 1 Corinthians 7, but the KJV Bible does not.

ZeeZee
Jul 25th 2008, 10:39 PM
When you marry the bible says for better or worse. Society has proven that some marriages fall apart due to finances.

How do you stand together during difficult times such as job lost? Sometimes your patience can really be tried? This phase is hard with out God and frustrating to maintain a home of piece when sometimes you want to lash out.

VerticalReality
Jul 25th 2008, 10:39 PM
Alyssa,

Did you see my question to you?

You declared previously that we are not dead to the Ten Commandments.

Is "thou shalt not covet" one of those Ten Commandments?

VerticalReality
Jul 25th 2008, 11:01 PM
Yah, I tend to agree with you here.

I was walking and praying in the park earlier this morning, thinking and reflecting on Genesis and the creation. When we start at THE foundation we have GOD... regardless of anything else whatsoever, there is GOD. (Obviously).

He created the Heavens and Earth, placed the stars in the sky, holds the moon and sun in its place, brings water down on the earth to feed the plants he planted as food for Man, as well as animals, that he breathed the breath of life into. And then he gave the man a wife. And the man said "this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."

This was the Creation Ordinance.

Every single person from the beginning that has been born has been given the breath of life... by GOD.
Every single person who has eyes and ears and legs and arms were given these things by GOD.
Every single person who has a voice was given it by GOD.
Every single person who has a heart was given it by GOD.
Every single person's emotions and personality was given to them by GOD.

Every single person who has ever lived on this earth has what they physically have in their makeup because GOD gave it to them.

GOD gave them the Earth to live on, Air to breathe, Food to eat, People to Love, and a Choice... to Love Him.

GOD first loved us. He is the CREATOR of ALL living things. And He is the CREATOR of MARRIAGE.

Everything we are physically and mentally and spiritually capable of doing, we do because GOD made it possible.

We could not marry... had GOD not designed marriage and created the desire in our hearts to be married.
We could not know what an Oath or a Promise was... had GOD not created Oaths and Promises.

So when two people, whom GOD created, stand before a witness, that GOD created, and declare their love for one another, that GOD created, and make a vow/oath/promise/COVENANT, that GOD created... I believe GOD hears it, accepts it, and joins it regardless of whether they believe in Him or not. I believe THAT is how He designed it. He is omnicient, omnipresent and ominpotent and there is no way, as some would want to believe, that he is not "involved."

Because all of these things were part of the Creation Ordinance.

Does this mean we have His blessings? Not if we don't believe in Him, but He still accepts OUR CHOICE, just as He accepts our choice to not follow Him.

This is not about the Law of Moses, or only those in Covenant with Him, or those of the House of Israel... I believe this is God's Universal Law and it applies to everyone. It does not matter if one is saved or unsaved when they marry. God honors our choices and binds that which He created. Scripture teaches us that ALL will stand before God and answer for the things we have done in the Body----both the saved and the unsaved.

Just my opinion... :)
God bless,
Alyssa

All of that sounds nice and perfect, Alyssa . . .

But what about the crack baby that is born mentally retarded without the ability to even think properly? What about the kids who are born without limbs? How about the children who are born into a terrible bout with the AIDS epidemic and other horrendous diseases that absolutely destroy the little bodies of the poor children it inhabits?

You paint a perfect picture in your post above. However, you fail to take into account our own choices and the curse with which we are born into. You fail to take into account that not everyone is born into a situation that is in God's perfect will and blessing. You fail to mention those who are born into cultures that are taught totally contrary to God's Word and His will for their life. To say that God honors covenants because He "invented" them is irresponsible to the Word and God's character, IMO. In some cultures it is custom for folks to have several different partners, some even of the same sex, and these are all joined in these cultures by "covenants" and "vows" and so forth. However, none of these covenants or vows mean diddly if they are not according to God's Word. If God has not joined those covenants then they mean diddly.

I asked you earlier what it was that binds a covenant . . .

You didn't answer.

I addressed you several pages back about the law of "thou shalt not covet" . . .

You didn't answer.

Why is it that folks address the things they like and ignore the other things they don't?

If you don't have an answer . . . fine. Say I don't know.

However, I find it very unfortunate how folks come in here in these forums in front of who knows how many viewers and make declarations that really do not sit well with the Word of God.

I try not to speak absolutely about things that I don't feel certain about.

However, when folks come in here in front of perhaps thousands of viewers and make proclamations like, "We aren't dead to the Ten Commandments," when Paul clearly said that we are leaves a feeling of uneasiness within me.

It is a pattern with these forums. People will read through others' posts and pick out little bitty tidbits of it that they feel comfortable to argue. Then they totally ignore the rest of the other person's response because it just doesn't fit their theology too well. I've been guilty of missing things from time to time myself. But I always at least try to address all points if they are relevant to the topic at hand. If a person's doctrine is completely sound it should be able to answer all questions. I don't believe God keeps His people guessing. I believe His truth is there for those who will dig into it and allow the Spirit to speak to them.

There should be no, "I'm not sure." If we aren't sure we are definitely missing it somewhere. I believe when we declare such things as fact when they are not true we make ourselves open for judgment. I do not want to teach anything falsely.

However, what I can say with absolute comfort is that Paul declares us dead to the law, and he included one of the Ten Commandments when making that declaration. Is this what the bible says or not?

Alaska
Jul 25th 2008, 11:10 PM
When you marry the bible says for better or worse. Society has proven that some marriages fall apart due to finances.

How do you stand together during difficult times such as job lost? Sometimes your patience can really be tried? This phase is hard with out God and frustrating to maintain a home of piece when sometimes you want to lash out.

Realizing that you and your lawful spouse are as much of one flesh as Adam and Eve were, that you possess that much respect by God, even though the wife was not made from the husbands rib, is a big help while enduring hardships together. You are not two but one. And reverencing that, honours God, and honouring God opens his hand of mercy and grace to help in time of need.

VerticalReality
Jul 25th 2008, 11:16 PM
Realizing that you and your lawful spouse are as much of one flesh as Adam and Eve were, that you possess that much respect by God, even though the wife was not made from the husbands rib, is a big help while enduring hardships together. You are not two but one. And reverencing that, honours God, and honouring God opens his hand of mercy and help and grace to help in time of need.

I tell you what . . .

I think folks are so wrapped up in their own doctrine that they can't even see any longer from the point of view of those who don't believe it.

Alaska, unbelievers couldn't care less about Adam and Eve. Shoot, most of them don't even believe in Adam and Eve. They don't believe those two people ever even existed. They certainly do not believe that Eve came from Adam's rib.

They don't care about God.

They don't care about holiness.

They don't care about committing sin.

They don't care about Jesus.

They don't even care enough about their own flesh and blood family that they spend their entire life with.

You really expect these people to give two hoots about God, his law, or even His view of marriage? They don't care anything about that.

Yet, God is still joining their covenants . . . :rolleyes:

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 11:37 PM
Yet, God is still joining their covenants . . . :rolleyes:

Did God recognize the marriage covenant between Cain and his wife?

Cain is called the son of Satan in the Bible.

VerticalReality
Jul 25th 2008, 11:38 PM
Did God recognize the marriage covenant between Cain and his wife?

Cain is called the son of Satan in the Bible.

I don't know of any Scripture that talks about God, Cain and Cain's wife.

VerticalReality
Jul 25th 2008, 11:46 PM
Did God recognize the marriage covenant between Cain and his wife?

Cain is called the son of Satan in the Bible.

Do you think the following Scripture relates to Cain and his wife?



Malachi 2:14-15
Yet you say, “For what reason?”
Because the LORD has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.


Do you believe any of that applies to Cain? Was Cain alive spiritually? Does the Word not teach that those who are separate from God are dead spiritually? So, how can God be a witness to and join the covenant of those who are dead spiritually?

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 11:52 PM
I don't know of any Scripture that talks about God, Cain and Cain's wife.

You can read all about God dealing with Cain, and Cain taking a wife in Genesis chapter 4.

VerticalReality
Jul 25th 2008, 11:55 PM
You can read all about God dealing with Cain, and Cain taking a wife in Genesis chapter 4.

That's not what I meant. I know where it talks about Cain and his wife. However, I don't know of any place that talks about God, Cain and Cain's wife in the context of God blessing and joining their marriage.

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 12:56 AM
That's not what I meant. I know where it talks about Cain and his wife. However, I don't know of any place that talks about God, Cain and Cain's wife in the context of God blessing and joining their marriage.

God doesn't say much about blessing and joining most people's marriages in the Bible.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 12:59 AM
Okay Alaska, you want respect, I can give it to you. But you must show me the same respect in return. I apologize for not respecting you and your knowledge. But I am used to writing to you without using respect because you did not show me any before when we talked. But this is a two way street my friend and it runs both ways.

Now, back to the subject.


I believe Paul is addressing the truth of marriage as it pertains to all married couples, whether believers or not, in verse 10 above since this originates in Gen. 2.

This cannot be possible if we are going to say that verse 10 is connected with Gen 2. The reason for that is because in Gen 2 God made male and female in his own image, which we all know is a Spirit. So if we are going to connect the two we can only say that Paul was addressing those who were married believers according to Gods Plan. Which would be Spiritual first, Physical second.


In verse 12, he is not making a law contrary to what he just said that if she departs she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. That is still the commandment of God that is not negotiable as is verified in verse 39 where the wife is bound to her husband for as long as he is alive.


Yes I agree, that in verse 12 Paul is not making a law contrary to what he just said that if she departs she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. What I am telling you about verse 12 is that Paul is now making a law to a different group of people. Who are these group of people? Those who are not married according to Gods Plan back in Gen 2. In other words the two drunks of today who meet in a casino in Las Vegas one night and decide to get married. Stay together for one year and then breakup because one of them felt like it. Those kind of people who God did not put together. That is who Paul is talking to in verse 12. Why do I say that? Because it is Paul's law, not God's. He tells us that in the first few words.


That is still the commandment of God that is not negotiable as is verified in verse 39 where the wife is bound to her husband for as long as he is alive.


Verse 39 takes you to Romans 7:2, where Paul is explaining about his war against his Spirit and his Flesh. Here in Romans 7:1-6 Paul says this,
1. Know ye not brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he liveth (talking about living in the flesh here). 2. For the woman which hath an husband by the law (which was given to Moses) to her husband so long as he liveth; (once again still talking about the flesh here) but if the husband be dead (and again in the flesh) she is loosed from the law (which was given to Moses).
3. So then, if while her husband liveth (in the flesh) she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead (in the flesh) she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead (in the flesh) to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another (our Spirit) even Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5. For when we were in the flesh (alive in the flesh) the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter (law of Moses)."

We are dead to the law that Moses was given because of Jesus, but we are not dead to the law of God. The law that God gave for marriage is Spiritual, and it has been that way from the beginning.


Are you suggesting that starting from verse 12, the truth as clarified by Jesus from Gen. 2, at creation, and applicable to "whosoever" is married, is somehow overridden by Paul so that "whosoever" in Luke and Mark somehow may not necessarily apply to a believer with an unbelieving spouse?


I'm not understanding your question on this one. Maybe it is just me. Try again.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 01:08 AM
You can read all about God dealing with Cain, and Cain taking a wife in Genesis chapter 4.

Cain was taken out of the presence of God in Chapter 4.
Once you are no longer in the presence of God you really are nothing to talk about, now are you.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 01:16 AM
All James is talking about here when he talks about the law of liberty, is the LAW OF LOVE that Jesus Himself taught him, and commanded him to teach. We can find proof of this in Matthew 22:36-40, when we read about how the Jesus shut the Pharisees up when they tried to test him once again. 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt Love The Lord Thy God With All Thy Heart, And With All Thy Soul, And With All Thy Mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment. 39. And the second is like unto it, Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself. 40. On these two commandments hang all the LAW. and the prophets.

So you see my friend James who being the half brother of Jesus in the first place (we can find proof of that in Acts 12:17 where Peter recognizes him as such) would have to teach just what Jesus instructed him to teach. And that my friend was LOVE.



I'm not going to go into great detail and explain as to why God had Hosea marry an adulterous woman, simply because it would take me for ever to write it all down. But I will tell you that if you read Chapter's 1-3 in Hosea, you will find out that Israel was in Spiritual sin. Gomer (the woman that Hosea was to marry) was Israel's ticket out of that Spiritual sin with God. That was why God had Hosea marry an adulterous woman, and yes God was apart of it. Why? Because he was freeing His People and used her to do it. Read and study the Chapters.



Well my friend you are right about one thing. Paul did say it. But you forgot to read the rest of that verse. It is not me that you are disagreeing with my friend. It is Gods perfect plan of marriage, and I'll prove it. In 1st Cor 7:12 Paul says this, 12. But to the rest SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

You see my friend that was Paul's ruling on the problem with marriage, not God's ruling on the problem with marriage back in that time. Simply because those that were having the problems were not following Gods plan for marriage in the first place, just as we are not following Gods plan for marriage today. All Paul wanted to do was bring peace between them so that he could bring them back to God once again, and bring peace between them all, and stop all the fighting, and he did.

We need to read and look at everything. Not just what we want to see my friend.

I whole heartedly agree. with all that was said, I might add to the last part where Paul said that this verse speaks of loosening and binding of things God has set up.

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

It's not any different than what Moses did when he allowed divorce and God approved it out of necessity.

If i have a representative whom i can truly trust, i can say that if my representative set up a rule i would approve of it. Because i would see need for it and trust him to act on my behalf, in the right way.

That's what's happened here with Paul, and it was so back when Moses allowed divorce, the thing to remember is that God does not like divorce, but He knows it would happen. To keep everything from turning upside down it was better to establish rules about that, then to let people or the public decide what they wanted to do at random.

God and His representatives are all about order and doing things out of mercy and love and compassion.
They have the power to bind or loosen laws.

Mat 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This applies to mak8ing new rules as well as forgiving transgressions, that normally might not be forgiven.

Shalom,
Tanja

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 01:27 AM
Cain was taken out of the presence of God in Chapter 4.
Once you are no longer in the presence of God you really are nothing to talk about, now are you.

I have really never thought about Cain's marriage not being recognized by God until now? You have given me something to think about. Thank you friend, I have to now get my study on.

phillipj
Jul 26th 2008, 01:35 AM
This may go against what the Bible says, but I honesty believe that someone should have the right to leave an abusive marriage. No one deserves to be abused where it be a cheating spouse or physical abuse.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 01:41 AM
Phillipj

You can look up a poster named valleybuilder. He posted a great link about the different reasons and provisions under which God allows divorce.

Abuse/neglect falls under the the keeping of the marriage vows, and abuse and neglect breaks those.

However, i would not want anyone to suddenly stand up and yell: "abuse!", or shout: "neglect!" and thus justify themselves. This is a matter of deeply searching one's heart before calling it abuse/neglect.
Perhaps the abuse or neglect is really going both ways coming from both parties, and not just one.

Search your hearts diligently before separating or divorcing.


Shalom,
Tanja

phillipj
Jul 26th 2008, 01:49 AM
Phillipj

You can look up a poster named valleybuilder. He posted a great link about the different reasons and provisions under which God allows divorce.

Abuse/neglect falls under the the keeping of the marriage vows, and abuse and neglect breaks those.

However, i would not want anyone to suddenly stand up and yell: "abuse!", or shout: "neglect!" and thus justify themselves. This is a matter of deeply searching one's heart before calling it abuse/neglect.
Perhaps the abuse or neglect is really going both ways coming from both parties, and not just one.

Search your hearts diligently before separating or divorcing.


Shalom,
Tanja
Tanja, I completely understand where you are coming from, but my belief for leaving a marriage involves a careless spouse who abuses the other spouse, while the abused spouse has always been faithful, I believe that no one has to stay in a relationship when they are being put through hell on a daily basis.
Take Care, Ben.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 01:51 AM
I whole heartedly agree. with all that was said, I might add to the last part where Paul said that this verse speaks of loosening and binding of things God has set up.

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

It's not any different than what Moses did when he allowed divorce and God approved it out of necessity.

If i have a representative whom i can truly trust, i can say that if my representative set up a rule i would approve of it. Because i would see need for it and trust him to act on my behalf, in the right way.

That's what's happened here with Paul, and it was so back when Moses allowed divorce, the thing to remember is that God does not like divorce, but He knows it would happen. To keep everything from turning upside down it was better to establish rules about that, then to let people or the public decide what they wanted to do at random.

God and His representatives are all about order and doing things out of mercy and love and compassion.
They have the power to bind or loosen laws.

Mat 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This applies to mak8ing new rules as well as forgiving transgressions, that normally might not be forgiven.

Shalom,
Tanja

I agree with you my sister. The key word here is LOVE. It is God's WILL that we all get their. It don't make any difference to God what kind of a situation you are in. All God cares about is your Heart and if whether or not you Love Him.

God don't fix Situations, God changes Hearts which fixes the Situations.

Dave

Alyssa S
Jul 26th 2008, 04:05 AM
For those who believe we are dead to the TEN COMMANDMENTS... here is proof that we are NOT!


Were the Ten Commandments Nailed to the Cross?


Some try to ignore the Bible's teachings on the ten commandments by saying they were done away at the crucifixion. Some try to teach that the ten commandments were "nailed to the cross". Is that what the Bible teaches? (Note: Paul's words are in green).

There is only one scripture that uses the "nailed it to the cross" expression (AV/NKJ), it is Col 2:13-14, in which Paul states, "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross". Were the ten commandments the "requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us"? Let us examine the scriptures to see.


Commandment 1: Paul said, "God, who made the world and everything in it...they should seek the Lord" (Acts 17:24,27). Paul also said, "I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law" (Acts 24:14). "And what agreement has the temple of God have with idols?" (II Cor 6:16). "you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I The 1:9). "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 The 2:3-4).


Commandment 2: "we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols" (Acts 15:20). "Now while Paul waited for them in Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols...Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said...'God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything'" (Acts 17:16,22,24-25). "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four footed animals and creeping things" (Rom 1:22-23). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is...an idolater" (I Cor 5:11). "Neither... idolators...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:9-10). "And do not become idolaters as were some of them...Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (I Cor 10:7,14). "And what agreement has the temple of God have with idols?" (II Cor 6:16). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...idolatry" (Gal 5:19,20). "For this you know that no...idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "Therefore put to death...covetousness, which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). "you turned to God from idols" (I The 1:9).
Commandment 3: "they are all under sin...Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness" (Rom 3:9,14). "Let all...evil speaking be put away from you" (Eph 4:31). "But now you yourselves are to put off all these:...blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth" (Col 3:8). "they may learn not to blaspheme" (I Tim 1:20). But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...blasphemers" (II Tim 3:1,2).


Commandment 4: "Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures...And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 17:2;18:4 see also 13:14,27,42,44). "let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need" (Eph 4:28) and "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: 'If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat'" (II Thes 3:10); (recall that the requirement to work is also part of the Sabbath command, thus even that portion of the commandment is repeated in the New Testament.) "And to whom did He swear they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?" (Heb 3:18). "For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works'" (Heb 4:4). "There remains therefore a rest (literally sabbatismos, 'Sabbath rest') for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His" (Heb 4:9-10).


Commandment 5: "being filled with all unrighteousness...disobediant to parents" (Rom 1:29,30). "Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother', which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth" (Eph 6:1-3). "the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience" (Col 3:6). "Children obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord" (Col 3:20). "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...disobediant to parents" (II Tim 3:1,2).


Commandment 6: "being filled with all unrighteousness...murder" (Rom 1:29). "You shall not murder" (Rom 13:9). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...murders" (Gal 5:19,21). "the lawless and insubordinate...murders...manslayers" (I Tim 1:9).


Commandment 7: "being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality" (Rom 1:29). "So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress" (Rom 7:3). "You shall not commit adultery" (Rom 13:9). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral" (I Cor 5:11). "Neither... adulterers, nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:9-10)."Nor let us commit sexual immorality as some of them did" (I Cor 10:8). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...adultery, fornication" (Gal 5:19). "For this you know that no fornicator...has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "the lawless and insubordinate...fornicators...sodomites" (I Tim 1:9,10). "fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb 13:4).


Commandment 8: "You shall not steal" (Rom 13:9). "nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:10). "I have been...in perils of robbers" (II Cor 11:25-26). "Let him who stole, steal no longer" (Eph 4:28).


Commandment 9: "You shall not bear false witness" (Rom 13:9). "Therefore, putting away lying" (Eph 4:25). "Do not lie to one another" (Col 3:9). "the lawless and insubordinate...liars...perjurers" (I Tim 1:9,10). "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy" (I Tim 4:1-2). "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...slanderers" (II Tim 3:1,3). "God, who cannot lie" (Ti 1:2). "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18).


Commandment 10: "being filled with all unrighteousness...covetousness" (Rom 1:29)."You shall not covet" (Rom 7:7). "You shall not covet" (Rom 13:9). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is...covetous" (I Cor 5:11). "nor covetous...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:10). "we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted" (I Cor 10:6). "you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). "For this you know that no fornicator...nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "Therefore put to death...covetousness, which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). "For neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak for covetousness" (I The 2:5). "Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have" (Heb 13:5).

"Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city" (Rev 22:14). Since "those who do His commandments...have the right to enter...the city" (Rev 22:14), the ten commandments could not be "contrary to us". So then, if the ten commandments were not "nailed to the cross", what was? What does the Bible say? "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Col 2:14).
It was the handwriting of requirements. Which requirements were wiped out?
It appears that two things were wiped out. One would be the requirements of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 9:1,6-10).
And why?
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins...By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all" (Heb 10:4,10).

The other (which is related) would be the death penalty, as "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23) or other specific ceremonial penalites associated with the Old Testament statutes (such as making a sin offering or washing). It is of interest to note that the expression "the handwriting of requirements" is a Greek legal term that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--through Jesus the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"), not the law! "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them" (Heb 10:16).
Even Protestant commentators realize this. Notice what Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible states about Colossians 2:14:

Whatever was in force against us is taken out of the way. He has obtained for us a legal discharge from the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us (v. 14), which may be understood,
1. Of that obligation to punishment in which consists the guilt of sin. The curse of the law is the hand-writing against us, like the hand-writing on Belshazzar's wall. Cursed is every one who continues not in every thing. This was a hand-writing which was against us, and contrary to us; for it threatened our eternal ruin. This was removed when he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal 3:13. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).
Some will argue that you still cannot keep the ten commandments (for "all have sinned"), even if they are all mentioned as being in effect after the crucifixion. Does this mean one should not try?

Who are true Christians? Let's see what the last book of the Bible says. "And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 12:17). "Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12).

All of the ten commandments are mentioned as being in effect before Mount Sinai, Jesus taught all ten of them, Paul taught all ten of them, they were all in effect after the crucifixion, Paul specifically taught they were not done away (Rom 3:31), and all of them are mentioned by the other New Testament writers. The opinions that state otherwise seem to be "traditions of men" which Jesus warned against (Mat 15:6). The last chapter of the Bible states, "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city" (Rev 22:14). Therefore, it would not appear wise from a biblical standpoint to teach that the ten commandments are not in effect. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man's all" (Ecc 12:13).

VerticalReality
Jul 26th 2008, 04:13 AM
Something else I want you guys to pay attention to about this passage of Scripture . . .



Malachi 2:14-15
Yet you say, “For what reason?”
Because the LORD has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.


You guys look at the bolded section. Those who are spiritually alive and joined by God will produce godly offspring. They will raise up another generation of godly men and women that will live for the Lord and seek Him out.

Now, compare what the Word declares here about the spiritual union of God to the union Cain had with his wife and what it produced . . .



Genesis 4:16-24
Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech. Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.
Then Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”


Check out the offspring that came from Cain and his wife. We see from his offspring that bigamy was introduced for the first time. We see that not only is murder going on but Lamech actually boasts of his murders, and he even brags that his retribution will be greater than God's. So, in other words, he is exalting himself above God. This is the seed of Cain and his wife.

Now check out this Scripture . . .



Genesis 6:1-3
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful;and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.


This Scripture talks about some taking wives for themselves that "they chose", and God responds by saying, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever."

But we're supposed to believe that these marriages were joined by God? The Lord was clearly grieved by such disobedience and wickedness. Yet, so many want to say that it is God who is joining these marriages.

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 04:19 AM
Something else I want you guys to pay attention to about this passage of Scripture . . .



This Scriptures talks about some taking wives for themselves that "they chose", and God responds by saying, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever."

But we're supposed to believe that these marriages were joined by God? The Lord was clearly grieved by such disobedience and wickedness. Yet, so many want to say that it is God who is joining these marriages.

You are indeed correct.

I never even thought about this, even though I have all of Genesis broken down into the Hebrew language in my Bible.

This thread has made me think about marriage in the eyes of God in a whole new light. Great thread.

VerticalReality
Jul 26th 2008, 04:19 AM
For those who believe we are dead to the TEN COMMANDMENTS... here is proof that we are NOT!


Were the Ten Commandments Nailed to the Cross?


Some try to ignore the Bible's teachings on the ten commandments by saying they were done away at the crucifixion. Some try to teach that the ten commandments were "nailed to the cross". Is that what the Bible teaches? (Note: Paul's words are in green).

There is only one scripture that uses the "nailed it to the cross" expression (AV/NKJ), it is Col 2:13-14, in which Paul states, "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross". Were the ten commandments the "requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us"? Let us examine the scriptures to see.


Commandment 1: Paul said, "God, who made the world and everything in it...they should seek the Lord" (Acts 17:24,27). Paul also said, "I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law" (Acts 24:14). "And what agreement has the temple of God have with idols?" (II Cor 6:16). "you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I The 1:9). "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 The 2:3-4).


Commandment 2: "we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols" (Acts 15:20). "Now while Paul waited for them in Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols...Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said...'God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything'" (Acts 17:16,22,24-25). "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four footed animals and creeping things" (Rom 1:22-23). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is...an idolater" (I Cor 5:11). "Neither... idolators...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:9-10). "And do not become idolaters as were some of them...Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (I Cor 10:7,14). "And what agreement has the temple of God have with idols?" (II Cor 6:16). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...idolatry" (Gal 5:19,20). "For this you know that no...idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "Therefore put to death...covetousness, which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). "you turned to God from idols" (I The 1:9).
Commandment 3: "they are all under sin...Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness" (Rom 3:9,14). "Let all...evil speaking be put away from you" (Eph 4:31). "But now you yourselves are to put off all these:...blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth" (Col 3:8). "they may learn not to blaspheme" (I Tim 1:20). But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...blasphemers" (II Tim 3:1,2).


Commandment 4: "Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures...And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 17:2;18:4 see also 13:14,27,42,44). "let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need" (Eph 4:28) and "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: 'If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat'" (II Thes 3:10); (recall that the requirement to work is also part of the Sabbath command, thus even that portion of the commandment is repeated in the New Testament.) "And to whom did He swear they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?" (Heb 3:18). "For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works'" (Heb 4:4). "There remains therefore a rest (literally sabbatismos, 'Sabbath rest') for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His" (Heb 4:9-10).


Commandment 5: "being filled with all unrighteousness...disobediant to parents" (Rom 1:29,30). "Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother', which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth" (Eph 6:1-3). "the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience" (Col 3:6). "Children obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord" (Col 3:20). "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...disobediant to parents" (II Tim 3:1,2).


Commandment 6: "being filled with all unrighteousness...murder" (Rom 1:29). "You shall not murder" (Rom 13:9). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...murders" (Gal 5:19,21). "the lawless and insubordinate...murders...manslayers" (I Tim 1:9).


Commandment 7: "being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality" (Rom 1:29). "So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress" (Rom 7:3). "You shall not commit adultery" (Rom 13:9). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral" (I Cor 5:11). "Neither... adulterers, nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:9-10)."Nor let us commit sexual immorality as some of them did" (I Cor 10:8). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...adultery, fornication" (Gal 5:19). "For this you know that no fornicator...has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "the lawless and insubordinate...fornicators...sodomites" (I Tim 1:9,10). "fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb 13:4).


Commandment 8: "You shall not steal" (Rom 13:9). "nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:10). "I have been...in perils of robbers" (II Cor 11:25-26). "Let him who stole, steal no longer" (Eph 4:28).


Commandment 9: "You shall not bear false witness" (Rom 13:9). "Therefore, putting away lying" (Eph 4:25). "Do not lie to one another" (Col 3:9). "the lawless and insubordinate...liars...perjurers" (I Tim 1:9,10). "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy" (I Tim 4:1-2). "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...slanderers" (II Tim 3:1,3). "God, who cannot lie" (Ti 1:2). "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18).


Commandment 10: "being filled with all unrighteousness...covetousness" (Rom 1:29)."You shall not covet" (Rom 7:7). "You shall not covet" (Rom 13:9). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is...covetous" (I Cor 5:11). "nor covetous...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:10). "we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted" (I Cor 10:6). "you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). "For this you know that no fornicator...nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "Therefore put to death...covetousness, which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). "For neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak for covetousness" (I The 2:5). "Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have" (Heb 13:5).

"Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city" (Rev 22:14). Since "those who do His commandments...have the right to enter...the city" (Rev 22:14), the ten commandments could not be "contrary to us". So then, if the ten commandments were not "nailed to the cross", what was? What does the Bible say? "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Col 2:14).
It was the handwriting of requirements. Which requirements were wiped out?
It appears that two things were wiped out. One would be the requirements of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 9:1,6-10).
And why?
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins...By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all" (Heb 10:4,10).

The other (which is related) would be the death penalty, as "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23) or other specific ceremonial penalites associated with the Old Testament statutes (such as making a sin offering or washing). It is of interest to note that the expression "the handwriting of requirements" is a Greek legal term that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--through Jesus the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"), not the law! "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them" (Heb 10:16).
Even Protestant commentators realize this. Notice what Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible states about Colossians 2:14:

Whatever was in force against us is taken out of the way. He has obtained for us a legal discharge from the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us (v. 14), which may be understood,
1. Of that obligation to punishment in which consists the guilt of sin. The curse of the law is the hand-writing against us, like the hand-writing on Belshazzar's wall. Cursed is every one who continues not in every thing. This was a hand-writing which was against us, and contrary to us; for it threatened our eternal ruin. This was removed when he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal 3:13. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).
Some will argue that you still cannot keep the ten commandments (for "all have sinned"), even if they are all mentioned as being in effect after the crucifixion. Does this mean one should not try?

Who are true Christians? Let's see what the last book of the Bible says. "And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 12:17). "Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12).

All of the ten commandments are mentioned as being in effect before Mount Sinai, Jesus taught all ten of them, Paul taught all ten of them, they were all in effect after the crucifixion, Paul specifically taught they were not done away (Rom 3:31), and all of them are mentioned by the other New Testament writers. The opinions that state otherwise seem to be "traditions of men" which Jesus warned against (Mat 15:6). The last chapter of the Bible states, "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city" (Rev 22:14). Therefore, it would not appear wise from a biblical standpoint to teach that the ten commandments are not in effect. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man's all" (Ecc 12:13).

Alyssa, I didn't ask for you to go searching about for some other man/woman's teaching on the Ten Commandments. I asked you what Paul said in the Word . . .

Now . . . can you please answer this question with a simple yes or no?

Is "thou shalt not covet" part of the Ten Commandments?

I also want you to understand that I have not stated that the Ten Commandments were "nailed to the cross" or "abolished" or any other terminology along those lines. I have stated exactly what Paul has stated in that we are "dead" to the Ten Commandments. There is a big difference there that you are obviously not understanding at the moment.

Now, instead of running to commentaries of what other men/women teach who just so happen to attempt to back your argument here, how about we just go to the Word of God ourselves and read what it says . . .

Simple question . . .

Is "thou shalt not covet" part of the Ten Commandments?

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 04:42 AM
Is "thou shalt not covet" part of the Ten Commandments?


Yes it is indeed.

Covet in the Hebrew is "chamad" it means: to desire, take pleasure, or delight in.

It's the tenth commandment written by God himself on the tablets.

It says you are not to covet your neighbor's house, your neighbor's wife, your neighbor's servants, your neighbor's his animals, nor anything else that is your neighbor's.

VerticalReality
Jul 26th 2008, 04:51 AM
Yes it is indeed.

Covet in the Hebrew is "chamad" it means: to desire, take pleasure, or delight in.

It's the tenth commandment written by God himself on the tablets.

It says you are not to covet your neighbor's house, your neighbor's wife, your neighbor's servants, your neighbor's his animals, nor anything else that is your neighbor's.

Thank you, Ron.

Now, let us look at this very clear message that Paul gives regarding this commandment . . .



Romans 7:1-11
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.


Look at the bolded sections of this Scripture. Paul is clearly stating that we are dead to the law, and then he goes on to give an example by using "thou shalt not covet", which is one of the Ten Commandments. Paul is saying that through Christ he has died to this law that he was held by. Why was he held by it? Because in the flesh he couldn't stop breaking it. And therefore since he couldn't stop breaking it he was under the judgment of the law. However, through Christ he can now walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. He has been transformed and born again. He has been given a new heart. Therefore, he is no longer under the law because he is free from sin (Romans 6 . . . basically the entire chapter). This includes the Ten Commandments. The Commandments were not given to righteous men. They were given to the sinner. Therefore, if you are in Christ you are no longer a sinner in God's sight. You have been clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and those who walk according to the power of the Spirit will not walk in the lusts of the flesh. Those who walk according to the Spirit have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer we who live but Christ that lives in us.

Man there is so much biblical truth in that I just don't see how folks can deny it.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 04:55 AM
Alyssa S

Nobody is teaching that we are dead to the Ten Commandments, to the point of not doing them. Maybe this will help you understand better.

I think we can agree that Jesus gave us a New Commandment in John 13:34, Right? That New Commandment was to Love one another as He (Jesus )Loved us. Right?

Now, Jesus did not make that Commandment to erase the Ten Commandments. Jesus made that Commandment to help us keep the Ten Commandments.

Here is what I mean:

1. Thou shalt not have no other Gods before me.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number one answer: YES

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God in vain.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number two answer: YES

3. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it Holy.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number three answer: YES

4. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number four answer: YES

5. Thou shalt not kill.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number five answer: YES

6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number six answer: YES

7. Thou shalt not steal.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number seven answer: YES

8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number eight answer: YES

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number nine answer: YES

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

If we do the Commandment of Jesus (which is Love one another as He Loved us) could we keep commandment number ten answer: YES

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 04:56 AM
Continued.....

So you see my friend, we are not saying that we are dead to the ten Commandments because we are saying that it is God's Perfect Plan for Marriage. If it is God's Plan for Marriage there has to be Love n that marriage and all of the Ten Commandments are being held by that married couple the best that they can.

My friend Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. His Love is what fulfilled it.

I hope that sheds some light on things.

VerticalReality
Jul 26th 2008, 05:00 AM
I'm absolutely saying that we have died to the Ten Commandments.

If you say that we fulfill the requirement of the Ten Commandments through love I will agree with you. However, that's still not the Ten Commandments.

For example, I can refrain from murdering someone and still not be walking in love. That's the entire message Jesus was preaching at the sermon on the mount.

Just because you fulfill the Commandment of "Thou shall not murder" does not mean that you are walking in the Spirit.

You can refrain from murdering someone and still hate their guts in your heart. You are still fulfilling the commandment because the commandment never said, "Thou shalt not hate anyone in your heart."

The Commandment simply said, "Thou shalt not murder."

Love fulfills the commandments and then some.

Alaska
Jul 26th 2008, 05:07 AM
Hi Alyssa,
There is some understanding that should be had by most Christians today concerning the OT law and the decalog as opposed to the NT package. I appreciate all the work you put into that document. I suppose you wrote it since you did not specify that it was someone elses work.

There are other verses that relate to it being nailed to the cross. But there is an understanding concerning this that needs to be clarified.
We are "under the law to Christ" as Paul mentioned. Notice the word "under". We are also "under" grace. "Under" denotes submission and humility. This goes along with what Jesus instructed his disciples concerning denying themselves. If someone is not willing to deny themselves they cannot be his disciple.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 05:07 AM
Love fulfills the commandments and then some."and then some" more what?

How about this:

Deu 22:1 Thou shalt not pass by if thou seest thy brother's ox, or his sheep go astray: but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother.
Deu 22:2 And if thy brother be not nigh, or thou know him not: thou shalt bring them to thy house, and they shall be with thee until thy brother seek them, and receive them.
Deu 22:3 Thou shalt do in like manner with his ass, and with his raiment, and with every thing that is thy brother's, which is lost: if thou find it, neglect it not as pertaining to another.
Deu 22:4 If thou see thy brother's ass or his ox to be fallen down in the way, thou shalt not slight it, but shalt lift it up with him.

These go deeper than Love your neighbor and i see it still going deeper than that after those commandments......

How many here knew this?

Tanja

VerticalReality
Jul 26th 2008, 05:15 AM
"and then some" more what?

How about this:

Deu 22:1 Thou shalt not pass by if thou seest thy brother's ox, or his sheep go astray: but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother.
Deu 22:2 And if thy brother be not nigh, or thou know him not: thou shalt bring them to thy house, and they shall be with thee until thy brother seek them, and receive them.
Deu 22:3 Thou shalt do in like manner with his ass, and with his raiment, and with every thing that is thy brother's, which is lost: if thou find it, neglect it not as pertaining to another.
Deu 22:4 If thou see thy brother's ass or his ox to be fallen down in the way, thou shalt not slight it, but shalt lift it up with him.

These go deeper than Love your neighbor and i see it still going deeper than that after those commandments......

How many here knew this?

Tanja

Me!

However, where folks go too far, and this is the reason why the old has been replaced by the new, is that we no longer need the sacrificial system any longer, and I don't need to run out and stone folks for certain things as was the requirement under the old. All the ceremonial stuff that were shadows have been fulfilled in Christ.

However, we are beginning to get a little too far off topic here. That's pretty much for another thread.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 05:20 AM
If you say that we fulfill the requirement of the Ten Commandments through love I will agree with you. However, that's still not the Ten Commandments.


Yes VR, that is just what I am saying. And yes I know that it is not the Ten Commandments.

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 05:21 AM
I'm absolutely saying that we have died to the Ten Commandments.

If you say that we fulfill the requirement of the Ten Commandments through love I will agree with you. However, that's still not the Ten Commandments.

For example, I can refrain from murdering someone and still not be walking in love. That's the entire message Jesus was preaching at the sermon on the mount.

Just because you fulfill the Commandment of "Thou shall not murder" does not mean that you are walking in the Spirit.

You can refrain from murdering someone and still hate their guts in your heart. You are still fulfilling the commandment because the commandment never said, "Thou shalt not hate anyone in your heart."

The Commandment simply said, "Thou shalt not murder."

Love fulfills the commandments and then some.

Also remember that Christ way ups the standards on the 10 commandments in Matt 5:21-48, to a standard that no man can keep or has ever kept save for Christ himself.

VerticalReality
Jul 26th 2008, 05:26 AM
Also remember that Christ way ups the standards on the 10 commandments in Matt 5:21-48, to a standard that no man can keep or has ever kept save for Christ himself.

That's the thing, though . . .

Jesus never "raised the standard". The standard was always there. Jesus is simply taking things back to, "In the beginning". That's why Jesus referred the Pharisees back there in Matthew 19. He was letting them know what the plan was from the start that got sidetracked because of the wickedness of man.

Jesus' mission is to restore all that was corrupted by the sin of man. He is restoring all that our Father created to perfection.

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 05:33 AM
That's the thing, though . . .

Jesus never "raised the standard". The standard was always there. Jesus is simply taking things back to, "In the beginning". That's why Jesus referred the Pharisees back there in Matthew 19. He was letting them know what the plan was from the start that got sidetracked because of the wickedness of man.

Jesus' mission is to restore all that was corrupted by the sin of man. He is restoring all that our Father created to perfection.

I agree, the standard was always there, but the Pharisees were teaching the lower standards to the people, so Christ corrected them with the proper standards while teaching the people.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 05:37 AM
I agree, the standard was always there, but the Pharisees were teaching the lower standards to the people, so Christ corrected them with the proper standards while teaching the people.

That's right Ron. God never changed, religion did.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 07:11 AM
Ah, the old stoning excuse again. But alas, i made a post on that, and i sincerely hope you will consider that post.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=133247

Enjoy!

Stoning was a form of death penalty, which we still have here today.
The Law of stoning someone was a last resort measure to purge evil from the camp of Israelites, before that evil infested more people.

Gal 5:9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump.


Shalom,
Tanja

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 12:56 PM
That maybe, but my friend. When Jesus was brought the woman that was caught in adultery in John 8:3-11, Jesus was questioned by the Pharisees over stoning her because that is what the law stated to do. Jesus told them that he which has never sinned should cast the first stone. Well they all dropped there stones because they all have sinned, so Jesus went over to the lady and forgave her of her sin. He did this out of Love. Just as he has for me and you before we were even born. Before we were even born Jesus Loved you and me that much that he gave his life for mine and your sin which did not even happen yet.

That's hard to grasp.

Alyssa S
Jul 26th 2008, 02:42 PM
First of all, I'd like to be clear and let people know that I have been divorced 11 years and was saved shortly after, so I have no other motivation here except to honor the Lords commands and live by His truth and defend what I believe is the Gospel.

It is interesting to me that some, in one breath, will say we (Gentiles) have died to the Law, and then claim that very Law applied ONLY to the Jews in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9...therefore supporting their doctrine that frees any NON BELIEVERS from a marriage covenant that were saved after divorce.

With that logic, I'm not sure how it is humanly possible to die to a law you were never given or one that never "applied" to you. Apostle Paul would not have told us we died to something if that very something had no relevance to each individual.

"But I tell you that ANYONE who divorces his wife, except for "porneia", causes her to become an adulteress, and ANYONE who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Matt 5:32

The MAJOR problem here is that the PHARISEES are the ones Jesus was addressing, and they themselves, were NON BELIEVERS. THEY WERE NOT REGENERATED. They were not saved. These people did NOT have salvation. I don't know how much more clear to make it. Therefore, when Jesus gave his command that addressed "ANYONE," who divorces his wife, commits adultery... He was CLEARLY speaking to NON BELIEVERS as well as BELIEVERS.

God's law applies to ALL. That is the very reason why ALL will stand before the Lord and give an account for what they did in the body.


The following is from http://www.cadz.net/faq.html (http://www.cadz.net/faq.html) which is also a part of www.marriagedivorce.com (http://www.marriagedivorce.com) :

I believe ALL first marriages are joined by God until death. If it is adultery for a Christian to remarry because they are already joined to another until death, then it is adultery for an unbeliever to divorce and marry another when they have a living spouse. Sin is sin. Conversion does not do away with a lawful spouse just as it does not do away with children. If the Lord blesses one with children, the children do not become non-children when one is saved. If the Lord joins two in marriage before salvation, they do not become "unmarried" having to be married now "in the Lord" to be considered husband and wife. And a divorce does not do away with a spouse that God has joined one to.

God bless,
Alyssa

ZeeZee
Jul 26th 2008, 02:46 PM
:hug:Have you ever noticed how marriage is great in the beginning and the minute you began to have problems with finances. The marriage goes south! Why is this often happening? When you say your vows doesn’t say ‘for better or worse’! It seems as if no one wants to weather the storms anymore! People are not seeking quick fixes which lead to divorce!!!

Please share your thoughts

Alyssa S
Jul 26th 2008, 02:46 PM
If people want to read a very good and thorough website concerning this subject, which also has a "frequently asked questions" section, I would encourage you to check it out.

http://www.cadz.net/faq.html (http://www.cadz.net/faq.html) (Frequently Asked Questions)

www.marriagedivorce.com (http://www.marriagedivorce.com/) : (Main Website)

God bless! :)
~A

valleybldr
Jul 26th 2008, 02:53 PM
I have about a dozen or so books on D&R. For a basic intro "Divorce & Remarriage: 4 views" edited by Wayne House is hard to beat.

Description:
"When it comes to divorce and remarriage, everyone appeals to Scripture---but no one agrees on what it says. In this book, four Christian thinkers (J. Carl Laney, William Heth, Thomas Edgar, and Larry Richards) debate the more perplexing points. Each essayist presents his own view and critiques the others. Case studies apply theories to real-life situations. 252 pages, paper from InterVarsity"

todd

9Marksfan
Jul 26th 2008, 02:54 PM
:hug:Have you ever noticed how marriage is great in the beginning and the minute you began to have problems with finances. The marriage goes south! Why is this often happening? When you say your vows doesn’t say ‘for better or worse’! It seems as if no one wants to weather the storms anymore! People are not seeking quick fixes which lead to divorce!!!

Please share your thoughts

I believe it is because Jesus said we cannot serve God AND Mammon - most married people (even professing Christians) are in reality putting Mammon first in their lives - and when they have financial troubles, as you say, the marriage goes south! But if we would seek FIRST God's kingdom and righteousness, we would see these things in their true perspective - and would be in a position to be blessed by God.

valleybldr
Jul 26th 2008, 03:01 PM
:hug:Have you ever noticed how marriage is great in the beginning and the minute you began to have problems with finances. The marriage goes south! Why is this often happening? When you say your vows doesn’t say ‘for better or worse’! It seems as if no one wants to weather the storms anymore! People are not seeking quick fixes which lead to divorce!!!

Please share your thoughts There are different factors at play in every failed marriage. I will not say it is wrong to initiate divorce in all cases but as a general rule Scripture frowns upon the initiator and defends (does not add punishment to) the party who excrusiatingly suffers through an unwanted divorce. As well, the party who will not submit to the church and/or counseling will have an increased share of responsibility in the failure. todd

ZeeZee
Jul 26th 2008, 03:04 PM
I tell you what . . .

I think folks are so wrapped up in their own doctrine that they can't even see any longer from the point of view of those who don't believe it.

Alaska, unbelievers couldn't care less about Adam and Eve. Shoot, most of them don't even believe in Adam and Eve. They don't believe those two people ever even existed. They certainly do not believe that Eve came from Adam's rib.

They don't care about God.

They don't care about holiness.

They don't care about committing sin.

They don't care about Jesus.

They don't even care enough about their own flesh and blood family that they spend their entire life with.

You really expect these people to give two hoots about God, his law, or even His view of marriage? They don't care anything about that.

Yet, God is still joining their covenants . . . :rolleyes:


That is true to a certain point. Sometimes when I just stand still and look around at work, grocerie store, etc... it's like people are in a NOW NOW world and their attitudes are very brutal and harsh which makes you wonder if God lives in them

Alyssa S
Jul 26th 2008, 03:16 PM
That is true to a certain point. Sometimes when I just stand still and look around at work, grocerie store, etc... it's like people are in a NOW NOW world and their attitudes are very brutal and harsh which makes you wonder if God lives in them

Hi ZeeZee!
Welcome to the Board!:hug:

I pray God gives you strength and covers you in grace in your situation with your marriage. In theme with what Marksfan said, seek, seek, seek the the Lord and try your best to keep focused on HIM. Sometimes the distractions of the world/enemy can seem too much. But keep thinking on Him and His words and promises.... and HE WILL DELIVER!!

God bless you!
Alyssa

valleybldr
Jul 26th 2008, 03:21 PM
That is true to a certain point. Sometimes when I just stand still and look around at work, grocerie store, etc... it's like people are in a NOW NOW world and their attitudes are very brutal and harsh which makes you wonder if God lives in them We are engaged in the battle between two very different Kingdoms. Paul teaches on the issue of a believer who is married to hostile unbeliever. God had called us to peace but these two Kingdoms will never be at peace. I attend a Messianic congregation and I've seen how hostile unbelievers can be once there mate has confessed Yeshua as their Lord and Savior. todd

valleybldr
Jul 26th 2008, 03:27 PM
Hi ZeeZee!
Welcome to the Board!:hug:

I pray God gives you strength and covers you in grace in your situation with your marriage. In theme with what Marksfan said, seek, seek, seek the the Lord and try your best to keep focused on HIM. Sometimes the distractions of the world/enemy can seem too much. But keep thinking on Him and His words and promises.... and HE WILL DELIVER!!

God bless you!
Alyssa Spiritually He will deliver but we are not to allow ourselves or our children to be in situations that endanger life. In severe situations a judicial authority (biblical Israel, the church and state all have them) has a God-given responsibility to act and protect the innocent. todd

VerticalReality
Jul 26th 2008, 03:49 PM
It is interesting to me that some, in one breath, will say we (Gentiles) have died to the Law, and then claim that very Law applied ONLY to the Jews in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9...therefore supporting their doctrine that frees any NON BELIEVERS from a marriage covenant that were saved after divorce.

If I come to a revelation of a law am I not bound by it? The law was not given to the Gentiles, Alyssa, but some still came under it even in the Old Testament. Additionally, what is it that finally wakes someone up to their own wicked and sinful condition? It is when they are confronted with God's law that reveals to them the condition they are in. What would happen if I went to Mexico even as someone who isn't a Mexican? Would I not come under the responsibility to obey their laws?


The MAJOR problem here is that the PHARISEES are the ones Jesus was addressing, and they themselves, were NON BELIEVERS. THEY WERE NOT REGENERATED. They were not saved. These people did NOT have salvation. I don't know how much more clear to make it. Therefore, when Jesus gave his command that addressed "ANYONE," who divorces his wife, commits adultery... He was CLEARLY speaking to NON BELIEVERS as well as BELIEVERS.

The Pharisees were Jews, Alyssa.


God's law applies to ALL. That is the very reason why ALL will stand before the Lord and give an account for what they did in the body.

Romans 2:12
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law

Gentiles are not judged by the law given to the Jews. Now, as it continues to say, if a Gentile by nature does the things of the law they become a law to themselves. If a Gentile does something that they know to be wrong then they will, of course, be judged of that. Even a Gentile shouldn't go against what their conscience tells them to do. However, the law was not given to the Gentile, as the Scriptures clearly say, and they will not be judged by that.

And once again, Alyssa, you speak as if it is I who is saying these things when it is clearly being given to you straight from God's Word.

I'm curious as to why you are denying the very clear Word laid out in front of you here. I show you specifically and clearly where the apostle Paul declares us, and even the converted Jews, delivered from the law, and that includes the Ten Commandments. Yet you still argue.

I'm reminded of the apostle Paul going into the synagogues to reason the Scriptures with the Jews only to be rejected. It didn't matter what the clarity of the Scriptures said. It only mattered what fit their own belief regardless of what Scriptures were contrary to that belief.

I'm certainly not going to settle for some of my beliefs to appear accurate.

Alaska
Jul 26th 2008, 03:56 PM
Also remember that Christ way ups the standards on the 10 commandments in Matt 5:21-48, to a standard that no man can keep or has ever kept save for Christ himself.


Not "on the ten" as you say, since he does not at all address the sabbath in the sermon on the mount.

The NT makes keeping the sabbath optional. Also we are not to allow someone to judge us with regard to not keeping the sabbath after the OT manner of literally resting on Saturday.

valleybldr
Jul 26th 2008, 04:08 PM
The NT makes keeping the sabbath optional. Also we are not to allow someone to judge us with regard to not keeping the sabbath after the OT manner of literally resting on Saturday. LOL, the Jews late in the divided monarcy figured the same thing but they rethought that one while in Babylon. todd

Alaska
Jul 26th 2008, 04:34 PM
Also remember that Christ way ups the standards on the 10 commandments in Matt 5:21-48, to a standard that no man can keep or has ever kept save for Christ himself.

The above attitude can be seen as denying the power of God.

Grace teaches us to deny ungodliness, and examples of ungodlinesses that we are to deny by the power of His grace can be found in Matt. 5, such as the ungodliness of divorcing and remarrying.

valleybldr
Jul 26th 2008, 04:41 PM
The above attitude can be seen as denying the power of God.

Grace teaches us to deny ungodliness, and examples of ungodlinesses that we are to deny by the power of His grace can be found in Matt. 5, such as the ungodliness of divorcing and remarrying. There is no "ungodliness" in one who suffers divorce. In fact, few experiences on earth will bring one closer to the reality of the cross then to be drug through an unwanted divorce. todd

Alaska
Jul 26th 2008, 05:41 PM
If a man is being divorced against his will and refuses to sign the papers because the documents he is supposed to sign acknowledge the lie to be true that they are no longer husband and wife, then fine, he has not sinned.
But if a man has been led to believe that he can divorce his wife under the NT and does so, he is charged with a sin against God for turning the truth of God into a lie by agreeing to secular law that declares that he is no longer the husband of his lawful wife in God's eyes.
God says through Jesus and Gen 2 they are bound to one another til death. The laws of man disagree.
Whose side will we choose?
A separation is acceptable. A divorce is not acceptable. There is a major difference.
And remarriage is even a much greater sin to add to the divorce because it is an ongoing state of committing adultery.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 06:09 PM
See Alaska, this is what I am talking about. You want people to respect you but you in return don't give a hoot about the other. It don't work that way. I gave you an answer to your theory of what you say here:


If a man is being divorced against his will and refuses to sign the papers because the documents he is supposed to sign acknowleges the lie to be true that they are no longer husband and wife, then fine, he has not sinned.
But if a man has been led to believe that he can divorce his wife under the NT and does so, he is charged with a sin against God for turning the truth of God into a lie by agreeing to secular law that declares that he is no longer the husband of his lawful wife in God's eyes.
God says through Jesus and Gen 2 they are bound to one another til death. The laws of man disagree.
Whose side will we choose?
A separation is acceptable. A divorce is not acceptable. There is a major difference.

And instead of answering me back (as you should) you go and throw this same issue out with someone else. I proved to you in my post #201 that this reasoning of yours is not right according to scripture. Now if I am wrong according to scripture this is fine, then show me. But don't keep throwing it back out there for people to read and keep confusing the matter.

Alyssa S
Jul 26th 2008, 06:13 PM
Spiritually He will deliver but we are not to allow ourselves or our children to be in situations that endanger life. In severe situations a judicial authority (biblical Israel, the church and state all have them) has a God-given responsibility to act and protect the innocent. todd

Oh, I agree. Amen.
I would never encourage someone to stay in the same house with someone who was threatening their life or their children.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 06:34 PM
First of all, I'd like to be clear and let people know that I have been divorced 11 years and was saved shortly after, so I have no other motivation here except to honor the Lords commands and live by His truth and defend what I believe is the Gospel.

It is interesting to me that some, in one breath, will say we (Gentiles) have died to the Law, and then claim that very Law applied ONLY to the Jews in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9...therefore supporting their doctrine that frees any NON BELIEVERS from a marriage covenant that were saved after divorce.

With that logic, I'm not sure how it is humanly possible to die to a law you were never given or one that never "applied" to you. Apostle Paul would not have told us we died to something if that very something had no relevance to each individual.

"But I tell you that ANYONE who divorces his wife, except for "porneia", causes her to become an adulteress, and ANYONE who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Matt 5:32

The MAJOR problem here is that the PHARISEES are the ones Jesus was addressing, and they themselves, were NON BELIEVERS. THEY WERE NOT REGENERATED. They were not saved. These people did NOT have salvation. I don't know how much more clear to make it. Therefore, when Jesus gave his command that addressed "ANYONE," who divorces his wife, commits adultery... He was CLEARLY speaking to NON BELIEVERS as well as BELIEVERS.

God's law applies to ALL. That is the very reason why ALL will stand before the Lord and give an account for what they did in the body.


The following is from http://www.cadz.net/faq.html (http://www.cadz.net/faq.html) which is also a part of www.marriagedivorce.com (http://www.marriagedivorce.com) :

I believe ALL first marriages are joined by God until death. If it is adultery for a Christian to remarry because they are already joined to another until death, then it is adultery for an unbeliever to divorce and marry another when they have a living spouse. Sin is sin. Conversion does not do away with a lawful spouse just as it does not do away with children. If the Lord blesses one with children, the children do not become non-children when one is saved. If the Lord joins two in marriage before salvation, they do not become "unmarried" having to be married now "in the Lord" to be considered husband and wife. And a divorce does not do away with a spouse that God has joined one to.

God bless,
Alyssa

I guess the people who wrote this article forgot about Cain and his Marriage. In Gen 4 Cain was taken out from the PRESENCE OF GOD. Does anyone want to give me a definition in Greek or Hebrew or any other Language of what the Bible may have meant when we read the word PRESENCE in Gen 4:16? My guess would be that God left him out to dry to put it in a nice way. What is my point?

Cain lived a very ungodly life. You don't believe me go read Gen 4-6 and see for yourselves. His whole Generation was nothing but ungodly. It gets that bad that God even tells them in Gen 6:3, "My SPIRIT (meaning Godly people) will not always strive with MAN (meaning ungodly people) FOR THAT HE ALSO IS FLESH.
Like I said , I guess they forgot about Cain.

These people who write these articles are very good and very smart. But God is not looking for the smartest, God is looking for the ones who Love Him.

There will come a time when these intelligent people will write articles saying that Jesus was spotted in the horizon. I just wonder how many will go and look.

BCF
Jul 26th 2008, 06:47 PM
Oh, I agree. Amen.
I would never encourage someone to stay in the same house with someone who was threatening their life or their children.

Why not, there is a scripture that says, "And the woman which has a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

You can't have it both ways Alyssa. Either you are going to accept the scripture or you are not. You can't pick and choose what you want something to say just because of an abusive partner.

I can say what you said and have scripture back me up, because my thoughts on the issue is that they were not married by God in the first place. Your view does not say that. So you can't quote what you did. God married them, they are stuck. Abusive or not. And I can argue that till the cows come home also. I've poured my heart and Soul into this marriage, divorce and remarrige study that I have done. I know it inside and out.

VerticalReality
Jul 26th 2008, 06:55 PM
How many of you realize that when Jesus said this . . .



Matthew 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”


He was not quoting the law?

How many of you know that when Jesus said this . . .



Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”


He was quoting the law?

Alyssa S
Jul 26th 2008, 07:03 PM
I will say this as humbly and lovingly as I know how while reflecting what I feel convicted of by the Holy Spirit.

When I open my bible to study marriage... I read that the Holy WORD OF GOD tells me that "A woman is BOUND to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to remarry anyone she wishes...." I Cor 7:39

I didn't make it up. It is in THE WORD of GOD. I think it is pretty cut and dry.

Last time I checked, I am a woman.
Last I remember, I married a man. I made a PROMISE that included God's name, with God's ordained minister who witnessed it, along with many other witnesses that HEARD me make a promise to a man that was till death.

I broke my promise... as did my husband.
We are now divorced.

Nothing in the above verse says that I am now free to re-marry. And I am a firm believer that Scriptures MUST harmonize. It is my belief that the other Scriptures pertaining to marriage do not allow an out, and they harmonize with the above verse. When or if my husband dies... then I am free... and the same goes for him.

Now if someone wants to say that I am being disobedient and leading a multitude down an unholy path because I am doing my best to be faithful to the Word of God, then I would humbly say re-read the Scripture before making any accusations and re-check your theology.

The doctrine that "I" present that comes straight from the Bible is not in danger of leading a multitude to sin. But the doctrine of encouraging others or approving others' multiple marriages while the original spouse is still living is a risky doctrine that could very possibly lead others to sin. I am not willing to take that risk. I think the route I am on is the safest route...and to me, it is the clearest route according to the Word. And the church fathers from 70 AD to about 1500 AD preached the same thing!

It is not about being holier than thou and self righteous... it's about denying ourselves and taking up our cross. It's called obedience and faithfulness. And I NEVER said for an abused person to stay in a violent situation. SEPARATE!! By all means, get away!! But it is not a ticket to go get another husband or wife.

If God's plan is marriage for someone, then they are called to have their OWN husband or wife... not someone elses!

I didn't say it. It's not the "doctrine according to Alyssa." It comes straight from Scripture.

Romans 7:3 "So then if she marries another man while her husband is still ALIVE, she IS called an ADULTERESS."

God bless,
Alyssa

Alaska
Jul 26th 2008, 07:04 PM
I proved to you in my post #201 that this reasoning of yours is not right according to scripture.


Not according to me, and not according to scripture as I understand them.
I don't recall giving you indication that I had received your opinion on the matter and that I had therefore changed my view to agree with your view.