PDA

View Full Version : Truth of the Law Concerning Marriage



VerticalReality
Aug 3rd 2008, 04:01 AM
I have had a tremendous struggle trying to harmonize the Scriptures when it comes to marriage. However, I do now believe that I have received revelation on this topic that I have been studying deeply for about a year and a half. I never could harmonize all the main marriage Scriptures (Deuteronomy 24:1, Jeremiah 3, Ezra 9-10, Hosea, Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7, and 1 Corinthians 7). No matter what view I held to I couldn't see how any of them harmonized. I considered the betrothal view that declares Matthew 19:9 was only speaking of folks during the betrothal period. I considered the adultery view that gave an exception for divorce after the consummation of a marriage. However, none of these views totally harmonized with the Word of God, and I never really considered the possibility of one other view. I have now changed my opinion.

I really believe that the answer to this mystery has been revealed through the discovery of a translation inaccuracy. I have been adamant in saying that God does not join all marriages. I have been extremely unwavering in that belief, and now, I believe my Lord has revealed the truth of why I have felt so strongly about it. Before, I couldn't really explain everything from every angle, but I still felt deep within my spirit that God was speaking to me on this issue. I just couldn't accept in my spirit that folks who come to the Lord remarried are destined for hell unless they choose to abandon their current spouses and children as some would teach. That just didn't sit right with me in my spirit at all. It also didn't sit right with me in my spirit that a born again believer, even though they tried everything they could to make their marriage with an unbeliever work, had to spend the rest of their life alone and abandoned after the unbeliever chose to depart and divorce anyway.

Before today I had always done my bible study on this topic using the New King James Version, the King James Version, or the NIV. However, I believe now that the translation of both the New King James Version and the NIV are incorrect and do not give an accurate description of what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19:9. The King James version uses the term "fornication", which isn't quite as bad as the NKJV or the NIV. However, I believe the NASB gives the best description of what Jesus is trying to say in Matthew 19:9. I will post these passages from each translation . . .

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

New King James Version
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.”

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

New American Standard Bible
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
As everyone who has studied this topic knows, the Greek term used for those words highlighted in blue is porneia. Also, as everyone who has studied this topic knows, this term describes many different forms of sexual immorality. However, what most do not know or consider, me being one of them at one time, is that this term means more than just physical sexual immorality. I will now give the entire definition of the term . . .



porneia --

1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2) metaph. the worship of idols
a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols


Nobody ever considers the bolded portion of this definition when thinking of porneia. They only consider sexual immorality when thinking of this. Even the translators of this passage in the NKJV and NIV did the same, IMO. However, I believe the NASB gives the more accurate translation, and the more accurate grounds for divorce when it came to the old law.

When Jesus first addressed the Pharisees about their question concerning divorce He responded to them with how God declared things from the beginning. However, after their continued badgering He addressed the issue of Moses giving them permission to put away their wives. He then went on to declare according to the law that you could not just put away your wives for just any cause as the Pharisees had questioned earlier, but only for the cause of porneia.

Now, if one is to understand the meaning of this passage you will have to refer back to the Old Testament and how things were under the law. The betrothal view that a few here hold to makes a lot of sense in some aspects but not so much in others. One of those spots that never has sat well with me was Ezra 9-10. In Ezra 9-10 the Israelites are basically living in sin and joining themselves with the wicked people of the land. They are taking pagan wives for themselves and going against the law of God in doing so. However, when they finally come to their senses they come to the decision to divorce these pagan wives and even the children that they have had with these women. Now, I want to point something out here that is said in Ezra 10.

Ezra 10:3
"So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
Why are the Israelites here making a covenant with God to put away these pagan wives according to the law? I believe it is because those wives were viewed as unclean. Pagans were not viewed as being clean in the sight of God or the law (Remember Deuteronomy 24:1). Not only were the wives unclean but the children were unclean as well. You could not mix the holy seed with the unholy seed and produce a clean seed under the old law like you can under the New Covenant. A born again believer can be joined with an unbeliever and the unbeliever can be sanctified by the believer and the children be holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). However, under the law this was not the case. Under law if the holy seed was joined with an unholy seed the product of the seed would be unclean as well. The blood of Jesus changed all that under the New Covenant. This is why under the New Covenant and the law of Christ a born again believer does not need to leave the unbeliever.

However, under the old law those who are not of God or his law are deemed unclean. There are all sorts of laws on being clean versus being unclean. The Jews couldn't do many things because they would be viewed as unclean and would have to go through many different things just to be declared clean again. The pagan, however, is always considered unclean. They are never considered to be clean at all. They are not God's people. It never did sit right with me that the Israelites were never judged for putting away these pagan wives. Many would have folks believe that the Israelites were wrong in doing this and they should have kept their pagan wives. However, God never did correct or judge the Israelites for their action here (God always corrects and chastens those who are His if they are in error). As a matter of fact, their putting away of the pagan wives was in response to the fact that God's wrath was on them for disobedience.

The reason they were not judged for putting away those wives is because it was lawful for them to do so. What was unlawful is the fact that they took those wives to begin with. They resolved the situation by ending those unions. That's the law. However, for those living under the law of Christ divorce is not an option. The power of Jesus Christ can override any uncleanness of an unbeliever. Therefore, that union can be sanctified and the children will be holy.

I am now convinced of this. This is the only view that harmonizes with the entirety of the Word of God. Those who say all marriages are joined by God and His law is what binds them really cannot harmonize this view with what Ezra 9 and 10 declare. God desires a holy seed. Those under the law could not produce a holy seed with pagans, nor was any marriage unions with pagans brought together by God or His law.

Those pagan wives in Ezra 9-10 fit the porneia description.

Thaddaeus
Aug 3rd 2008, 05:20 AM
hello well your indept study may be hindered due to lack of input


De 22:13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, De 22:14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid De 22:15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gatee 22:16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;De 22:17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.De 22:18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;De 22:19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.De 22:20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsele 22:21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.


KJV


see the reason for fornication was before marriage verse 14, or maybe you just omitted these verse in your list of reference verses. it's hard to believe you did a indept study for a year and ahalf and never stumbled across these verses. not for all the above reasons you listed as inmoral, but because he found her not a maid (virgin).

VerticalReality
Aug 3rd 2008, 05:34 AM
hello well your indept study may be hindered due to lack of input


De 22:13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, De 22:14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid De 22:15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gatee 22:16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;De 22:17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.De 22:18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;De 22:19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.De 22:20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsele 22:21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.


KJV


see the reason for fornication was before marriage verse 14, or maybe you just omitted these verse in your list of reference verses. it's hard to believe you did a indept study for a year and ahalf and never stumbled across these verses. not for all the above resons you listed as inmoral, but because he found her not a maid (virgin).

No, I've studied those verses as well. Quite a bit actually. I'm not saying sexual immorality is not a cause to put away a wife according to the law. It most certainly is.

9Marksfan
Aug 3rd 2008, 04:10 PM
This should be an interesting thread, Cory, but expect Alyssa S and Alaska to come chiming in as usual!

You are now adopting the view of David Instone-Brewer, which basically opens the floodgates for divorce, giving the word porneia its widest possible application. That causes enormous problems with explaining Christ's silence on the subject of legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage in Mark and Luke, as well as Paul's silence in Rom 7 and 1 Cor 7 - in particular the latter, where he goes into enormous depth on the subject.

The idolatry interpretation is interesting, though, when linked to Ezra 10. I'm wondering if you've researched the Greek of the tense in 2 Cor 6:14 and whether you think that that might be a NT equivalent? In other words, if it could be translated "Do not remain" rather than "Do not become", would this confirm your view? Or, depending on the Greek tense, cause a further problem for you?!? ;)

Alaska
Aug 3rd 2008, 05:58 PM
Hi Thad,

I can really appreciate your desire to defend the straightforward wording of Mark Luke and Paul in 1 Cor. 7:39 which writings give no hint whatsoever that a legitimate grounds for divorcing the married wife exists in the NT.

I have always had an intense desire to defend the sanctity of marriage, and for many years I taught what some call the "found her not a maid" explanation after what you are now sharing. Again I do appreciate your stand because you are defending the best you know how and have taken a position also that respects the definition of fornication that would make it illegal to divorce for adultery after the NT law. And you are absolutely right that it is illegal to divorce for adultery.

However, after a journey into deception for a short time of accepting that Jesus did allow divorce for adultery because the "found her not a maid" explanation had some difficulties, I then abandoned both positions and was in a state of limbo for a little while, knowing that I could not violate Mark, Luke, and Paul by continuing in the deception that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery.

I was broken, and in prayer I finally asked the question that many will not attempt to ask because initially it seems too nonsensical to even consider worth asking.

The question is: could there be some kind of an allowance for divorce and at the same time no divorce is allowed? See how it seems too stupid a question to even be serious to ask?

I searched my heart and memory banks, so to speak. As I was opening my heart to God in wanting to understand, I remembered a study I had made about Lots daughters in Genesis. I contended that the "sons in law" that had married his daughters were only betrothed, and not married after the way we use the word "married" today. This led me to Joseph and Mary and I saw that they were regarded as husband and wife before they were married. Also, Joseph's plan to put her away revealed a premarital divorce that was widely familiar with in their culture. I found in that study that even back in Deut., in betrothal, the man and woman who were betrothed were called "husband" and "wife".

As I was praying, these earlier discoveries came back to mind and I questioned whether or not they could somehow be a part of an explanation that would allow for a divorce of sorts and at the same time fully defend the NO dovorce policy that Jesus very clearly declares in Mark Luke and Paul. I realized there was something to this and that if seen as an issue of words and meanings, with regards to the exception clause, an answer to what appears at first to be an ignorant question was now a possibility.

I became excited by the possibilty of having found an explanation for the exception clause that fully defended Jesus' outright prohibition of divorce and remarriage.

After these many years now of studying this, I have found that it fits perfectly with the grammar of the problematic verses in Matt. that have the exception clause.

And I have had to admit that my former position of the "found her not a maid" explanation, which provided for a divorce for fornication immediately following the marraige night, when she was discovered to not be a virgin, was still a post marital divorce. Doing the best I could with the best explanation that I had, I was in reality still violationg Jesus' mandate to "let not man put asunder".

If your position also permits a divorce after the marriage for fornication that is done before the marriage, and you see that that is in fact allowing a putting asunder, even if it is limited, and you would be willing to look into an explanation that allows a divorce while at the same time respecting "let not man put asunder" then you should look into the explanation that shows that the exception clause pertains exclusively to the premarital divorce that we see exemplified in Matt. 1 with Joseph about to divorce Mary for what he thought was fornication.

I know there are questions, but after these about 18 years of being very involved with studying this, I can assure you there are answers that really fit the grammar and mechanics of the language of the verses having the exception clause.

Just look at 5:32 in a way that the exception clause is an interjected side point referencing a divorce that they were all very familiar with being a premarital divorce. Look at the clause as if it were in brackets as a separate kind of divorce that also shared the same terms of husband wife and putting away to describe it yet it was totally different being exclusively premarital. Hence the word fornication. Hence the woman being put away for fornication is not being caused to commit adultery by being put away as the grammar states. Hence the last clause is with regard to any post marital divorced woman; whoever marries her commits adultery. And finally, any post marital divorce "causeth her to commit adultery", which also fits with the last clause.

This gives the exception clause the status of an emphasis of prohibition of any post marital divorce in line with the rest of Matt. 5 where he is totally prohibiting certain things that they would naturally by the OT law suppose to be allowable.

On each of those points in Matt. 5, Jesus gives reason to not do those things. In the case of his prohibition of divorcing the married wife, the fact that the man so doing is causing his wife to commit adultery, for which he will stand in judgment, is a reason. Also if any other man marries her after her divorce, that man is also committing adultery. The man divorcing his wife will ultimately answer for the adultery he is indirectly responsible for.

Alyssa S
Aug 3rd 2008, 08:51 PM
Hi Vertical Reality Cory...:)

I'm not so sure this "theory" you are presenting harmonizes with Scripture. I don't believe it does.

When I first began this study of divorce and remarriage 2 years ago, I believed almost exactly like you are presenting it. In fact, I wrote a 30 page treatise about it, but as I wrapped it up, I realized that my argument didn't hold water. And so I concluded that marriage is for life, regardless if one was saved prior to divorce or after.

There are three things I would like to address that I think causes your belief to stand on shakey ground. I will place the other two in different posts to avoid one long letter.

First, but not most important, you have stated over and over how the law was not given to the Gentiles...which I agree that the ceremonial law was *given* directly to the Jews...God's chosen people. But, I don't think the Ten Commandments apply to only the chosen people. I believe it is Universal.

Here are your quotes to me from the previous thread on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage:


Originally Posted by VerticalReality http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1718869#post1718869)
I don't believe any of the law of Moses was given to the Gentile. (Post 50)

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? (Post 53)

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.

The law of Moses does not mean anything to a Gentile because they were not given them. (Post 59)

It was the Jews who knew that law. The Gentiles had nothing to do with it because it was not given to them. (Post 59)

and we know for a fact that the law of Moses was never given to a Gentile. That's just bible. (Post 63)

So then why are you attempting to include the Gentiles as being under a law they were never given? (Post 75)





So you have made it very clear.... that the law... given by Moses... has no application to a Gentile whatsoever... then how do you explain these next quotes of yours?

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. (Post 75)

WHICH "CHRISTIAN'S," Cory? The Christian JEW... or the Christian GENTILE? Because you already said that the law does not apply to the Gentile.

You then said that this verse was spoken ONLY to the JEWS...

Just to clarify further . . . the apostle Paul is addressing Jews in this passage of Scripture . . . (Post 62)

but THEN you seem to contradict yourself by taking that same message that Paul gave about dying to the law and applying it to the Gentiles and you said this....

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. (Post 55)

NOW you seem to be saying that it is both the JEW AND the GENTILE.

How do we, as a Gentile, die to a law that was "never given" to us...that "has no application to us whatsoever," as you have stated many times over?

How is it possible to DIE to a LAW that wasn't given to us in the first place? If it has no application to the Gentile... how on earth have we DIED to it?? Or how COULD we die to it?

You then concluded with this verse:

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?

The law has dominion over WHICH man? A Jew man? or a Gentile man? Or could it be both?

In one breath, you say it is only the Jew...
But then you also say it is the GENTILE....since "WE" the Gentile, have DIED to the "Jewish" Law. :hmm:


What is your opinion on this?


God bless,
Alyssa

Brother Mark
Aug 3rd 2008, 09:01 PM
Indeed. It's an interesting treaties Cory. I have often wondered about Ezra 10. It is clear Israel sinned by marrying unbelievers. It would seem to me that the case with unbelievers is addressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 7. But what are we to do with Ruth, and Rahab who are in the line of Christ? They are foreign, yet they are believers.

Alyssa S
Aug 3rd 2008, 09:25 PM
Ezra 10:3
"So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
Why are the Israelites here making a covenant with God to put away these pagan wives according to the law? I believe it is because those wives were viewed as unclean. Pagans were not viewed as being clean in the sight of God or the law (Remember Deuteronomy 24:1). Not only were the wives unclean but the children were unclean as well. You could not mix the holy seed with the unholy seed and produce a clean seed under the old law like you can under the New Covenant. A born again believer can be joined with an unbeliever and the unbeliever can be sanctified by the believer and the children be holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). However, under the law this was not the case. Under law if the holy seed was joined with an unholy seed the product of the seed would be unclean as well. The blood of Jesus changed all that under the New Covenant. This is why under the New Covenant and the law of Christ a born again believer does not need to leave the unbeliever.

However, under the old law those who are not of God or his law are deemed unclean. There are all sorts of laws on being clean versus being unclean. The Jews couldn't do many things because they would be viewed as unclean and would have to go through many different things just to be declared clean again. The pagan, however, is always considered unclean. They are never considered to be clean at all. They are not God's people. It never did sit right with me that the Israelites were never judged for putting away these pagan wives. Many would have folks believe that the Israelites were wrong in doing this and they should have kept their pagan wives. However, God never did correct or judge the Israelites for their action here (God always corrects and chastens those who are His if they are in error). As a matter of fact, their putting away of the pagan wives was in response to the fact that God's wrath was on them for disobedience.


.

2nd Point....

Yes, God commanded Israel to come out from these pagan wives. He FIRST told Israel NOT to be yoked with them. Israel clearly dosobeyed God's command.

But is this particular case ENOUGH to make a decision on whether God joins a believer to an unclean person?

As you stated, Scripture must harmonize...

How do we explain Hosea and Gomer?
Gomer was very unclean. She was a HARLOT. She left Hosea and chased after other men and gave her body away. God knew this would happen, and still, he told Hosea to take this woman as his wife. He even COMMANDED Hosea to go and get her, bring her back and LOVE her. And she was called his "WIFE." God considered this a marriage...and it was one that HE JOINED TOGETHER.

He COMMANDED Hosea to love this UNCLEAN woman.

1.) God commanded Israel NOT to join themselves with unclean women.
2.) God commanded Hosea to MARRY an unclean woman.

3.) Paul then commands that a believer NOT leave the unbeliever. Had my husband not divorced me and "married" someone else when I was an unbeliever and WAITED... he would have eventually had a wife who passionately loved the Lord.

It is NOT up to us to decide when it is time to "move on," and when the marriage is over. The marriage is over at death. Even if the unbeliever leaves, the believer should wait and pray for restoration of the marriage. We never know what God is working out...or when it will work out.

I think it is a silly doctrine that says some Christians "CAN" remarry after a divorce, (such as the believer with the unbeliever) while others cannot.


God bless,
Alyssa

Brother Mark
Aug 3rd 2008, 09:35 PM
Has anyone studied covenants and their relation to marriages? I think it helps shed light on much of what is written in scripture concerning marriage.

Alyssa S
Aug 3rd 2008, 09:45 PM
Vertical Reality,

In regards to the law that you claim has no application to us...

The below is a verse I gave you that clearly reveals that Jesus calls us to not only keep the commandments... but that we are to TEACH them. And these that do both... shall be called GREAT in the Kingdom!

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.



THEN... you replied with this....

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. (Post 75)

The law that is still very much active today does "NOT APPLY to those who are of the Spirit??"

Then if the Commandments that Jesus gave do "not apply to those who are of the Spirit," why did JESUS say....."but whosoever shall do and teach them, (Commandments) the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven??”

Cory, this would mean that you believe the "whosoever" here is actually unregenerated people... non believers. And it would also mean that Non believers will be called "great" in the kingdom. I don't think so. And I am pretty certain that you don't think so either.

God bless,
Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 3rd 2008, 10:05 PM
Last Point... and I think the strongest.

We have discussed this numerous times on this thread. It is my belief, which I think can clearly be ascertained by the Word, that God made marriage for ALL of mankind, not just "saved" people. When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees on the topic of marriage, He was not speaking to regenerated people.


So when he said "WHOSOEVER," he was referring to UNREGENERATED, UNSAVED, NON-BELIEVING people. It does NOT matter if they were Jews...The "WHOSOEVER" Jesus was speaking about were non-believers. So when two non-believers marry and divorce.... they are STILL married, according to Jesus.

Also to be considered, breaking the moral law (Ten Commandments) applies to all people, not just Christians. It is because of sin that God's wrath will come upon unsaved mankind. If someone who is unregenerated commits adultery by remarriage it is no different than if a Christian does---both acts are sin. The difference is in the Response to sin by a believer.


Too, as I said before, if the law of marriage ONLY applied to the Jews, then there would be no need to leave the "Exception Clause" (which was aimed at the Jews) out of Mark and Luke.... WHICH WAS WRITTEN TO THE GENTILES!! If it didn't apply to the Gentiles, there would be no need to address it and say such things as "'WHOEVER' divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery." If it doesn't apply to ALL.... then that only leaves people confused... and God is not a God of confusion.


The rule stays the same... Remarriage (while the spouse is still alive) is adultery... in my opinion.


That's all for now....

God bless,
Alyssa

valleybldr
Aug 3rd 2008, 10:46 PM
Has anyone studied covenants and their relation to marriages? I think it helps shed light on much of what is written in scripture concerning marriage. Where in Scripture is marriage called a covenant? It's more of a contract then a covenant. todd

Brother Mark
Aug 3rd 2008, 11:00 PM
Where in Scripture is marriage called a covenant? It's more of a contract then a covenant. todd


We are the bride of Christ and we are in covenant with him. Marriage is far more like a covenant than a contract. Covenant is the greatest relationship in scripture, exceeding even family ties (i.e. father/son).

valleybldr
Aug 3rd 2008, 11:17 PM
We are the bride of Christ and we are in covenant with him. Marriage is far more like a covenant than a contract. Covenant is the greatest relationship in scripture, exceeding even family ties (i.e. father/son). Physical marriage is similar to our relationship with the Lord but the two are not one and the same thing. I think we first need to see how marriage/divorce/remarriage was viewed within the cultural context of Scripture. There is plenty of evidence and much of it helps us to harmonize these seemingly contradictory passages. todd

Brother Mark
Aug 3rd 2008, 11:20 PM
Physical marriage is similar to our relationship with the Lord but the two are not one and the same thing. I think we first need to see how marriage/divorce/remarriage was viewed within the cultural context of Scripture. There is plenty of evidence and much of it helps us to harmonize these seemingly contradictory passages. todd

Many steps of the covenant are in marriages today. And our relationship tot he Lord is called a marriage. We are betrothed to Him.

Anyway, you asked for scriptural reference and I referred to it in the post above. When he drank and ate at the last supper, that was a covenant meal and we partake of the blood covenant with Him. In scripture, we are told we are married to Jesus.

valleybldr
Aug 3rd 2008, 11:25 PM
You are now adopting the view of David Instone-Brewer, which basically opens the floodgates for divorce, giving the word porneia its widest possible application. Instone-Brewer, Duty and others strongly advocate the biblical role of oversight in such matters. Just as Paul gave his rulings found in 1 Cor 7 (actually the relevent section starts two chapters earlier) the community had that right and responsibility from the time the people left Egypt. There are no "floodgates of divorce" for those who follow the Word. If one does not follow the Word and refuses the oversight of the church then the innocent party is not under their control/"bondage." todd

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 12:16 AM
You are now adopting the view of David Instone-Brewer, which basically opens the floodgates for divorce,

How so? Divorce is of the law . . .

Since when did law ever give life? Folks better ask themselves what law they are under . . .

Are they under the old law or the law of Christ? Hosea didn't use Gomer's sin as a reason to divorce her. He obeyed the law of Christ. Folks who are looking for reasons to divorce their spouse better ask themselves why they are doing so. Is it because of a hardness of their own heart? Jesus' teaching on divorce was in reference to the old law. If that is the law folks are under then they will have a very difficult time finding life through it. To be more precise, they WILL NOT find life through it.

So, no . . .

It most certainly does not open the floodgates for divorce.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 12:21 AM
Where in Scripture is marriage called a covenant? It's more of a contract then a covenant. todd


No, it is a Covenant.

Malachi 2:13
"Another thing you do: you flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, "Why?" It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the WIFE of your MARRIAGE COVENANT. "

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 12:23 AM
Hi Vertical Reality Cory...:)

I'm not so sure this "theory" you are presenting harmonizes with Scripture. I don't believe it does.

When I first began this study of divorce and remarriage 2 years ago, I believed almost exactly like you are presenting it. In fact, I wrote a 30 page treatise about it, but as I wrapped it up, I realized that my argument didn't hold water. And so I concluded that marriage is for life, regardless if one was saved prior to divorce or after.

There are three things I would like to address that I think causes your belief to stand on shakey ground. I will place the other two in different posts to avoid one long letter.

First, but not most important, you have stated over and over how the law was not given to the Gentiles...which I agree that the ceremonial law was *given* directly to the Jews...God's chosen people. But, I don't think the Ten Commandments apply to only the chosen people. I believe it is Universal.

Here are your quotes to me from the previous thread on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage:


Originally Posted by VerticalReality http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1718869#post1718869)
I don't believe any of the law of Moses was given to the Gentile. (Post 50)

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? (Post 53)

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.

The law of Moses does not mean anything to a Gentile because they were not given them. (Post 59)

It was the Jews who knew that law. The Gentiles had nothing to do with it because it was not given to them. (Post 59)

and we know for a fact that the law of Moses was never given to a Gentile. That's just bible. (Post 63)

So then why are you attempting to include the Gentiles as being under a law they were never given? (Post 75)





So you have made it very clear.... that the law... given by Moses... has no application to a Gentile whatsoever... then how do you explain these next quotes of yours?

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. (Post 75)

WHICH "CHRISTIAN'S," Cory? The Christian JEW... or the Christian GENTILE? Because you already said that the law does not apply to the Gentile.

You then said that this verse was spoken ONLY to the JEWS...

Just to clarify further . . . the apostle Paul is addressing Jews in this passage of Scripture . . . (Post 62)

but THEN you seem to contradict yourself by taking that same message that Paul gave about dying to the law and applying it to the Gentiles and you said this....

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. (Post 55)

NOW you seem to be saying that it is both the JEW AND the GENTILE.

How do we, as a Gentile, die to a law that was "never given" to us...that "has no application to us whatsoever," as you have stated many times over?

How is it possible to DIE to a LAW that wasn't given to us in the first place? If it has no application to the Gentile... how on earth have we DIED to it?? Or how COULD we die to it?

You then concluded with this verse:

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?

The law has dominion over WHICH man? A Jew man? or a Gentile man? Or could it be both?

In one breath, you say it is only the Jew...
But then you also say it is the GENTILE....since "WE" the Gentile, have DIED to the "Jewish" Law. :hmm:


What is your opinion on this?


God bless,
Alyssa

Been down this road already, Alyssa. I'm not going down this one again. I've already given you clear Scripture that declares the Gentiles do not have the law.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 12:26 AM
Indeed. It's an interesting treaties Cory. I have often wondered about Ezra 10. It is clear Israel sinned by marrying unbelievers. It would seem to me that the case with unbelievers is addressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 7. But what are we to do with Ruth, and Rahab who are in the line of Christ? They are foreign, yet they are believers.

If they are of faith then they are of a greater law, right? I believe that's exactly why Paul said what he did about a believer in 1 Corinthians 7:14. Those who are of the law of Christ can sanctify the unbeliever and the children will be holy. However, for those under the old law they cannot sanctify the unbeliever because they are carnal. God's holy seed is of the spirit, as Malachi 2 points out. Only those who are born again of the Spirit can produce that holy seed.

valleybldr
Aug 4th 2008, 12:27 AM
No, it is a Covenant.

Malachi 2:13
"Another thing you do: you flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, "Why?" It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the WIFE of your MARRIAGE COVENANT. " Great. thanks, todd

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 12:29 AM
Great. thanks, todd


Sho nuff!! ;)

God bless,
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 12:31 AM
How do we explain Hosea and Gomer?
Gomer was very unclean. She was a HARLOT. She left Hosea and chased after other men and gave her body away. God knew this would happen, and still, he told Hosea to take this woman as his wife. He even COMMANDED Hosea to go and get her, bring her back and LOVE her. And she was called his "WIFE." God considered this a marriage...and it was one that HE JOINED TOGETHER.

Gomer was not a pagan . . .

Pretty much answers your entire post.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 12:34 AM
The law that is still very much active today does "NOT APPLY to those who are of the Spirit??"

Indeed.


Then if the Commandments that Jesus gave do "not apply to those who are of the Spirit," why did JESUS say....."but whosoever shall do and teach them, (Commandments) the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven??”

Are you under the Ten Commandments or the law of Christ? Under the law of Christ are the Ten Commandments not fulfilled? If you are under the law of Christ you will not murder, steal, lie and so forth. Just because Jesus said to teach folks that stealing and so on is bad does not mean He was saying that we are under the Ten Commandments. To say so contradicts everything the New Testament teaches us. It contradicts a great deal of Paul's teachings specifically.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 12:35 AM
Pretty much answers your entire post.

:lol: HARDLY!

But if it makes you feel good....

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 12:45 AM
:lol: HARDLY!

But if it makes you feel good....

Are you claiming that Gomer was a pagan? If not, how does Gomer relate to the Israelites marrying pagans in Ezra 9-10? Quite simply, your post has nothing to do with the original post. It's two completely different scenarios.

Gomer was not a pagan. It was not unlawful for Hosea to take Gomer as his wife.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 12:51 AM
If they are of faith then they are of a greater law, right? I believe that's exactly why Paul said what he did about a believer in 1 Corinthians 7:14. Those who are of the law of Christ can sanctify the unbeliever and the children will be holy. However, for those under the old law they cannot sanctify the unbeliever because they are carnal. God's holy seed is of the spirit, as Malachi 2 points out. Only those who are born again of the Spirit can produce that holy seed.

Correct. So given Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 7 being the heart of God, why do you think those in Ezra 10, divorced their wives?

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 12:57 AM
Correct. So given Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 7 being the heart of God, why do you think those in Ezra 10, divorced their wives?

Those two passages of Scripture give a couple reasons . . .

The wrath of God being one of them. The fact that the marriages were unlawful being another. They were commanded not to mix the holy seed. They disobeyed.

cross crusader
Aug 4th 2008, 01:00 AM
Are you claiming that Gomer was a pagan? If not, how does Gomer relate to the Israelites marrying pagans in Ezra 9-10? Quite simply, your post has nothing to do with the original post. It's two completely different scenarios.

Gomer was not a pagan. It was not unlawful for Hosea to take Gomer as his wife.
I feel a dusting off of the sandals may be in order here Cory. Titus 3:9-11. All i am saying is that someone would want to be able to live in victory, and have a true understanding of what it actually means to be in a relationship with Christ. But for some strange reason people dont. (note: this is a private conversation between VR and I.)

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 01:10 AM
Those two passages of Scripture give a couple reasons . . .

The wrath of God being one of them. The fact that the marriages were unlawful being another. They were commanded not to mix the holy seed. They disobeyed.

Yes. But if a believer goes and marries an unbeliever, he too disobeys. But 1 Cor 7 still covers him, right?

I don't find evidence that God really wanted them to divorce in Ezra 10. But there can be no doubting their genuine repentance.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 01:20 AM
Yes. But if a believer goes and marries an unbeliever, he too disobeys. But 1 Cor 7 still covers him, right?

I don't find evidence that God really wanted them to divorce in Ezra 10. But there can be no doubting their genuine repentance.

Why do you suppose then that God's wrath was upon them, and this is what they determined was the right thing to do in order to repent from disobeying God? Additionally, it is "by the law" that they are going to put these wives away, so that says to me that the law didn't allow for this union nor bind it as some here would declare.

Some here have been very adamant about saying that marriage is for life for all people and it is bound by the law making this so. However, Ezra 9-10 would totally blow that teaching out of the water. These folks were not lawfully joined with these women. Secondly, it appears that they were lawfully divorced from these women.

Now, under the law of Christ I can certainly see your point, and I agree with you entirely. There were many old laws that were adhered to then that we do not have to adhere to if we are walking out the law of Christ. Stoning folks for adultery and so forth being one of those laws.

Those with hard hearts were permitted to divorce their wives. It was lawful for the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives. However, I do understand your point and agree that this is not of the law of Christ.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 01:27 AM
Why do you suppose then that God's wrath was upon them, and this is what they determined was the right thing to do in order to repent from disobeying God? Additionally, it is "by the law" that they are going to put these wives away, so that says to me that the law didn't allow for this union nor bind it as some here would declare.

As you said, they were rebellious and that is what caused God's wrath. But we have Jesus words concerning divorce in the law of Moses, it was provided because of the hardness of their hearts. IMO, the repentance was what was needed. Divorcing went to far. But no doubt, they needed to stop intermarrying with pagans.


Some here have been very adamant about saying that marriage is for life for all people and it is bound by the law making this so. However, Ezra 9-10 would totally blow that teaching out of the water. These folks were not lawfully joined with these women. Secondly, it appears that they were lawfully divorced from these women.

Yea, I know their arguments and I think they ignore scripture concerning divorce. As for being lawfully divorced, I still go back to what Jesus said concerning the law of Moses and divorce. So while they have divorced lawfully according to the Law of Moses, I am not convinced they divorced lawfully according to the Law of God. One thing is certain, they should have never married them in the first place and the practice HAD to stop.


Those with hard hearts were permitted to divorce their wives. It was lawful for the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives. However, I do understand your point and agree that this is not of the law of Christ.


I don't think we are that far apart. When I read scripture, I see where God says it is better to marry than to burn. When an unbelieving spouse leaves, the remaining spouse is not under bondage and the principle of "it is better to marry than to burn" still applies. Let them get married again.

As for adultery, I think God's first desire is reconciliation as he demonstrated with himself and Israel along with the example he gave us with Gomer. But it is still a valid reason for divorce, and I believe, remarriage later.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 01:36 AM
As you said, they were rebellious and that is what caused God's wrath. But we have Jesus words concerning divorce in the law of Moses, it was provided because of the hardness of their hearts. IMO, the repentance was what was needed. Divorcing went to far. But no doubt, they needed to stop intermarrying with pagans.

I agree that according to the law of Christ divorce went too far. However, I believe, and it sounds as if you do as well, that the law of Moses allowed these divorces and they were lawful according to this law they were under.



I don't think we are that far apart.


I agree. I think we believe very similarly here.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 01:45 AM
I agree that according to the law of Christ divorce went too far. However, I believe, and it sounds as if you do as well, that the law of Moses allowed these divorces and they were lawful according to this law they were under.

I agree. I think we believe very similarly here.

Agree on both counts. Just keeping in mind that being under the Law of Moses did not replace the Law of God. As Jesus taught us, it was not God's will for divorce to occur. It was only given to Israel as a nation because they were hard. IOW, the law of Moses is not always the in line with the law of God. So while it was lawful for them to divorce according to the Law of Moses, that does not mean God approved.

In a similar way, our law allows people to divorce in the US. But that doesn't mean God approves of the divorce. The Law of Moses is interesting in that it contained both the law of God and the law for Israel and laws for worship.

Anyway, I am glad you started the thread and I think you make very valid points.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 01:56 AM
Agree on both counts. Just keeping in mind that being under the Law of Moses did not replace the Law of God. As Jesus taught us, it was not God's will for divorce to occur. It was only given to Israel as a nation because they were hard. IOW, the law of Moses is not always the in line with the law of God. So while it was lawful for them to divorce according to the Law of Moses, that does not mean God approved.

In a similar way, our law allows people to divorce in the US. But that doesn't mean God approves of the divorce. The Law of Moses is interesting in that it contained both the law of God and the law for Israel and laws for worship.

Anyway, I am glad you started the thread and I think you make very valid points.

Here's something to think about as well . . .

We know that for those under the law it was the law that bound their marriage unions. What about the marriages with the pagans? What bound those unions? I think it safe to say that law has nothing to do with it. In actuality, the law condemned that marriage. I also do not believe that God joined it, so what can we make of this?

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 02:02 AM
Here's something to think about as well . . .

We know that for those under the law it was the law that bound their marriage unions. What about the marriages with the pagans? What bound those unions? I think it safe to say that law has nothing to do with it. In actuality, the law condemned that marriage. I also do not believe that God joined it, so what can we make of this?

That's where I think I will disagree. The law allowed the divorce and it condemned the marriage. But in the same way, the Law of God says we are not to be unequally yoked. Yet, when we are, it also says we do not divorce them.

So I will say God joined the union in the sense that a covenant was made before God. That's why I am not convinced it was God's will for them to get a divorce. Just as they sinned in allowing the marriage, they sinned in divorcing. But it was allowed by law for them to divorce. God still blessed them in the end because they were determined in their heart to follow Him. They truly repented of the sin they had committed to begin with and God honored that.

Mograce2U
Aug 4th 2008, 02:07 AM
The ultimate picture that marriage gives us is Christ wedded to His Church.

In the OT the purity of marriage was necessary to keep intact because Christ was to come from the line of David, and a pure seed was required. When we observe God's election of Jacob over Esau for example, it is clear that Esau by marrying foreign wives cared not one whit for the birthright he had been given. And the stories of Balaam and Solomon and even Ezra reveal that the real danger in corrupting the Messianic line was idolatry.

Now in the NT, the line is drawn even harder in that NO divorce is permissible - except for porneia. Which as you stated is sexual immorality but is also applicable to idolatry. So what is the danger here in marrying an unbeliever? That you might be led astray from your firm hope in Christ to the point that even your children could be lost. A faithful believer married to an unbeliever sanctifies his/her household thru faithful prayer. But this is still a snare to the one who does this.

Therefore Paul advises that if one is already married to an unbeliever, he should stay in that marriage - God will sanctify. But if the unbeliever leaves or sexual immorality occurs then one is permitted to divorce. This is for our sanctification that we not be contaminated by their idolatrous ways that have led them into such sexual immorality and adultery.

The current worldy trend which divorces for any reason is putting one under the law that governs such things and therefore the curse attached to the law is in force. Adultery is the sin regardless, if one has not a justifiable reason to divorce. The purpose of the divorce is to declare the innocent party innocent. Which cannot be the case unless one is actually innocent of wrongdoing.

Back to my original point - would Jesus divorce us for just any old reason? Or would it only be if we had become idolators and forsaken Him altogether? That is the picture divorce gives us and we ought not to take it lightly. Because He will not tolerate it if we allow ourselves to be married to another.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 03:53 AM
Are you claiming that Gomer was a pagan? If not, how does Gomer relate to the Israelites marrying pagans in Ezra 9-10? Gomer was not a pagan. It was not unlawful for Hosea to take Gomer as his wife.

I never said that Gomer was a pagan... but Gomer practiced paganistic ways by her actions. Gomer was not a Godly woman. Do you think on the Last Day when God divides the sheep (believers) from the goats (unbelievers) that He will have a third class called the Pagans? No... the pagans fall under the "Goat" category. Pagans are non-believers. God told Hosea to take an Un-Goldy, defiled, unclean woman for a wife.



Quite simply, your post has nothing to do with the original post. It's two completely different scenarios.



On the contrary, I think it has everything to do with it.... Here is your quote:



Why are the Israelites here making a covenant with God to put away these pagan wives according to the law? I believe it is because those wives were viewed as unclean. Pagans were not viewed as being clean in the sight of God or the law (Remember Deuteronomy 24:1). Not only were the wives unclean but the children were unclean as well.



And UNCLEAN is exactly what Gomer was!!

Too, it would seem you are contradicting yourself because, prior to this post, you have been trying to show differentiation between an Unclean person and a Pagan.... and yet, you are showing them to be one in the same by your comment referencing Deuteronomy 24:1. :confused

You may not think my post has anything to do with your original post, but I think it has everything to do with it because we are talking about NON BELIEVERS. And that is EXACTLY who Jesus was talking to in the Gospels regarding divorce and remarriage. They may have been Jews... but they were not regenerated.

His message was to "WHOSOEVER".... that "whosoever" being the non-believers (non-regenerated brood of viper Jews) as well as believers... and the others in the audience that had been converted.

You have never given a good defense to explain how Jesus is "ONLY speaking to the Jews," regarding divorce and remarriage but yet, the command was passed on to the Gentiles through the books of Mark and Luke WITHOUT the Exception Clause, which was aimed at Jews since this was part of their betrothal custom.

Why was there a need to leave out the Exception Clause? Because Jesus' message to the Gentiles was... It's "adultery to divorce your wife and marry another." The Gentiles didn't practice the betrothal custom that the Jews did, which allowed for the Exception Clause.

Again... Why address the Gentiles AT ALL regarding this subject if this law did not apply to them??

God bless,
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 04:04 AM
I never said that Gomer was a pagan... but Gomer practiced paganistic ways by her actions. Gomer was not a Godly woman. Do you think on the Last Day when God divides the sheep (believers) from the goats (unbelievers) that He will have a third class called the Pagans? No... the pagans fall under the "Goat" category. Pagans are non-believers. God told Hosea to take an Un-Goldy, defiled, unclean woman for a wife.

Can you show one single verse of Scripture saying it was unlawful for Hosea to take Gomer as his wife? Just one? How about it? I can provide you with Scripture saying it was unlawful for the Israelites to take those pagan wives, Alyssa. The fact of the matter here is that the Scriptures do not back your case. Not in the least.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 04:27 AM
I mean it is really time to just cut down to the quick of the matter here. We can go on and on with these 1,000 word posts bouncing around between topics, but nothing will get accomplished except folks dodging what the Word says. The case of Ezra 9-10 totally throws a wrench into the idea that all marriages are bound by the law for life. In this case these marriages were not bound by the law. They were unlawful marriages, and in fact, the Scriptures declare that the divorcing of these pagan women was done according to the very law that some here want to say binds the marriages.

This view simply doesn't add up to the entirety of God's Word. When you get right down to it this view has holes all in it.

BroRog
Aug 4th 2008, 04:36 AM
I mean it is really time to just cut down to the quick of the matter here. We can go on and on with these 1,000 word posts bouncing around between topics, but nothing will get accomplished except folks dodging what the Word says. The case of Ezra 9-10 totally throws a wrench into the idea that all marriages are bound by the law for life. In this case these marriages were not bound by the law. They were unlawful marriages, and in fact, the Scriptures declare that the divorcing of these pagan women was done according to the very law that some here want to say binds the marriages.

This view simply doesn't add up to the entirety of God's Word. When you get right down to it this view has holes all in it.

I don't know if this helps, but could it be that the men of Ezra 9-10 got an annulment rather than a divorce? As I understand it, an annulment is the dissolution of an illegal marriage, which is not the same thing as a divorce. At least I don't think it is.

Perhaps we shouldn't consider Ezra 9-10 in our study of divorce, since the legal aspects are different.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 04:42 AM
I don't know if this helps, but could it be that the men of Ezra 9-10 got an annulment rather than a divorce? As I understand it, an annulment is the dissolution of an illegal marriage, which is not the same thing as a divorce. At least I don't think it is.

I don't know where the Word differentiates between the two.


Perhaps we shouldn't consider Ezra 9-10 in our study of divorce, since the legal aspects are different.

If it's in the Word of God I'm going to consider it. And in reality, I think the truths shown in Ezra give us a tremendous view of our own situation since we are Gentiles and we were viewed in the same light as these pagans. However, I think you may be hitting on something when you state that the legal aspects are different.

valleybldr
Aug 4th 2008, 08:47 AM
The case of Ezra 9-10 totally throws a wrench into the idea that all marriages are bound by the law for life. In this case these marriages were not bound by the law. They were unlawful marriages, and in fact, the Scriptures declare that the divorcing of these pagan women was done according to the very law that some here want to say binds the marriages.

This view simply doesn't add up to the entirety of God's Word. When you get right down to it this view has holes all in it.
What about Esther? She married a Gentile who was not divorced according to biblical law. Doesn't anyone want to call her an adulterous who married outside her faith? todd

valleybldr
Aug 4th 2008, 08:56 AM
Back to my original point - would Jesus divorce us for just any old reason? Or would it only be if we had become idolators and forsaken Him altogether? That is the picture divorce gives us and we ought not to take it lightly. Because He will not tolerate it if we allow ourselves to be married to another. Excellent point. Christ will not initiate divorce... it's one backsliden who would do such a thing. IMO the whole issue of "eternal security" is mirrored by what Scripture teaches regarding marriage and its possible dissolutionment by an egregious party. todd

valleybldr
Aug 4th 2008, 09:15 AM
Exodus 21:10. It's worth asking if this requirement has been lowered via Christ's teaching. No, we don't have multiple wives, but are we allowed to neglect one (in the three ways this passage specifies) without the law making provision for the innocent party? todd

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 12:45 PM
Can you show one single verse of Scripture saying it was unlawful for Hosea to take Gomer as his wife? Just one? How about it? I can provide you with Scripture saying it was unlawful for the Israelites to take those pagan wives, Alyssa. The fact of the matter here is that the Scriptures do not back your case. Not in the least.

Dear Cory,

I didn't say the marriage was unlawful... I'd appreciate it if you would quit putting words in my mouth and then say the Scripture doesn't back up that belief. ;) I was simply showing that the woman was UNCLEAN! And that God "joins together" a marriage that has an UNCLEAN person. God STILL considers this a VALID marriage!!

I was also showing how you have contradicted yourself. (As evidenced in Post 6 and 11 which you continue to dodge). One minute you say something like EVEN the Israelites were unclean (WHICH WAS TRUE...at times)... and then say uncleanness has nothing to do with it since even Isrealites are unclean (IN PREVIOUS THREAD).... and then you say the reason God told Israel to come out from the pagans was because they were unclean. You flip flop.

Which is it?

I RECOGNIZE that this Ezra thing is something very significant to consider... I gave it alot of thought when I used to believe like you.

The problem with the doctrine that you are presenting, which I believe cannot be supported by Scripture, is the fact that the gospels do not harmonize with your teaching! Jesus' crowd was UNREGENERATED people, Cory. Plain and simple.

YOU seem to constantly dodge this one.... and respond to me with more questions and how my theology doesn't hold up.

The fact that Jesus' crowd was both believers and non-believers shoots a very large hole in your doctrine! And what shoots a larger hole in it is the fact that WHO he was specifically addressing were UNREGENERATED - NON Believers. And that is why I no longer believe the way you currently believe.

Now... do you have a valid explanation for the below that I have repeatedly asked you? If you do, then great... we can wash our hands or "dust off our sandals" and call it a day. Perhaps you can point out something that Marksfan9, Alaska, Bethany67, Angyl, myself and many many many others... including the early church fathers missed. I am totally open to that!! But it has to harmonize!


Last Point... and I think the strongest.

We have discussed this numerous times on this thread. It is my belief, which I think can clearly be ascertained by the Word, that God made marriage for ALL of mankind, not just "saved" people. When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees on the topic of marriage, He was not speaking to regenerated people.


So when he said "WHOSOEVER," he was referring to UNREGENERATED, UNSAVED, NON-BELIEVING people. It does NOT matter if they were Jews...The "WHOSOEVER" Jesus was speaking about were non-believers. So when two non-believers marry and divorce.... they are STILL married, according to Jesus.

Also to be considered, breaking the moral law (Ten Commandments) applies to all people, not just Christians. It is because of sin that God's wrath will come upon unsaved mankind. If someone who is unregenerated commits adultery by remarriage it is no different than if a Christian does---both acts are sin. The difference is in the Response to sin by a believer.


Too, as I said before, if the law of marriage ONLY applied to the Jews, then there would be no need to leave the "Exception Clause" (which was aimed at the Jews) out of Mark and Luke.... WHICH WAS WRITTEN TO THE GENTILES!! If it didn't apply to the Gentiles, there would be no need to address it and say such things as "'WHOEVER' divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery." If it doesn't apply to ALL.... then that only leaves people confused... and God is not a God of confusion.


The rule stays the same... Remarriage (while the spouse is still alive) is adultery... in my opinion.


That's all for now....

God bless,
Alyssa

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 12:56 PM
Can you show one single verse of Scripture saying it was unlawful for Hosea to take Gomer as his wife? Just one? How about it? I can provide you with Scripture saying it was unlawful for the Israelites to take those pagan wives, Alyssa. The fact of the matter here is that the Scriptures do not back your case. Not in the least.

There is definitely a difference in the two examples. It was not unlawful for Hosea to marry Gomer. It was unlawful for Israel to marry the people of the land. That is a legitimate difference.

Steve M
Aug 4th 2008, 01:48 PM
Excellent point. Christ will not initiate divorce... it's one backsliden who would do such a thing. IMO the whole issue of "eternal security" is mirrored by what Scripture teaches regarding marriage and its possible dissolutionment by an egregious party. todd
Seems to me Paul said explicitly that if we had an unbeleiving wife or husband and they were willing, we were to stick by them. But if they left, we weren't bound.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 02:09 PM
Seems to me Paul said explicitly that if we had an unbeleiving wife or husband and they were willing, we were to stick by them. But if they left, we weren't bound.


He did. But when it comes to initiating divorce, God did initiate one with Israel in the OT because of immorality.

Steve M
Aug 4th 2008, 02:30 PM
He did. But when it comes to initiating divorce, God did initiate one with Israel in the OT because of immorality.
Yeah, but that's beyond simply not sharing the same faith into going after other gods--i.e., an unfaithfulness, an adultery--and I am so very, very cautious around any doctrine of divorce and remarriage that seems to imply in any way that any Christian can initiate what looks like an 'any cause' divorce; simply because Jesus spoke so forcefully against just that, and the one thing I never want to found to be doing is working at cross-purposes to my Lord.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 02:33 PM
Yeah, but that's beyond simply not sharing the same faith into going after other gods--i.e., an unfaithfulness, an adultery--and I am so very, very cautious around any doctrine of divorce and remarriage that seems to imply in any way that any Christian can initiate what looks like an 'any cause' divorce; simply because Jesus spoke so forcefully against just that, and the one thing I never want to found to be doing is working at cross-purposes to my Lord.

I agree. We need to be very careful.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 02:38 PM
I didn't say the marriage was unlawful... I'd appreciate it if you would quit putting words in my mouth and then say the Scripture doesn't back up that belief. ;) I was simply showing that the woman was UNCLEAN! And that God "joins together" a marriage that has an UNCLEAN person. God STILL considers this a VALID marriage!!

In that context who isn't "unclean"? All have sinned. However, Gomer was not a pagan and was not considered to be in the same category as those that the Israelites were taking as wives in Ezra 9:2.


I was also showing how you have contradicted yourself. (As evidenced in Post 6 and 11 which you continue to dodge).

I haven't contradicted anything. In the context you are attempting to use it even the Jews were unclean because none were without sin. However, they were still instructed not to mix themselves with the unholy seed of the pagans. Gomer was not part of this seed. It was completely lawful for Hosea to take Gomer as his wife. The same cannot be said with regards to Ezra 9-10.


The problem with the doctrine that you are presenting, which I believe cannot be supported by Scripture, is the fact that the gospels do not harmonize with your teaching! Jesus' crowd was UNREGENERATED people, Cory. Plain and simple.

Jesus' crowd were Jews, Alyssa . . . plain and simple. They were under the very law He was addressing, and the Scriptures declare the same. You are simply ignoring those clear Scriptures.


The fact that Jesus' crowd was both believers and non-believers shoots a very large hole in your doctrine! And what shoots a larger hole in it is the fact that WHO he was specifically addressing were UNREGENERATED - NON Believers. And that is why I no longer believe the way you currently believe.

Actually, Jesus' "crowd" and the ones He was addressing were all Jews. Some who believed in Him and some who didn't. They were all Jews living under the law He was addressing nonetheless.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 02:40 PM
There is definitely a difference in the two examples. It was not unlawful for Hosea to marry Gomer. It was unlawful for Israel to marry the people of the land. That is a legitimate difference.

Absolutely is! Thanks, Brother Mark.

valleybldr
Aug 4th 2008, 02:50 PM
Seems to me Paul said explicitly that if we had an unbeleiving wife or husband and they were willing, we were to stick by them. But if they left, we weren't bound.


Yes, I agree. Does that counter the premise I was stating? All analogies break down at some point but I think this one has many parallels. todd

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 02:59 PM
Yes, I agree. Does that counter the premise I was stating? All analogies break down at some point but I think this one has many parallels. todd


I think your analogy is valid Todd. Not to get off track, but there are some interesting OT laws that, imo, shed light on salvation/marriage. I see both as a covenant. When a woman was put away and she married another, she could not be restored to her first husband if she was put away again. In Hebrews 6, if one is put away, she (we) cannot be restored. But the details are for another thread.

God cut Israel off, but he will restore them. It just won't be that same generation he cut off.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 03:17 PM
There is definitely a difference in the two examples. It was not unlawful for Hosea to marry Gomer. It was unlawful for Israel to marry the people of the land. That is a legitimate difference.

I totally agree...

I never said it was unlawful for Hosea to marry Gomer... still doesn't change the fact that she was unclean and ungodly....and that God JOINED this marriage....just as he joins marriages today regardless if someone is clean or unclean.

God bless,
Alyssa

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 03:23 PM
I totally agree...

I never said it was unlawful for Hosea to marry Gomer... still doesn't change the fact that she was unclean and ungodly....and that God JOINED this marriage....just as he joins marriages today regardless if someone is clean or unclean.

God bless,
Alyssa

I tend to agree with you on that point. But, Gomer is more an example of a believer living in sin, as Israel was doing, than an unbeliever that is an idol worshiping, God hating, with no fear of God kind of person.

The OT law allowed for remarriage. But I see the OT law as a secular law in some cases and that's why it's called the law of Moses. It's the remarriage part I think folks miss. 1 Cor 7 seems rather clear to me when it says a believer is no longer bound if the unbeliever leaves. They are not bound. That means they are free.

Jesus found a new bride in the Gentiles after God had gave a writ of divorce to the Jews. That seems like remarriage to me since God is one.

BCF
Aug 4th 2008, 03:47 PM
In my personal opinion, I believe that folks today try to put the law of the land and God's law of Marriage together, and by doing so never come to a full understanding of the Scripture. In Matthew 19, Jesus took the Pharisees back to the beginning and so will I. But before I do so I want to give a small explanation of what the law of the land considers a married couple. Two people (whether they are man or woman) who say that they love each other and sign a piece of paper and go before God and make a promise that they will love one another for better or worse, richer or poorer, and till death do them part. This is the promise that these two people give God (whether they believe in him or not) and they according to this world and most teachings of Marriage in the Church become man and wife Joined Together By God In Holy Matrimony.:lol: Yeah right, I would like someone to find scripture to back that garbage up in any language, and say that God joins all Marriages. Considering that I can find a scripture in Matthew 7:21-23 that Jesus says, " 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. 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? 23. And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (meaning lawlessness).
It seems to me that in these verses Jesus makes himself clear that God's hand is not on everything in which we do. I would think that would include Marriage also. How Jesus could say to those folks who have gone around professing His name carnally by casting out devils and preaching His name to others that He never knew them, and then turn around and have His hand on everybody's Marriage as some folks claim that He does according to the scripture is beyond me. To say such a thing is as twisted as one can get.

I had this same conversation yesterday with my Pastor for about four hours. Except we are in agreement on what God calls a Marriage, he just don't understand the concept of it. God's plan of Marriage has nothing to do with a piece of paper. My stand on this issue has been that is is Spiritual. Many disagree with this stand, but it is the only way possible. God demands a Spiritual Relationship from us with Him. God does not demand a Physical Relationship with Him from us. In the beginning God had a Spiritual Relationship with Adam and Eve, until the fall of man. Then that relationship became carnal until they repented of there sin toward God. Our Relationship with God is Spiritual also and so is the Marriage that God recognizes. God does not recognize a piece of paper that two people make there promise from. God only recognizes a Marriage between two people who are in a Spiritual Relationship with Him, simply because that is what God demands. VR and my self along with others have given scripture to prove this throughout the Bible. If the truth is not to be accepted so be it. Nobody can defeat the scripture. Not even man with his twisted doctrine.

I don't not mean to offend, but there comes a point in time when one needs to admit that man is wrong and has been for thousands of years. That is not to say that I am saying that Paul was wrong in the scripture, because he was not. Paul taught just what Jesus and God presented from the beginning. The only difference was the wording. Not what it meant.

God Bless

Dave

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 03:51 PM
Except that God called even infidel marriages marriages in the OT.

Even those folks in Ezra 9 and 10 were considered married. It was a marriage under the law. Cain took a wife. I could go on and on and on where the scriptures acknowledge marriage between two unbelievers.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 04:18 PM
I totally agree...

I never said it was unlawful for Hosea to marry Gomer... still doesn't change the fact that she was unclean and ungodly....and that God JOINED this marriage....just as he joins marriages today regardless if someone is clean or unclean.

God bless,
Alyssa

If, by your standard, Gomer was unclean then all Jews were unclean because all of them sinned. However, they were still not looked upon in the same light as the pagans. If those sinful Jews joined themselves with those pagans they were considered to be mixing the holy seed with the unholy seed.

There is no getting around this biblical fact.

Mograce2U
Aug 4th 2008, 04:33 PM
I tend to agree with you on that point. But, Gomer is more an example of a believer living in sin, as Israel was doing, than an unbeliever that is an idol worshiping, God hating, with no fear of God kind of person.

The OT law allowed for remarriage. But I see the OT law as a secular law in some cases and that's why it's called the law of Moses. It's the remarriage part I think folks miss. 1 Cor 7 seems rather clear to me when it says a believer is no longer bound if the unbeliever leaves. They are not bound. That means they are free.

Jesus found a new bride in the Gentiles after God had gave a writ of divorce to the Jews. That seems like remarriage to me since God is one.Actually, according to Hosea, Gomer was an example of Israel (10 tribes) who was given over to idolatry, hating God, living in hypocrisy and serving God in guile so as to rob the people who came to worship. God was just in judging them, but also gave Judah a hope of restoration and resurrection in the coming of Messiah. For though she too had succumbed to much of the same idolatrous practices as her sister, she had remained faithful to the saints (12:12). And God would take His remnant from Judah to bring forth Messiah.

God did declare that Israel was not to be His wife in that condition until she put away her adulteries and whoredoms. So in the NT when we see how Jesus admonishes us against divorce - except if WE are the innocent party, it would seem it is because this is the picture painted in Hosea that He had in mind - of why God had divorced Israel prior to the Babylon Captivity - in which only Judah was kept safe to return to the land.

If we think we can look upon divorce as a light thing, it can only be because we have not read this book! God takes our marriage to Christ seriously and this ought to be reflected in how we live in our marriages as well. If you consider where the charge of adultery puts you, then idolatry is what you must see...

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 04:37 PM
Actually, according to Hosea, Gomer was an example of Israel (10 tribes) who was given over to idolatry, hating God, living in hypocrisy and serving God in guile so as to rob the people who came to worship. God was just in judging them, but also gave Judah a hope of restoration and resurrection in the coming of Messiah. For though she too had succumbed to much of the same idolatrous practices of her sister, she had remained faithful to the saints (12:12). And God would take His remnant from Judah to bring forth Messiah.

I know. That was my point. There is a difference in an unbeliever steeped in pagan ways and a believer that is backsliding into those ways. We are not to marry an unbeliever for just the purposes we see here and illustrated in Ezra 9-10. But if we marry a believer, and he/she turns into a Gomer, after efforts to reconcile, we are then free to give a writ of divorce.


God did declare that Israel was not to be His wife in that condition until she put away her adulteries and whoredoms. So in the NT when we see how Jesus admonishes us against divorce - except if WE are the innocent party, it would seem it is because this is the picture painted in Hosea that He had in mind - of why God had divorced Israel prior to the Babylon Captivity - in which only Judah was kept safe to return to the land.

I agree completely. When we are the innocent party, like God, we don't have to stay in that covenant that is being broken. It took repeated offenses for it to get to the point where Homer was used as an example.


If we think we can look upon divorce as a light thing, it can only be because we have not read this book! God takes our marriage to Him seriously and this ought to be reflected in how we live in our marriages as well. If you consider where the charge of adultery puts you, then idolatry is what you must see...

I agree.

BCF
Aug 4th 2008, 04:43 PM
Except that God called even infidel marriages marriages in the OT.

Even those folks in Ezra 9 and 10 were considered married. It was a marriage under the law. Cain took a wife. I could go on and on and on where the scriptures acknowledge marriage between two unbelievers.

No you can't, my pastor tried the same thing for four hours yesterday and came to found out that he needed to do more study about this issue.

Yes, the Bible says that the folks in Ezra were married, but by Who is the question? These folks were not following God. When they started to follow God they wanted a divorce from the ones they were married too. This should tell us something.

As for Cain. Yes, the Bible says that Cain was married also, but here again by Who? Was Cain married by the Spirit of God or the Spirit of satan? Cain was out of the presents of God when he was married so that kind of leaves out the Spirit of God. That only leaves one Spirit left.

If you want to continue on my friend you can. I went through this yesterday, I have know problem going through the same topic today. Fire away.;)

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 04:47 PM
No you can't, my pastor tried the same thing for four hours yesterday and came to found out that he needed to do more study about this issue.

It's all over scripture and yea, the word marriage is used.


Yes, the Bible says that the folks in Ezra were married, but by Who is the question? These folks were not following God. When they started to follow God they wanted a divorce from the ones they were married too. This should tell us something.

I don't think divorce was the right thing to do. But no doubt they repented. I just think they went from one extreme to the other.


As for Cain. Yes, the Bible says that Cain was married also, but here again by Who? Was Cain married by the Spirit of God or the Spirit of satan? Cain was out of the presents of God when he was married so that kind of leaves out the Spirit of God. That only leaves one Spirit left.

We won't agree on this. God calls it a marriage, then it's a marriage. When he describes it in his word as a husband and wife, then that pretty much tells me how he views it. ;)

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 05:38 PM
I tend to agree with you on that point. But, Gomer is more an example of a believer living in sin, as Israel was doing, than an unbeliever that is an idol worshiping, God hating, with no fear of God kind of person.

The OT law allowed for remarriage. But I see the OT law as a secular law in some cases and that's why it's called the law of Moses. It's the remarriage part I think folks miss. 1 Cor 7 seems rather clear to me when it says a believer is no longer bound if the unbeliever leaves. They are not bound. That means they are free.


I'm not so sure I agree with this Pauline Exception.

Paul used the Greek word "DOULOO," which means enslaved... it is not the same word he used in the other verses pertaining to a marriage bond "DEO."

Instead of writing it all out, I am going to copy and paste from a paper I wrote on the subject...

I don't see how Paul is giving clearance for the believer to remarry when he just finished saying in 7:10 that if a wife or husband divorce, they are to remain single, or reconcile. Paul never said that the believer is "free to remarry" as he did to the widow in 1 Cor 7:39. Paul said the believer is "not under bondage". Also, a very important point to make regarding this Greek word "DOULOO" which our English translates as "bondage" is NOT the same word used in the context of the marriage bond that we read about in Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 which is "DEO" (bound). "DOULOO" means "to enslave" in the Greek. Paul never tells the believer they are free to remarry. He only says that they are no longer ENSLAVED to the marriage. Why? Paul says right after that: "God has called the Christian to live in PEACE." But he did not say that the Christian was then free to remarry like he does later to the WIDOW.

This is the only place that the word “DOULOO” is used in reference to marriage. To understand this word more fully, let’s look at this verse in Acts 7:6:
“God spoke to him in this way: 'Your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved (DOULOO) and mistreated four hundred years.”

Although “DEO” and “DOULOO” have similarities in their meaning, I truly believe that if Paul wanted his audience to know they were free to remarry, he would have been consistent by 1.) using the word, “DEO” and 2.) he would have said, “the believer is then free to remarry.”




Jesus found a new bride in the Gentiles after God had gave a writ of divorce to the Jews. That seems like remarriage to me since God is one.

But Brother Mark, look at these verses in Jeremiah....
Jer 3:8 "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce because of all her adulteries."

Then a few verses later God says....

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! It seems to me that 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.

God bless,
Alyssa

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 05:46 PM
Yet later, Israel was indeed "cut off". So while I agree, that the divorce was not final at that time, and he will be reunited with them again in the future, they are clearly divorced now. That generation was cut off. Now, the bride of God (more specifically Jesus) has been grafted in and we are called the Church and we include Israelis.

BCF
Aug 4th 2008, 05:48 PM
It's all over scripture and yea, the word marriage is used.

The word Marriage is used 19 times throughout the scriptures in the KJV. In all of these cases this word is not meant as you think it is. In most cases it is talking about a Spiritual Relationship with God. Not a Physical relationship with two people.


I don't think divorce was the right thing to do. But no doubt they repented. I just think they went from one extreme to the other.

There is only one problem with this that I can see. It does not matter what you or I THINK. It is all about what God says in His word about this issue. His whole Word, not just bites and pieces here and there.


We won't agree on this.

Well you are right, we won't agree on this simply because I view God as a Spiritual God and not a Physical one. Even though God came here in the Physical, God works through us in the Spiritual. God can't work through someone He don't know, or don't know Him.


God calls it a marriage, then it's a marriage.

This I can agree with. When God does call something a Marriage it is a Marriage, simply because God is in that Marriage or He would not call it one. But as I stated before. God won't call a Marriage with two people He don't know.


When he describes it in his word as a husband and wife, then that pretty much tells me how he views it.

Not necessarily. In John 4:15-18 we can read about a conversation that Jesus had with the woman at the well on this issue. John records that conversation like this,
"15. The woman saith unto Him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17. The woman answered and said, I have no husband, Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18, For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

Now, why do you suppose that Jesus did not recognize this womans husband as her husband, or one of the first five that she had as her husband? There is no mention of a divorce from a first husband, or a death from a first husband. So you see not every where in scripture when God refers to husband and wife does He mean what we think.

God Bless

Dave

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 05:50 PM
Not necessarily. In John 4:15-18 we can read about a conversation that Jesus had with the woman at the well on this issue. John records that conversation like this,
"15. The woman saith unto Him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17. The woman answered and said, I have no husband, Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18, For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

Now, why do you suppose that Jesus did not recognize this womans husband as her husband, or one of the first five that she had as her husband? There is no mention of a divorce from a first husband, or a death from a first husband. So you see not every where in scripture when God refers to husband and wife does He mean what we think.

God Bless

Dave


He did recognize her previous relationships as marriage for he called them her husbands. As for the last one, she had started just shacking up and was not married to him.

BCF
Aug 4th 2008, 06:58 PM
He did recognize her previous relationships as marriage for he called them her husbands. As for the last one, she had started just shacking up and was not married to him.

So basically, what you are assuming here is that this woman had five other husbands who she was married to. Who have all died except one, and that would have been her fifth husband, because Jesus does not recognize her sixth marriage because He said that the one you are with is not your husband.....

Is this what you are saying.......

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 07:03 PM
Hi Brother Mark,

It seems that you believe like Vertical Reality does regarding the law and marriage. I am not certain of your belief on this, but from your posts it appears that you do agree with Cory.

I am curious what your belief is on a couple of things....since I cannot get an answer from anyone else....would you be so kind to help me out here? :)

1.) How can the very law that Cory says is not applicable to the Gentiles be the exact same law that will apply to ALL of mankind on the Last Day when God judges ALL for what they did in the body? How can we pick and choose what we want the law to apply to and not apply to?

I'm not a big fan of logic... but I'd still like to try this one out...

If a child, who is unaware of the Law of gravity, climbs to the edge of a building and gets too close to the edge, the Law of Gravity says that the child will fall. It does not matter if the child was aware or unaware of this law... the Law of Gravity is set in stone.

Why wouldn't the same concept apply to the institution of marriage?

If a person, who is unaware of the Law of God (such as I was), makes a vow with someone of the opposite sex, the Law of God says that the two are now joined...since it is God himself who created marriage. Man did not come up with the idea... God did.

The Law of Gravity says one will fall...
The Law of God concerning marriage says two become one...

2.) a. Keeping in theme with the "idea" that God doesn't "join all marriages," what is your opinion of two unbelievers who get married? Do you think God joined this marriage? VR would say "NO!" So then, if they are not "joined", they are not "married"... would this mean they are committing sexual immorality by living under the same roof as two lovers? Or does God not recognize that? If he doesn't... then why does he pay attention to it on the Last Day when they will be judged?

b. What if one of them is saved? All of a sudden we got something "binding" going on because Apostle Paul makes it clear not to leave the unbeliever. So it is obvious that God recognizes SOMETHING here. So AT WHAT POINT exactly did these two people BECOME MARRIED? According to Cory, their vows didn't "take." And of course.... sex doesn't "make a marriage." So when did they BECOME married?

It would seem that we would need to have a whole new ceremony/vows in order for it to be legit... and yet, Paul (God actually) ALREADY recognizes it as legit...as evidenced by his command not to leave the "marriage" (1 Cor 7) that Cory says was "never joined by God."


3.) If Jesus' message about divorce and remarriage was ONLY for the Jews... then what is the message to the Gentile? What do we do with Mark and Luke who was written TO the Gentile? The authors took the Exception Clause out that was aimed at the Jew. Why not take out the whole thing... if it didn't apply to them, as VR teaches? We have a significant time period between the time of Jesus and Paul right? So what message does the Gentile (at that time) have regarding marriage and divorce if Jesus only spoke to the Jews about it? Something seems terribly flawed to me.

Thanks ahead of time for your response! :)

God bless,
Alyssa

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 07:08 PM
So basically, what you are assuming here is that this woman had five other husbands who she was married to. Who have all died except one, and that would have been her fifth husband, because Jesus does not recognize her sixth marriage because He said that the one you are with is not your husband.....

Is this what you are saying.......

No. What I am saying is that the person she was with was not her husband. She wasn't married to him. The other 5 she was married to, not all at once but over time. She probably got divorced from each of them though we don't now for sure. But the last one was not her husband but rather a living in boyfriend. Jesus recognized the first 5 as her husbands. But not the last one. So she wasn't married to the last guy. She had probably given up on marriage seeing how bad it was going for her in that arena.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 07:09 PM
I can just see Paul addressing the crowd in 1 Cor 7...

"Hey ya'll, listen up! If we got any unbelievers in the house that were converted and your mate is still unregenerated, then those so-called vows you made didn't cut it!! Ya'll been livin' in sexual immorality! And you THOUGHT you were married all this time!!! :lol: Welllll, we need to go on and have a whole new wedding here since the first one didn't count!!
Uuuuhhh.... scratch that idea.... because then I would be officiating an unequally yoked marriage!"

.... Juuuust havin' some fun....but I'm actually quite serious. :D

God bless,
Alyssa

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 07:24 PM
Hi Brother Mark,

It seems that you believe like Vertical Reality does regarding the law and marriage. I am not certain of your belief on this, but from your posts it appears that you do agree with Cory.

Cory and I are close in agreement but not fully. I don't see some marriages as marriage in the spirit and others as not married at all. If someone takes a vow of marriage, then I think they are married in God's eyes whether they do it in a courthouse or in a church and whether they are Hindus or Christian.


1.) How can the very law that Cory says is not applicable to the Gentiles be the exact same law that will apply to ALL of mankind on the Last Day when God judges ALL for what they did in the body? How can we pick and choose what we want the law to apply to and not apply to?

I have made mention of this in the past. We have to remember that, IMO, there is a difference between the Law of Moses that governed Israel and the Law of God that applies to everyone. Moses gave the right to divorce because that law was a governing law and not a spiritual one. He gave it because their heart was hard. However, in recognizing that God gave Israel a writ of divorce, we know it is not always the one pursuing the divorce that is sinning. The hardness of heart can be on the one being divorced as it was with Israel and God.

The point Cory was making, and I think it an interesting point, is that it was against the Law for Israel to intermarry with the canaanite women. They did it anyway. It was a law that was broken. When they repented, they divorced. I think they went too far and should not have divorced. God doesn't give us an opinion on the matter. He just records the history. I think we have to look at 1 Cor 7 to see God's opinion on it. We know even in the NT we are not to be unequally yoked as they were. That is a sin for us. But also, we know we do not divorce as a result of that sin.


If a person, who is unaware of the Law of God (such as I was), makes a vow with someone of the opposite sex, the Law of God says that the two are now joined...since it is God himself who created marriage. Man did not come up with the idea... God did.

The Law of Gravity says one will fall...
The Law of God concerning marriage says two become one...

I agree. Except I do see cases where God allows divorce and remarriage. I think great harm is done when we teach otherwise and it does not balance out with scripture. I see where God himself had a bride in the OT and a different bride in the NT. I also see where God allows for divorce in cases of immorality. It all comes down to covenant to me. Is one side breaking the covenant of marriage? If so, then the other party should seek reconciliation as God did. But if reconciliation is not going to happen, then they can divorce, as God did and marry another, as God did. I also see where Paul said we are free to marry if the unbelieving spouse leaves us.


2.) a. Keeping in theme with the "idea" that God doesn't "join all marriages," what is your opinion of two unbelievers who get married? Do you think God joined this marriage? VR would say "NO!" So then, if they are not "joined", they are not "married"... would this mean they are committing sexual immorality by living under the same roof as two lovers? Or does God not recognize that? If he doesn't... then why does he pay attention to it on the Last Day when they will be judged?

I was already answering someone else in this thread about that. Throughout scripture, God used the word "marriage" to define the relationship between a man and a woman that were unbelievers. Cain took to himself a wife. God called her his wife. To me, that means God sees them as married. Paul talks about an unbeliever and believer being married. That makes them married. Throughout all of scripture we see where God calls two unbelievers married, unbelievers and believers married, and two believers married. I won't dispute that at all. When we take a vow, God takes that serious.


3.) If Jesus' message about divorce and remarriage was ONLY for the Jews... then what is the message to the Gentile? What do we do with Mark and Luke who was written TO the Gentile? The authors took the Exception Clause out that was aimed at the Jew. Why not take out the whole thing... if it didn't apply to them, as VR teaches? We have a significant time period between the time of Jesus and Paul right? So what message does the Gentile (at that time) have regarding marriage and divorce if Jesus only spoke to the Jews about it? Something seems terribly flawed to me.

What VR is saying is that the Law of Moses only applied to Jews. And he is right about that. But we look to the law and see the spiritual law behind it. I think there is value in that.

For instance, are you going to say it's OK to eat pork? If so, then why pick and choose the laws concerning divorce and marriage to obey? We have to keep in mind that the law contained both secular and spiritual law. That's one reason Paul said we now keep the spirit of the law but not the letter. We have to see the spirit behind the given law. The food laws are not about physical food, IMO, for us today. But they are significant as Jesus said "I have meat to eat that you know not of" and "Man shall live by every word from God and not by bread alone".

Anyway, I am between you and VR. I see divorce as necessary sometimes because of the hardness of people's heart. Apparently so did God. He eventually cut Israel off and they are no longer betrothed to him. But he will graft them in again and they will get saved. But now, God is betrothed to another, namely the church. Israel will become part of the church again one day. But that generation is without hope that rejected him back then, for they are dead both spiritually (i.e. separated from God) and physically.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 07:35 PM
Yet later, Israel was indeed "cut off". So while I agree, that the divorce was not final at that time, and he will be reunited with them again in the future, they are clearly divorced now. That generation was cut off. Now, the bride of God (more specifically Jesus) has been grafted in and we are called the Church and we include Israelis.

They are divorced now? Could you show me the Scripture that reveals that? I am not familiar with that verse.

I believe there was a DEATH. It was the death of Jesus on the cross that ended the Old Covenant, which allowed for a new one. Death is what always ENDS a covenant... that is why I believe what Paul said in 1 Cor 7:39 about a woman being bound to her husband until he dies. It is DEATH the ends a Covenant... not divorce.

I do not see anywhere that God is currently divorced from Israel. There WAS a death though. And death allows for a new covenant.

Jeremiah 31:31-43

"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord, "I will put My law within them, and on their hearts I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," says the Lord, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 07:40 PM
They are divorced now? Could you show me the Scripture that reveals that? I am not familiar with that verse.

John 15 says they were cut off.


I believe there was a DEATH. It was the death of Jesus on the cross that ended the Old Covenant, which allowed for a new one. Death is what always ENDS a covenant... that is why I believe what Paul said in 1 Cor 7:39 about a woman being bound to her husband until he dies. It is DEATH the ends a Covenant... not divorce.Death also starts a covenant. That's what Hebrews teaches.


I do not see anywhere that God is currently divorced from Israel. There WAS a death though. And death allows for a new covenant.Yet, Israel has been cut off. That pretty much says divorce to me.

Even so, scripture seems to allow divorce for immorality. Even if God did not follow through with it, he still started the process. That tells me it's not sin to do it. God doesn't sin and he doesn't bluff either.

Covenants can be ended through spiritual death. Notice it is us who died in Romans 7 and not the law. Yet, I still live! But I am dead to the law. In the same way, a person can be dead to a marriage. They break the covenant. It's over. They marry another. They are dead to the previous covenant they had. The person they were in covenant with is now free to marry.

Rom 7:5-6
5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
NASB

BCF
Aug 4th 2008, 07:44 PM
No. What I am saying is that the person she was with was not her husband. She wasn't married to him. The other 5 she was married to, not all at once but over time. She probably got divorced from each of them though we don't now for sure. But the last one was not her husband but rather a living in boyfriend. Jesus recognized the first 5 as her husbands. But not the last one. So she wasn't married to the last guy. She had probably given up on marriage seeing how bad it was going for her in that arena.


Well my friend, wouldn't what you just wrote me go against most of what folks think Paul wrote in 1st Cor 7?

Yet Jesus as you are saying, recognized these other husbands of hers as her husbands. If God is so against divorce as everyone thinks he is, why would Jesus tell this woman that she had five husbands? Why would Jesus not just tell her that she only had one husband. Her first husband and that was all.

If you ask me something is wrong with this picture.......

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 07:48 PM
Well my friend, wouldn't what you just wrote me go against most of what folks think Paul wrote in 1st Cor 7?

Yet Jesus as you are saying, recognized these other husbands of hers as her husbands. If God is so against divorce as everyone thinks he is, why would Jesus tell this woman that she had five husbands? Why would Jesus not just tell her that she only had one husband. Her first husband and that was all.

If you ask me something is wrong with this picture.......

Just because one sins in divorce and remarriage does not mean God does not recognize the marriage. I think the woman at the well shows that. Being in a marriage that should not have happened is not an excuse enough to get a divorce. Repent, recognize it and move on.

BCF
Aug 4th 2008, 07:54 PM
Just because one sins in divorce and remarriage does not mean God does not recognize the marriage. I think the woman at the well shows that. Being in a marriage that should not have happened is not an excuse enough to get a divorce. Repent, recognize it and move on.

So tell me. In the eyes of God, what is a Marriage that never should have happen, if God puts all Marriages together?

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 07:55 PM
[quote=Brother Mark;1736153] I also see where Paul said we are free to marry if the unbelieving spouse leaves us.


Thank you for taking the time to respond to my long post! :)

May I point out that Paul never said one was free to remarry if the unbelieving spouse leaves. I'm not sure if you read my Post about the word "bound" in 1 Cor 7... but Paul did not use the same word "DEO" that he used to describe the marriage bond elsewhere. He used "DOULOO" which means "To be enslaved."

Paul only told the widow in 1 Cor 7:39 that she was free to remarry. He told the believer that they were not in bondage since God calls Christians to live in peace. And then he finished the verse with "how do you know wife whether you will save your husband?" And that's it!! He didn't say... "Now you are free to get a new husband."

As I have always said.... Had my husband been patient and WAITED... the Lord was working on my heart and my husband would have had a God fearing wife. But instead... he, the believer, went and got a "new one."

God bless,
Alyssa

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 07:59 PM
So tell me. In the eyes of God, what is a Marriage that never should have happen, if God puts all Marriages together?

Let me put it this way, it may not be God's will for you to marry someone, but once you do, it's his will for you to stay married to them. At that point, you are married in his eyes and he has put you together through the spiritual act of marriage. That's why he calls Cain's wife, Cain's wife. He recognized that relationship Cain had with her.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 08:04 PM
[quote]


Thank you for taking the time to respond to my long post! :)

May I point out that Paul never said one was free to remarry if the unbelieving spouse leaves. I'm not sure if you read my Post about the word "bound" in 1 Cor 7... but Paul did not use the same word "DEO" that he used to describe the marriage bond elsewhere. He used "DOULOO" which means "To be enslaved."

Paul only told the widow in 1 Cor 7:39 that she was free to remarry. He told the believer that they were not in bondage since God calls Christians to live in peace. And then he finished the verse with "how do you know wife whether you will save your husband?" And that's it!! He didn't say... "Now you are free to get a new husband."

As I have always said.... Had my husband been patient and WAITED... the Lord was working on my heart and my husband would have had a God fearing wife. But instead... he, the believer, went and got a "new one."

God bless,
Alyssa

Had he waited, he would have been obedient to God for God didn't tell him to divorce because you were an unbeliever. 1 Cor 7 gives us that much.

I saw your post. But if we are not bound, we are not bound. Paul wished that many would remain single. But he also said "it is better to marry than to burn".

What else is there to be free from, if not the marriage itself? He is not just "free to be single". Of course he's free to be single. That would be the case whether Paul instructed us or not. There's no condemnation in being divorced. If we are innocent, we are innocent.

BTW, you know that under OT law that if a woman was divorced and then she remarried, she could not go back to her first husband. I think too that would apply to your ex-husband. He can't come back now as he is in another covenant. I know you disagree with me, but he is dead to the old covenant, just as we are dead to the law.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I see divorce as a sin and one never occurs unless someone is sinning. Although, I do not mean that both parties in a divorce have sinned.

BCF
Aug 4th 2008, 08:06 PM
Let me put it this way, it may not be God's will for you to marry someone, but once you do, it's his will for you to stay married to them. At that point, you are married in his eyes and he has put you together through the spiritual act of marriage. That's why he calls Cain's wife, Cain's wife. He recognized that relationship Cain had with her.

But doesn't the Bible teach us that if we do something that is out of the will of God, we are against Him. And if we are against Him, how can God be for it?

I would think God would be going against Himself at that point.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 08:13 PM
But doesn't the Bible teach us that if we do something that is out of the will of God, we are against Him. And if we are against Him, how can God be for it?

I would think God would be going against Himself at that point.

First off, we can't be certain it's not God's will for 2 unbelievers to get married. We only have proof that it is not his will for us to be unequally yoked.

However, we have an example of such a covenant in scripture. When Joshua was taking the land, they went into covenant with a people of the land and it was against God's will for them to do so. They were deceived into doing it. Years later, when that covenant was broken, God punished them for breaking a covenant.

The point? God still expects us to honor our covenants even if he warns us against going into them. Once we do, we bind ourself to our covenant partner in front of God and the order of the day is to honor that covenant.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 08:16 PM
[quote=Brother Mark;1736214][quote=Alyssa S;1736203]

I saw your post. But if we are not bound, we are not bound. Paul wished that many would remain single. But he also said "it is better to marry than to burn".



The problem is that Paul didn't use the SAME word. He used a different word. Our English translation uses the same word...unfortunately. But Paul used a different word. Why is that?? Especially when considering Paul ALWAYS used "DEO" in reference to being bound in to a marriage covenant.


What else is there to be free from, if not the marriage itself? He is not just "free to be single". Of course he's free to be single. That would be the case whether Paul instructed us or not.

We are free from living in bondage under the same roof with a non-believing spouse. I know a girl who is going through hades living under the same roof with her unbelieving husband. Paul clearly says that we are called to live in PEACE. Surely it would be more than unpeaceful to live with an unbeliever at times.

Why didn't Paul say one was free to remarry like he tells the widow??

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 08:21 PM
Let me make something clear here that Ayssa does not speak truthfully about when it comes to what I have said.

I have never said that I do not believe that pagans or the like are married. I have said that I am not convinced that they have been joined by God. I think a strong argument can be made that marriage can take place without God being in it. For example, if two atheists go down to the courthouse in front of the justice of the peace and sign a piece of paper declaring them husband and wife they are indeed married according to the law. However, who has married them? Was it God? Or was it the law of the land? The same can apply to two homosexuals as well. Just because two homosexuals go down to the county courthouse to sign marriage papers it doesn't mean that they have been joined by God. They most certainly have not. I can very easily see that God joined Jews together as they were His people. They were His children. However, I do not see God joining the pagan. I do not see any other law other than the pagan law binding their marriages.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 08:21 PM
Does anyone have an opinion about this below??
Nigel?? Where you at?? :)


2.) a. Keeping in theme with the "idea" that God supposedly doesn't "join all marriages," what is your opinion of two unbelievers who get married? Do you think God joined this marriage? So then, if they are not "joined", they are not "married"... would this mean they are committing sexual immorality by living under the same roof as two lovers? Or does God not recognize that? If he doesn't... then why does he pay attention to it on the Last Day when they will be judged?

b. What if one of them is saved? All of a sudden we got something "binding" going on because Apostle Paul makes it clear not to leave the unbeliever. So it is obvious that God recognizes SOMETHING here. So AT WHAT POINT exactly did these two people BECOME MARRIED? According to Cory, their vows didn't "take." And of course.... sex doesn't "make a marriage." So when did they BECOME married?

It would seem that we would need to have a whole new ceremony/vows in order for it to be legit... and yet, Paul (God actually) ALREADY recognizes it as legit...as evidenced by his command not to leave the "marriage" (1 Cor 7) that Cory says was "never joined by God."

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 08:23 PM
The problem is that Paul didn't use the SAME word. He used a different word. Our English translation uses the same word...unfortunately. But Paul used a different word. Why is that?? Especially when considering Paul ALWAYS used "DEO" in reference to being bound in to a marriage covenant.

I'll look a little more into this. But even if it is a different word, I am not convince it changes the spirit of the passage. Like I said before, God was betrothed to Israel now he's betrothed to the church.


We are free from living in bondage under the same roof with a non-believing spouse. I know a girl who is going through hades living under the same roof with her unbelieving husband. Paul clearly says that we are called to live in PEACE. Surely it would be more than unpeaceful to live with an unbeliever at times.

Here's the problem, IMO, with that approach. Paul is speaking about someone who the spouse has already left. There is no need to tell someone who's spouse isn't living with them that they are "Free to live alone". Of course they are free to live alone and to live in peace by his/herself. In that passage, Paul didn't give the believer room to separate or divorce because they were married to an unbeliever. It was about the person that the unbeliever has already left. That person is not in bondage. Bondage to what? If the unbeliever is gone, the only thing left to hold them in any way is the covenant they had with that unbeliever.


Why didn't Paul say one was free to remarry like he tells the widow??

Personally, I think he would have been repeating himself to say it because he had said they were free. At least that's my take on it.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 08:34 PM
Here's the problem, IMO, with that approach. Paul is speaking about someone who the spouse has already left. There is no need to tell someone who's spouse isn't living with them that they are "Free to live alone". Of course they are free to live alone and to live in peace by his/herself. In that passage, Paul didn't give the believer room to separate or divorce because they were married to an unbeliever. It was about the person that the unbeliever has already left. That person is not in bondage. Bondage to what? If the unbeliever is gone, the only thing left to hold them in any way is the covenant they had with that unbeliever.


Hmmmm... VERY interesting point. I will have to think on that one.



Personally, I think he would have been repeating himself to say it because he had said they were free. At least that's my take on it.[/quote

Well, we could say the same about 1 Cor 7:39 "A woman is bound to her husband AS LONG AS HE LIVES. (We are clear at this point that the woman would be free) But if her husband dies, she is free to marry...."

Paul repeated himself here.

God bless,
Alyssa

BCF
Aug 4th 2008, 08:45 PM
First off, we can't be certain it's not God's will for 2 unbelievers to get married. We only have proof that it is not his will for us to be unequally yoked.


So what you are telling me here is that God puts together two people who believe in another God? Well if that's the case I guess the homosexual folks being married because they say God put them together would be true also? Hmmm, makes sence........

I guess that's why we live in a world that we do........


However, we have an example of such a covenant in scripture. When Joshua was taking the land, they went into covenant with a people of the land and it was against God's will for them to do so. They were deceived into doing it. Years later, when that covenant was broken, God punished them for breaking a covenant.


Where exactly is all of this that you are talking about. I don't recall reading any of this. Although I could have missed it.


The point? God still expects us to honor our covenants even if he warns us against going into them. Once we do, we bind ourself to our covenant partner in front of God and the order of the day is to honor that covenant.

Again, how is God going to punish one of His children for doing something they never knew was wrong?

That would be like punishing my son for shooting a gun at someone, if I would have never told him that he would kill them if he did so.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 08:48 PM
Well, we could say the same about 1 Cor 7:39 "A woman is bound to her husband AS LONG AS HE LIVES. (We are clear at this point that the woman would be free) But if her husband dies, she is free to marry...."

Paul repeated himself here.


Yes he did. But look at the flow of the passage. It fits there and is kind of like a summary for one getting married. He just finished speaking about how it is better to be single than to be married. So he gives a reason why... because when you marry, you are bound as long as your husband is alive. This is a life long commitment. He then goes on to say in his opinion, she will be happier if she remains single.

Anyway, I am fully convinced that we can't take just one verse and form an opinion and need to take all of scripture into account. That is one thing that can make such things difficult. I see it sort of like baptism. Some folks like to camp out around Mark 16:16... "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved... NASB. Using that verse and a few others, an entire theology on salvation is built for baptism. Yet, we have other scriptures that speak to salvation by faith without baptism.

What helped settle this for me was seeing marriage as a covenant. When Israel made a covenant with a canaanite city, that displeased God. When they broke that covenant later, it displeased God. So while it was wrong for them to enter into covenant with that city, it was also wrong to break the covenant.

However, I also see how when covenants are entered into, they can be broken. I saw where God left the marriage covenant he had with Israel and entered into a marriage covenant with the Church. (I know God and Jesus are separate but the same.) Scripture says of Jesus that he came unto his own and his own received him not.

I see where Israel was cut off in John 15. It's hard for me to get around that. They were cut off and that is very, very severe. Yet God, still found it in his heart to marry me! I am amazed at that.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 09:00 PM
So what you are telling me here is that God puts together two people who believe in another God? Well if that's the case I guess the homosexual folks being married because they say God put them together would be true also? Hmmm, makes sence........

I would say that is a twist on scripture. No where in scripture does God ever recognize two men or two women being married. He never calls them husband and husband or any such thing. So it's apples and oranges to compare the two. Clearly, homosexual "marriage" is a thing that does not exist in the eyes of God.


Where exactly is all of this that you are talking about. I don't recall reading any of this. Although I could have missed it.

Josh 9:3-8

3 When the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai, 4 they also acted craftily and set out as envoys, and took worn-out sacks on their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended, 5 and worn-out and patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out clothes on themselves; and all the bread of their provision was dry and had become crumbled. 6 And they went to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, and said to him and to the men of Israel, "We have come from a far country; now therefore, make a covenant with us." 7 And the men of Israel said to the Hivites, "Perhaps you are living within our land; how then shall we make a covenant with you?"
NASB
...

Josh 9:15-21
15 And Joshua made peace with them and made a covenant with them, to let them live; and the leaders of the congregation swore an oath to them.

16 And it came about at the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them, that they heard that they were neighbors and that they were living within their land. 17 Then the sons of Israel set out and came to their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon and Chephirah and Beeroth and Kiriath-jearim. 18 And the sons of Israel did not strike them because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them by the Lord the God of Israel. And the whole congregation grumbled against the leaders. 19 But all the leaders said to the whole congregation, "We have sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel, and now we cannot touch them. 20 This we will do to them, even let them live, lest wrath be upon us for the oath which we swore to them." 21 And the leaders said to them, "Let them live." So they became hewers of wood and drawers of water for the whole congregation, just as the leaders had spoken to them.
NASB

I'll have to search where they broke the covenant because I can't find it right now.


Again, how is God going to punish one of His children for doing something they never knew was wrong?

Not sure what you are getting at. Thing is, ignorance has never really been much of an excuse with God. Certainly not now because he has written his law into our hearts. Nowhere in scripture is it taught that one can marry and divorce for the reason "it wasn't put together by God". Marriage was designed and put forth by God and all who enter into that kind of relationship have been "joined by God".

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 09:07 PM
Does anyone have an opinion about this below??
Nigel?? Where you at?? :)


2.) a. Keeping in theme with the "idea" that God supposedly doesn't "join all marriages," what is your opinion of two unbelievers who get married? Do you think God joined this marriage? So then, if they are not "joined", they are not "married"... would this mean they are committing sexual immorality by living under the same roof as two lovers? Or does God not recognize that? If he doesn't... then why does he pay attention to it on the Last Day when they will be judged?

b. What if one of them is saved? All of a sudden we got something "binding" going on because Apostle Paul makes it clear not to leave the unbeliever. So it is obvious that God recognizes SOMETHING here. So AT WHAT POINT exactly did these two people BECOME MARRIED? According to Cory, their vows didn't "take." And of course.... sex doesn't "make a marriage." So when did they BECOME married?

It would seem that we would need to have a whole new ceremony/vows in order for it to be legit... and yet, Paul (God actually) ALREADY recognizes it as legit...as evidenced by his command not to leave the "marriage" (1 Cor 7) that Cory says was "never joined by God."

Alyssa, why don't you go ahead and let me know how many more times I'm going to have to say this because I've said it repeatedly already and you just do not seem to be understanding it . . .

I have not stated that pagans or unbelievers are not married. I have stated that I do not believe they are joined by God. Should I go ahead and copy and paste that twenty or so more times? Will that be enough?

How many more times are you going to accuse me of saying something I have not said?

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 09:08 PM
Alyssa, why don't you go ahead and let me know how many more times I'm going to have to say this because I've said it repeatedly already and you just do not seem to be understanding it . . .

I have not stated that pagans or unbelievers are not married. I have stated that I do not believe they are joined by God. Should I go ahead and copy and paste that twenty or so more times? Will that be enough?

How many more times are you going to accuse me of saying something I have not said?

If they are not joined by God, does that mean it's OK to get a divorce?

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 09:14 PM
If they are not joined by God, does that mean it's OK to get a divorce?

Certainly not. However, the law they are under does allow it.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 09:18 PM
Certainly not. However, the law they are under does allow it.

We are under the same law, in the sense that whatever country you live in has certain laws. Yet, just because a law allows it, doesn't mean it's not sin. That was Jesus point when he said "Moses allowed you to divorce but from the beginning it was not so". Jesus made a distinction there between the law of Moses and the law of God.

I am not convinced that folks that get married are not joined by God. It seems to me that in the beginning, God defined the relationship so that all who enter into that relationship have been joined by God. But just as Moses gave allowance for divorce due to man's hard heart, so do our nations today do the same thing. Doesn't mean it's OK in the eyes of God though.

Just my 2 cents.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 09:19 PM
Anyway, I do believe this topic is straying a tad bit off course. The truth of the matter here is that the stance that some take saying that the only divorce allowed for was before the actual consummation of the marriage during the betrothal period is false. Ezra 9-10 proves that the Israelites could lawfully put away their pagan wives, so the betrothal point of view simply cannot be true. It doesn't fit the whole of Scripture.

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 09:26 PM
We are under the same law, in the sense that whatever country you live in has certain laws. Yet, just because a law allows it, doesn't mean it's not sin. That was Jesus point when he said "Moses allowed you to divorce but from the beginning it was not so". Jesus made a distinction there between the law of Moses and the law of God.

I am not convinced that folks that get married are not joined by God. It seems to me that in the beginning, God defined the relationship so that all who enter into that relationship have been joined by God. But just as Moses gave allowance for divorce due to man's hard heart, so do our nations today do the same thing. Doesn't mean it's OK in the eyes of God though.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand. Divorce is certainly not okay in the eyes of God. And yes, all divorce is because of a hardened heart. My point here is that this betrothal stuff is really just not harmonious with the whole of Scripture. It's not harmonious with the law of Moses nor any other law. Does that mean that divorce is okay? Certainly not. It wasn't okay when Moses permitted it, and it isn't okay now.

However, I truly believe that when two pagans divorce they are truly divorced by the law they are under. That union is truly done and finished.

Here's the extreme folks go to. There have been witches who have gotten married and then gone on to divorce. Then they go and get remarried to another. Eventually, one gets saved and gives their life to the Lord Jesus. What some on this board would have us believe is that this newly born again Christian should ditch the spouse they are currently with and either go back to the witch they were married to first or live celibate.

I'm mean it's really just a bunch of silliness.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 09:27 PM
Anyway, I do believe this topic is straying a tad bit off course. The truth of the matter here is that the stance that some take saying that the only divorce allowed for was before the actual consummation of the marriage during the betrothal period is false. Ezra 9-10 proves that the Israelites could lawfully put away their pagan wives, so the betrothal point of view simply cannot be true. It doesn't fit the whole of Scripture.

I agree with that. They "lawfully" put away their wives in that they followed the law of Moses. There are some things out there on marriage that I find difficult to reconcile with scripture. I still don't think you and I are that far apart in our thoughts.

I see divorce as a very bad thing that hurts many people. It can be avoided if both parties submit to God. I also see room for remarriage in 1 Cor. 7 under the right circumstances.

As always Cory, you bring much insight to your threads. If you hadn't started this thread, I would have probably avoided it. ;)

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 09:30 PM
As always Cory, you bring much insight to your threads. If you hadn't started this thread, I would have probably avoided it. ;)

Thanks, my friend. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 10:01 PM
=Brother Mark;1736270]Anyway, I am fully convinced that we can't take just one verse and form an opinion and need to take all of scripture into account. That is one thing that can make such things difficult. I see it sort of like baptism. Some folks like to camp out around Mark 16:16... "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved... NASB. Using that verse and a few others, an entire theology on salvation is built for baptism. Yet, we have other scriptures that speak to salvation by faith without baptism.

I COMPLETELY agree that we have to take all of Scripture into account. 100% with you there! I spent almost 2 years diving into all of this with the Greek and Hebrew (and this doesn't make me right)... but I examined it from every possible angle... BECAUSE... I wanted an out! :) But I can not rest that I am free to remarry. I just don't believe it when taking all of Scripture into account. I COULD be wrong. But God has more than once...in fact, many times confirmed to me that I am in His will on this. And so I have to be faithful to that.




What helped settle this for me was seeing marriage as a covenant. When Israel made a covenant with a canaanite city, that displeased God. When they broke that covenant later, it displeased God. So while it was wrong for them to enter into covenant with that city, it was also wrong to break the covenant.


Yes, I am very familiar with the Gibeonite Deception. God took so seriosly this covenant that 500 years later when Saul broke it, the land suffered a 3 yr famine for it. God takes covenants very seriously...indeed...even if they are made in sin. I even wrote a 7 pg treatise called "Confusing Sin with a Covenant."



However, I also see how when covenants are entered into, they can be broken. I saw where God left the marriage covenant he had with Israel and entered into a marriage covenant with the Church. (I know God and Jesus are separate but the same.) Scripture says of Jesus that he came unto his own and his own received him not.


I still believe that covenant was ended because of DEATH...as all covenants are ended. That is where we will have to differ. Covenants can be broken... but only death SEVERS a covenant, in my opinion.



I see where Israel was cut off in John 15. It's hard for me to get around that. They were cut off and that is very, very severe. Yet God, still found it in his heart to marry me! I am amazed at that.


God cut off Israel BEFORE...(the cert. of divorce) but the covenant was still intact though... that is why he still referred to himself as Israel's husband in Jeremiah 3:14 AFTER he divorced her.

I don't believe the cutting off that you are referring to is what severs the covenant with Israel... It is ALWAYS death that severs a covenant. I'm not talking about breaking.... I'm talking about SEVERING.

And I believe Jesus' death on the cross is proof that covenants are binding till death since his death is what allowed a NEW covenant to be made.

God bless!
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 4th 2008, 10:23 PM
Bottom line, Alyssa, is that the Israelites divorced their pagan wives and it is by the law that they did so. This disproves the betrothal view very soundly. Unless, of course, one wants to argue that it is only between two Jews that the betrothal view rings true. However, when it came to the pagans according to Ezra 9-10, betrothal had nothing to do with it and they were still put away according to the law.

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2008, 10:30 PM
And so I have to be faithful to that.

Yes you do. To do otherwise would be sin.


Yes, I am very familiar with the Gibeonite Deception. God took so seriosly this covenant that 500 years later when Saul broke it, the land suffered a 3 yr famine for it. God takes covenants very seriously...indeed...even if they are made in sin. I even wrote a 7 pg treatise called "Confusing Sin with a Covenant."

Yea. This is why I think that God has joined those that enter into a covenant relationship like marriage.


I still believe that covenant was ended because of DEATH...as all covenants are ended. That is where we will have to differ. Covenants can be broken... but only death SEVERS a covenant, in my opinion.

I have no issue with that. However, I do look at it differently. When I entered into covenant with Christ, I died to the law. I can't be married to Christ and the Law at the same exact time. So I died to one and wed the other. That's what Paul says in Romans 7. Now, did I really, physically die? No. I died to the covenant that I was bound to in the law.


God cut off Israel BEFORE...(the cert. of divorce) but the covenant was still intact though... that is why he still referred to himself as Israel's husband in Jeremiah 3:14 AFTER he divorced her.

Well, in fairness, being given a writ of divorce doesn't mean that you are completely divorced at that time. It starts the process. (I may be mistaken and I'll have to review.)


I don't believe the cutting off that you are referring to is what severs the covenant with Israel... It is ALWAYS death that severs a covenant. I'm not talking about breaking.... I'm talking about SEVERING.

Severing and being cutoff are the same, as far as I can tell. That's what John 15 is about. It's about Israel being severed from God. They were cut off and no longer "in Him". That is a form of death. We call it spiritual death. Sense they had died, God was no free to marry another, namely the church. Jesus dying didn't free him from his marriage to Israel. It was Israel's death that freed Him to remarry. At least in my opinion. Jesus death was physical. Our marriage to God and Israel's marriage to God wasn't physical but rather spiritual. It would require a spiritual death to annul it not a physical one.


And I believe Jesus' death on the cross is proof that covenants are binding till death since his death is what allowed a NEW covenant to be made.

Again, the covenant with God was spiritual. The death of Christ did not "end the covenant" because one of the covenant folks died. Rather, it started the covenant because one died.

Heb 9:15-18
15 And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.
NASB

That's why I had to die to myself in order to move into covenant with Christ. So while my death also severed me from my marriage to the law, it also entered me into a new covenant with Christ.

Just as I did not die physically when I died to the law, so I do not believe one has to die physically to sever or start a covenant. When a man and woman come together into a covenant, they die. The cease being 2 independent people and become 1 entity. Hence, they died and the covenant is now in force. If they do not die, then there is no covenant.

When one then dies to the covenant later, the covenant is then broken because one is dead. Just as I had to die to my marriage to the law in order to marry Christ, so can another be married again when their partner dies to their covenant. How does that happen? Well, if someone is married, then they get a divorce, when that person remarries, they are dead to the previous covenant, IMO. That frees up the other person to remarry.

I know it sounds symbolic and it is. I use it for 2 reasons. 1. Paul writes a lot about how marriage is symbolic. 2. He also writes about how I died, symbolically and literally (though not physically) to the law.

Rom 7:1-6

7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
NASB

So Paul takes a physical law and then gives the spiritual meaning to it. In the OT, they lived by the letter of the law. In the NT, we live by the Spirit. We see in Romans 7 that one can die to a marriage to the law but that doesn't mean physical death.

Now, in saying this, I am not saying that one can simply say "I am dead to the covenant and I want out". Clearly that is not what God teaches concerning covenant, for that would be sin. But when one party pulls that stunt and leaves the other party, they are dying to the covenant and the innocent party, IMO, is free becaue the other party died. The other party is going to have sin on their hands.

Maybe I need to modify my stance but from what I can gather, it seems right. Man cannot put away his wife and be without sin unless it is for the cause of immoral/idolatrous type of behavior.

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 10:33 PM
Alyssa, why don't you go ahead and let me know how many more times I'm going to have to say this because I've said it repeatedly already and you just do not seem to be understanding it . . .

I have not stated that pagans or unbelievers are not married. I have stated that I do not believe they are joined by God. Should I go ahead and copy and paste that twenty or so more times? Will that be enough?

How many more times are you going to accuse me of saying something I have not said?

Cory... I am not sure what you believe because it seems you have changed your view so many times!! I can't keep track! NOW... you don't believe PORNEIA applies to the betrothal custom. How many times have you changed your view on that? Will it change tomorrow? And it's FINE if you do... we are growing (hopefully) daily in our walk and undertanding.

SO.... You still don't answer my question. You avoid it and keep saying that I am accusing you of something that I don't think I am accusing you of. I KNOW that you believe NOT ALL marriages are joined by God... but that you recognize some marriages as being marriages (just not joined by God). (That's confusing!!) Where have I said differently?? Look at the below comment that you claim I am lying about... I said... "KEEPING IN THEME WITH THE "IDEA" THAT GOD SUPPOSEDLY DOESN'T JOIN ALL MARRIAGES..." I am keeping in theme with YOUR theology!! HELLO!!

Then PLEASE read the below comment in blue and see if there is a biblical answer to this legitimate question that is asked by MANY people who do not believe in remarriage...

2.) a. Keeping in theme with the "idea" that God supposedly doesn't "join all marriages," what is your opinion of two unbelievers who get married? Do you think God joined this marriage? So then, if they are not "joined", they are not "married"... would this mean they are committing sexual immorality by living under the same roof as two lovers? Or does God not recognize that? If he doesn't... then why does he pay attention to it on the Last Day when they will be judged?

b. What if one of them is saved? All of a sudden we got something "binding" going on because Apostle Paul makes it clear not to leave the unbeliever. So it is obvious that God recognizes SOMETHING here. So AT WHAT POINT exactly did these two people BECOME MARRIED IN THE EYES OF GOD, CORY? According to you, their vows didn't "take" (as in JOINED BY GOD). And of course.... sex doesn't "make a marriage." So when did they BECOME married in God's eyes?

It would seem that we would need to have a whole new ceremony/vows in order for it to be legit... and yet, Paul (God actually) ALREADY recognizes it as legit...as evidenced by his command not to leave the "marriage" (1 Cor 7) that you say was "never joined by God."

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 10:39 PM
[quote=Brother Mark;1736417]I have no issue with that. However, I do look at it differently. When I entered into covenant with Christ, I died to the law. I can't be married to Christ and the Law at the same exact time. So I died to one and wed the other. That's what Paul says in Romans 7. Now, did I really, physically die? No. I died to the covenant that I was bound to in the law.



Hi. :)

I'm still reading the rest of your post, but wanted to say this before I forget since I am getting brain fried. haha!

Aren't we born D.O.A? We are spiritually dead at birth, are we not? So how could we spiritually die again? You mentioned that in one of the previous posts.

And yes, I realize that we have died to the Old Covenant... Just to clarify. But how can we spiritually die when we accept Christ as Savior since we are born spiritually dead?

Alyssa S
Aug 4th 2008, 10:51 PM
[quote=Brother Mark;1736417]

Severing and being cutoff are the same, as far as I can tell. That's what John 15 is about. It's about Israel being severed from God. They were cut off and no longer "in Him". That is a form of death. We call it spiritual death. Sense they had died, God was no free to marry another, namely the church. Jesus dying didn't free him from his marriage to Israel. It was Israel's death that freed Him to remarry. At least in my opinion. Jesus death was physical. Our marriage to God and Israel's marriage to God wasn't physical but rather spiritual. It would require a spiritual death to annul it not a physical one.




Brother Mark,

I sincerely want to say thank you for your humbleness and kindness in your posts. The way you handle these discussions is a great example for me...It is a good reminder of how to "debate" or discuss heated topics!

You could boast about what you believe, but instead, you have humbly and gently presented your belief in a way that shows integrity and character and I just wanted to say thanks!!... even if I don't agree with everything you say. :) I truly respect how you handle it.

Thank you much!! :)
Alyssa

BCF
Aug 5th 2008, 12:12 AM
I would say that is a twist on scripture. No where in scripture does God ever recognize two men or two women being married. He never calls them husband and husband or any such thing. So it's apples and oranges to compare the two. Clearly, homosexual "marriage" is a thing that does not exist in the eyes of God.

Yes, I agree with you completely. That is a total twist of scripture. Which is why we are in the problems that we face today. We are in these problems because people are teaching that God is in every Marriage. That just is not true. What I had said to you that we both agreed was twisting the scripture is no more twisting the scripture then folks saying that God put together two pagans either. I mean let's face facts here. If you are with God, you are spiritually saved or born again. If you are not with God you are considered among the unsaved. In the scripture that is considered a pagan. God would not put two unbelievers together. That would be going against himself and that God will not do.
For us to go around saying and teaching that God puts all Marriages together opens the door for what we have today. And nobody can prove to me that God put a man and a man together I don't care how much of a woman he thinks he is. And nobody can prove to me that God put a woman and a woman together either, and I don't care how much of a man she thinks she is either. But it is teachings that God puts all Marriages together which opens doors to such nonsense.


Not sure what you are getting at. Thing is, ignorance has never really been much of an excuse with God. Certainly not now because he has written his law into our hearts. Nowhere in scripture is it taught that one can marry and divorce for the reason "it wasn't put together by God". Marriage was designed and put forth by God and all who enter into that kind of relationship have been "joined by God".

What I was getting at is there are a lot of folks who believe that if you are married before you are saved and you get divorced after you have been saved, you are damed to hell. This is just not true. God is a very jealous God who wants you to follow him. God was not kidding when he kicked satan and his little side kicks out of heaven because of not wanting to listen to Him. God plays for keeps and it is about time people see it that way. If someone is Married to someone and they do not allow you to follow God the way God says you should, that person better pick God over their mate. God will not take a back seat to nobody, and that includes a spouse.


I don't want anyone to misunderstand. Divorce is certainly not okay in the eyes of God. And yes, all divorce is because of a hardened heart. My point here is that this betrothal stuff is really just not harmonious with the whole of Scripture. It's not harmonious with the law of Moses nor any other law. Does that mean that divorce is okay? Certainly not. It wasn't okay when Moses permitted it, and it isn't okay now.

However, I truly believe that when two pagans divorce they are truly divorced by the law they are under. That union is truly done and finished.

Here's the extreme folks go to. There have been witches who have gotten married and then gone on to divorce. Then they go and get remarried to another. Eventually, one gets saved and gives their life to the Lord Jesus. What some on this board would have us believe is that this newly born again Christian should ditch the spouse they are currently with and either go back to the witch they were married to first or live celibate.

I'm mean it's really just a bunch of silliness.

As for what VR said, I agree with everything that you say here. You know my position and I would think that you know that I am not one to promote divorce. I just simply believe that Marriage is a lot deeper then what folks think when it comes to Gods Plan For Marriage. Marriage is not for the Physically alive in God's eyes. It was made for the Spiritually Alive in the eyes of God and his Holy Word that we read.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 12:52 AM
[quote]


Hi. :)

I'm still reading the rest of your post, but wanted to say this before I forget since I am getting brain fried. haha!

Aren't we born D.O.A? We are spiritually dead at birth, are we not? So how could we spiritually die again? You mentioned that in one of the previous posts.

And yes, I realize that we have died to the Old Covenant... Just to clarify. But how can we spiritually die when we accept Christ as Savior since we are born spiritually dead?

I understand what you are saying. But Paul said we died to the Law in Romans 7. Not that we were dead to it, but we died to it when we came to Christ. All these spiritual analogies probably die at some point. But, IMO, that is how God chooses to teach us. He uses the physical to teach the spiritual. Sometimes it's difficult to make them all work out.

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 12:53 AM
[quote]


Brother Mark,

I sincerely want to say thank you for your humbleness and kindness in your posts. The way you handle these discussions is a great example for me...It is a good reminder of how to "debate" or discuss heated topics!

You could boast about what you believe, but instead, you have humbly and gently presented your belief in a way that shows integrity and character and I just wanted to say thanks!!... even if I don't agree with everything you say. :) I truly respect how you handle it.

Thank you much!! :)
Alyssa

I've enjoyed our chat too Alyssa! Thanks for the encouragement.

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 01:02 AM
Yes, I agree with you completely. That is a total twist of scripture. Which is why we are in the problems that we face today. We are in these problems because people are teaching that God is in every Marriage.

Well, I didn't say he was "in ever pagan marriage". What I said was that he did join them together though. He instituted the relationship of marriage. Anyone that enters into marriage, has entered into a union that God designed. That union is something God uses to join 2 people together. That's why God called Cain's wife, his wife. God recognized the relationship.


That just is not true. What I had said to you that we both agreed was twisting the scripture is no more twisting the scripture then folks saying that God put together two pagans either. I mean let's face facts here. If you are with God, you are spiritually saved or born again. If you are not with God you are considered among the unsaved. In the scripture that is considered a pagan. God would not put two unbelievers together. That would be going against himself and that God will not do.
For us to go around saying and teaching that God puts all Marriages together opens the door for what we have today. And nobody can prove to me that God put a man and a man together I don't care how much of a woman he thinks he is. And nobody can prove to me that God put a woman and a woman together either, and I don't care how much of a man she thinks she is either. But it is teachings that God puts all Marriages together which opens doors to such nonsense.

No it doesn't open the doors to that nonsense. God never once anywhere calls a man and a man relating a marriage. Not one time. But he did call Cain's relationship with his wife a marriage. He called many pagan marriages a marriage. If one enters into a marriage, they have entered into a covenant that God himself designed and established. That is why it says God joins them.


What I was getting at is there are a lot of folks who believe that if you are married before you are saved and you get divorced after you have been saved, you are damed to hell. This is just not true.

Yea. I agree, it's not true. But, as 1 Cor. 7 teaches, it's not OK for the believing spouse to leave the unbelieving spouse. I would think that for the most part, 1 Cor 7 is speaking of someone who was married while lost, then got saved. Else, they would have broken the unequally yoked command and I don't see that in 1 Cor. 7. So the command is for them to stay married unless the unbeliever leaves. Why? Because God sees them as married. They don't have an out for divorce because they got saved.


If someone is Married to someone and they do not allow you to follow God the way God says you should, that person better pick God over their mate. God will not take a back seat to nobody, and that includes a spouse.

Of course. One way we pick God in such a situation is to do what he says. What he said in 1 Cor. 7 was to allow them to stay with the believing spouse. Follow God but don't divorce. If you divorce because you are saved and your spouse is lost, you have disobeyed 1 cor 7. Now, if in the process of following God, which would mean loving your wife like Jesus loved the church, and she leaves, well then, you are no longer under bondage in such a situation.


As for what VR said, I agree with everything that you say here. You know my position and I would think that you know that I am not one to promote divorce. I just simply believe that Marriage is a lot deeper then what folks think when it comes to Gods Plan For Marriage. Marriage is not for the Physically alive in God's eyes. It was made for the Spiritually Alive in the eyes of God and his Holy Word that we read.

Except that he calls marriage between two dead folks marriage. He also called marriage between a believer and an unbeliever marriage. But, I recognize we probably won't agree.

Did you see Alyssa's follow up to the covenant thing? She pointed out how Saul broke the covenant that Joshua made with Pagans and God punished Israel for breaking that covenant. In the same way, when a believer enters into a marriage covenant with a pagan, God expects us to honor our vows.

And that's all I have to say about that.[/quote]

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 01:05 AM
I don't want anyone to misunderstand. Divorce is certainly not okay in the eyes of God. And yes, all divorce is because of a hardened heart. My point here is that this betrothal stuff is really just not harmonious with the whole of Scripture. It's not harmonious with the law of Moses nor any other law. Does that mean that divorce is okay? Certainly not. It wasn't okay when Moses permitted it, and it isn't okay now.

However, I truly believe that when two pagans divorce they are truly divorced by the law they are under. That union is truly done and finished.

Here's the extreme folks go to. There have been witches who have gotten married and then gone on to divorce. Then they go and get remarried to another. Eventually, one gets saved and gives their life to the Lord Jesus. What some on this board would have us believe is that this newly born again Christian should ditch the spouse they are currently with and either go back to the witch they were married to first or live celibate.

I'm mean it's really just a bunch of silliness.


I would agree with that. Also I would add that if one of them gets saved, then they have died and become new. They are no longer the same person. Might drive some folks crazy, but I think that is what scripture is getting at. No need to go back and re-institute that marriage and leave the current marriage. That's not scriptural, IMO.

VerticalReality
Aug 5th 2008, 02:10 AM
Cory... I am not sure what you believe because it seems you have changed your view so many times!! I can't keep track!

Is that right? Can you point out once where I have ever stated that marriages between pagans are not real marriages? If you cannot, why do you claim here that I've changed my opinion so many times. The only thing I've been investigating is the true meaning of porneia, and I've never declared that I was certain on the meaning prior to this thread. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would just leave these sort of unnecessary comments out of the discussion. I honestly believe you are just being slow to read and quick to type here. I don't think you have honestly read and pondered anything that's been said. It seems you are just really quick to hit the reply button before actually taking in and reading what I've actually said.


Look at the below comment that you claim I am lying about... I said... "KEEPING IN THEME WITH THE "IDEA" THAT GOD SUPPOSEDLY DOESN'T JOIN ALL MARRIAGES..." I am keeping in theme with YOUR theology!! HELLO!!

Why do you insist on comments like these? Are the "HELLO" comments really necessary? Would you appreciate such things directed toward you?


2.) a. Keeping in theme with the "idea" that God supposedly doesn't "join all marriages," what is your opinion of two unbelievers who get married? Do you think God joined this marriage? So then, if they are not "joined", they are not "married"... would this mean they are committing sexual immorality by living under the same roof as two lovers? Or does God not recognize that? If he doesn't... then why does he pay attention to it on the Last Day when they will be judged?

Who said they are not joined? Who said they are not married? I've never stated that they aren't joined or married.


b. What if one of them is saved? All of a sudden we got something "binding" going on because Apostle Paul makes it clear not to leave the unbeliever. So it is obvious that God recognizes SOMETHING here. So AT WHAT POINT exactly did these two people BECOME MARRIED IN THE EYES OF GOD, CORY? According to you, their vows didn't "take" (as in JOINED BY GOD). And of course.... sex doesn't "make a marriage." So when did they BECOME married in God's eyes?

Again, never said they weren't married in the sight of God, Alyssa. I said I'm not certain that God joined the marriage.



It would seem that we would need to have a whole new ceremony/vows in order for it to be legit... and yet, Paul (God actually) ALREADY recognizes it as legit...as evidenced by his command not to leave the "marriage" (1 Cor 7) that you say was "never joined by God."


Why does everything seem to be about law to you? Do you think the law is the reason why Paul gives this direction in 1 Corinthians 7? Paul gives his reason for why the believer should not leave in that passage. It has nothing to do with the law you are going by.

Why are you continuously changing the subject of this thread to be about this rather than what happened in Ezra 9-10? Why can you not address the topic of this thread?

Fact: The Israelites broke the law and married pagans

Fact: The Israelites, in order to repent of their sin, chose to divorce these pagan wives

Fact: When they did divorce these pagan wives it was according to the law

Fact: None of the circumstances for these divorces were because they were only betrothed and not fully married yet

The Scriptures hold true that this betrothal view is not harmonious with the Word of God.

Alyssa S
Aug 5th 2008, 03:21 AM
quote=VerticalReality;1736655]

Why do you insist on comments like these? Are the "HELLO" comments really necessary? Would you appreciate such things directed toward you?

I apologize Cory.

I guess you don't know my sense of humor by now. Should've used the smiley guy! :spin:




God bless,
Alyssa

Alaska
Aug 5th 2008, 03:37 AM
I apologize Cory.

I guess you don't know my sense of humor by now. Should've used the smiley guy! :spin:


God bless,
Alyssa

Excellent, mature, a good example, Amen.

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 03:45 AM
Alright folks. Let's not get personal. If we go bringing up things from the past, not too much good will come of that. Glad to see apologies and making up though.

VerticalReality
Aug 5th 2008, 03:52 AM
Alright folks. Let's not get personal. If we go bringing up things from the past, not too much good will come of that. Glad to see apologies and making up though.

No problem with that from me.

VerticalReality
Aug 5th 2008, 04:27 AM
So, let's get this topic back on track . . .

What is it that we can conclude thus far from this?

Some things that seem certain to me are:

1) It was against the law for the Israelites to mix the holy seed
2) It was in accordance with the law that the Israelites divorced those pagan wives
3) Under the law of Christ it is not according to God's will to divorce an unbelieving spouse. However, it appears that under the old law it was permitted
4) The believer is not in bondage to the unbeliever if the unbeliever departs, and I would say this is most definitely not just talking about them not being in bondage to live with one another

As for the betrothal teaching, I believe the passages of Ezra 9-10 prove to us one of two things.

Either the betrothal view is completely false based upon the allowance of divorce by the law in Ezra 9-10 . . .

or . . .

The betrothal view only applies to two Jews that are both under the law of Moses.

I tend to lean more towards the betrothal view being incorrect, and it seems like the entire and complete definition of the term porneia agrees that Matthew 19:9 probably shouldn't just read "sexual immorality" or something along those lines. I think the term is much deeper in meaning than that.

Any other thoughts we can add to this?

VerticalReality
Aug 5th 2008, 04:41 AM
One other point about the passage proclaiming that the believer is not in bondage to the unbeliever if they choose to depart.

I looked at other passages of Scripture that use the same Greek term for bondage that is used in this passage, and some of those verses speak of being in bondage to sin. So, it could be saying that the believer is not the one committing the sin of divorce here because it is the unbeliever departing. Therefore, they are not in bondage to sin because of this.

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 04:41 AM
So, let's get this topic back on track . . .

What is it that we can conclude thus far from this?

Some things that seem certain to me are:

1) It was against the law for the Israelites to mix the holy seed

Agreed.


2) It was in accordance with the law that the Israelites divorced those pagan wives
3) Under the law of Christ it is not according to God's will to divorce an unbelieving spouse. However, it appears that under the old law it was permittedI am not sure on these two points. When Jesus expounded on this in the NT, he went back to the beginning. He said "From the beginning it was not so". And "Moses allowed it because of the hardness of your heart". So just because it was in the Law of Moses and permitted, does not mean that God approved of it or that it was permissible under the Law of God in the OT. It just meant it was practical and part of the Law of Moses but not what God intended. At least that's my take.


4) The believer is not in bondage to the unbeliever if the unbeliever departs, and I would say this is most definitely not just talking about them not being in bondage to live with one anotherAgreed. It seems to me the only thing the believer is bound by, if the unbelieving spouse has already left, is the marriage covenant. What else would be binding them?


As for the betrothal teaching, I believe the passages of Ezra 9-10 prove to us one of two things.

Either the betrothal view is completely false based upon the allowance of divorce by the law in Ezra 9-10 . . .

or . . .

The betrothal view only applies to two Jews that are both under the law of Moses.What is the betrothal view?



I tend to lean more towards the betrothal view being incorrect, and it seems like the entire and complete definition of the term porneia agrees that Matthew 19:9 probably shouldn't just read "sexual immorality" or something along those lines. I think the term is much deeper in meaning than that.

I agree with your point here.

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 04:44 AM
One other point about the passage proclaiming that the believer is not in bondage to the unbeliever if they choose to depart.

I looked at other passages of Scripture that use the same Greek term for bondage that is used in this passage, and some of those verses speak of being in bondage to sin. So, it could be saying that the believer is not the one committing the sin of divorce here because it is the unbeliever departing. Therefore, they are not in bondage to sin because of this.

It also is used to be a slave to righteousness. The word, as Alyssa pointed out earlier, has to do with slavery. Where the word Paul used in the same chapter for marriage is more to bind or be bound. I am not sure Paul would need to say they weren't in bondage to sin in that passage as it doesn't seem to fit to me. It's possible, but in context, it sure seems like he means in bondage or slavery to that marriage. And, IMO, that's what it would be. If an unbelieving spouse left, it would be slavery to stay bound to that marriage. Especially when we consider what Paul said about it being better to marry than to burn and when we consider the words of God about how it is not good for man to be alone.

VerticalReality
Aug 5th 2008, 04:46 AM
I am not sure on these two points. When Jesus expounded on this in the NT, he went back to the beginning. He said "From the beginning it was not so". And "Moses allowed it because of the hardness of your heart". So just because it was in the Law of Moses and permitted, does not mean that God approved of it or that it was permissible under the Law of God in the OT. It just meant it was practical and part of the Law of Moses but not what God intended. At least that's my take.

When Ezra 9-10 speaks of the divorces being done according to the law it is talking about the law of Moses. That's the law I'm addressing.


What is the betrothal view?

The betrothal view is held by those who state that the only lawful grounds for divorce was if one of the people to be wed was found to be committing some sort of sexual immorality before the actual consummation of the marriage took place. They claim that anything after the consummation of the marriage takes places is not grounds for divorce, and in fact, there is no divorce allowed according to the law beyond that point. If a person was to divorce and remarry they would be guilty of adultery and would have to divorce their second spouse and return to the first. There are more little tid bits here and there, but that is the main gist of it.

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 04:51 AM
The betrothal view is held by those who state that the only lawful grounds for divorce was if one of the people to be wed was found to be committing some sort of sexual immorality before the actual consummation of the marriage took place. They claim that anything after the consummation of the marriage takes places is not grounds for divorce, and in fact, there is no divorce allowed according to the law beyond that point. If a person was to divorce and remarry they would be guilty of adultery and would have to divorce their second spouse and return to the first. There are more little tid bits here and there, but that is the main gist of it.

OK. Thanks for the explanation. I don't agree with that either. Have you ever studied adultery closely? Like, was David and Solomon guilty of adultery when they had concubines? This thread has made me want to look into that some. Not sure I ever will, but it would be interesting to see what the OT and the NT has to say together about it all.

VerticalReality
Aug 5th 2008, 12:17 PM
OK. Thanks for the explanation. I don't agree with that either. Have you ever studied adultery closely? Like, was David and Solomon guilty of adultery when they had concubines? This thread has made me want to look into that some. Not sure I ever will, but it would be interesting to see what the OT and the NT has to say together about it all.

No, but I think I need to. The whole concubine and multiple wives issue is sort of baffling to me. Nowhere is the practice condemned, which one would think it would be given what we believe today. I think it obvious that such a thing isn't God's perfect will. However, it's never condemned, which is interesting to say the least.

valleybldr
Aug 5th 2008, 01:18 PM
No, but I think I need to. The whole concubine and multiple wives issue is sort of baffling to me. Nowhere is the practice condemned, which one would think it would be given what we believe today. I think it obvious that such a thing isn't God's perfect will. However, it's never condemned, which is interesting to say the least. Not to say it might have a bearing on some of the D&R cases i.e. "multiple wives" vs. what some want to call adultery. todd

Brother Mark
Aug 5th 2008, 01:30 PM
No, but I think I need to. The whole concubine and multiple wives issue is sort of baffling to me. Nowhere is the practice condemned, which one would think it would be given what we believe today. I think it obvious that such a thing isn't God's perfect will. However, it's never condemned, which is interesting to say the least.

Correct. That's sort of how I view those divorces in Ezra 9-10. What's interesting to me about the whole marriage thing is it seems almost all of scripture can have something to say about it.

We can study immorality, death, adultery, covenant, faithfulness, mercy, judgment, kindness, patience, love, joy, peace, gifts, etc. It doesn't really matter what we study, it relates back to marriage in some way.

I am convinced that God created marriage so we can better understand our relationship with Him. If that's the case, then even salvation and our relationship with Jesus can teach us about marriage. Personally, I think it's a topic that we can't really exhaust.

9Marksfan
Aug 16th 2008, 12:32 AM
The betrothal view is held by those who state that the only lawful grounds for divorce was if one of the people to be wed was found to be committing some sort of sexual immorality before the actual consummation of the marriage took place. They claim that anything after the consummation of the marriage takes places is not grounds for divorce, and in fact, there is no divorce allowed according to the law beyond that point.

OK so far....


If a person was to divorce and remarry they would be guilty of adultery

Correct.


and would have to divorce their second spouse and return to the first.

I know that's Alaska'a posiiton, but it isn't mine. However, Ezra 9-10 would seem to suggest that this might in fact be permissible if the new spouse was an unbeliever. I haven't read through all the thread yet, but did you get back to me on whether the tense of "Do not be unequally yoked" in 2 Cor 6:14 was a straight imperative or a continuous imperative? Become or remain?


There are more little tid bits here and there, but that is the main gist of it.

This thread raises a lot of important issues - hopefully this post will get it back on track!

9Marksfan
Aug 16th 2008, 12:36 AM
So, let's get this topic back on track . . .

What is it that we can conclude thus far from this?

Some things that seem certain to me are:

1) It was against the law for the Israelites to mix the holy seed
2) It was in accordance with the law that the Israelites divorced those pagan wives
3) Under the law of Christ it is not according to God's will to divorce an unbelieving spouse. However, it appears that under the old law it was permitted
4) The believer is not in bondage to the unbeliever if the unbeliever departs, and I would say this is most definitely not just talking about them not being in bondage to live with one another

As for the betrothal teaching, I believe the passages of Ezra 9-10 prove to us one of two things.

Either the betrothal view is completely false based upon the allowance of divorce by the law in Ezra 9-10 . . .

or . . .

The betrothal view only applies to two Jews that are both under the law of Moses.

I tend to lean more towards the betrothal view being incorrect, and it seems like the entire and complete definition of the term porneia agrees that Matthew 19:9 probably shouldn't just read "sexual immorality" or something along those lines. I think the term is much deeper in meaning than that.

Any other thoughts we can add to this?

I think that because the law regarding betrothal was peculiarly Jewish that the second of your options is the correct one. But I have a greater problem with your overall theology on the place of the Gentile and the law. If you are saying that the law was never "given" to the Gentiles in ANY way, are you saying that Scripture really has very little to say to Gentiles on marriage? And that the OT law has nothing to say to believers about it because they are dead to it?!? Is that your position?

VerticalReality
Aug 16th 2008, 01:58 AM
If you are saying that the law was never "given" to the Gentiles in ANY way, are you saying that Scripture really has very little to say to Gentiles on marriage?

You are correct. I'm saying that the law was never given to the Gentiles in any way.

9Marksfan
Aug 16th 2008, 06:11 PM
You are correct. I'm saying that the law was never given to the Gentiles in any way.

Was King Herod a Jew? The one who ordered John the Baptist's execution.

Alaska
Aug 16th 2008, 07:09 PM
I think that because the law regarding betrothal was peculiarly Jewish that the second of your options is the correct one.

The betrothal explanation allows the plain straightforward reading of Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor. 7:39 to mean exactly as they are worded without any need of adding anything between the lines.
To allow any post marital divorce for anything imaginable, even if gone to the extreme of assuming that Jesus allows divorce for the wife's idolatry ('spiritual' fornication) necessitates insertion of words between the lines of those verses.

Since the betrothal explanation is being made reference to as though you are understanding how someone might accept that explanation, should I understand that you have come to the understanding that an exception clause can indeed be a side reference, that whether present or absent, does not change the meaning of the entire sentence?

In other words, do you accept that certain exception clauses do not alter the overall meaning of a sentence by being inserted, so that the main meaning of the sentence without the exception clause is the same with the exception clause?

Let's look at the verses in Matthew without the exception clause:

5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, ... causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, ... and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Is it possible that the exception clause does not alter the above straightforward reading? Notice how similar Matt.19:9, above, is to the following:

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

If it can be shown that the exception clauses in Matthew are the kind that when inserted, do not alter the overall meaning of a statement without that exception, then 19:9 and 16:18 above can be agreed to mean exactly the same thing with no need to add anything between the lines.

When an exception clause is an unexpected reference to a side point not directly related to the main point under discussion, then that kind of exception clause does not change the meaning of the sentence when compared to the same sentence when the exception clause is not present.

Now read the verses as they are written in the scriptures, and allow that the exception clauses are interjected, referring to that kind of divorce, the premarital divorce for fornication, (not adultery) as a side point that does not alter the meaning of the verses if that side reference were omitted:

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.

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

Reading it in this manner allows the questions asked in the challenge presented in the Appologetics section to be easily answered. These verses in Matthew, the cause for uncertainty, contain within themselves the evidence that the exception clause cannot pertain to the post marital divorce for adultery. That is by reason of the fact that the grammar cannot make sense unless the stated exception were a reference to something unexpected and not directly related to the toipic at hand. And as has been demonstrated, that is in fact what exception clauses are capable of doing.
Hence, 5:32 would mean any man divorcing his married wife causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a wife divorced from her married husband commits adultery. The exception clause would not alter that meaning, and that meaning is consistent with all the other main statements made by Jesus without needing to add anything to those statements.

Give it a try, go to the thread in Appologetics and see how the questions in post #19 can be answered when understanding the exception to pertain to the betrothal divorce for fornication. See how those questions cannot be answered when understanding the exception clause to pertain to the post marital divorce for adultery.

VerticalReality
Aug 16th 2008, 10:43 PM
Was King Herod a Jew? The one who ordered John the Baptist's execution.

Depends on who you ask. He was a king of the Jews living under Jewish law. Even if he wasn't Jewish a gentile could live under Jewish law. However, that does not mean that it was given to him. In the Old Testament there was direction given for gentiles that came to live under the Jewish law. However, the law was not given to the gentile. I've already given clear Scripture from the apostle Paul that declares that the gentiles were not given the law. This is not just my opinion. It is very clear and irrefutable Scripture.

VerticalReality
Aug 16th 2008, 10:46 PM
The betrothal explanation allows the plain straightforward reading of Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor. 7:39 to mean exactly as they are worded without any need of adding anything between the lines.
To allow any post marital divorce for anything imaginable, even if gone to the extreme of assuming that Jesus allows divorce for the wife's idolatry ('spiritual' fornication) necessitates insertion of words between the lines of those verses.

Actually, no it doesn't. When taking in the whole of God's Word it's clear that the pagan wives in Ezra 9-10 were put away according to the law. Even the very law that you claim does not allow it. The only way the betrothal view harmonizes with the entirety of God's Word is if it is just between two Jews.

9Marksfan
Aug 16th 2008, 10:53 PM
Depends on who you ask. He was a king of the Jews living under Jewish law. Even if he wasn't Jewish a gentile could live under Jewish law. However, that does not mean that it was given to him. In the Old Testament there was direction given for gentiles that came to live under the Jewish law. However, the law was not given to the gentile. I've already given clear Scripture from the apostle Paul that declares that the gentiles were not given the law. This is not just my opinion. It is very clear and irrefutable Scripture.

So if the law was not given to him - a Gentile - why does John the Baptist rebuke him for breaking God's law of marriage?

VerticalReality
Aug 16th 2008, 11:01 PM
So if the law was not given to him - a Gentile - why does John the Baptist rebuke him for breaking God's law of marriage?

For the same reason that if I go to Mexico and break their law then I will receive some sort of rebuke also . . .

Alyssa S
Aug 17th 2008, 12:12 AM
So if the law was not given to him - a Gentile - why does John the Baptist rebuke him for breaking God's law of marriage?

Hi 9Marksfan :)

Because marriage is universal and it applies to all, in my opinion.

I could take the same (concept) of Herod, who was a Gentile, living "under Jewish law" as was mentioned on here...and apply it to myself.

When I married as a Gentile and Non Believer, I walked into God's church, with Godly music, and made vows who were witnessed by one of God's ordained leaders (a pastor) amongst many others and I became married. I even used God's name in my vows...even though I was not a Christian! I was still married in God's eyes.

Herod was a Gentile... so was I.
Herod made commitments under God's law... so did I. (Marriage is very much a part of God's law).

Even though we were non believers/Gentiles... we were held accountable for the words we said and commitments we made.

God bless!
Alyssa

9Marksfan
Aug 17th 2008, 12:21 AM
For the same reason that if I go to Mexico and break their law then I will receive some sort of rebuke also . . .

Here's what we're told:-

Because John had said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." Lk 6:18 NKJV

The thing is - John the Baptist was not a judge in the land, so in normal circumstances he would have been a bit of a "do-gooder" to have highlighted this matter, if that's all it was - but he was a preacher of righteousness and he exposed and rebuked SIN - what Herod had done was contrary to the law of God to which he (and all of us as human beings) are subject. Granted, it was given to the Jews in a full and special way - but the fact that we are ALL subject to it is made very clear in Rom 2 - otherwise, why would we try to keep what we instinctively know of it in our hearts - and why are we ALL convicted of sin when we ARE "given" it (ie it is preached to us)? If it was never given to us and it has no bearing on us, why do we feel convicted when we become aware of it?

VerticalReality
Aug 17th 2008, 12:22 AM
Hi 9Marksfan :)

Because marriage is universal and it applies to all, in my opinion.

I could take the same (concept) of Herod, who was a Gentile, living "under Jewish law" as was mentioned on here...and apply it to myself.

When I married as a Gentile and Non Believer, I walked into God's church, with Godly music, and made vows who were witnessed by one of God's ordained leaders (a pastor) amongst many others and I became married. I even used God's name in my vows...even though I was not a Christian! I was still married in God's eyes.

Herod was a Gentile... so was I.
Herod made commitments under God's law... so did I. (Marriage is very much a part of God's law).

Even though we were non believers/Gentiles... we were held accountable for the words we said and commitments we made.

God bless!
Alyssa

Were the Jews and the pagans in Ezra 9-10 married in some different fashion than what you described above?

Additionally, God's church is not a building. His church is His children, and they are His temple. Even gay people are getting married in buildings that are self-proclaimed churches nowadays, and they all have witnesses in them. I'm sure those Jews and pagans in Ezra 9-10 had witnesses also.

9Marksfan
Aug 17th 2008, 12:26 AM
Were the Jews and the pagans in Ezra 9-10 married in some different fashion than what you described above?

Additionally, God's church is not a building. His church is His children, and they are His temple. Even gay people are getting married in buildings that are self-proclaimed churches nowadays, and they all have witnesses in them. I'm sure those Jews and pagans in Ezra 9-10 had witnesses also.

You've still not answered my query about 2 Cor 6:14 - if it is teaching the same as what happened in Ezra 9-10, then the tense MUST be continuous imperative - is it?

9Marksfan
Aug 17th 2008, 12:30 AM
Were the Jews and the pagans in Ezra 9-10 married in some different fashion than what you described above?

Additionally, God's church is not a building. His church is His children, and they are His temple. Even gay people are getting married in buildings that are self-proclaimed churches nowadays, and they all have witnesses in them. I'm sure those Jews and pagans in Ezra 9-10 had witnesses also.

But didn't Alyssa's marriage come within the covenant promises and obligations of Christian marriage as a result of this verse?

"...and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband..." 1 Cor 7:14 NKJV

VerticalReality
Aug 17th 2008, 12:36 AM
Here's what we're told:-

Because John had said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." Lk 6:18 NKJV

but he was a preacher of righteousness and he exposed and rebuked SIN

Sin is a transgression of the law they were under.


- what Herod had done was contrary to the law of God to which he (and all of us as human beings) are subject.

I disagree. I believe Herod had done contrary to the law of Moses.

Leviticus 20:21


Granted, it was given to the Jews in a full and special way - but the fact that we are ALL subject to it is made very clear in Rom 2 -

Actually, Romans 2 declares that the Gentiles do not have the law you are talking about here. It declares that the Gentiles become a law to themselves when they do the things of the law their conscience giving witness. However, the passage clearly says they do not have the law, and Paul also in Romans 7 states that he is speaking to those who know the law.


otherwise, why would we try to keep what we instinctively know of it in our hearts - and why are we ALL convicted of sin when we ARE "given" it (ie it is preached to us)?

The law did not convict me. The Holy Spirit convicted me through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

John 16:8-11
And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

The speed limit law never did make me feel convicted for speeding. However, God's Spirit will bring conviction over doing things we shouldn't do when we realize that it is because of our own wickedness that Jesus Christ was nailed to that tree and suffered a horrible death because of us. Additionally, it will make us rejoice when we realize that through His death and resurrection we now have the same opportunity at eternal life as well.


If it was never given to us and it has no bearing on us, why do we feel convicted when we become aware of it?

See above.

VerticalReality
Aug 17th 2008, 12:37 AM
You've still not answered my query about 2 Cor 6:14 - if it is teaching the same as what happened in Ezra 9-10, then the tense MUST be continuous imperative - is it?

You're right. I haven't. I don't have time right now. I have things I'm preparing for service tomorrow.

VerticalReality
Aug 17th 2008, 12:39 AM
But didn't Alyssa's marriage come within the covenant promises and obligations of Christian marriage as a result of this verse?

"...and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband..." 1 Cor 7:14 NKJV

That verse doesn't speak of covenant obligations for an unbeliever.

9Marksfan
Aug 17th 2008, 12:43 AM
Sin is a transgression of the law they were under.



I disagree. I believe Herod had done contrary to the law of Moses.

Leviticus 20:21

And how is that NOT the Law of God?


Actually, Romans 2 declares that the Gentiles do not have the law you are talking about here. It declares that the Gentiles become a law to themselves when they do the things of the law their conscience giving witness. However, the passage clearly says they do not have the law, and Paul also in Romans 7 states that he is speaking to those who know the law.

Granted, they do not "have" the law in the fully revealed way the Jews do - but it clealry DOES have abearing on them, because it's written on their hearts and they (always imperfectly) try to obey it! Why would they want to do that if it was never given to them and had no bearing on them?


The law did not convict me. The Holy Spirit convicted me through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ - were you not convicted of your sin?


John 16:8-11
And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

The speed limit law never did make me feel convicted for speeding. However, God's Spirit will bring conviction over doing things we shouldn't do when we realize that it is because of our own wickedness that Jesus Christ was nailed to that tree and suffered a horrible death because of us. Additionally, it will make us rejoice when we realize that through His death and resurrection we now have the same opportunity at eternal life as well.

What does the NT define sin as being again?

Btw - it's 01.43 in the UK just now, so I'm off to bed - probbaly won't be on for another 20 hours or so, in case you think I'm ignoring you! Good night!

Alaska
Aug 17th 2008, 12:47 AM
Hi 9Marksfan :)

Because marriage is universal and it applies to all, in my opinion.

I could take the same (concept) of Herod, who was a Gentile, living "under Jewish law" as was mentioned on here...and apply it to myself.

When I married as a Gentile and Non Believer, I walked into God's church, with Godly music, and made vows who were witnessed by one of God's ordained leaders (a pastor) amongst many others and I became married. I even used God's name in my vows...even though I was not a Christian! I was still married in God's eyes.

Herod was a Gentile... so was I.
Herod made commitments under God's law... so did I. (Marriage is very much a part of God's law).

Even though we were non believers/Gentiles... we were held accountable for the words we said and commitments we made.

God bless!
Alyssa


Hi Alyssa, I agree

Truth applies to all of mankind, it always has.
When God made male and female, he used A&E's union in marriage as an example of what the truth is.
Because he made them male and female, and since mankind has an inherited conscience from Adam and Eve with regard to a sense of right and wrong, it is no wonder that many cultures have arisen where they recognise the one man one woman union of marriage.
Whosoever has entered into that has entered into that which God has ordained even if they are not aware of that. That is the nature of absolute truth.

Is not the Gentile also born into the world with a conscience of right and wrong inherited from Adam? Is he not also a son of Adam over which it was said they shall cleave and be one flesh?

Whosoever enters into marriage enters into God's realm of what he has ordained and over which he rules and will judge, even if those involved in His institution of marriage are not aware of it.

That is how he could say "whosoever" divorces and remarries commits adultery. He is boldly declaring the truth to apply to everyone, whether Jew or Gentile.

The law, whether Mosaic, civil or otherwise does not dictate truth. He who is truth dictates truth.
The times wherein God passed over ignorance are past. Darkness existed over the Jews also as per the prophesy of Jesus bringing light to both Jew and Gentile.
The true light concerning the sanctity of marriage has been manifested by Jesus who presented the clear and true meaning of Gen. 2 showing Deut. 24 to have been written, not because it was the truth but rather for the hardness of their hearts. It was in direct contradiction of the truth, suffered by Moses until the times of ignorance were to be terminated by the Reformer, even Jesus.

Whether it be using the OT to justify polygamy or slavery or divorce, those lacking understanding who fail of grace in those areas of their understanding are fulfilling the prophesy Peter referred to:
Jesus the stumblingstone is being stumbled upon by them.

VerticalReality
Aug 17th 2008, 01:10 AM
And how is that NOT the Law of God?

Is the allowance for divorce the law of God or the law of Moses? Why does Jesus make certain to clarify to the Pharisees that it was Moses who permitted divorce because of a hardness of their heart? Why do you think He stated this as if it wasn't of God? Jesus makes it clear that this is the law that Moses permitted drawing a destinction that this is not something that God permitted. Let us not pick and choose here. If it was all permitted by God and it was His eternal law then there would be no reason to make the clarification.


Granted, they do not "have" the law in the fully revealed way the Jews do - but it clealry DOES have abearing on them, because it's written on their hearts and they (always imperfectly) try to obey it! Why would they want to do that if it was never given to them and had no bearing on them?

Where does it say it has a bearing on them? It clearly says they do not have it. Just because they become a law to themselves doesn't mean they are now under the law of Moses.




But the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ - were you not convicted of your sin?


I know of no Scripture that states that the law of Moses was the Gentiles schoolmaster. Additionally, I have pointed out that it is the Holy Spirit that brings conviction (John 16:8-11). The law did not bring conviction.

VerticalReality
Aug 17th 2008, 01:14 AM
Hi Alyssa, I agree

Truth applies to all of mankind, it always has.
When God made male and female, he used A&E's union in marriage as an example of what the truth is.
Because he made them male and female, and since mankind has an inherited conscience from Adam and Eve with regard to a sense of right and wrong, it is no wonder that many cultures have arisen where they recognise the one man one woman union of marriage.
Whosoever has entered into that has entered into that which God has ordained even if they are not aware of that. That is the nature of absolute truth.

Is not the Gentile also born into the world with a conscience of right and wrong inherited from Adam? Is he not also a son of Adam over which it was said they shall cleave and be one flesh?

Whosoever enters into marriage enters into God's realm of what he has ordained and over which he rules and will judge, even if those involved in His institution of marriage are not aware of it.

That is how he could say "whosoever" divorces and remarries commits adultery. He is boldly declaring the truth to apply to everyone, whether Jew or Gentile.

The law, whether Mosaic, civil or otherwise does not dictate truth. He who is truth dictates truth.
The times wherein God passed over ignorance are past. Darkness existed over the Jews also as per the prophesy of Jesus bringing light to both Jew and Gentile.
The true light concerning the sanctity of marriage has been manifested by Jesus who presented the clear and true meaning of Gen. 2 showing Deut. 24 to have been written, not because it was the truth but rather for the hardness of their hearts. It was in direct contradiction of the truth, suffered by Moses until the times of ignorance were to be terminated by the Reformer, even Jesus.

Whether it be using the OT to justify polygamy or slavery or divorce, those lacking understanding who fail of grace in those areas of their understanding are fulfilling the prophesy Peter referred to:
Jesus the stumblingstone is being stumbled upon by them.

It's going to be quite difficult for you to find Scriptures declaring those who do not believe as being enlightened to truth and not ignorant. Could you point those Scriptures out?

Alyssa S
Aug 17th 2008, 05:16 AM
Originally Posted by VerticalReality http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1752468#post1752468)
Additionally, God's church is not a building. His church is His children, and they are His temple.



I never said God's church was a building. ;)

When I said that I walked into God's church, with God's ordained minister presiding, amongst witnesses... you assumed that I was speaking of "a church" as in what we think of as pews and a steeple. That is not what I meant... because I got married in the Hall of State at Fair Park... not a "church." The "church" that I walked into was a building surrounded by many believers who were witnesses to the vows/promises made.


Even gay people are getting married in buildings that are self-proclaimed churches nowadays, and they all have witnesses in them.

Well, I'm sure that you will agree that God never joined any "Adam and Steve," but instead, "Adam and Eve." A so-called "marriage" between two gays is NOT a marriage that God joined together, joins together, or ever will join together. So that shouldn't even be mentioned.

The point is Cory, that marriage was created for a man and a woman. It is part of God's law, regardless of whether we are dead to the ceremonial law or not, whether we want to admit it or not. That's just bible. And it's been that way for every single person who has ever lawfully made a vow...(meaning someone who is not already married, divorced or gay).

Your point about Herod was to prove even though he was a GENTILE, he was still subject to the law of the "land" that he ruled over....even though HE WAS NEVER GIVEN THE LAW.

My point is.... The "land" that I entered into when I decided to marry was the "'land' of God's law of marriage." Even though I was a Gentile... I was STILL subject to the Law of Marriage that belonged/belongs to God because I was entering into something that HE created.

I will post Ezra Comments on the following page.

God bless,
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 17th 2008, 05:45 AM
I never said God's church was a building. ;)

When I said that I walked into God's church, with God's ordained minister presiding, amongst witnesses... you assumed that I was speaking of "a church" as in what we think of as pews and a steeple. That is not what I meant... because I got married in the Hall of State at Fair Park... not a "church." The "church" that I walked into was a building surrounded by many believers who were witnesses to the vows/promises made.



Well, I'm sure that you will agree that God never joined any "Adam and Steve," but instead, "Adam and Eve." A so-called "marriage" between two gays is NOT a marriage that God joined together, joins together, or ever will join together. So that shouldn't even be mentioned.

The point is Cory, that marriage was created for a man and a woman. It is part of God's law, regardless of whether we are dead to the ceremonial law or not, whether we want to admit it or not. That's just bible. And it's been that way for every single person who has ever lawfully made a vow...(meaning someone who is not already married, divorced or gay).

Your point about Herod was to prove even though he was a GENTILE, he was still subject to the law of the "land" that he ruled over....even though HE WAS NEVER GIVEN THE LAW.

My point is.... The "land" that I entered into when I decided to marry was the "'land' of God's law of marriage." Even though I was a Gentile... I was STILL subject to the Law of Marriage that belonged/belongs to God because I was entering into something that HE created.

I will post Ezra Comments on the following page.

God bless,
Alyssa

Okay . . .

All of what you stated above can be applied to the pagan wives in Ezra 9-10.

It's interesting that you say that it is the same for everyone who has "lawfully" made a vow. Again . . . Ezra 9:10.

Alyssa S
Aug 17th 2008, 07:00 AM
Were the Jews and the pagans in Ezra 9-10 married in some different fashion than what you described above?
I'm sure those Jews and pagans in Ezra 9-10 had witnesses also.

Cory,

Let me again say that (most) everything that you are presenting is how I once believed when I first started studying this divorce/remarriage topic. So I don't think that your arguments are in "left field." I think you have some good points. But I still don't feel that it harmonizes.

Regarding Ezra and their Intermarriage...

First of all, God clearly told them NOT to marry these women. He gave a clear command NOT to do something, and Israel DISOBEYED.

(Ezra's prayer)
Ezra 9:10 "But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have DISREGARDED the COMMANDS you gave through your servants when you said "The land you are entering to possess is a land POLLUTED by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. Therefore, DO NOT give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters to your sons. Do NOT seek a TREATY of friendship with them AT ANY TIME."

Does that sound familiar??
Sounds like the treaty/covenant that Joshua made with the Gibeonites that God said NOT TO MAKE. Were they bound to it?? You bet!! Israel clearly disobeyed God and married women He told them not to. Does this mean that he didn't join that marriage? I think He did!

There are a couple of points I would like to address.

First... A careful reading of the passage in Ezra 9-10 will reveal the following facts. According to the account given, the people did NOT consult God about the decision to separate "divorce", but acted out of fear. There is no indication of a prophecy or pronouncement stating a need to separate themselves in such a manner. Likewise, there is nothing in Moses' Law requiring such a decree. The Law states they should never have formed such unions in the first place. The "separation" the Law requires is separation before a union takes place!

I just noticed the point 9Marksfan made regarding 1Cor 6:14 "Do not become yoked together with unbelievers..."

CAN the believer and unbeliever be yoked? Of course! Paul also speaks of it in 1 Cor 7. DID the Israelites BECOME YOKED to non-Israelite women? I believe that they did. God makes it clear that it is possible to be yoked to pagans, unbelievers, non-Israelites and unbelievers to unbelievers as evidenced through the Gibeonite Story, the Ezra story, the Hosea and Gomer story, the Herod and Herodias story, and the teachings of Paul that say NOT to leave the unbeliever.

Second point about Ezra....
The word that we believe to mean "divorce" is not the Hebrew word used for divorce. I have not studied this in detail... but the Israelites "sent away" and "separated" from the women. The Hebrew word does not denote "Divorce," but merely a separation as far as I can tell at this point.

Ezra 10:3 "Now let us make a covenant before our God and SEND AWAY all these women and their children...."
"Yatsa" Hebrew - to depart, put away, to get away....

Ezra 10:11.. "Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives."
"Badal" Hebrew - separate, distinguish...

Regardless of whether it was a divorce or not, I still believe that the evidence and other Scriptural support reveals that the Isralites were in fear of what they had done by being disobedient, and without seeking God on the matter, they made their own decision to depart/separate/divorce from these women.

God did NOT tell them to divorce them, according to Scripture!
He clearly told them not to be YOKED with them.... just as we are told in 2 Cor 6:14. But the yoking together still takes place.

The men of Ezra married the women out of disobedience, but before God, they still swore oaths of faithfulness and promises (as did Joshua with the Gibeonites). Divorcing these women would mean breaking one major command to keep another. And separating from them says nothing about the injustice of leaving the women and children to provide for themselves afterward--if that indeed is what happened.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence that oaths and promises are taken extremely serious by God whether one is a believer or not. I don't think the Ezra argument holds much water. Just my opinion.

God bless,
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 17th 2008, 12:44 PM
Cory,

Let me again say that (most) everything that you are presenting is how I once believed when I first started studying this divorce/remarriage topic. So I don't think that your arguments are in "left field." I think you have some good points. But I still don't feel that it harmonizes.

Regarding Ezra and their Intermarriage...

First of all, God clearly told them NOT to marry these women. He gave a clear command NOT to do something, and Israel DISOBEYED.

(Ezra's prayer)
Ezra 9:10 "But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have DISREGARDED the COMMANDS you gave through your servants when you said "The land you are entering to possess is a land POLLUTED by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. Therefore, DO NOT give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters to your sons. Do NOT seek a TREATY of friendship with them AT ANY TIME."

Does that sound familiar??
Sounds like the treaty/covenant that Joshua made with the Gibeonites that God said NOT TO MAKE. Were they bound to it?? You bet!! Israel clearly disobeyed God and married women He told them not to. Does this mean that he didn't join that marriage? I think He did!

There are a couple of points I would like to address.

First... A careful reading of the passage in Ezra 9-10 will reveal the following facts. According to the account given, the people did NOT consult God about the decision to separate "divorce", but acted out of fear. There is no indication of a prophecy or pronouncement stating a need to separate themselves in such a manner. Likewise, there is nothing in Moses' Law requiring such a decree. The Law states they should never have formed such unions in the first place. The "separation" the Law requires is separation before a union takes place!

I just noticed the point 9Marksfan made regarding 1Cor 6:14 "Do not become yoked together with unbelievers..."

CAN the believer and unbeliever be yoked? Of course! Paul also speaks of it in 1 Cor 7. DID the Israelites BECOME YOKED to non-Israelite women? I believe that they did. God makes it clear that it is possible to be yoked to pagans, unbelievers, non-Israelites and unbelievers to unbelievers as evidenced through the Gibeonite Story, the Ezra story, the Hosea and Gomer story, the Herod and Herodias story, and the teachings of Paul that say NOT to leave the unbeliever.

Second point about Ezra....
The word that we believe to mean "divorce" is not the Hebrew word used for divorce. I have not studied this in detail... but the Israelites "sent away" and "separated" from the women. The Hebrew word does not denote "Divorce," but merely a separation as far as I can tell at this point.

Ezra 10:3 "Now let us make a covenant before our God and SEND AWAY all these women and their children...."
"Yatsa" Hebrew - to depart, put away, to get away....

Ezra 10:11.. "Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives."
"Badal" Hebrew - separate, distinguish...

Regardless of whether it was a divorce or not, I still believe that the evidence and other Scriptural support reveals that the Isralites were in fear of what they had done by being disobedient, and without seeking God on the matter, they made their own decision to depart/separate/divorce from these women.

God did NOT tell them to divorce them, according to Scripture!
He clearly told them not to be YOKED with them.... just as we are told in 2 Cor 6:14. But the yoking together still takes place.

The men of Ezra married the women out of disobedience, but before God, they still swore oaths of faithfulness and promises (as did Joshua with the Gibeonites). Divorcing these women would mean breaking one major command to keep another. And separating from them says nothing about the injustice of leaving the women and children to provide for themselves afterward--if that indeed is what happened.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence that oaths and promises are taken extremely serious by God whether one is a believer or not. I don't think the Ezra argument holds much water. Just my opinion.

God bless,
Alyssa

It seems to me you are arguing from a faulty premise here. Nobody has ever stated in this thread that God commanded the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives. It has only been stated that they did so according to the law. I don't believe you will ever find God commanding a divorce. Even in the example that you all love to use about Joseph and Mary God did not command anything. However, Joseph still would have been considered acting within the law had he put her away.

Additionally, comparing this situation with 1 Corinthians 7 is faulty as well considering that these Israelites didn't sanctify anything with these pagan wives like a born again believer sanctifies the unbeliever making the children holy. In these marriages the wives were not sanctified, and the children were indeed still unholy.

You seem to be arguing two separate things. I'm talking about what the law that you all continually quote allows . . . not what one should do if they are walking according to the Spirit. If the Israelites had been walking according to the Spirit I do not believe they would have divorced their pagan wives. However, they were not walking according to the Spirit. They were walking according to law.

I am showing you all with this how faulty your premise is when you continue to quote passages such Matthew 19:9 as your proof text for why the only grounds for divorce is during the betrothal period. Jesus was quoting the law in Matthew 19:9. The same law that allowed for the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives. The same law that says that a woman is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.

This is all the same law, and the Word declares that the Israelites put away their wives according to the law. Therefore, their divorce was lawful and they were truly divorced. This wasn't a false divorce or a divorce that didn't count in God's eyes as many would say. It was done according to the law.

However, what I'm trying to get folks to understand is that this law that they continue to quote never brought life. That's what Jesus was trying to get folks to see. When He quoted the law in Matthew 19:9 He wasn't telling folks that this is the Spirit way. He was saying that this is the law way that Moses gave you. He was giving the Spirit way when He stated, "What God has joined together let not man separate."

BCF
Aug 17th 2008, 01:13 PM
It seems to me you are arguing from a faulty premise here. Nobody has ever stated in this thread that God commanded the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives. It has only been stated that they did so according to the law. I don't believe you will ever find God commanding a divorce. Even in the example that you all love to use about Joseph and Mary God did not command anything. However, Joseph still would have been considered acting within the law had he put her away.

Additionally, comparing this situation with 1 Corinthians 7 is faulty as well considering that these Israelites didn't sanctify anything with these pagan wives like a born again believer sanctifies the unbeliever making the children holy. In these marriages the wives were not sanctified, and the children were indeed still unholy.

You seem to be arguing two separate things. I'm talking about what the law that you all continually quote allows . . . not what one should do if they are walking according to the Spirit. If the Israelites had been walking according to the Spirit I do not believe they would have divorced their pagan wives. However, they were not walking according to the Spirit. They were walking according to law.

I am showing you all with this how faulty your premise is when you continue to quote passages such Matthew 19:9 as your proof text for why the only grounds for divorce is during the betrothal period. Jesus was quoting the law in Matthew 19:9. The same law that allowed for the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives. The same law that says that a woman is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.

This is all the same law, and the Word declares that the Israelites put away their wives according to the law. Therefore, their divorce was lawful and they were truly divorced. This wasn't a false divorce or a divorce that didn't count in God's eyes as many would say. It was done according to the law.

However, what I'm trying to get folks to understand is that this law that they continue to quote never brought life. That's what Jesus was trying to get folks to see. When He quoted the law in Matthew 19:9 He wasn't telling folks that this is the Spirit way. He was saying that this is the law way that Moses gave you. He was giving the Spirit way when He stated, "What God has joined together let not man separate."

That is exactly right according to scripture VR.....This is what you and I both have been trying to tell folks in I don't know how many threads now, what marriage is all about according to scripture.

Thank you

Alyssa S
Aug 17th 2008, 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by VerticalReality

It seems to me you are arguing from a faulty premise here. Nobody has ever stated in this thread that God commanded the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives. It has only been stated that they did so according to the law. I don't believe you will ever find God commanding a divorce. Even in the example that you all love to use about Joseph and Mary God did not command anything. However, Joseph still would have been considered acting within the law had he put her away.



I had to refresh my memory on the study I did about Ezra a couple of years ago... so I want to correct something that I said in my previous post. (This is what I get for responding too quickly.) :rolleyes: Here is what I said....


by Alyssa : Regardless of whether it was a divorce or not, I still believe that the evidence and other Scriptural support reveals that the Isralites were in fear of what they had done by being disobedient, and without seeking God on the matter, they made their own decision to depart/separate/divorce from these women.


You admitted that nobody has claimed God commanded the Israelites to "divorce"... and I also said that what they were doing, by leaving these women, was out of fear of their disobedience and it was without seeking God on the matter.

Both of us are a little right and a little wrong (not necessarily in your particular wording here but in the overall belief about divorce and law)...so it would seem. I missed the words in this following verse that I thought I "carefully read" :

Ezra 10:3 "Now let us make a covenant before our God to (SEND AWAY) all these women and their children, (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNSEL OF MY LORD) and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done ACCORDING TO THE LAW."

It would seem that God did indeed COUNSEL Ezra regarding the "separation" of these marriages. I believe it is most likely ONLY a separation because, as I stated earlier, the Hebrew word for "Divorce" is not used here. The word used denotes a separation, NOT a divorce. I think this is very significant to consider.

Also, we have no record of these men being told they could marry other women, nor do we have record of them doing so. I realize the Scriptures are silent about this so there is not a strong argument here, but I believe there is a strong argument regarding the Hebrew word used for "SEND AWAY."

Also, it seems you believe that when Ezra said "Let it be done according to the Law," that you feel he is speaking of Deut 24.

I don't believe that is what he is referring to. I believe he is referring to the original command that God gave NOT to marry these women in the first place. This is the Law/Command that God gave and it would be in context with this verse.

I don't *think* Deut 24 is in context here because....

Deut 24 says that "if he FINDS something indecent about her..."
The men of Ezra knew very clearly what they were doing when they took pagan wives. There was no "FINDING" something indecent. She was indecent from the start! But it doesn't mean that they weren't yoked together.


God bless,
Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 17th 2008, 08:35 PM
Even in the example that you all love to use about Joseph and Mary God did not command anything. However, Joseph still would have been considered acting within the law had he put her away.


Would he have? Unless I have overlooked something, I thought that the Deut 22:13 law said that this woman who is guilty of porneia (such as Joseph believed Mary to be) should be "STONED TO DEATH." Too, this appears to be a woman he has been found guilty "AFTER lying with her." Joseph was only betrothed to Mary. Is there another law that I have missed? I think he was found righteous because of his grace, not because he obeyed the law.


If the Israelites had been walking according to the Spirit I do not believe they would have divorced their pagan wives. However, they were not walking according to the Spirit. They were walking according to law.

Again, I do not see that they "DIVORCED" their wives since the Hebrew word for "divorce" was not used...but instead the word for separation was used. Do we know anymore about this word used here?



I am showing you all with this how faulty your premise is when you continue to quote passages such Matthew 19:9 as your proof text for why the only grounds for divorce is during the betrothal period. Jesus was quoting the law in Matthew 19:9. The same law that allowed for the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives. The same law that says that a woman is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.

This is all the same law, and the Word declares that the Israelites put away their wives according to the law. Therefore, their divorce was lawful and they were truly divorced. This wasn't a false divorce or a divorce that didn't count in God's eyes as many would say. It was done according to the law.


Okay, so let's say that the betrothal idea is wrong. What about Deut 22:13 that seems to support this betrothal concept? Is it your belief that Deut 22 (pre marital) and Deut 24 (post marital) are BOTH reasons for divorce and remarriage? What is Jesus referring to when he says "except for porneia?" And who does it apply to in your opinion?

Lastly, why do you believe the "Exception Clause" is left out in Mark and Luke? I believe the Scriptures must harmonize and there has to be a good reason why these differ. Even Matt 5 and 19 differ, in which one says the man "CAUSES the (innocent) woman to commit adultery."

Thanks VR!

God bless,
Alyssa

Alaska
Aug 17th 2008, 10:47 PM
Hi Alyssa,
I think this may have been where Ezra got the counsel he was heeding:


Joshua 23:
11 Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.
12 Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:
13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

But this was obviously done by someone very much "under the law" and not under grace and truth because Jesus had not yet come to manifest grace and truth.

John 1:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

What Ezra did was in accordance to law but not to truth. What he did was excusable in light of the instructions left behind by Joshua and the tenor of words in the OT making them a separate people.

Examples of behaviour from the OT are not necessarily declarations of what the truth is.
God sent his Son to reveal truth and wisdom that had been hidden from ages and from generations.

Eph. 3:
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Col. 1:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

The understanding of marriage and divorce as per Jesus' clarification of what Gen. 2 means (and has always meant), is a wisdom that they in the OT in general did not have. It was necessary for Jesus to plainly reveal that what Moses wrote in Dt. 24 was not the truth. It was a necessary law under those circumstances that served a necessary purpose because of the hardness of their hearts.

Jesus' reference to the divorce that was done before marriage, (for fornication, not adultery) which reference was interjected as an exception clause, does not contradict the mandate of Gen 2 which Jesus clearly came to uphold and reveal to be truth.

"Let not man put asunder" is not contradicted by the allowable "divorce for fornication" because that kind of divorce was a cultural divorce done before marriage that many today are not familiar with and who thus have stumbled on Jesus by assuming that he does indeed allow putting asunder even after he plainly said, "let not man put asunder".



Lastly, why do you believe the "Exception Clause" is left out in Mark and Luke? I believe the Scriptures must harmonize and there has to be a good reason why these differ. Even Matt 5 and 19 differ, in which one says the man "CAUSES the (innocent) woman to commit adultery."


Well of course it could easily have been left out without causing even the slightest change of meaning [when compared to the verses that do have it] because the exception clause does not pertain to the married state anyway!
It was however fitting for him to refer to it in Matt. 19 because he was being grilled by sticklers of the law who were looking for avenues of accusation against him. His reference to a fine point that does in fact pertain to a "husband" divorcing his "wife" served as a double whammy so to speak:
1) Since the question related to husbands, wives and divorce, he could not be accused of prohibiting the customary divorce for fornication. This kind of divorce was when the "husband" would "divorce" his "wife" for fornication (not for adultery) as exemplified in what Joseph was about to do with Mary for what he thought was fornication (not adultery). They could easily have wrongly accused him of prohibiting all divorces, even the divorce for fornication, which of course would be seen as an unreasonable prohibition, since that kind of divorce took place before they 'left and cleaved' as per the definition of marriage in Gen. 2.
2) Reference to a divorce in the exception clause, which everyone at that time would have immediately known to have meant the premarital divorce for fornication (not adultery) served in effect to make the powerful statement [consistent with the rest of his dialogue in Matthew 19 clarifying Gen 2] that the only way a man can divorce his married wife is if he does it BEFORE he marries her.

Any post marital divorce, for any reason whatsoever, followed by a remarriage is adultery. Any man who has divorced his married wife for any reason whatsoever causes her to commit adultery by so doing. Whoever marries either the man or the woman from such a divorce commits adultery because sex is involved in that second marriage.
As per: Luke 16:18 Mark 10:11,12 and 1 Cor. 7:39 etc

BroRog
Aug 17th 2008, 11:12 PM
To dissolve an illegal marriage is not a divorce, it's an annulment.

VerticalReality
Aug 18th 2008, 02:41 AM
It took me a bit to get back to this. Sunday's are usually pretty nonstop until late evening.


It would seem that God did indeed COUNSEL Ezra regarding the "separation" of these marriages. I believe it is most likely ONLY a separation because, as I stated earlier, the Hebrew word for "Divorce" is not used here. The word used denotes a separation, NOT a divorce. I think this is very significant to consider.

Maybe a reason could be that the law for divorce was given to Jews. The law of divorce was not given for the occasion of a Jew marrying a pagan because the law stated that a Jew wasn't supposed to marry a pagan. So, being that the marriage was unlawful to begin with perhaps the certificate of divorce is not needed for such a marriage. It's difficult to say for sure without speculating. I mean let's say, for example, that two people go to a personal friend of theirs that is an ordained minister and has this person marry them. Well, just because they have declared themselves to be husband and wife does not mean that they are according to the law. They still have to meet the criteria of the law to be truly considered a lawful union.


Also, we have no record of these men being told they could marry other women, nor do we have record of them doing so. I realize the Scriptures are silent about this so there is not a strong argument here, but I believe there is a strong argument regarding the Hebrew word used for "SEND AWAY."

If their putting away of these wives is done according to the law as the Scriptures declare then there is nothing holding them to that union, IMO.


Also, it seems you believe that when Ezra said "Let it be done according to the Law," that you feel he is speaking of Deut 24.

Not necessarily. It could be possible, but I certainly do not believe it has to be according to Deuteronomy 24.


I don't believe that is what he is referring to. I believe he is referring to the original command that God gave NOT to marry these women in the first place. This is the Law/Command that God gave and it would be in context with this verse.

That could very well be the case. I do not argue that.

VerticalReality
Aug 18th 2008, 02:53 AM
Would he have? Unless I have overlooked something, I thought that the Deut 22:13 law said that this woman who is guilty of porneia (such as Joseph believed Mary to be) should be "STONED TO DEATH." Too, this appears to be a woman he has been found guilty "AFTER lying with her." Joseph was only betrothed to Mary. Is there another law that I have missed? I think he was found righteous because of his grace, not because he obeyed the law.

I didn't state that he would have been found righteous had he put her away. I said that he would have been acting within the law had he put her away.


Again, I do not see that they "DIVORCED" their wives since the Hebrew word for "divorce" was not used...but instead the word for separation was used. Do we know anymore about this word used here?

Again, maybe it's because a certificate of divorce was not needed.


Okay, so let's say that the betrothal idea is wrong. What about Deut 22:13 that seems to support this betrothal concept? Is it your belief that Deut 22 (pre marital) and Deut 24 (post marital) are BOTH reasons for divorce and remarriage? What is Jesus referring to when he says "except for porneia?" And who does it apply to in your opinion?

I've stated a couple of times that it means one of two things if we are going to harmonize ALL of Scripture . . .

1) Either the betrothal view is false and the law allowed for divorce even after the consummation of a marriage

or . . .

2) The betrothal view is correct, but it was only between two Jews. Maybe because only two Jews marrying was a lawful marriage.


Lastly, why do you believe the "Exception Clause" is left out in Mark and Luke? I believe the Scriptures must harmonize and there has to be a good reason why these differ. Even Matt 5 and 19 differ, in which one says the man "CAUSES the (innocent) woman to commit adultery."

I think all the gospels differ in many areas. Not just this one. For example, the last words of Jesus differ depending on which account you are reading. This doesn't nullify what the other states. It's just an inclusion of something that another ommitted. I mean the possibilities are endless, IMO, and nobody can say conclusively. It's all a lot of speculation.

All I know for sure is that there is a law way and there is a Spirit way. The law way allowed the Isrealites to put away these pagan wives that they took. The Spirit way things would have been done differently. In the end it all equals one thing for sure in that if you live by the law you will die by the law. You will never have life or be justified in trying to walk out the law.

9Marksfan
Aug 19th 2008, 08:43 AM
To dissolve an illegal marriage is not a divorce, it's an annulment.

So what about a Christian marrying a non-Christian and later realising it was wrong (or discovering that the woman he thought was a Christian manifestly wasn't)? Surely that is an "illegal" marriage in God's eyes? But you're not going to get a secular court to annul it - you would need a full-blown divorce! But you'd be struggling to find a ground for that if you were still living together!

BroRog - or Alaska - can either of you help out with the Greek tense in "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" in 2 Cor 6:14? Does "be" in effect mean "become" or "remain"?

9Marksfan
Aug 19th 2008, 08:46 AM
All I know for sure is that there is a law way and there is a Spirit way. The law way allowed the Isrealites to put away these pagan wives that they took. The Spirit way things would have been done differently. In the end it all equals one thing for sure in that if you live by the law you will die by the law. You will never have life or be justified in trying to walk out the law.

OK Cory, what I need you to clarify here is the place of the word of God in the Spirit way - is the word the means by which we discern the mind of the Spirit and, once we know His mind, do we, by the same Spirit, obey the word?

VerticalReality
Aug 19th 2008, 12:19 PM
BroRog - or Alaska - can either of you help out with the Greek tense in "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" in 2 Cor 6:14? Does "be" in effect mean "become" or "remain"?

Here's the Greek definition . . .

1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made

VerticalReality
Aug 19th 2008, 12:21 PM
OK Cory, what I need you to clarify here is the place of the word of God in the Spirit way - is the word the means by which we discern the mind of the Spirit and, once we know His mind, do we, by the same Spirit, obey the word?

The Word, if rightly divided, can be used to know the mind of Spirit. And yes, if you are walking by the Spirit you will be obedient.

superwoman8977
Aug 19th 2008, 01:47 PM
Okay I have read through most of the 11 pages of this thread and all I can say is ..wow! Here is my situation for better or worse, and believe me right now I am feeling like a 2nd class citizen over it.

I married my husband in 2001. Things happened we had our son in 2002 my husband went to Iraq in 2005 and began cheating on me. I stood fast and prayed on my marriage vows for almost 3 years but he wanted her not me and so this year we divorced. We have a child together, but I guess people tell me I cannot date again I didnt want the divorce I wanted to work the marriage out, he didnt so in May of this year we divorced. I dont know if he is a christian or not he went to church he was baptized and then he turned into this person that became very self-centered, etc. I guess I am just confused why in the church's eyes I am treated as a 2nd class citizen I mean I am getting to the point where I dont even want to go anymore because of my life and the things in my life I dont know I am frustrated and confused with all of this.

VerticalReality
Aug 19th 2008, 01:52 PM
Okay I have read through most of the 11 pages of this thread and all I can say is ..wow! Here is my situation for better or worse, and believe me right now I am feeling like a 2nd class citizen over it.

I married my husband in 2001. Things happened we had our son in 2002 my husband went to Iraq in 2005 and began cheating on me. I stood fast and prayed on my marriage vows for almost 3 years but he wanted her not me and so this year we divorced. We have a child together, but I guess people tell me I cannot date again I didnt want the divorce I wanted to work the marriage out, he didnt so in May of this year we divorced. I dont know if he is a christian or not he went to church he was baptized and then he turned into this person that became very self-centered, etc. I guess I am just confused why in the church's eyes I am treated as a 2nd class citizen I mean I am getting to the point where I dont even want to go anymore because of my life and the things in my life I dont know I am frustrated and confused with all of this.

Try not to become discouraged, superwoman. You are not second class, and if you did all you could to save your marriage then you honored God. You cannot force another to stay.

BroRog
Aug 19th 2008, 03:00 PM
So what about a Christian marrying a non-Christian and later realising it was wrong (or discovering that the woman he thought was a Christian manifestly wasn't)? Surely that is an "illegal" marriage in God's eyes?

I think the Bible makes a distinction between what is illegal and what is wrong. When the Pharisees argued that Divorce was legal, which it was, Jesus countered with, "it may be legal, but divorce is wrong because it violates God's purpose for marriage." (paraphrase)

Paul answered your question with the same precedent. It is better to remain married to a non-believer because this honor's God's intent for marriage. If the non-believer wants to leave, let them leave. But don't force the issue or cause a break-up yourself.

But I'm suggesting that the events of Ezra's time were not examples of divorce in any case. The difference between a divorce and an annulment depends on whether the marriage was legal to begin with. And when I say "legal" I mean "lawful", not "right" or "moral". Whether is was right or moral for the Israelites to marry outside the covenant people is a different issue from whether these men broke the law. Obviously Babylonian law allowed it, but Israeli law didn't.

Having said all that, one can hardly find a legal equivalent today in our society unless one marries a minor. If one were to marry a minor, the legal system might annul the marriage, in which case, the couple would separate, not on the basis of a divorce, but by annulment.


BroRog - or Alaska - can either of you help out with the Greek tense in "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" in 2 Cor 6:14? Does "be" in effect mean "become" or "remain"?

I don't have my Greek Text in front of me at the moment. But I question whether Paul is talking about marriage at all in that passage. The subject of the letter up to this point concerns itself with Corinthian acceptance of Paul. I believe his fear is that the church will team up with a non-believer rather than team up with Paul, who is a believer and has worked so hard on their behalf.

See what I'm saying? In 1Corinthians Paul was almost neutral on whether a believer should marry a non-believer. If you have a choice, don't marry a non-believer. But if you are already married, don't divorce a non-believer.

But the topic of 2Cor. 6 seems to be a completely different subject.

Alyssa S
Aug 19th 2008, 07:26 PM
It took me a bit to get back to this. Sunday's are usually pretty nonstop until late evening.


No problem :)... I've been a little busy too. I'm impressed that you are able to be on here as much as you are considering you probably have a pretty full schedule.



Not necessarily. It could be possible, but I certainly do not believe it has to be according to Deuteronomy 24.


Actually here it is... Deut 7:2-4 "Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons...."




That could very well be the case. I do not argue that.


A point I'd like to make....
Deut 7:7 says that Israel was not more numerous than other peoples, but they were actually the fewest of all peoples.

I recognize and agree that God was married to Israel and that they were his chosen people, his covenant people, and I also recognize, by clear Scripture, that he commanded that they not intermarry with pagans. They were only to marry within their Jewish faith.

I also recognize, as you have said many times, that we do not see any picture of God uniting pagans or getting involved with them, that I know of. He commanded Israel to destroy these people. You have a good point here.

It would seem that God had a very good reason for not allowing them to intermarry, as Deut 7:7 reveals, they were small, a remnant... and to intermarry with foreigners would cause the small nation to turn from their faith and most importantly it was God's plan for Jesus to be Jewish, the seed of David.

If they were allowed to continue on in their disobedience/sin, then of course this would put a kink in prophecy and cause all sorts of problems regarding the Davidic line.

But I still don't believe this Ezra story is a problem for Matthew 19 and 5 regarding porneia. I'll get to that in the next post. :)

God bless!
Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 19th 2008, 09:05 PM
I didn't state that he would have been found righteous had he put her away. I said that he would have been acting within the law had he put her away.



Ok, thanks.



I've stated a couple of times that it means one of two things if we are going to harmonize ALL of Scripture . . .

1) Either the betrothal view is false and the law allowed for divorce even after the consummation of a marriage



Okay, I might get a little wordy here. Forgive me... :)

How could it mean divorce AFTER the marriage? Are you saying that Jesus is allowing divorce for adultery? I am going to assume that you are, because I can't imagine what else it would be, unless it was for incest which would consitute an unlawful marriage giving someone freedom to (re)marry.

It can't be adultery for several reasons.

1.) People were killed for committing adultery...according to the Law.

2.) If Jesus meant adultery, he would have used the Greek word, "moicheia" (the word for adultery) instead of "porneia." (fornication-used mostly for singles.)

3.) Jesus takes the command of adultery a step further than OT Law by saying that if anyone “looks” at a woman with lust, he has committed adultery already in his heart. The Exception Clause cannot be about adultery… everyone would be free to remarry. Plus, all anyone would have to do if they WANTED to be free from the marriage bond is to go out and commit adultery either by looking at someone with lust or having sex with them. That is silly. This could not have been what Jesus was giving an Exception for!

4.) Some claim (not saying you) that if the offending partner commits adultery, they are as good as dead. But they are NOT dead. A man has the potential to receive salvation UNTIL he dies. A man’s heart can change and he can repent at any time… that is why Paul says to WAIT and not leave the unbeliever. Who knows if the believer will save the unbeliever? God patiently waits for us… should we not also be patient with the offending mate even if they have been unfaithful? How many times were/are we unfaithful to God?

5.) If adultery breaks the bonds of marriage, then how come the innocent woman in Matt 5:32 is CAUSED to be an adulteress if her husband divorces her? Either way... she is guilty.

6.) Moses' allowance for divorce and remarriage was NOT God's will....Moses' Law was terribly flawed.

*The (Law of Moses) said that if a man divorced his wife and she married another, and divorced him, the first husband could not take her back. (Deut 24). But.....

What does GOD say? (Jer 3:1) "THEY SAY if a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? (BUT I SAY)... RETURN to me."
(By the way, Michal returned to David after she married another. Gomer returned to Hosea. Herodias was commanded to return to Philip by John the Baptist...even though we know she didn't.)

*The (Law of Moses) said that anyone who divorces his wife is to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. (Deut 24) But....

What does JESUS say? (Matt 5:32) "IT HAS BEEN SAID ("THEY" SAY), 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. (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."
*The (Law of Moses) told the Israelites that they could marry a captive woman of their enemies of war even if they were already married to a Jewish woman!! Moses allowed this as well because of the "hardness of their hearts," but the Gospels clearly teach against this. And....

What did GOD command? (Deut 7:7) When driving out the nations...."Do not intermarry with them."

So it would seem that what Moses "allowed," our LORD did NOT intend. And when we hear God's words, "THEY SAY," we can be sure that it was not HIS WORDS or COMMAND....and when he says, "BUT I SAY," we better take heed.

Also Jesus clearly tells his audience that the will of God concerning divorce and remarriage was not the same as Moses' allowance for it FROM the beginning. (Matt 19:8-9) NOTE: He did not say, "In the beginning" He said it was not this way ALL ALONG (FROM the beginning). It was not this way in the beginning at creation and it was never this way. Creation Marriage is till death parts the couple.

Part II coming up....

~A

Alyssa S
Aug 19th 2008, 10:09 PM
Originally Posted by VerticalReality http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1753422#post1753422)

or . . .

2) The betrothal view is correct, but it was only between two Jews. Maybe because only two Jews marrying was a lawful marriage.



I would have to agree with you here...since ONLY Matthew holds the obscure text of the "Exception Clause," and betrothal's were only part of the Jewish custom. This would seem why it is not in the other Gospels. They were written to the Gentiles.



I think all the gospels differ in many areas. Not just this one. For example, the last words of Jesus differ depending on which account you are reading. This doesn't nullify what the other states. It's just an inclusion of something that another ommitted. I mean the possibilities are endless, IMO, and nobody can say conclusively. It's all a lot of speculation.


Well, I think the major difference in your example and mine is that the last words of Jesus at the end of the Gospels (that you mentioned) do not leave the reader contemplating contradiction of the Scriptures. Like you said, it is an inclusion that the other's didn't have. The point I am making about the Exception Clause is that it WOULD leave the impression that Jesus' words are contradicting, when they obviously are not. One *appears* to say anyone can divorce for "marital unfaithfulness" and then all the others say that anyone who divorces for whatever reason commits ongoing adultery.

I see that as a BIG difference if we are not understanding the Scriptures correctly.



All I know for sure is that there is a law way and there is a Spirit way. The law way allowed the Isrealites to put away these pagan wives that they took. The Spirit way things would have been done differently. In the end it all equals one thing for sure in that if you live by the law you will die by the law. You will never have life or be justified in trying to walk out the law.


Sure. And as you have said numerous times, we Gentiles were never given the Law, right?

Things definitely changed when Jesus "came on the scene" in the Gospels. He did make a lot of rearrangements in that he put an end to many things, became more strict about others, offered grace, and set the record straight regarding divorce and remarriage.

You said above, that you think the Gospels differ in many areas. And you also said "it's all a lot of speculation." You don't think they are contradicting do you?

I truly don't think the Lord left us with a Godly Instruction Book that is all just a lot of speculation. I believe there is harmony in the Word... and I'd like to think you feel the same way. I realize it comes down to our understanding.

The problem with the doctrine that you are presenting (that I used to basically agree with) is that it DOESN'T harmonize with Scripture. We cannot just ignore the fact that there is not harmony and conclude that it is all speculation. I think there is a good reason why the wording of the Gospels are the way they are.

I believe that marriage is part of the creation ordinance. I believe whether one is saved or unsaved, their marriage is valid if it is within the guidelines of Genesis 2. One man and One woman. I believe that Jesus' teachings on the PERMANENCY of marriage was directed to both the believer and the UNBELIEVER. Here is why....

As we have already stated, the Exception Clause is only found in the book of Matthew which was aimed at the Jews, who practiced the betrothal custom.... this is what the "porneia" word aims at.... (cross reference to Deut 22:13 and the Joseph and Mary story.)

I have asked you why you believe the Exception Clause is left out of Mark and Luke. You "can only speculate." The reason I believe there is a difference is because Mark and Luke were written to the Gentile. The Gentiles did not practice the betrothal custom. Something else that was different about the Gentiles were that their women were allowed to divorce their husbands, where Jewish women were not. Only Jewish men could divorce the women. Egyptian women divorced their husbands whenever they felt like it... kind of like it was with the Jewish men of the Old Testament.

So.... In Mark... Jesus says that Moses wrote the law that allowed divorce for the Jewish men... BUT God did not make it that way when he created marriage. Jesus said the two become one flesh and they are no longer two but ONE. No one is to separate this union.

Jesus is later alone with his disciples and they are freaking out since they cannot divorce for "any and every reason" anymore and they ask him again for clarification:o.... "ANYONE who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. (AND HERE'S THE KICKER)... And if SHE DIVORCES her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Jewish women did not DIVORCE their husbands... this was a GENTILE practice. And the GENTILE (Unbelieving/Believing ) woman who divorced and remarried was an adulteress.

So as you have contemplated...it would seem the "Exception Clause" was only for the Jew and their betrothal custom. Besides that, the message to EVERYONE (Unbelievers and Believers) is that remarriage is adultery.

I don't know how it could be anything else.

God bless!
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 19th 2008, 11:49 PM
It can't be adultery for several reasons.

1.) People were killed for committing adultery...according to the Law.

Women were also stoned to death for having sex before marriage as well, so I don't really see how such a point would hold much value in this discussion.


2.) If Jesus meant adultery, he would have used the Greek word, "moicheia" (the word for adultery) instead of "porneia." (fornication-used mostly for singles.)

Did you know that in the Book of Revelation (chapter 17) it declares the adulteries of the kings of the earth with the great harlot as fornication? Granted, this is talking about spiritual adultery, but I find it interesting that the Word doesn't have a problem using the term fornication (porneuo) to describe their adultery.


3.) Jesus takes the command of adultery a step further than OT Law by saying that if anyone “looks” at a woman with lust, he has committed adultery already in his heart. The Exception Clause cannot be about adultery… everyone would be free to remarry. Plus, all anyone would have to do if they WANTED to be free from the marriage bond is to go out and commit adultery either by looking at someone with lust or having sex with them. That is silly. This could not have been what Jesus was giving an Exception for!

Actually, I do not agree that Jesus took the Old Testament law further. What Jesus was saying was always the truth even before the law was given, so Jesus wasn't introducing anything new in His statements or making anything more strict. His statements were a reality yesterday, today and forever. The statements Jesus made here also are not a proclamation that whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has broken the law. In fact, looking at a woman with lust was not covered in the law, so what Jesus was proclaiming to everyone was the Spirit of the law. The letter never spoke of such things.


4.) Some claim (not saying you) that if the offending partner commits adultery, they are as good as dead. But they are NOT dead. A man has the potential to receive salvation UNTIL he dies. A man’s heart can change and he can repent at any time… that is why Paul says to WAIT and not leave the unbeliever. Who knows if the believer will save the unbeliever? God patiently waits for us… should we not also be patient with the offending mate even if they have been unfaithful? How many times were/are we unfaithful to God?

I don't agree with such a position.


5.) If adultery breaks the bonds of marriage, then how come the innocent woman in Matt 5:32 is CAUSED to be an adulteress if her husband divorces her? Either way... she is guilty.

Most folks believe it is because women during this time would be forced to find another husband in order to take care of themselves.


6.) Moses' allowance for divorce and remarriage was NOT God's will....Moses' Law was terribly flawed.

No argument from me there.


So it would seem that what Moses "allowed," our LORD did NOT intend. And when we hear God's words, "THEY SAY," we can be sure that it was not HIS WORDS or COMMAND....and when he says, "BUT I SAY," we better take heed.

Again, no argument from me.


Also Jesus clearly tells his audience that the will of God concerning divorce and remarriage was not the same as Moses' allowance for it FROM the beginning. (Matt 19:8-9) NOTE: He did not say, "In the beginning" He said it was not this way ALL ALONG (FROM the beginning). It was not this way in the beginning at creation and it was never this way. Creation Marriage is till death parts the couple.

I have stated the same in this thread.

VerticalReality
Aug 20th 2008, 12:29 AM
Well, I think the major difference in your example and mine is that the last words of Jesus at the end of the Gospels (that you mentioned) do not leave the reader contemplating contradiction of the Scriptures.

I don't find contradiction or even see it as remotely possible with Matthew 19:9 compared to Mark 10 or Luke 16 either. I guess in such a situation some may see what they want to see.


Like you said, it is an inclusion that the other's didn't have. The point I am making about the Exception Clause is that it WOULD leave the impression that Jesus' words are contradicting,

Why?


Sure. And as you have said numerous times, we Gentiles were never given the Law, right?

Correct.


Things definitely changed when Jesus "came on the scene" in the Gospels. He did make a lot of rearrangements in that he put an end to many things, became more strict about others, offered grace, and set the record straight regarding divorce and remarriage.

Again, nothing "changed" when Jesus came on the scene. It had always been that way. Folks were just ignorant to the truth.


You said above, that you think the Gospels differ in many areas. And you also said "it's all a lot of speculation." You don't think they are contradicting do you?

I did not state that gospels were speculation. I'm stating that mine and your interpretation when it is speaking where Scripture does not clearly speak is speculation.


I truly don't think the Lord left us with a Godly Instruction Book that is all just a lot of speculation. I believe there is harmony in the Word... and I'd like to think you feel the same way. I realize it comes down to our understanding.

And when our understanding is taking into account things that aren't clear in the Word then it is speculation.


The problem with the doctrine that you are presenting (that I used to basically agree with) is that it DOESN'T harmonize with Scripture. We cannot just ignore the fact that there is not harmony and conclude that it is all speculation. I think there is a good reason why the wording of the Gospels are the way they are.

I still do not see this contradiction you are speaking of. You all hold the position that the same things that applied to two Jews under the law was the same universally. I, however, do not see that in the Word anywhere. I believe that is the very definition of not harmonizing with Scripture. You have proclaimed here that your interpretation of Matthew 19:9, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 in relation to the law also applies to Gentiles when the Scriptures declare this as not being the case. Ezra 9-10 proves as much. This is not harmonizing the Scriptures. The only way your view harmonizes with the Scriptures is if it was just between Jews. So, if this is the case it brings me right back to my point to you that the law you are declaring as proof text for your interpretation is not for the Gentiles, so how can you declare what you are here as being accurate for those Gentiles who are divorced and remarried before they come to the Lord? What law is there that condemns them?


I believe that marriage is part of the creation ordinance. I believe whether one is saved or unsaved, their marriage is valid if it is within the guidelines of Genesis 2. One man and One woman. I believe that Jesus' teachings on the PERMANENCY of marriage was directed to both the believer and the UNBELIEVER. Here is why....

Yet, in the beginning . . .

No witnesses . . .

No pastor or preacher . . .

No church . . .

No law . . .

Just God joining one man and one woman.


The reason I believe there is a difference is because Mark and Luke were written to the Gentile.

And in this reason "you only speculate".


Jewish women did not DIVORCE their husbands... this was a GENTILE practice. And the GENTILE (Unbelieving/Believing ) woman who divorced and remarried was an adulteress.

From the evidence I've seen this is not true. Jewish women did, in fact, divorce their husbands during this time. Why? Because they were under Roman law also, and some were indeed permitted to divorce their husbands.

Alyssa S
Aug 20th 2008, 01:59 AM
Thanks VR (Cory)!

We will just have to agree to disagree. ;)

I think too, as I always go back to it, not as I final word, but as additional reference... the early church for the first 500 years ACROSS THE BOARD did not teach the doctrine you are preaching nor the one the modern church is preaching today on remarriage...I have read the creeds for myself and never once, not even close, did any church father mention that a person who was saved after a divorce was free to remarry. And it wasn't until the Reformation that people began to turn from the truth and allow divorce and remarriage in the church. No, the Reformation wasn't all bad, but allowing remarriage after so many, many years of not allowing it is a very bad thing in my opinion.

Timothy and II Thess said there would be a falling away from the truth in the Last Days and we have read that the gate to life is narrow but the road to destruction is wide. That is a daunting thought to ponder. I only pray that we all would search the Scriptures deeply concerning this subject and if anyone reading this has conviction, I pray that you would be still and listen to the still small voice and be obedient to what God is laying on your heart.

This subject burdens my heart for the many who are dealing with this issue. I have peace for my own situation (I am myself divorced), but I am quite burdened because I truly believe we are in the last days. And from where I stand now in my belief and conviction, I would not want to be a possible stumbling block by encouraging someone in a second marriage while the spouse is still living..... out of fear that I could possibly lead them into sin. To remain single is to be sure to avoid that. Are you 100% positive about your belief/theology, without a shadow of a doubt?

I pray we all count the possible cost.

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

Mark 10:11 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." (Jesus - King of Kings and Lord of Lords)

God bless, :hug:
Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 20th 2008, 02:08 AM
From the evidence I've seen this is not true. Jewish women did, in fact, divorce their husbands during this time. Why? Because they were under Roman law also, and some were indeed permitted to divorce their husbands.

Evidence you've seen?
Show me the Scripture please...

On very rare occasions, Jewish women could request a divorce, but the actual divorce certificate had to be written by the man. (But this isn't even in Scripture, that I know of).

That's all...

VerticalReality
Aug 20th 2008, 03:20 AM
We will just have to agree to disagree. ;)

Okay.


I think too, as I always go back to it, not as I final word, but as additional reference... the early church for the first 500 years ACROSS THE BOARD did not teach the doctrine you are preaching nor the one the modern church is preaching today on remarriage...I have read the creeds for myself and never once, not even close, did any church father mention that a person who was saved after a divorce was free to remarry. And it wasn't until the Reformation that people began to turn from the truth and allow divorce and remarriage in the church. No, the Reformation wasn't all bad, but allowing remarriage after so many, many years of not allowing it is a very bad thing in my opinion.

Nobody has been discussing divorce and remarriage "in the church". Again, you seem to be arguing something that hasn't been something I've advocated in this entire thread. I'm really unsure how we can be on the twelfth page of this thread and my numerous comments on the matter and this still isn't clear. Again, the topic of this thread is about those who are not God's people and what happens before they come into covenant with God. Therefore, what is going on "in the church" really has no bearing on these people whatsoever, nor does a law that was never given to them.


To remain single is to be sure to avoid that. Are you 100% positive about your belief/theology, without a shadow of a doubt?

To base what you believe simply out of fear does not erase error. I would rather dig into the Scriptures until I find absolute truth rather than just accepting something because I think it is safe. Safe can still be wrong, and I would rather preach people truth. After all, false teachers will undergo greater condemnation, so I better be trying my hardest to discover the right thing here rather than just what I think is the safe thing. If the safe thing is still the wrong thing then we will have to answer for that as well since we are still helping to lead others into error.

VerticalReality
Aug 20th 2008, 03:24 AM
Evidence you've seen?
Show me the Scripture please...

Do you need Scripture to tell you that the Germans lost World War II? Why do I need Scripture to declare to me an historical fact that Jewish women could divorce their husbands under Roman law?


On very rare occasions, Jewish women could request a divorce, but the actual divorce certificate had to be written by the man. (But this isn't even in Scripture, that I know of).

Roman law couldn't care less what Jewish custom was . . .

They were under Roman law because the Romans were the boss. That's just part of being the conquered people. Why do you think the Jewish leaders couldn't just go ahead and crucify Jesus? It was because their customs, traditions and laws meant diddly to the Romans, and the Romans were who had the power in those days.

VerticalReality
Aug 20th 2008, 03:39 AM
Here's the problem, as I see it, with the interpretation of folks like Alaska and maybe even Alyssa to somewhat of a lesser extent . . .

I will base this example on a true scenario that I know of, and it has happened countless times for others as well . . .

Man and woman marry in their early twenties. Both are unsaved and living like absolute heathens. They eventually divorce in their mid twenties and both go on to remarry. The man marries another woman who has never been married before, is in her early twenties, and eventually has two children with her. They live the majority of the rest of their lives together committed in marriage but both are still unsaved. They now have been married for 25 years and have children together who are grown. Now, in order for them to truly repent of their past sin, according to the interpretation of some folks, and be forgiven, they need to leave their current marriage of 25 years and the children they have helped create together to either live celibate, or the man can return to the first wife that he had almost thirty years ago.

Is that what we are expected to believe is God's will here? Do we have any Scriptural evidence to declare that this is the case? Any at all? Do we have any Scriptural evidence declaring that the apostles excommunicated new converts because they were remarried? Do we have any Scriptural record declaring that folks who were remarried ditched their current spouses to either return to their first one or remain celibate?

Any ideas?

Alyssa S
Aug 20th 2008, 12:51 PM
Is that what we are expected to believe is God's will here?

How do we know the mind of God and his will? Do we just assume or do we believe his words and commands from the Bible? Whatever Jesus said in the NT concerning divorce and remarriage is what I can "expect to believe on God's will here." I cannot include my emotions, my dreams, and my wishes or anyone elses. All I can go by is the clear direction that God gives in his Word. I can choose to obey it or disobey it. If Jesus calls the second marriage, while the first spouse is living, adultery.... then it must be adultery...whether I like it or not... or even whether it makes sense.

It doesn't always make sense to love my enemy.... but He tells me to love my enemy! That's all I know to do.... be obedient to the clear words of Jesus.



Do we have any Scriptural evidence to declare that this is the case? Any at all?

Do we have any Scriptural evidence that Jewish women divorced their husbands? Do we have any Scriptural evidence or JUST ONE story of two people involved in a re-marriage blessed by Jesus?



Do we have any Scriptural evidence declaring that the apostles excommunicated new converts because they were remarried? We have clear Scriptural evidence to REPENT! REPENT! REPENT! How many times are we told that?



Do we have any Scriptural record declaring that folks who were remarried ditched their current spouses to either return to their first one or remain celibate?
Any ideas?

Scriptural record shows that.....

MICHAL ditched her second husband and RETURNED to DAVID!
GOMER ditched hers and RETURNED to HOSEA!!
ISRAEL ditched theirs and RETURNED to the LORD!!
The MEN of EZRA (who already had Jewish wives) DITCHED their second wives and RETURNED to their first wives and the LORD.

And Paul clearly told the man or woman that divorces their spouse to REMAIN UNMARRIED or RECONCILE!! (1 Cor 7:10)

Look, do I go around telling people who are in second marriages that they need to divorce their adulterous partner and go back to the first one? No, I do not. I am not at that point yet, and I do not know if I ever will be. This is something I have not settled in my heart yet.

BUT.... All I do know is the clear Scriptures that are given that call remarriage adultery. And the Scriptures that say remarriage is adultery is overhwelming. The Scriptures that call us to REPENTENCE are overwhelming. We are expected to repent!

Can a thief who is forgiven and washed clean by the blood of Jesus for their lifestyle of stealing continue on stealing? Of course not! Why wouldn't it be the same for adultery? You tell me!! Can a murderer keep on murdering? Of course not! Can a child abuser keep on child abusing? Of course not! Can a lesbian keep on in her immoral lifestyle? Of course not! If a lesbian cannot, why should an adulterer be given that privilege?? You tell me!! No wonder gays are so disgusted with the church. While the church is pointing out their sin of immorality, it is at the same time condoning the sin of remarriage!!! What a joke! Why does the law of God change for an adulterer? Do you have one single verse showing that it IS different? Do we have have an addendum in the Word showing that adulturers are exempt? You tell me!

Paul tells the CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS.... "Do not be deceived, the adulterers will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God..." (1 Cor 6 9-11)

I'm not going to make any set in stone claims here... but doesn't this verse prick your spirit??

All I know to do is to share my conviction... and leave it to the individual to make up their mind.

Here is an excellent resource and support group of people who believe in creation marriage..... www.marriagedivorce.com (http://www.marriagedivorce.com) There is also a FAQ w/in that site here..... http://www.cadz.net/ (http://www.cadz.net/)


God bless!
Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 20th 2008, 12:56 PM
P.S. Cory....

If you can get the Gospels concerning divorce and remarriage to harmonize with the doctrine you are presenting... then the "no-remarriage camp" would jump on board with your belief. But until then... it doesn't fly no matter how we twist it.

There has to be harmony!

~A

Alyssa S
Aug 20th 2008, 01:07 PM
Nobody has been discussing divorce and remarriage "in the church". Again, you seem to be arguing something that hasn't been something I've advocated in this entire thread.

No.... I am not. You aren't paying attention to my words.

Let me repost my words....

I think too, as I always go back to it, not as a final word, but as additional reference... the early church for the first 500 years ACROSS THE BOARD did not teach the doctrine you are preaching nor the one the modern church is preaching today on remarriage...I have read the creeds for myself and never once, not even close, did any church father mention that a person who was saved after a divorce was free to remarry. And it wasn't until the Reformation that people began to turn from the truth and allow divorce and remarriage in the church. No, the Reformation wasn't all bad, but allowing remarriage after so many, many years of not allowing it is a very bad thing in my opinion.


I'm really unsure how we can be on the twelfth page of this thread and my numerous comments on the matter and this still isn't clear.

You are quite clear (On your belief).... I just happen to disagree with it and know that it does not harmonize with the Gospels! C'mon Cory! You know that I know what you are talking about... please don't play the naive card. I have said more than once that I USED TO BELIEVE LIKE YOU DO... until I realized it doesn't harmonize.



Again, the topic of this thread is about those who are not God's people and what happens before they come into covenant with God. Therefore, what is going on "in the church" really has no bearing on these people whatsoever, nor does a law that was never given to them.

Again... the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS never said a thing about a new creation/someone being saved after divorce being free to remarry. IT WAS NEVER ADDRESSED! There is no RECORD OF IT! Why isn't there JUST ONE???

Ahh.... we can "only speculate," right? ;)

VerticalReality
Aug 20th 2008, 02:46 PM
How do we know the mind of God and his will? Do we just assume or do we believe his words and commands from the Bible? Whatever Jesus said in the NT concerning divorce and remarriage is what I can "expect to believe on God's will here." I cannot include my emotions, my dreams, and my wishes or anyone elses. All I can go by is the clear direction that God gives in his Word. I can choose to obey it or disobey it. If Jesus calls the second marriage, while the first spouse is living, adultery.... then it must be adultery...whether I like it or not... or even whether it makes sense.

This has nothing to do with emotions or wishes. This has to do with Scripture harmonizing, and the fact of the matter here is that I'm not seeing harmony in your view. You claim that the law allows for no divorce after the consummation of a marriage, but the Scriptures declare clearly that this is false. Now between two Jews you could possibly have a point, but between those who are not Jews you do not have an answer. This has nothing to do with emotional concern for myself. I'm completely fine regardless of which view anyone wants to hold here. My personal life conforms to your interpretation as well as my own, so emotions of a personal nature have no bearing on my view here. However, being a pastor you encounter many different scenarios from people who have very painful pasts. Additionally, you encounter many newly saved folks who are remarried and have been remarried for most of their life. Now, you claim that you will not tell remarried folks that they must leave one another, but your teachings contradict this proclamation. You say that remarriage is a constant state of adultery, and unless one repents they will not inherit the kingdom of God, but at the same time you state that you won't tell others that they need to separate from this remarriage. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, Alyssa. You're going to allow two people to continue in an adulterous marriage that you believe is going to send them to hell and not say anything about it? That just seems to me like a copout. However, I suppose this is another safe route to take. I guess folks like myself who try to step out in faith to walk in the calling the Lord has placed upon them better think twice because having to advise folks in a Godly manner can be a dangerous task. I could try to find the truth . . . or I can take the "safe" answer that . . .

1) May just be as much error as any other view

or . . .

2) May break up a marriage that God didn't want broken

I guess either way I go I'm in very much trouble . . .

However, I guess I could sit on the fence and not advise anyone. Then, of course, I wouldn't really be the shepherd of the flock that I'm called to be. It's easy to sit in the pews and judge what a pastor should or should not do. It's much more difficult to actually be in the situation where you are dealing with the past of people that are being beat up and condemned for the ungodly decisions they made.


It doesn't always make sense to love my enemy.... but He tells me to love my enemy! That's all I know to do.... be obedient to the clear words of Jesus.

It makes perfect sense to me.


Do we have any Scriptural evidence that Jewish women divorced their husbands?

Why do we need it? Again, do you need Scriptural evidence that the Germans lost World War II? If not, how do you know they lost?


Do we have any Scriptural evidence or JUST ONE story of two people involved in a re-marriage blessed by Jesus?

We don't really have any detailed accounts of pagans or the like coming to a relationship with Jesus Christ. A good majority of the Word of God is about those who already know the Lord or are already in covenant with Him.


We have clear Scriptural evidence to REPENT! REPENT! REPENT! How many times are we told that?

What does repent mean? Does it mean fix what you did? What would be your advice to Solomon if he was just now coming to the Lord? Would you have him leave all of his wives? Where would you point him to scripturally for such direction?


MICHAL ditched her second husband and RETURNED to DAVID!

How does this refute what I stated?


GOMER ditched hers and RETURNED to HOSEA!!

How does this refute what I stated?


ISRAEL ditched theirs and RETURNED to the LORD!!

Again, same as above . . .


The MEN of EZRA (who already had Jewish wives) DITCHED their second wives and RETURNED to their first wives and the LORD.

Could you point out the Scripture that declares that all these men had wives already that were Jewish, and could you also point out to me why that refutes what I've stated?


And Paul clearly told the man or woman that divorces their spouse to REMAIN UNMARRIED or RECONCILE!! (1 Cor 7:10)

This is talking to those who know the Lord and have entered into covenant with Him . . .


Look, do I go around telling people who are in second marriages that they need to divorce their adulterous partner and go back to the first one? No, I do not. I am not at that point yet, and I do not know if I ever will be. This is something I have not settled in my heart yet.

No, you just tell them that they are in a constant state of adultery and no adulterer or adulteress will inherit the kingdom of God. So, what other option does that leave them? It's either . . . leave your spouse that you have been married to for 30 years . . . or . . . go to hell. I'd say the expectations of them are being made loud and clear.


Can a thief who is forgiven and washed clean by the blood of Jesus for their lifestyle of stealing continue on stealing? Of course not! Why wouldn't it be the same for adultery? You tell me!! Can a murderer keep on murdering? Of course not! Can a child abuser keep on child abusing? Of course not! Can a lesbian keep on in her immoral lifestyle? Of course not! If a lesbian cannot, why should an adulterer be given that privilege?? You tell me!! No wonder gays are so disgusted with the church. While the church is pointing out their sin of immorality, it is at the same time condoning the sin of remarriage!!! What a joke! Why does the law of God change for an adulterer? Do you have one single verse showing that it IS different? Do we have have an addendum in the Word showing that adulturers are exempt? You tell me!

No need to get emotional, Alyssa. What law says that if I, a gentile, come to the Lord remarried I must leave my spouse and return to the first?


Paul tells the CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS.... "Do not be deceived, the adulterers will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God..." (1 Cor 6 9-11)

Of course. Unfortunately, the church at Corinth had folks proclaiming themselves to be believers who were practicing such things as those who did not know the Lord when they were supposed to be cleansed and set free from the bondage of the enemy.


I'm not going to make any set in stone claims here... but doesn't this verse prick your spirit??

Yeah, it screams that such condemnation for newly born again Christians is wrong. How many babes in Christ do you think would come to the Lord if they were taught your teaching here that all remarried folks are condemned to hell unless they leave their current marriage and return to their first. Do you really believe that those who have been remarried for nearly 30 years and have children would jump at this "good news" you are giving them? How many times have you seen this gospel of yours actually cause someone to leave their long time spouse and either return to some spouse they had years ago or live celibate?


All I know to do is to share my conviction... and leave it to the individual to make up their mind.

Your conviction is just that . . . your conviction. Why do you think others aren't convicted of the same thing? Why are there newly born again Christians coming to the Lord remarried who are not convicted of this message you are preaching?

VerticalReality
Aug 20th 2008, 03:02 PM
No.... I am not. You aren't paying attention to my words.

Let me repost my words....

I think too, as I always go back to it, not as a final word, but as additional reference... the early church for the first 500 years ACROSS THE BOARD did not teach the doctrine you are preaching nor the one the modern church is preaching today on remarriage...I have read the creeds for myself and never once, not even close, did any church father mention that a person who was saved after a divorce was free to remarry. And it wasn't until the Reformation that people began to turn from the truth and allow divorce and remarriage in the church. No, the Reformation wasn't all bad, but allowing remarriage after so many, many years of not allowing it is a very bad thing in my opinion.

I think I've been paying attention okay. I have not been discussing folks getting remarried after salvation. I've been discussing those who are already remarried that come to the Lord. Additionally, could you provide this evidence you claim where those of the early church did not allow this or that. You have made many claims regarding this expecting those here to just take your claim as fact, but you haven't provided any of that documentation declaring this to be the case. Can you provide clear declarations that the early church never allowed remarriage or never allowed remarried people to come to the church?


You are quite clear (On your belief).... I just happen to disagree with it and know that it does not harmonize with the Gospels! C'mon Cory! You know that I know what you are talking about... please don't play the naive card. I have said more than once that I USED TO BELIEVE LIKE YOU DO... until I realized it doesn't harmonize.

Evidently it isn't clear to you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be talking about remarriage within the church or what the early church allowed "in the church" when I haven't been talking about what is allowed "in the church". I'm talking about what transpires when those who were not in the church eventually come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and what exactly is expected of them.


Again... the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS never said a thing about a new creation/someone being saved after divorce being free to remarry. IT WAS NEVER ADDRESSED! There is no RECORD OF IT! Why isn't there JUST ONE???

Why does that matter? Such is not the topic of this conversation.

Alyssa S
Aug 20th 2008, 04:34 PM
[quote=VerticalReality;1756606]This has nothing to do with emotions or wishes. This has to do with Scripture harmonizing,

You crack me up brother!

Hmmm..... You just took my exact words of saying that it has nothing to do with emotions and wishes and re-stated what I said... as IF I DIDN'T say it!! :o :rolleyes: Please quit manipulating words.

It HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE SCRIPTURES HARMONIZING!!!!!!!!!!!! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEELINGS!

There... We should be clear about where I stand regarding harmonization of the Scriptures.

I don't have time right now to respond to all of your comments.... but regarding the church fathers.... I can copy and paste from my Word Doc but it will take a lot of my time as well as space on here. I may just include bits and pieces... but I will try to at least give the names of the father's. YOU can read their creeds for yourself, if you so wish. Then perhaps you will be convinced that I am not lying.

Just curious.... If you are not concerned about what the church father's said (since it seems to have no relevance to the topic of this thread...as you say) then you shouldn't want to concern yourself with reading them should you? :confused

VerticalReality
Aug 20th 2008, 05:06 PM
You crack me up brother!

Hmmm..... You just took my exact words of saying that it has nothing to do with emotions and wishes and re-stated what I said... as IF I DIDN'T say it!! :o :rolleyes: Please quit manipulating words.

And I was stating to you that my emotions were not involved in what is being stated here. I have no emotional tie personally to anything here. As I said, my personal life conforms to all the views here, so there is no personal emotion tied to this from my end. You said this is not about emotion as if I was emotional about it. I am not. I'm simply trying to rightly divide the Word.


It HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE SCRIPTURES HARMONIZING!!!!!!!!!!!! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEELINGS!

I agree, which is why I was clarifying that my emotions from a personal standpoint do not come into play here. This is indeed about harmonizing Scripture. I have shown why your view does not harmonize with the Scriptures. So far you have only addressed things that I haven't even been talking about.


I don't have time right now to respond to all of your comments.... but regarding the church fathers.... I can copy and paste from my Word Doc but it will take a lot of my time as well as space on here. I may just include bits and pieces... but I will try to at least give the names of the father's. YOU can read their creeds for yourself, if you so wish. Then perhaps you will be convinced that I am not lying.

That would be appreciated . . .



Just curious.... If you are not concerned about what the church father's said (since it seems to have no relevance to the topic of this thread...as you say) then you shouldn't want to concern yourself with reading them should you? :confused


I will clarify again for you . . .

I have not mentioned or discussed folks in the church divorcing and remarrying in this thread. Therefore, when you start bringing in comments on what early church folks allowed with regard to people within the church divorcing and remarrying you aren't at all addressing anything I've stated. You act here as if you have. You have not. When you make such comments you are simply adding something into this discussion or accusing me of stating things that I simply have not stated.

Now, with that out of the way I would surely be interested to see what evidence you have stating what the early church did or did not agree with.

Alyssa S
Aug 20th 2008, 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by VerticalReality http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1756606#post1756606) Now, you claim that you will not tell remarried folks that they must leave one another, but your teachings contradict this proclamation.

"My teachings??" I am using clear Scripture verses. "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if he dies she is free to remarry. IF she marries while he is still living she will be called an ADULTERESS!!" I did not come up with it from the imagination of my mind! It is the Word of God!

IF I am not 100% convinced of something, I am not going to tell people they have to do this or that. It isn't my place! All I can do is share my conviction, as I have already stated, and leave it up to the Holy Spirit to guide them. SUE ME for not having all of the answers about this! I do think that there are a lot more Scriptures that say that remarriage is ADULTERY! We are blind to ignore that fact!! You know the verses!!



You say that remarriage is a constant state of adultery,

(I) am not saying anything Cory... I am quoting Scripture!


and unless one repents they will not inherit the kingdom of God, I am quoting Scripture, Cory. I clearly said that this verse concerns me and that I have not yet fully subscribed to it. I have already been clear about that. Please Quit manipulating my words!!



but at the same time you state that you won't tell others that they need to separate from this remarriage. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, Alyssa.

It is not my place to tell people that "they need to separate" if I am not fully subscribed to that belief. I am not sure how I feel about it. And I would hope that you don't pretend that you have it all figured out because some of your recent comments prove that you are uncertain. I would request that you not point fingers at me when you yourself are in the same boat of uncertainty.


You're going to allow two people to continue in an adulterous marriage that you believe is going to send them to hell and not say anything about it? That just seems to me like a copout.

"(I'M) going to allow??" Please.
Once again, I have ALREADY stated that I would share my conviction and leave it to the Lord to give them discernment.


However, I suppose this is another safe route to take.
Well, I think You've got your route's confused.
There is nothing wrong with me sharing my conviction as long as it lines up with Scripture. And as far as I have studied, my belief lines up with the early church father's as well.



I guess folks like myself who try to step out in faith to walk in the calling the Lord has placed upon them better think twice because having to advise folks in a Godly manner can be a dangerous task. I could try to find the truth . . . or I can take the "safe" answer that . . .



I VERY MUCH encourage trying to find the TRUTH as oppposed to "settling" for a"safe" answer. We should always seek the TRUTH! That is the IDEAL. But what do we do when we are faced with an apparent gray subject? Until it is no longer gray, we take the "SAFE" route. Is that unwise counsel? Or do you have a better plan?



1) May just be as much error as any other view

or . . .

2) May break up a marriage that God didn't want broken

I guess either way I go I'm in very much trouble . . .

However, I guess I could sit on the fence and not advise anyone. Then, of course, I wouldn't really be the shepherd of the flock that I'm called to be. It's easy to sit in the pews and judge what a pastor should or should not do. It's much more difficult to actually be in the situation where you are dealing with the past of people that are being beat up and condemned for the ungodly decisions they made.



I can not even begin to imagine the pressure a pastor has in leading a flock. If I were a man, I would not want that responsibility... unless God demanded it of me.

I understand the dilemma you are in... though maybe not fully. But I too, have a calling on my life, and I will be held responsible if I neglect that calling and my convictions.

I do not have all the answers... and I will not pretend to. All I know is to be faithful to the very, very deep conviction that God has given to me and has confirmed to me through His Word, prayer, and wise counsel on many occasions and CONTINUES to confirm to me.

I appreciate your difficulty and relate to your passion.... but please be respectful of my conviction and difficulty that I too, face each day knowing that I have to take up my cross and die to my longings of having a mate to walk beside me in life. It is a painful cross to bear.... but God gives me strength and fire in my bones to press on. And he wakes me up with peace and mercy.

This is what I know.

God bless,
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 20th 2008, 05:43 PM
"My teachings??" I am using clear Scripture verses. "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if he dies she is free to remarry. IF she marries while he is still living she will be called an ADULTERESS!!" I did not come up with it from the imagination of my mind! It is the Word of God!

What are you quoting here, Alyssa? Are you not quoting the law? Anyone can pick random passages of Scripture and say, "Look it says this . . . !!!" But the fact of the matter here is that we have to rightly divide the Word of Truth.


IF I am not 100% convinced of something, I am not going to tell people they have to do this or that. It isn't my place! All I can do is share my conviction, as I have already stated, and leave it up to the Holy Spirit to guide them. SUE ME for not having all of the answers about this! I do think that there are a lot more Scriptures that say that remarriage is ADULTERY! We are blind to ignore that fact!! You know the verses!!

What do you think you are telling people then? If you tell folks that remarriage is adultery and no adulterer or adulteress will inherit the kingdom of God you are telling them in a round about way that they are going to hell if they do not leave their current spouse. Why do you tell them that? Simply because you know of a few verses that state this. However, I also know of a few verses that state to stone folks for adultery or sexual immorality and the like. However, giving someone these Scriptures just because they are indeed in there wouldn't exactly be rightly dividing the Word of Truth would it?


(I) am not saying anything Cory... I am quoting Scripture!

I can quote all sorts of Scripture and it be totally out of context or not mean what I think it means. Just because you are quoting Scripture does not mean you are declaring truth in how you are presenting it.


I am quoting Scripture, Cory. I clearly said that this verse concerns me and that I have not yet fully subscribed to it. I have already been clear about that. Please Quit manipulating my words!!

I don't feel I'm manipulating anything. You seem to be getting awfully excited here over nothing. Take a few breaths and we can continue having the discussion. No biggie.


It is not my place to tell people that "they need to separate" if I am not fully subscribed to that belief. I am not sure how I feel about it. And I would hope that you don't pretend that you have it all figured out because some of your recent comments prove that you are uncertain. I would request that you not point fingers at me when you yourself are in the same boat of uncertainty.

If you are not sure about what you believe then why are you presenting it here as if you are?



"(I'M) going to allow??" Please.
Once again, I have ALREADY stated that I would share my conviction and leave it to the Lord to give them discernment.


And if you have shared what is not rightly representing the Word? If you are unsure you can simply state that you are unsure. However, you are not presenting things here as if you are unsure. You are basically coming to this thread stating how wrong this or that is or how absurd this or that is. However, what I have observed from your comments, Alyssa, is that you are not understanding at all what has been said here. I mean you are addressing and arguing things that I haven't even stated.



Well, I think You've got your route's confused.
There is nothing wrong with me sharing my conviction as long as it lines up with Scripture. And as far as I have studied, my belief lines up with the early church father's as well.


But it is being shown here how your view does not align with all of Scripture.


I VERY MUCH encourage trying to find the TRUTH as oppposed to "settling" for a"safe" answer. We should always seek the TRUTH! That is the IDEAL. But what do we do when we are faced with an apparent gray subject? Until it is no longer gray, we take the "SAFE" route. Is that unwise counsel? Or do you have a better plan?

How do you know this path is "safe" and not just legalism? I wouldn't teach the "safe" route. I would teach the "I'm not sure . . . let's study and pray until we find the answer" route. You seem to be addressing this topic like I am here trying to convince you to remarry. Your conviction is your conviction, and I'm not even talking about you. What you do is between you and the Lord. I'm talking about the Word of God here and what it declares as a whole. Not what it says here and there . . . but as a whole.


I do not have all the answers... and I will not pretend to. All I know is to be faithful to the very, very deep conviction that God has given to me and has confirmed to me through His Word, prayer, and wise counsel on many occasions and CONTINUES to confirm to me.

And again, nobody is trying to talk you out of your conviction. What you do is your business between you and the Lord. However, I cannot base my belief only off of personal convictions of others. I have a church that God expects me to lead into all His ways, and I must do so according to the entirety of His Word.


I appreciate your difficulty and relate to your passion.... but please be respectful of my conviction and difficulty that I too, face each day knowing that I have to take up my cross and die to my longings of having a mate to walk beside me in life. It is a painful cross to bear.... but God gives me strength and fire in my bones to press on. And he wakes me up with peace and mercy.

And this is where I think much of the defensiveness comes into play, Alyssa. You are taking this from the attitude of me attacking your conviction. I'm not addressing your conviction. I'm simply attempting to rightly divide the entirety of God's Word. You will receive full support from me in holding to your convictions. But again, I cannot base what I teach simply on your conviction.

Alyssa S
Aug 20th 2008, 10:24 PM
I don't feel I'm manipulating anything. You seem to be getting awfully excited here over nothing. Take a few breaths and we can continue having the discussion. No biggie.


Ok... I just got back from the gym and took a BUNCH of breaths!! :lol:
Do I have YOUR PERMISSION, Mr. Cory, to continue on now???
I'll assume that is a "YES!" ;)



What are you quoting here, Alyssa? Are you not quoting the law? Anyone can pick random passages of Scripture and say, "Look it says this . . . !!!" But the fact of the matter here is that we have to rightly divide the Word of Truth.


I feel that I am rightly dividing the truth to the best of my ability.

Where in the law of Moses does it say that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives? According to Moses, a woman could remarry if she was put away... how is that being bound to him till death?

This is the Law of God's Creation Marriage. Yes, I am quoting the Law of God! Since we are dead to the law of Moses, are you claiming that we are dead to the rule that a woman is bound to her husband until he dies?????? :confused



What do you think you are telling people then? If you tell folks that remarriage is adultery and no adulterer or adulteress will inherit the kingdom of God you are telling them in a round about way that they are going to hell if they do not leave their current spouse. Why do you tell them that?

I don't tell them that... I haven't told anybody those words. I present the Scripture and let them decide. If I am put in that situation, I would ask them what they think adultery means, then ask them what this verse is implying. But those verses prick my spirit! Don't they prick yours at all?? You're not concerned about that verse? You seem to think that I am so wrong in wanting to point these out. That is your problem. My conviction, whether you agree with it, forces me to share. Again, I have not subscribed to the belief that one will go to hell from unrepentent remarriage. But at this point... I DO believe remarriage is adultery. Does it mean they are going to hell? I do not know. Currently, I do not believe one can lose salvation. But there are many verses that seem to say so. Not sure where I stand regarding that. Just being transparent.


Simply because you know of a few verses that state this. However, I also know of a few verses that state to stone folks for adultery or sexual immorality and the like. However, giving someone these Scriptures just because they are indeed in there wouldn't exactly be rightly dividing the Word of Truth would it?

Nope... and that is not what I am doing, Cory.
When have I said that people are going to hell?? You will not find one post where I have said that I tell people they are going to hell, but I can quote you ASSUMING that that is my belief. You are wrong to do so. All I am saying is that verse is unsettling to me!! And there are verses that clearly say that the gate is NARROW!!! And that there will be a remnant saved. So my wheels get to turning! Again, I am not sure where I stand with that. And I have never stated otherwise. So yah! I will get "excited" when someone puts words in my mouth and tells me what I believe when I know that I am undecided about it. Are we clear?




I can quote all sorts of Scripture and it be totally out of context or not mean what I think it means. Just because you are quoting Scripture does not mean you are declaring truth in how you are presenting it.


I am declaring what I believe is true at this point. And at this point in my walk, and where I am regarding this subject... I believe that remarriage is adultery. Sorry to disappoint you.



If you are not sure about what you believe then why are you presenting it here as if you are?


Why are you?? And I am not sure about 1 Cor 6, but I am 99% sure about remarriage and so I will share my belief.




And if you have shared what is not rightly representing the Word? If you are unsure you can simply state that you are unsure. However, you are not presenting things here as if you are unsure. You are basically coming to this thread stating how wrong this or that is or how absurd this or that is. However, what I have observed from your comments, Alyssa, is that you are not understanding at all what has been said here. I mean you are addressing and arguing things that I haven't even stated.



I have simply stated that I am unsure about 1 Cor 6. You don't have to run it into the ground.

I am "not understanding at ALL what has been said here?"...Wellllll that's a pretty insulting and exaggerative statement, brother. :eek: But I forgive ya! There are some things that you have said that don't make total sense to me, because I think you contradict yourself at times, but at other times, I think you have good arguments. It still has to line up with Scripture. By the way, do I have to stick to "Cory's guidelines and instructions" when I present Scripture? Am I only "allowed" to address and argue things THAT "YOU HAVE STATED?" :rolleyes:

Nope... that's not how this Forum was set up. When I feel there is information that pertains to the subject at hand, you better believe I am going to present it. And when I radically disagree about something... I will say so! If I am unsure, I have no problem saying I am unsure. And if I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong. Are we clear?



But it is being shown here how your view does not align with all of Scripture.


I think it aligns a lot better than yours! Hey, you have some good arguments, Cory. I will not deny that. But, again, it doesn't line up with the Gospels. Marksfan9 and Alaska and others that have visited this thread in the past would agree. If you can present it where they do line up... then I will admit that I am wrong... and applaud you. But till then... I simply don't agree.



How do you know this path is "safe" and not just legalism? I wouldn't teach the "safe" route. I would teach the "I'm not sure . . . let's study and pray until we find the answer" route.

So is that what you are doing?? Because it would seem to me that you are bound and determined to defend remarriage for a person saved after divorce. Or am I wrong?



I'm not even talking about you. What you do is between you and the Lord. I'm talking about the Word of God here and what it declares as a whole. Not what it says here and there . . . but as a whole.


Well then.... let's talk about it as a WHOLE and let the Scriptures harmonize, if you can present something that haronizes. I have no problem with that.



However, I cannot base my belief only off of personal convictions of others. I have a church that God expects me to lead into all His ways, and I must do so according to the entirety of His Word.

I would HOPE that you wouldn't!! Good for you! I am quite aware by now that you have a church to run, and I hope that you come to closure regarding this subject real soon!



And this is where I think much of the defensiveness comes into play, Alyssa. You are taking this from the attitude of me attacking your conviction.

No, my defensiveness comes when someone manipulates my words and claims that I believe things that I never claimed to believe. That simple. When you stop manipulating... I will stop being defensive.



But again, I cannot base what I teach simply on your conviction.



Aaaannnnd Again, I would HOPE that you would NEVER do that. Are we clear there as well? Because I am expecting that you are not going to come back with another, "Then how come you this and how come you that??" Hopefully I am being clear enough to where we won't have to waste posts and unproductive time over "he said-she said." It's too juvenile and I'm too old for it. ;)

God blesshyourshelf, Cory.

I am done bantering.... :kiss:

Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 01:53 AM
[quote=VerticalReality;1756606]

Your conviction is just that . . . your conviction. Why do you think others aren't convicted of the same thing? Why are there newly born again Christians coming to the Lord remarried who are not convicted of this message you are preaching?

WOW! :eek: That's quite another big assumptive statement you are making there, not to be God, the only one who is all knowing. I have shared my treatise with quite a few people... and you would be, obviously, surprised at how many people have been "convicted." Have all of them? Most of them, who one is a seminary grad, another group is on a Christian Men's Board (which includes a pastor), and the others who are friends. Across the board, I am told that the presentation is very convincing and would seem biblically accurate... and that I have presented some very strong arguments.

I cannot ignore the Scriptures that say remarriage is adultery. Anyone that wants to do that has their choice. But why do you feel that you are more "right" because of your conviction than I am?? Why is my conviction wrong and yours right? Of course you could say the same thing to me, but then I could say that there is the possibility of you leading a multitude to sin by telling them it's ok to remarry (after conversion.)

How 'bout this.... I'll post all the verses that say remarriage is adultery.... and you post all the verses that say it isn't... and whoever has the most verses wins!! :D

Do you think I like this? Do you think this "cross" is fun for me?? Of course it isn't!!! And by the way, if I want to get emotional, excited, or passionate about it, when you tell me not to (even if I'm not), that is my perogative. I am a very passionate person when it comes to God's Word. And I will defend the truth when I see it as truth!!!

Why in the wide world of sports would I want to stand for something that won't allow me to have one of my greatest desires? The only way I can explain that is that it is the Holy Spirit. I have longings, but I die to them because I have chosen to take up my cross. Do you think Paul "enjoyed" being flogged and imprisoned and persecuted? But he had peace and he had joy through his circumstances. I have this and "fire in my bones" to defend this and all I can say is that it can only come from the Lord.

Now... you want to personally meet some people who you claim don't exist, who have decided to take a stand for what they believe is truth and remain single since they believe they are not free to remarry?

Then go here.... www.cadz.net/faq.html (http://www.cadz.net/faq.html) and read the testimonies to the right....and there is also a forum where you can talk to these people, and you can witness it for yourself since you seem to think I am delusional and the only one on this planet who is convicted of remarriage!

Oh... and I have a few Early Church Father's who will back me up. ;) They'll be along in a minute.

God bless,
Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 01:56 AM
According to these Early Church Father’s, Conversion to Christianity forgives past sin but does not nullify or set aside “God’s laws”….

The following are their quotes regarding remarriage after salvation. I will attach the rest of the writings in the next post, along with their background.

“But we must learn, that in baptism sin can be forgiven, but
law cannot be abolished. In the case of marriage there is no
sin, but there is a law. Whatever sin there is can be put
away, whatever law there is cannot be laid aside in
marriage.”
- On the Duties of Clergy:1:257
…. Ambrose of Milan 387 AD

“Therefore if your sister, who, as she says, has been forced
into a second union, wishes to receive the body of Christ and
not to be accounted an adulteress, let her do penance; so far
at least as from the time she begins to repent to have no
farther intercourse with that second husband who ought to
be called not a husband but an adulterer. If this seems hard
to her and if she cannot leave one whom she has once loved
and will not prefer the Lord to sensual pleasure, let her hear
the declaration of the apostle: "ye cannot drink the cup of
the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the
Lord's table and of the table of devils," and in another place:
"what communion hath light with darkness? and what
concord hath Christ with Belial?”..... Jerome 396 AD (Letters 55,58)

“Therefore to serve two or more (men), so to pass over from a
living husband into marriage with another, was neither
lawful then (in the Old Testament), nor is it lawful now, nor
will it ever be lawful.”…. Augustine 419 AD (On the Holy Spirit, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises)

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 01:59 AM
I think it's obvious that this discussion is not going to continue without personal attacks, so I'm just going to remove myself from discussing it any further until it begins to take a different direction.

Until then, the initial post has still gone unchallenged, and the original point of the thread still stands.

If folks want to actually start discussing those issues I am willing to continue.

Alaska
Aug 21st 2008, 02:02 AM
Hi Alyssa,
I see you are still at it.

I was writing someone last night with a question about divorce and the definition of marriage.
I wanted to share some of that with you:

The issue of what the truth is concerning marriage has to be a very simple matter since it is vital to understand. We spend a relatively short time growing up and even while doing so we look forward to becoming adults. The majority of most peoples lives are spent as married persons.

So how on earth could a loving God who fortold of the coming of his Son and the glory that would accompany that event, not clearly, and without any question leave us without an absolute crystal clear understanding of marriage? He would be an incompetent and cruel God to not clearly address the concern. I mean he tells us that adulterers shall not inherit the Kingdom and then he won’t clarify what adulery is? And how can we discern what adultery is without knowing what marriage is?

I cannot think of another moral doctrinal issue in the NT that has more verses directly addressing and pertaining to it than the topic of marriage and divorce. And will it still be claimed that we don’t have enough to understand? I think the forest is not seen because of the trees. It is so extremely simple that it has proven to be "too complicated".

Jesus is overriding man’s laws as pertaining to divorce by declaring that to divorce, in and of itself is a sin. Also to remarry after the divorce, is the sin of adultery. So with Jesus there is no respect to any law that goes contrary to the truth of God’s absolutes on moral behaviour, on which every man’s eternal destiny hinges.

When two people, even if they don’t believe in God, decide to get married: Let’s see, lets keep score:
They fail in that they don’t believe in God, but they are doing what God says is right when it comes to their decision to get married. And what if they don’t know that they are doing right by getting married? It doesn’t matter; they are still doing what is right even if they don’t know it! So let’s say they are faithful to one another as husband and wife for as long as they live yet they never accept Christ. At judgement when all their particular sins in their life are revealed, the fact that they got married and were faithful to one another will not be found in their list of sins.

Since God made them Male and Female, He says a man shall naturally leave his own father and mother and will cleave to his wife to start his own family, and they twain shall be one flesh. So when this man and woman, neither of whom are believers, decide to get married, who are we to presume that their marriage, [that also falls in line with the pattern of what Jesus said in connection with Genesis 2], somehow cannot be respected as that which God has joined together? The fact that they are getting married reflects that God made it to work that way. We are made in His image. He understands our intelligence emotions etc.and knows what it is to decide to get married. In respect to our decision, he puts his stamp on that event called marriage. This is recorded in heaven as that which God has joined together because he made it to work that way.
God made man and woman and He instituted marriage. This is not man’s invention. Anyone entering into this agreement of one man one woman for one another only as husband and wife, is bound by God’s rules over that which HE made even if they are not aware of the rules.

That is how Jesus could declare: whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. He is declaring an absolute truth.
He is speaking in the context of the basic pattern of Adam and Eve, one man one woman, neither of whom had been married before. [And Adam and Eve didn’t even have the knowledge of good and evil when they were married]. ‘Whosoever’ in the above reference pertains to all who have gotten lawfully married. [Of course it is also a lawful marriage if one or both had been previously lawfully married but any former spouse is dead.]
Getting a marriage to be certified is a good thing. The state provides means to do that. But it is the decision of the parties involved to get married in the first place, that brings them to the magistrate or minister or whoever so that their marriage can be certified and made official as to avoid being seen as simply living together.
Look at the extreme simplicity of marriage in light of what I shared as you look at what Jesus said in the following reading. Also I think the Holy Spirit very deliberately placed verses 13 and 14 immediately after His teaching on divorce and remarriage.
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.

13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Verses 6-9 is all we need and is complete as the definition of marriage. Reading it carefully I believe makes verse 9 as a conclusion that any lawful marriage is deemed as that which He has joined by virtue of the fact that he made it to work that way as we see in verses 6 to 8.
The question of whether or not divorce and remarriage is allowed is answered in verses 11, and 12.
Most pastors don't have the understanding of the simplicity that is in Christ in this extremely important doctrine. Hence they are weak to prohibit adulterous remarriages in their church. Numerous adulterous marriages are looked on with respect when the pastors should hang their head in shame. "Adultery cults", I believe, would be an appropriate word for those assemblies that endorse adultery. I mean if Mark 10:11,12 really means what it says then the label "adultery cult" cannot be a wrong description.
They say the roadway to hell is paved with good intentions: Pastors feel sorry for their divorced members and end up allowing them to commit adultery. Or in the case of those divorced before becoming Christians, these pastors counsel them that somehow God didn't join that marriage [in direct contradiction to Mark 10:6-9 above] and again they feel sorry for their predicament and instead of telling them the painful truth they encourage adultery by remarriage.

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 02:15 AM
I also would like to be clear to others viewing this thread that this is not about remarriage AFTER conversion. For some reason this argument seems to be attributed to me here and I simply have not discussed it. It has not been part of my argument the entire thread.

Alaska
Aug 21st 2008, 02:35 AM
Many Pastors encourage adultery by either;
1) sanctioning some of their members' already-remarried status, which may have been done while they were unbelievers, or
2) by claiming they have a right to remarry because the first marriage is "passed away".

Sin is what is passed away.
To call a marriage [that fits the description by Jesus in Mark 10:6-9] "a sin" is nothing less than blasphemy.

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 02:38 AM
Many Pastors encourage adultery by either;
1) sanctioning some of their members' already-remarried status, which may have been done while they were unbelievers, or
2) by claiming they have a right to remarry because the first marriage is "passed away".

Sin is what is passed away.
To call a marriage [that fits the description by Jesus in Mark 10:6-9] "a sin" is nothing less than blasphemy.

Yet, still no explanation for Ezra 9-10. I think the truth is that this view being held by some has no explanation for Ezra 9-10. So instead it just goes ignored like it just doesn't exist in the Word of God.

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 02:41 AM
I also would like to be clear to others viewing this thread that this is not about remarriage AFTER conversion. For some reason this argument seems to be attributed to me here and I simply have not discussed it. It has not been part of my argument the entire thread.

Otay... I realize I have to be vewy vewy careful with my words.

One is a non believer.
One marries another non believer.
One divorces a non believer.

One gets saved.
One remarries.

Is this one who remarries, after conversion, sinning?

I am assuming that you are going to say that this SECOND marriage is actually the FIRST one and therefore it is not called "Remarriage."

Am I correct? If so, I will try to be sensitive to that (for your behalf) and call it..... what???? First marriage after the First one didn't count? I'm not sure what to call it.

Forgive me for calling it the "wrong" thing. Oh, and I apologize if you feel you are being attacked by me. I felt I was only defending myself. ;)

I will honor what I told you I would do, since you requested it, and post the rest of the Early Church Father's teachings that I have download on here and I will remove myself from discussing with you on this topic after that.

No hard feelings on my part!:hug: I wish you the best Cory!

God bless,
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 02:52 AM
Another bit of info that is of note since they are referenced here . . .

Not only are these referenced men Roman Catholics, one other such doctrine taught and held by Ambrose of Milan was Universalism, which is widely considered as heresy amongst most all the church. So, I would say that just because they were part of the earlier church doesn't mean they taught and believed what is widely considered to be sound doctrine. Their teachings certainly do not appear to be above criticism.

Additionally, I do not consider folks like Ambrose of Milan or Augustine to be "early church fathers". They came about almost 400 years after the Lord Jesus Christ walked this earth, and as it has already been pointed out, Ambrose in particular taught doctrine that is widely considered to be heresy amongst a majority of the church.

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 02:54 AM
And again, this topic is not about two unbelievers marrying, divorcing, getting saved, and then getting remarried.

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 03:24 AM
Something else to point out about the quote from Mr. Ambrose above . . .


“But we must learn, that in baptism sin can be forgiven, but
law cannot be abolished. In the case of marriage there is no
sin, but there is a law. Whatever sin there is can be put
away, whatever law there is cannot be laid aside in
marriage.”
- On the Duties of Clergy:1:257
…. Ambrose of Milan 387 AD

Since when is baptism where sin can be forgiven?

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 03:31 AM
In regards to Ezra 9-10, I would like to, once again, address this issue, even though it has already been discussed, just incase some have forgotten... Never ignore the Scriptures! The Greek word for "Divorce" is not used in that passage. That was a unique situation where they went against the clear command of God and disobeyed, and they were told to SEPARATE. But whether they divorced or separated is beside the point.

The New Testament teachings on divorce and remarriage supercede the Old Testament teachings in many ways (not all), regardless of what some want to think. The marriage and divorce teaching from OT to NT is not going to harmonize (with the exception of God's Law in Genesis) because the law given regarding (re)marriage and divorce was a man made law. It is silly to even try and make it harmonize REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT OF DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE. If we are going to try and harmonize the Ezra story, then why stop there? Let's try and harmonize Jesus' teachings with Deut 22:13-20 that says a man could have his wife/betrothed killed for sexual immorality.

Women who are engaged today are not killed for immorality.... as it was in the OT.
A woman who is raped today does not have to marry her rapist...as it was in the OT.
A woman or man who commits adultery today is not stoned to death....as it was in the OT.
Men can no longer put away their wives for "any and every reason."...as it was in the OT.

These are some of the "changes" that Jesus brought....whether one wants to call it "bringing it back to the beginning" or "change." Either way... for many years, the actuality of life was that things were done one way... and with Jesus in the flesh... the record was set straight and many things were put to a stop.

God bless,
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 03:37 AM
So, in other words, some things we have to do by the law and some things we don't . . .

I don't think so.

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 03:45 AM
Being that this thread keeps getting off track I'm going to paste the post from a few pages back again so that hopefully we can get back on track and stay there.



So, let's get this topic back on track . . .

What is it that we can conclude thus far from this?

Some things that seem certain to me are:

1) It was against the law for the Israelites to mix the holy seed
2) It was in accordance with the law that the Israelites divorced those pagan wives
3) Under the law of Christ it is not according to God's will to divorce an unbelieving spouse. However, it appears that under the old law it was permitted
4) The believer is not in bondage to the unbeliever if the unbeliever departs, and I would say this is most definitely not just talking about them not being in bondage to live with one another

As for the betrothal teaching, I believe the passages of Ezra 9-10 prove to us one of two things.

Either the betrothal view is completely false based upon the allowance of divorce by the law in Ezra 9-10 . . .

or . . .

The betrothal view only applies to two Jews that are both under the law of Moses.

Alaska
Aug 21st 2008, 03:46 AM
Yet, still no explanation for Ezra 9-10. I think the truth is that this view being held by some has no explanation for Ezra 9-10. So instead it just goes ignored like it just doesn't exist in the Word of God.


How long halt ye between two opinions, If Ezra be Messiah follow him, But if Jesus be Messiah, then follow him.

Noone is ignoring it , just not everyone is willing to suppose that what Ezra did was in accordance to the reformation that the Messiah was later to bring.
It is one thing to understand the book of Ezra to be accurately recorded factual history, which it is, but it is another thing to suppose that what he did was in line with the "righteousness to the plummet" that Jesus was to later reveal.
Paul describes the OT law including the ten commandments as the ministry of death. What Ezra did exemplifies that. What he did was not life and peace of a spiritual mind as described in Rom. 8. It was the result of the ministry of condemnation and death, [as Paul describes in 2 Cor. 3 the OT as a whole to be], under which Ezra was operating and which he feared. In the NT we have not received the spirit of fear but of adoption as Paul also refers to in Rom. 8.
Paul said the law is not of faith meaning it is not after the faith that the NT has revealed. Ezra was operating in the realm of the law and not in the realm of the faith that Jesus brought. And how could he? Jesus had not come yet.
I addressed the Ezra thing in post 153:



I think this may have been where Ezra got the counsel he was heeding:


Joshua 23:
11 Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.
12 Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:
13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

But this was obviously done by someone very much "under the law" and not under grace and truth because Jesus had not yet come to manifest grace and truth.

John 1:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

What Ezra did was in accordance to law but not to truth. What he did was excusable in light of the instructions left behind by Joshua and the tenor of words in the OT making them a separate people.

Examples of behaviour from the OT are not necessarily declarations of what the truth is.
God sent his Son to reveal truth and wisdom that had been hidden from ages and from generations.

Eph. 3:
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Col. 1:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

The understanding of marriage and divorce as per Jesus' clarification of what Gen. 2 means (and has always meant), is a wisdom that they in the OT in general did not have. It was necessary for Jesus to plainly reveal that what Moses wrote in Dt. 24 was not the truth. It was a necessary law under those circumstances that served a necessary purpose because of the hardness of their hearts.

Jesus' reference to the divorce that was done before marriage, (for fornication, not adultery) which reference was interjected as an exception clause, does not contradict the mandate of Gen 2 which Jesus clearly came to uphold and reveal to be truth.

"Let not man put asunder" is not contradicted by the allowable "divorce for fornication" because that kind of divorce was a cultural divorce done before marriage that many today are not familiar with and who thus have stumbled on Jesus by assuming that he does indeed allow putting asunder even after he plainly said, "let not man put asunder".

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 03:50 AM
How long halt ye between two opinions, If Ezra be Messiah follow him, But if Jesus be Messiah, then follow him.

Is that King James English? :lol:



Noone is ignoring it , just not everyone is willing to suppose that what Ezra did was in accordance to the reformation that the Messiah was later to bring.
It is one thing to understand the book of Ezra to be accurately recorded factual history, which it is, but it is another thing to suppose that what he did was in line with the "righteousness to the plummet" that Jesus was to later reveal.
Paul describes the OT law including the ten commandments as the ministry of death. What Ezra did exemplifies that. What he did was not life and peace of a spiritual mind as described in Rom. 8. It was the result of the ministry of condemnation and death, as Paul describes in 2 Cor. 3 the OT as a whole to be, under which Ezra was operating and which he feared. In the NT we have not received the spirit of fear but of adoption as Paul also refers to in Rom. 8.
Paul said the law is not of faith meaning it is not after the faith that the NT has revealed. Ezra was operating in the realm of the law and not in the realm of the faith that Jesus brought. And how could he? Jesus had not come yet.


Look out!!! Alaska and I actually agree on something . . .

The only problem is that folks are still trying to refer back to the law that was the ministry of death when giving their interpretations in this thread.

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 03:58 AM
Hi Alyssa,
I see you are still at it.

I was writing someone last night with a question about divorce and the definition of marriage.
I wanted to share some of that with you:

The issue of what the truth is concerning marriage has to be a very simple matter since it is vital to understand. We spend a relatively short time growing up and even while doing so we look forward to becoming adults. The majority of most peoples lives are spent as married persons.

So how on earth could a loving God who fortold of the coming of his Son and the glory that would accompany that event, not clearly, and without any question leave us without an absolute crystal clear understanding of marriage? He would be an incompetent and cruel God to not clearly address the concern. I mean he tells us that adulterers shall not inherit the Kingdom and then he won’t clarify what adulery is? And how can we discern what adultery is without knowing what marriage is?

I cannot think of another moral doctrinal issue in the NT that has more verses directly addressing and pertaining to it than the topic of marriage and divorce. And will it still be claimed that we don’t have enough to understand? I think the forest is not seen because of the trees. It is so extremely simple that it has proven to be "too complicated".

Jesus is overriding man’s laws as pertaining to divorce by declaring that to divorce, in and of itself is a sin. Also to remarry after the divorce, is the sin of adultery. So with Jesus there is no respect to any law that goes contrary to the truth of God’s absolutes on moral behaviour, on which every man’s eternal destiny hinges.

When two people, even if they don’t believe in God, decide to get married: Let’s see, lets keep score:
They fail in that they don’t believe in God, but they are doing what God says is right when it comes to their decision to get married. And what if they don’t know that they are doing right by getting married? It doesn’t matter; they are still doing what is right even if they don’t know it! So let’s say they are faithful to one another as husband and wife for as long as they live yet they never accept Christ. At judgement when all their particular sins in their life are revealed, the fact that they got married and were faithful to one another will not be found in their list of sins.

Since God made them Male and Female, He says a man shall naturally leave his own father and mother and will cleave to his wife to start his own family, and they twain shall be one flesh. So when this man and woman, neither of whom are believers, decide to get married, who are we to presume that their marriage, [that also falls in line with the pattern of what Jesus said in connection with Genesis 2], somehow cannot be respected as that which God has joined together? The fact that they are getting married reflects that God made it to work that way. We are made in His image. He understands our intelligence emotions etc.and knows what it is to decide to get married. In respect to our decision, he puts his stamp on that event called marriage. This is recorded in heaven as that which God has joined together because he made it to work that way.
God made man and woman and He instituted marriage. This is not man’s invention. Anyone entering into this agreement of one man one woman for one another only as husband and wife, is bound by God’s rules over that which HE made even if they are not aware of the rules.

That is how Jesus could declare: whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. He is declaring an absolute truth.
He is speaking in the context of the basic pattern of Adam and Eve, one man one woman, neither of whom had been married before. [And Adam and Eve didn’t even have the knowledge of good and evil when they were married]. ‘Whosoever’ in the above reference pertains to all who have gotten lawfully married. [Of course it is also a lawful marriage if one or both had been previously lawfully married but any former spouse is dead.]
Getting a marriage to be certified is a good thing. The state provides means to do that. But it is the decision of the parties involved to get married in the first place, that brings them to the magistrate or minister or whoever so that their marriage can be certified and made official as to avoid being seen as simply living together.
Look at the extreme simplicity of marriage in light of what I shared as you look at what Jesus said in the following reading. Also I think the Holy Spirit very deliberately placed verses 13 and 14 immediately after His teaching on divorce and remarriage.
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.

13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Verses 6-9 is all we need and is complete as the definition of marriage. Reading it carefully I believe makes verse 9 as a conclusion that any lawful marriage is deemed as that which He has joined by virtue of the fact that he made it to work that way as we see in verses 6 to 8.
The question of whether or not divorce and remarriage is allowed is answered in verses 11, and 12.
Most pastors don't have the understanding of the simplicity that is in Christ in this extremely important doctrine. Hence they are weak to prohibit adulterous remarriages in their church. Numerous adulterous marriages are looked on with respect when the pastors should hang their head in shame. "Adultery cults", I believe, would be an appropriate word for those assemblies that endorse adultery. I mean if Mark 10:11,12 really means what it says then the label "adultery cult" cannot be a wrong description.
They say the roadway to hell is paved with good intentions: Pastors feel sorry for their divorced members and end up allowing them to commit adultery. Or in the case of those divorced before becoming Christians, these pastors counsel them that somehow God didn't join that marriage [in direct contradiction to Mark 10:6-9 above] and again they feel sorry for their predicament and instead of telling them the painful truth they encourage adultery by remarriage.

Thank you Alaska for taking the time to write all of that. You have some very strong biblical points.

One thing I would like to add to that.... and not that it is needed. But I just pulled out an old book I had, "Till Death Do Us Part" and Mr Webb gives a great, but sad analogy.

"Jack and Sue come to the altar. (Jack married Jill, met Sue, divorced Jill, married Sue.) It's three years later now.... Jill, Jack's first wife, is sitting in the back row of the same church, praying that Jack will be saved. After the divorce, she was led to a salvation experience by a neighbor. Since then, she has prayed daily that Jack would be saved, and there he was at the altar with Sue.

After praying with Jack and Sue, how should I counsel them? Did you feel the mental twinge inside when I asked you that? Did you feel yourself groping for a different answer? Are you suddenly sensing a need to rationalize this one? Do you find it hard to say that Jack and Sue are living in adultery? They are adulterers, according to the eternal Word of God.

Jill would probably say, "Here I've been praying for three years that he would be saved, and return to me and the children. Now he supposedly gets saved and he's no longer MY husband, but Sue's. Our vows are no longer valid, but those he made with Sue are now acknowledged."

"Don't you believe it! Until he repents Paul and Jesus say that he is still an adulterer!"

Sad story.... and it's one that you and I can both relate to huh??

God bless you, Alaska.

Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:25 AM
Ambrose of Milan - Early Church Father who did not believe in remarriage after conversion.
A.D. 387

Ambrose is known as one of the four original Doctors of the
Church. Born in Germany and educated in Rome, he was
asked to be Bishop of Milan because of his extraordinary
kindness and wisdom, earning him the love and esteem of his
people. History records that he publicly confronted rebuked
and led to repentance Caesar Theodosius over the
slaughtering of thousands of Thessalonians.
He wrote major treatises on Christian morality and personal
Holiness, warning against adopting the world’s standards. He
was by all accounts a most extraordinary man, equal to his
times. He was influential in bringing Augustine into a saving
personal knowledge of Jesus Christ and receiving him into
the Body of Christ.

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:27 AM
Augustine - Early Church Father who did not believe in remarriage.
A.D. 419

Augustine is widely regarded to be the single greatest Church
leader and theologian between the time of the Apostles of
Jesus Christ, and the reformation period, and perhaps
beyond. His personal testimony of seeking and finding God
after an early life of sin is as fresh and new today, and as
transparently Spirit filled as it was then.
His place in the Church, among his peers, can be compared to
what Paul’s was among the Apostles. He rigorously and
effectively defended the faith from enemies on all sides. His
writings are credited with influencing to an enormous extent
the thinking of the great leaders of the reformation.

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:32 AM
The Authoritative Teachings of the Early Church on
Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage Part 1....

- Footnote:

Compiled and categorized by the Christian Classics Ethereal Classics
Library. All ancient material quoted is in the public domain and may be
copied freely.


The early Fathers of our Faith were much more personally
familiar with the culture and context of New Testament times
than we are today. I do not, however, hold to the belief that
the authority of the Church Fathers can be equal to that held
by the Apostles who were personally appointed and taught by
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In my view, their teachings
do not add to, take away, or supplement the inspired Word of
God contained in the Holy Bible. They claimed the same
limitations for the authority of their teachings.

Ignatius
In 110 A.D, while on his way in chains to Rome to be put to
death by wild animals in the coliseum for his faith, Ignatius,
the great leader of the Syrian Church, wrote an epistle to the
Ephesians. He claimed certain limitations to his own
personal authority.

Even though he was revered as a great Church leader, he was
careful not to infer special “apostolic status” either to himself
or to his writings as divinely inspired Scripture. He positions
himself, the Christians in Ephesus, as well as the other
Bishops who served throughout the known world, as equally
running together in accordance of the will of God. It was not
until centuries later, after much of the Church evolved into
an early form of Roman Catholicism, that Apostolic authority
began to be claimed.

If, as some maintain, the Church was intended by God to have
leaders operating in the office of “Apostle” beyond the
lifetimes of the original disciples and Paul, it seems that the
early Church knew nothing about it. In fact, as shown here,
quite the opposite was the case:

Ignatius wrote:
“I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person.
For though I am bound for the name of Christ, I am not yet
perfect in Jesus Christ. For now I begin to be a disciple, and I
speak to you as fellow-disciples with me. For it was needful
for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation,
patience, and long-suffering.”

“But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to
you, I have therefore taken
upon me first to exhort you that
you would all run together in accordance with the will of
God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the
manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled
everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the
will of Jesus Christ.”
(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians)
(a)

Their doctrinal position statements were based on the same
Biblical sources we use today, as well as additional direct
interpretations and clarifications passed on to them by the
Apostles and their immediate successors. Even though not
first hand, they give an accurate portrayal of what Jesus
taught, early Christians practiced, and what the Apostles
believed and enforced throughout the Body of Christ.

Those Church Fathers who were in positions of responsible
authority, called and appointed by God to serve His Church,
were required as shepherds of His sheep, to walk as He
walked, and to talk as He talked. Their words are good
counsel, and should be weighted most heavily in today’s court
of Christian opinion, but in no wise should their teachings be
considered infallible or without possible error. They were
after all, as we are, privileged to be standard bearers and
light holders for the God of the Universe in their generations,
but who were, like us, faulty sinners saved by Grace.

However, those first Christians were close to ground zero, at
the very epicenter of the Christian earthquake that shook the
world. This proximity in time and place to the ministry of
Jesus Christ and His personally appointed Apostles gave
them a much clearer vantage point than we ourselves enjoy.
We can only look back through their writings, to evaluate
their legacy by the lives they lived, and the fruit of their
labors.

These men of God had the initial responsibility to accurately
define and defend what the teachings and redemption Gospel
of Jesus Christ meant, not only to the millions of lost in their
world, but also to the billions in ours. They had their theology
rooted in Christ, their lives poured out in their present, and
their minds looking to the future.




Part 2 in next post....

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:36 AM
PART 2

The Authoritative Teachings of the Early Church on
Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage -
Footnote:

Compiled and categorized by the Christian Classics Ethereal Classics
Library. All ancient material quoted is in the public domain and may be
copied freely.

Complete Agreement
Of all the early recognized Church Fathers who ever wrote, all
who were written about, concerning every discussion and
every debate, in thousands of surviving documents, over
hundreds of years, there is not a single dissenting
authoritative voice on the essential core doctrines of
marriage, divorce and remarriage. Each taught the same
doctrine, each held the same opinion and each enforced the
same morals standards you read here:

Hermes
A.D. 90
Hermes was sold into slavery and sent to Rome as a boy. He
was later set free by his owner, a woman called Rhoda. He
became known as one of the authoritative Fathers of the
Church and an influential Christian writer, noted for his
detailed description of Early Christianity. His surviving book,
“The Shepherd”, was considered to be an inspired book of the
Holy Bible until the fourth century A.D.

To quote the translators: “The Shepherd of Hermas is in
form, an apocalypse. It consists of a series of revelation made
to Hermas by the Church, who appears in the form of a
woman, by the shepherd, the angel of repentance, and by the
great angel who is in charge of Christians. Each revelation is
accompanied by an explanation, and from these it can be
seen though the form of the book is apocalyptic and
visionary, its object is practical and ethical.”


Hermas wrote:
"I charge you," said he, "to guard your chastity, and let no
thought enter your heart of another man's wife, or of
fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you
commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own
wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your heart,
then you will sin; and if, in like manner, you think other
wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great
sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit this wicked
deed, he works death for himself.

Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where
purity dwells, there iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a
righteous man." I said to him, ‘Sir, permit me to ask you a
few questions.’ ‘Say on,’ said he. And I said to him, ’Sir, if
any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect
her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with
her?’

“And he said to me, ‘As long as he remains ignorant of her
sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with
her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray,
and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her
fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her,
he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.’
And I said to him, ‘What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his
wife continue in her vicious practices?’ And he said, ‘The
husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if
he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits
adultery.’

“And I said to him, ‘What if the woman put away should
repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be
taken back by her husband?’ And he said to me, ‘Assuredly.
If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a
great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner
who has repented…In this matter man and woman are to be
treated exactly in the same way.’”
–The Shepherd 4:1-10
(a)


Hermas wrote:
"I charge you," said he, "to guard your chastity, and let no
thought enter your heart of another man's wife, or of
fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you
commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own
wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your heart,
then you will sin; and if, in like manner, you think other
wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great
sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit this wicked
deed, he works death for himself.

Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where
purity dwells, there iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a
righteous man." I said to him, ‘Sir, permit me to ask you a
few questions.’ ‘Say on,’ said he. And I said to him, ’Sir, if
any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect
her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with
her?’

“And he said to me, ‘As long as he remains ignorant of her
sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with
her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray,
and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her
fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her,
he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.’
And I said to him, ‘What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his
wife continue in her vicious practices?’ And he said, ‘The
husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if
he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits
adultery.’

“And I said to him, ‘What if the woman put away should
repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be
taken back by her husband?’ And he said to me, ‘Assuredly.
If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a
great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner
who has repented…In this matter man and woman are to be
treated exactly in the same way.’”
–The Shepherd 4:1-10
(a)



Hermas taught:
1.
If a wife persists in adulterous behavior the “innocent party”
may, and should, divorce in order to separate away from the
sins of the offender
2.
If a husband divorces his wife for such a reason he must
remain single and not remarry.
3.
If a wife repents of her offence the husband must forgive her
and receive her back as wife.
4.
If the husband does not forgive his repentant wife he brings a
great sin upon himself.
5.
Men and woman are to act and be regarded exactly the same
in this matter.


Part 3 in next post...

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:47 AM
The Authoritative Teachings of the Early Church on
Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage - Part 3
Footnote:

Compiled and categorized by the Christian Classics Ethereal Classics
Library. All ancient material quoted is in the public domain and may be
copied freely.

Justin Martyr
A.D. 151

Justin Martyr was one of the great, early theologians and
apologists for the Church. He had the distinction of
presenting a defining explanation and defense of Christianity
to Caesar and the Imperial Roman Senate.

His “Apology for the Christians”, written to refute charges of
sedition to the Roman state, is a magnificent legal testimony
of the power of early Christians to live Holy and pleasing lives
in an evil and corrupted society. Justin was beheaded for
refusing to sacrifice to pagan Gods.

Justin Martyr wrote:
“In regards to chastity, Jesus has this to say: ‘If anyone look
at lust at a woman, he has already before God committed
adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who
has been divorced from another husband, commits
adultery.’ “

“According to our teacher, just as they are sinners who
contract a second marriage, even though it is in accord with
human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful
desires at a woman. He repudiates not only one who
actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do
so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even
our thoughts.”
(First Apology 15)
(a)
Justin Martyr taught:
1.
To indulge in lust is to be guilty of adultery of the heart.
2.
Whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery.
3.
Whoever contracts a second marriage is sinning against God.
(while a former spouse lives)
4.
God does not, and the Church must not, take into account
human law when it is in violation of God’s law.
5.
God judges motives and intentions, private thought life and
actions. All is known and exposed to the God with which we
have to do.
Clement of Alexandria
A.D.208
Titus Flavius Clemens, known as Clement of Alexandria, was
a Greek theologian who served as head of the famous
Catechetical School in Alexandria. His writings were
designed to guide mature Christians to a more perfect
knowledge of God and a pure moral character. His defense of
the faith exhorted morals, kindness and patience.

He taught that the thoughts and will of God in the Scriptures
exhorts, educates and perfects the true Christian. Many
scholars believe he founded the great Alexandrian School of
Theology. He is listed as a martyr for his faith.


Clement of Alexandria wrote:
That scripture counsels marriage, however, and never
allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in
the law: “You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of
adultery.” And it regards as adultery the marriage of a
spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is
still alive.

“Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits
adultery,” it says; for “if anyone divorce his wife, he
debauches her;” that is, he compels her to commit adultery.

And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of
this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the
opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would
return to her husband.”
(Miscellanies 2:23:145:3)
(a)

Clement of Alexandria taught:
1.
The Scriptures encourage Christians to enter a marriage
relationship.
2.
The marriage union covenant is permanent and does not
allow anyone to be released from the union.
3.
The only legitimate reason for divorce is adultery, otherwise
separation is prohibited. A remarriage while a former spouse
lives is living in the state of adultery, therefore expressly
forbidden in Scripture.
4.
A man who divorces his wife violates and corrupts her, for if
she remarries, for any reason except for the death of her
husband, she becomes an adulteress.
5.
The one who marries a divorced spouse sins not only by
committing adultery with another’s spouse but also sins
against God by acting as an impediment to reconciliation of
the original marriage.
6.
If the divorced spouse had remained single she would have, if
possible returned the first union.

Part 4 in next post..

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:51 AM
PART 4

The Authoritative Teachings of the Early Church on
Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage -
Footnote:

Compiled and categorized by the Christian Classics Ethereal Classics
Library. All ancient material quoted is in the public domain and may be
copied freely.

Origen
A.D. 248
Origen is known as the most accomplished and significant
theologian of the early Church. As a student and exegete of
the Old and New Testaments, he influenced the critical
thinking of the Church in his day to such an extent that his
works still have major impact on doctrine and practice. He
was the first teacher known to use the “allegorical” method of
Scriptural interpretation.

It is estimated that he wrote some 5,000 thesis, tracts,
epistles and books in his lifetime of service. Much of his work
concentrated on refuting dangerous error and heresy. Origen
was imprisoned during the reign of Emperor Decius. He was
tortured to such an extent that he died from his ordeal after
being released.

Origen wrote:
For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a
fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with
him, for if, "when the husband is living she shall be called an
adulteress if she be joined to another man;" and when by
putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second
marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an
adulteress…
Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seems to
be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so
also the man who seems to marry who has been divorced
does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our
Savior, he commits adultery with her.
(Commentaries on
Matthew 14)
(a)

Origen taught:
1.
A man that divorces his wife who is not guilty of fornication
causes her to become an adulteress if she remarries, and the
man that marries her is an adulterer.
2.
The marriage covenant between a man and a woman is
permanent, as long as both husband and wife are alive.
3.
No matter what the legal circumstances may appear to be to
the contrary, a remarriage relationship when either or both
parties are divorced, while a former partner lives, is adultery.
4.
The intimate relations between the man and the woman
remarried while former spouses still live are adulterous, and
considered sin.
5.
A remarriage is not an actual marriage whatsoever, but
disguised adultery.

Basil the Great
A.D. 375
Basil was born in Caesarea and educated in Athens. He is
considered one of the great Fathers and Doctors of the
Church. His writings include “On the Holy Spirit” and
“Moralia.” He was asked by the Church to help defend against
the Arian heretical doctrines and subsequently became
Bishop of Caesarea in 370.
Basil became Basil the Great because of his outstanding
personal integrity and holiness as well as his brilliance as a
theologian and defender of the faith.

Basil the Great wrote:

The man who has deserted his wife and goes to another is
himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery;
and the woman who live with him is an adulteress, because
she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to
her…The woman who lives with an adulterer is an
adulteress the whole time.
The woman who has been abandoned by her husband,
ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. The Lord said,
“If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, he causes her to commit adultery;” thus, by
calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse
with another man. For how can the man being guilty, as
having caused adultery, and the woman, go without blame,
when she is called an adulteress by the Lord for having
intercourse with another man?
A man who marries another man’s wife who has been taken
away from him will be charged with adultery…
- Amphilochius
199
(a)

Basil Taught:
1.
A man that deserts his wife and she remarries another makes
his wife commit adultery.
2.
The woman who a divorced man marries is guilty of adultery.
3.
The second woman is guilty of taking another woman’s
husband.
4.
An adulterous relationship is continuous adultery, not a
onetime sin.
5.
An abandoned wife is to remain as she is and not remarry.
6.
an abandoned woman that takes another man and has sexual
intercourse with him is committing adultery.
7.
If a man is guilty of adultery, so is a woman.
8.
It is a serious offence for a woman to take another woman’s
husband and will be charged with adultery.
9.
It is a serious offence for a man to take another man’s wife
and will be charged with adultery.

Part 5 in next post.....

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:55 AM
PART 5

The Authoritative Teachings of the Early Church on
Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage -
Footnote:

Compiled and categorized by the Christian Classics Ethereal Classics
Library. All ancient material quoted is in the public domain and may be
copied freely.


Ambrose of Milan
A.D. 387
Ambrose is known as one of the four original Doctors of the
Church. Born in Germany and educated in Rome, he was
asked to be Bishop of Milan because of his extraordinary
kindness and wisdom, earning him the love and esteem of his
people. History records that he publicly confronted rebuked
and led to repentance Caesar Theodosius over the
slaughtering of thousands of Thessalonians.
He wrote major treatises on Christian morality and personal
Holiness, warning against adopting the world’s standards. He
was by all accounts a most extraordinary man, equal to his
times. He was influential in bringing Augustine into a saving
personal knowledge of Jesus Christ and receiving him into
the Body of Christ.

Ambrose of Milan wrote:
But what shall I say about chastity, when only one and no
second union is allowed? As regards marriage, the law is,
not to marry again, nor to seek union with another wife. It
seems strange to many why impediment should be caused
by a second marriage entered on before baptism, so as to
prevent election to the clerical office, and to the reception of
the gift of ordination; seeing that even crimes are not wont
to stand in the way, if they have been put away in the
sacrament of baptism.
But we must learn, that in baptism sin can be forgiven, but
law cannot be abolished. In the case of marriage there is no
sin, but there is a law. Whatever sin there is can be put
away, whatever law there is cannot be laid aside in
marriage.
- On the Duties of Clergy:1:257
(a)
And what else did John have in mind but what is virtuous, so
that he could not endure a wicked union even in the king's
case, saying: "It is not lawful for thee to have her to wife."
118
He could have been silent, had he not thought it unseemly
for himself not to speak the truth for fear of death, or to
make the prophetic office yield to the king, or to indulge in
flattery. He knew well that he would die as he was against
the king, but he preferred virtue to safety. Yet what is more
expedient than the suffering which brought glory to the
saint.
- On the duties of Clergy, 3:89
(a)
No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife.
The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall in
a snare and sin with a strange woman. “If you are bound to
a wife do not seek a divorce,” for you are not permitted,
while your wife lives to marry another.”
– Abraham 1:57:59
(a)
You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without
being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is
proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but
divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men should stand in
awe of God. Hear the Word of the Lord, which even they who
propose our laws must obey: “What God has joined
together, let no man put asunder.”
–Commentary on Luke, Sec.
8:5
(a)

Ambrose of Milan taught:


1.
Sex is a marital right that is limited to one’s own husband or
wife. Legitimate sexual relations with one’s spouse protects
from sexual sin.
2.
Extramarital sex is sin and a snare that will catch and kill.
3.
It is forbidden by God for a spouse to divorce and to remarry
another.
4.
Ambrose interprets Paul’s writings in Corinthians to mean
that it is forbidden for a man or woman to remarry another
while a former or earlier spouse lives.
5.
It is a wrong understanding to believe that it is simply one’s
right to divorce a spouse. Even though human law may
permit such a thing, God strictly forbids it.
6.
Anyone who follows human customs and laws regarding
marriage, divorce and remarriage, instead of Divine laws
should stand in fearful awe of God.
7.
All lawmakers, in and out of the Church are warned, to their
peril, to hear and obey the Word of the Lord.
8.
Jesus’ command is reaffirmed: “What God has joined
together, let no man put asunder.”
9.
Conversion to Christianity forgives past sin but does not
nullify or set aside God’s laws.

Part 6 on next post...

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:58 AM
PART 6

The Authoritative Teachings of the Early Church on
Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage -
Footnote:

Compiled and categorized by the Christian Classics Ethereal Classics
Library. All ancient material quoted is in the public domain and may be
copied freely.


Augustine
A.D. 419
Augustine is widely regarded to be the single greatest Church
leader and theologian between the time of the Apostles of
Jesus Christ, and the reformation period, and perhaps
beyond. His personal testimony of seeking and finding God
after an early life of sin is as fresh and new today, and as
transparently Spirit filled as it was then.
His place in the Church, among his peers, can be compared to
what Paul’s was among the Apostles. He rigorously and
effectively defended the faith from enemies on all sides. His
writings are credited with influencing to an enormous extent
the thinking of the great leaders of the reformation.

Augustine wrote:


This we now say, that, according to this condition of being
born and dying, which we know, and in which we have been
created, the marriage of male and female is some good, the
compact whereof divine Scripture so commends, as that
neither is it allowed one put away by her husband to marry,
so long as her husband lives; nor is it allowed one put away
by his wife to marry another, unless she who have separated
from him be dead.

Our Lord, therefore, in order to confirm that principle, that
a wife should not lightly be put away, made the single
exception of fornication; but enjoins that all other
annoyances, if any such should happen to spring up, be
borne with fortitude for the sake of conjugal fidelity and for
the sake of chastity; and he also calls that man an adulterer
who should marry her that has been divorced by her
husband. And the Apostle Paul shows the limit of this state
of affairs, for he says it is to be observed as long as her
husband liveth; but on the husband’s death he gives
permission to marry.

For he himself also held by this rule, and therein brings
forward not his own advice, as in the case of some of his
admonitions, but a command by the Lord when he says:
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,
Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she
depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her
husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” I
believe that, according to a similar rule, if he shall put her
away, he is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to his
wife.
-Commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the
Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels
(a)
For whosoever putteth away his wife except for the cause of
fornication, maketh her to commit adultery. To such a
degree is that marriage compact entered upon be a holy
Sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself,
since so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath
been left, she commits adultery in the case where she
marries another, and he who hath left her is the cause of this
evil. But I marvel, if, if it be allowed to put away a wife who
is an adulteress, so it be allowed, having put her away, to
marry another.

For holy Scripture makes a hard knot in this matter in that
the apostle says, that, by commandment of the Lord, the
wife ought not to depart from her husband, but, in case she
shall have departed to remain unmarried, or to be
reconciled to her husband…I can not see how the man can
have permission to marry another, in the case where he left
an adulteress, when a woman can not be married to another
when she left an adulterer.
Seeing that the compact of marriage is not done away with
by an intervening divorce, so that they continue as wedded
persons one to another, even after separation, and commit
adultery with those with whom they be joined, even after
their own divorce, either the woman with the man, or the
man with a woman.
Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses
his wife because of fornication and marries another does not
commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of
those who, after the repudiation of their former wives
because of fornication, marry others…

No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a
woman whose husband has dismissed her because of
fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a
man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of
fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of
adultery.
-Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9
(a)
A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of
adultery, but the laws of chastity remains. That is why a
man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has
been dismissed even for this very reason of adultery.
-ibid.,
2:4:4
(a)
A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless
she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease
to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband
should die, not if he commit adultery.
–ibed, 2:4:3
(a)
Therefore to serve two or more (men), so to pass over from a
living husband into marriage with another, was neither
lawful then (in the Old Testament), nor is it lawful now, nor
will it ever be lawful. To apostatize from the One God, and to
go into adulteress superstitions of another, is ever an evil.
-
On the Holy Spirit; Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises.
(a)



Part 7 in next post...

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 04:59 AM
Part 7

Augustine taught:
1.
It cannot be rightly held by those wishing to believe so that
anyone who divorces their spouse for adultery and then
marries another is in the will of God and avoids the sin of
adultery.
2.
It is adultery to marry another if someone is divorced and
then chooses a new husband or wife.
3.
Whether or not a spouse commits adultery or fornication
does not matter insofar as remarriage is concerned. Whoever
remarries while a divorced spouse lives is in the state and sin
of adultery.
4.
When a spouse remarries according to the law of the land,
after a divorce, they are still married to the former spouse as
long as that spouse lives. Therefore the sexual and intimate
relationship they have with a new spouse is simply engaging
in a forbidden relationship by sinning with a person they are
not married to in the eyes of God and the Church. Chastity
refers to sexual abstinence. To have sexual relations with a
remarried spouse is to be living in sin, in direct disobedience
to God’s Word.
5.
A spouse can if they must, divorce their husband or wife who
is guilty of adultery, but must not have a relationship with
another as long as the original partner lives, for they are still
in a binding life long covenant with them.
6.
It is forbidden for a man or woman, even if they themselves
were never previously married, to marry or have sexual
relations with a divorced person whose spouse is still alive.
They would be guilty of having sexual relations with another
person’s spouse, which is the very definition of the sin of
adultery.
7.
It never has been lawful, it is not now lawful, and it never will
be lawful to divorce and remarry. To say and do otherwise is
to adopt the adulterous superstitions of a different God than
the one to which we have to do.

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 05:02 AM
Part 8 and Last...
Summary of EarlyChurch Doctrine
on Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage

90 A.D. – 419 A.D.



1. If a spouse persists in adulterous behavior and there is no
other alternative, the marriage relationship can be
terminated by the innocent party.

2. Spouses that are divorced for any reason must remain
celibate and single as long as both spouses live. Remarriage
is expressly prohibited.

3. To indulge in lust with the mind is to be guilty of adultery
of the heart.

4. Whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery.

5. Whoever contracts a second marriage, whether a Christian
or not, while a former spouse lives is sinning against God.

6. God does not, and the Church must not, take into account
human law when it is in violation of God’s law.

7. God judges motives and intentions, private thought life
and actions.


8. The marriage covenant between a man and a woman is
permanent, as long as both husband and wife are alive.

9. It is a serious offence against God to take another person’s
spouse.

10. The Church must charge all persons who are in
possession of another living person’s former husband or wife
with adultery.

11. Sexual relations are a marital right that is limited to one’s
own husband or wife.

12. Sexual relations with one’s legitimate spouse protects
from sexual sin.

13. Marriage and sexual relations with a remarried spouse
while a former spouse lives is the sin of adultery.

14. It is a serious mistake to believe that it is simply one’s
right to divorce a spouse and take another. Even though
human law may permit such a thing, God strictly forbids it,
and cannot, and will not honor it.

15. Anyone who follows human customs and laws regarding
marriage, divorce and remarriage, instead of God’s Divine
instructions should stand in fearful awe of God Himself.

16. All lawmakers, in and out of the Church are warned, to
their peril, to hear and obey the Word of the Lord in regard to
His commands on marriage and divorce.
)

17. Christians are to stop making excuses and trying to find
justification for divorce and remarriage. There are no valid
reasons acceptable to God.

18. A marriage is for life. No matter what a spouse turns out
to be, or how they may act, what they do or don’t do, or the
sins they commit, the covenant remains fully in effect. A
remarriage while a former spouse lives is not marriage at all,
but sinful adultery. God does not divide the one flesh
relationship except by physical death.

19. Marriage is a lifelong covenant that will never be
invalidated by God while both parties live.


20.
It never has been lawful, it is not now lawful, and it never
will be lawful to divorce and remarry. To say and do
otherwise is to worship and adopt the adulterous
superstitions of a different God than the one to which we
have to do.

21.
How Firm a Foundation
The understanding of our Christian forefathers is
substantially different from that of the present generation of
Church leadership, especially in matters concerning the
necessity of Christians to maintain strict separation from
worldly corruption.

These doctrines, taught by the early, authoritative leaders of
Christianity are in serious disagreement with those being
commonly taught and modeled to Christians today. Forgotten
are the millions of Christians, whom for over hundreds of
years, lived and died by these very same laws of Christian
conduct. Many of them were martyred for their faith, sealing
in blood their obedience to the Word of God.

The Gospel being taught today in many “Bible believing”
Churches, insofar as the moral standards required by
Christianity are concerned, is diametrically opposed to that
taught by Jesus Christ and His early Church. I believe that the
modern Church is presenting a different, powerless version
of a Christianity that denies the essential Truth of God, that
does not recognize the complete transforming power of the
Holy Spirit to regenerate degenerate man.

Footnote:

Compiled and categorized by the Christian Classics Ethereal Classics
Library. All ancient material quoted is in the public domain and may be
copied freely.

9Marksfan
Aug 21st 2008, 10:36 AM
OK, Cory, since you want us to get back on track, I thought I'd let you have my thoughts on the OP.


I have had a tremendous struggle trying to harmonize the Scriptures when it comes to marriage. However, I do now believe that I have received revelation on this topic that I have been studying deeply for about a year and a half. I never could harmonize all the main marriage Scriptures (Deuteronomy 24:1, Jeremiah 3, Ezra 9-10, Hosea, Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7, and 1 Corinthians 7). No matter what view I held to I couldn't see how any of them harmonized. I considered the betrothal view that declares Matthew 19:9 was only speaking of folks during the betrothal period.

Why did you reject it?


I considered the adultery view that gave an exception for divorce after the consummation of a marriage.

Why did you reject it?


However, none of these views totally harmonized with the Word of God, and I never really considered the possibility of one other view. I have now changed my opinion.

I really believe that the answer to this mystery has been revealed through the discovery of a translation inaccuracy.

In what way is it inaccurate? You have defined the various meanings of porneia and all the translations you have cited have included it - are you saying that it should actually be translated "idolatry" and that this is the ONLY correct translation?


I have been adamant in saying that God does not join all marriages. I have been extremely unwavering in that belief, and now, I believe my Lord has revealed the truth of why I have felt so strongly about it.

I'm prepared to accept that God forbids certain marriages (sidenote: do you think this applies to Christians marrying non-Christians and if not why not?) but - using your definition - which marriages do you think God joins? Do you think that He joins ANY non-Christian marriages and, if so, on what basis do you draw this conclusion? If not, are you saying that mariage as an institution was NEVER given to the world at large but only to God's people? And, if so (or even if not), do you think that all Christians who marry are joined by God? If not, how can we tell which marriages are joined and which are not? Is it the ones that "work"? Is it a feeling or intuition you get when you see the couple together? What is your criteria? Subjective or objective?


Before, I couldn't really explain everything from every angle, but I still felt deep within my spirit that God was speaking to me on this issue. I just couldn't accept in my spirit that folks who come to the Lord remarried are destined for hell unless they choose to abandon their current spouses and children as some would teach. That just didn't sit right with me in my spirit at all.

I struggle with that too - as does Alyssa - not sure what Alaska's current position is - but you know that one leading Christian author (John Piper)who holds the "no remarriage" position does not endorse divorce in the way you suggest at all:-

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/135/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

I would agree with Piper that the remarried couple must acknowledge that they sinned in entering their marriage - but I think there is force to his argument that to undo it and seek to go back to the original spouse(s) (who may well have remarried too) is just going to be impossible and would involve further sin (divorce not being sanctioned in Scripture for such situations - I'll come back to the Ezra passage on that in a minute)). It seems that Jesus did acknowledge adulterous marriages as actual marriages, as the woman at the well incident shows - that is indeed a mystery, but Piper's conclusions that those who are remarried should repent of having entered into an adulterous situation and then make the best of their marriage - while not without its difficulties - does appear to be a reasonable position to take. But I have an open mind on the matter and I think Alyssa does too.


It also didn't sit right with me in my spirit that a born again believer, even though they tried everything they could to make their marriage with an unbeliever work, had to spend the rest of their life alone and abandoned after the unbeliever chose to depart and divorce anyway.

My wife struggles with this too and this is why she doesn't agree with my position. But is Christ not sufficient for EVERY trial and "valley" we must walk through in life? Will he not bring us infinite joy in that walk if we are walking in full obedience and joyful submission to His will? Paul himself said that to be in a state of singleness was in fact more blessed, because one was free to be wholly devoted to the Lord and His service!


Before today I had always done my bible study on this topic using the New King James Version, the King James Version, or the NIV. However, I believe now that the translation of both the New King James Version and the NIV are incorrect and do not give an accurate description of what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19:9. The King James version uses the term "fornication", which isn't quite as bad as the NKJV or the NIV.

Interesting - so you think that sexual immorality (what many commentators view as the most "normal" use of porneia) is a very bad translation? Is that because one should not divorce on these grounds? Or because the term isn't wide enough, in your view? But surely "idolatry" (in the context of Ezra 9-10) is pretty specific?!?


However, I believe the NASB gives the best description of what Jesus is trying to say in Matthew 19:9. I will post these passages from each translation . . .

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

New King James Version
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.”

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

New American Standard Bible
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
As everyone who has studied this topic knows, the Greek term used for those words highlighted in blue is porneia. Also, as everyone who has studied this topic knows, this term describes many different forms of sexual immorality. However, what most do not know or consider, me being one of them at one time, is that this term means more than just physical sexual immorality. I will now give the entire definition of the term . . .



Nobody ever considers the bolded portion of this definition when thinking of porneia. They only consider sexual immorality when thinking of this. Even the translators of this passage in the NKJV and NIV did the same, IMO. However, I believe the NASB gives the more accurate translation, and the more accurate grounds for divorce when it came to the old law.

So you think there is more than one ground? You say "grounds" and say the NKJV and NIV "only" have sexual immorality as a ground - so do you adopt Instone-Brewer's poisiton viz that there are LOTS of grounds?


When Jesus first addressed the Pharisees about their question concerning divorce He responded to them with how God declared things from the beginning. However, after their continued badgering He addressed the issue of Moses giving them permission to put away their wives. He then went on to declare according to the law that you could not just put away your wives for just any cause as the Pharisees had questioned earlier, but only for the cause of porneia.

Could you cite where the law actually states this, other than Deut 24?


Now, if one is to understand the meaning of this passage you will have to refer back to the Old Testament and how things were under the law. The betrothal view that a few here hold to makes a lot of sense in some aspects but not so much in others. One of those spots that never has sat well with me was Ezra 9-10. In Ezra 9-10 the Israelites are basically living in sin and joining themselves with the wicked people of the land. They are taking pagan wives for themselves and going against the law of God in doing so. However, when they finally come to their senses they come to the decision to divorce these pagan wives and even the children that they have had with these women.

You CANNOT divorce your children! I believe that is one of the reasons why the Hebrew for "put them away" is not the normal word for "divorce" , just as "taking" these pagan women is not the normal word for "marry" - the fact that the children were also "put away" confirms that it was not a "divorce" as such - in modern day parlance, these women would be long-standing mistresses and putting them away was ending the long-term "affair" with them. Not a legitimate marriage - so not a divorce.


Now, I want to point something out here that is said in Ezra 10.

Ezra 10:3
"So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
Why are the Israelites here making a covenant with God to put away these pagan wives according to the law? I believe it is because those wives were viewed as unclean. Pagans were not viewed as being clean in the sight of God or the law (Remember Deuteronomy 24:1). Not only were the wives unclean but the children were unclean as well. You could not mix the holy seed with the unholy seed and produce a clean seed under the old law like you can under the New Covenant. A born again believer can be joined with an unbeliever and the unbeliever can be sanctified by the believer and the children be holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). However, under the law this was not the case. Under law if the holy seed was joined with an unholy seed the product of the seed would be unclean as well.

I've just come across a passage that will really get us all thinking about what was and what was not permitted under the OT law - this one probably needs a thread all of its own!

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her. Deut 21:10-14 NKJV

I think from this that we have to conclude that Jesus DID change things that were under the Old Covenant. Otherwise "no delight in her" = "for any cause", surely?


The blood of Jesus changed all that under the New Covenant. This is why under the New Covenant and the law of Christ a born again believer does not need to leave the unbeliever.

In every situation? Even if - as a believer - he sins and marries an unbeliever, knowing it's wrong? I had a friend who did this - his words to me were chilling when I challenged him on it: "I'm praying I won't be led astray - but I'm not going to change my mind." The last I heard, he was completely away from the Lord.....

Now, if you're wanting to refer exclusively to folks who are married to an unbeliever before they're saved, of COURSE they don't need to leave - Paul (1 Cor 7) and Peter (1 Pet 3) make that abundantly clear! NO ONE here is advocating that! What situation are you referring to?


However, under the old law those who are not of God or his law are deemed unclean. There are all sorts of laws on being clean versus being unclean. The Jews couldn't do many things because they would be viewed as unclean and would have to go through many different things just to be declared clean again. The pagan, however, is always considered unclean. They are never considered to be clean at all. They are not God's people.

But surely the captive women in Deut 21 were not God's people and therefore unclean?


It never did sit right with me that the Israelites were never judged for putting away these pagan wives. Many would have folks believe that the Israelites were wrong in doing this and they should have kept their pagan wives.

No - they were never married to them, because it was a forbidden marriage under the law and putting them away was not therefore divorce. No need for God to judge them.


However, God never did correct or judge the Israelites for their action here (God always corrects and chastens those who are His if they are in error).

What about David's multiple wives? Was God in favour of polygamy under the old covenant?


As a matter of fact, their putting away of the pagan wives was in response to the fact that God's wrath was on them for disobedience.

Agreed, if we accept that the "putting away" was not divorce.


The reason they were not judged for putting away those wives is because it was lawful for them to do so.

Hmm - which passage are you basing that on? Just because Ezra thought it was lawful doesn't mean it was - for many years, I thought it was lawful to refrain from lots of legitimate activity on Sunday because it was the Christian Sabbath - but was I right? Was it according to the law of Christ? I think I had an oversensitive (and possibly legalistic) conscience in those days (as well as a flatmate who had a strict Highland background!). Maybe Ezra had too - in thinking it was according to law. In both cases, I think it was "good" - but not according to law.


What was unlawful is the fact that they took those wives to begin with. They resolved the situation by ending those unions. That's the law.

No - that was repentance - it wasn't in the law.


However, for those living under the law of Christ divorce is not an option.

Amen! :o Cory and I agree on something! :eek:


The power of Jesus Christ can override any uncleanness of an unbeliever. Therefore, that union can be sanctified and the children will be holy.

I totally agree if the marriage was in place BEFORE the believer was saved - I think I also agree if the believer married the unbeliever after he was saved and then realises that he shouldn't have married her, repents and seeks God's blessing on their union thereafter. But for the professing believer who is unrepentant of having disobeyed God in his choice of spouse - I don't think he can expect to receive any blessing......


I am now convinced of this. This is the only view that harmonizes with the entirety of the Word of God.


Pretty bold statement! What about Deut 21?

[quote]Those who say all marriages are joined by God and His law is what binds them really cannot harmonize this view with what Ezra 9 and 10 declare.

No one is saying that God binds ALL marriages - if He forbids a marriage (like the forbidden categories in Lev 18), then that is not a legal marriage. Which marriages do you think are NOT bound by God that you feel "we" consider are?


God desires a holy seed. Those under the law could not produce a holy seed with pagans, nor was any marriage unions with pagans brought together by God or His law.

I think we're probably agreed on that - except what do you do with Deut 21? Whose law was that?

[quote]Those pagan wives in Ezra 9-10 fit the porneia description.

Absolutely not - for the reasons stated (no marriage - no divorce).

Cory, what exactly IS your position on non-Christians being remarried when one is saved? If the believer thinks "Hey, I'm married to a pagan - I can't produce godly seed - and there's that lovely, sweet single Christian girl in church that I'd much rather be with - I'll divorce my pagan wife and marry her instead!" Are you saying that THAT new marriage would be God-ordained? Would it make any difference if the original pagan wife didn't want to stay with the Christian husband yet the HUSBAND divorced her and she agreed?

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 11:56 AM
Augustine - Early Church Father who did not believe in remarriage.
A.D. 419

Augustine is widely regarded to be the single greatest Church
leader and theologian between the time of the Apostles of
Jesus Christ, and the reformation period, and perhaps
beyond. His personal testimony of seeking and finding God
after an early life of sin is as fresh and new today, and as
transparently Spirit filled as it was then.
His place in the Church, among his peers, can be compared to
what Paul’s was among the Apostles. He rigorously and
effectively defended the faith from enemies on all sides. His
writings are credited with influencing to an enormous extent
the thinking of the great leaders of the reformation.

Alyssa, this is not a Roman Catholic forum . . .

I would be interested in seeing those you can reference who are not Roman Catholic and who do not preach universalism.

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 12:08 PM
In reading through the men referenced who were not Roman Catholic I didn't see anything stated by them that is any different than what has been stated by myself in this thread.

I do not support divorce and remarriage amongst Christians either.

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 01:53 PM
Why did you reject it?

Because there are other examples in the Scriptures of wives being put away according to the law after the consummation of a marriage and not just during a betrothal period.


Why did you reject it?

Because the interpretaton states that a Christian can divorce their spouse because they sin against them when the fact of the matter is that such a decision puts them right back under the law they were delivered from. The very reason why divorce was permitted was because folks were hard-hearted and unable to forgive those who sin against them. Under the law of Christ this should not be. We forgive those who sin against us, and in turn we will also be forgiven of our own sin.


In what way is it inaccurate? You have defined the various meanings of porneia and all the translations you have cited have included it - are you saying that it should actually be translated "idolatry" and that this is the ONLY correct translation?

No, I wasn't stating that idolatry is the one and only translation. I'm stating that the term encompasses all those meanings, and apparently according to Ezra 9-10 the Jews could put away wives who served different gods.


I'm prepared to accept that God forbids certain marriages (sidenote: do you think this applies to Christians marrying non-Christians and if not why not?)

Yes, I would agree with that.


but - using your definition - which marriages do you think God joins? Do you think that He joins ANY non-Christian marriages and, if so, on what basis do you draw this conclusion?

I have no Scriptural evidence to say that He does. The only detailed marriages of those that are not God's people declares that those marriages were not lawful and I would assume not joined by God. Additionally, Malachi 2 would make it appear that God joins marriages on a spiritual level, which would be quite impossible for a spiritually dead person. However, I still believe that God requires His people to honor their covenants. I don't by any means believe that the Jews acted righteously in putting away those wives in Ezra 9-10. However, it does declare that they did so according to law.


If not, are you saying that mariage as an institution was NEVER given to the world at large but only to God's people?

I don't think anyone can say that the world doesn't marry. Clearly they do enter into marriage.


And, if so (or even if not), do you think that all Christians who marry are joined by God? If not, how can we tell which marriages are joined and which are not? Is it the ones that "work"? Is it a feeling or intuition you get when you see the couple together? What is your criteria? Subjective or objective?

No offense, but this kind of takes this thread off topic. We've already had a thread talking about what God joins together. This thread is about what the law allowed.



I struggle with that too - as does Alyssa - not sure what Alaska's current position is - but you know that one leading Christian author (John Piper)who holds the "no remarriage" position does not endorse divorce in the way you suggest at all:-

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/135/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

I would agree with Piper that the remarried couple must acknowledge that they sinned in entering their marriage - but I think there is force to his argument that to undo it and seek to go back to the original spouse(s) (who may well have remarried too) is just going to be impossible and would involve further sin (divorce not being sanctioned in Scripture for such situations - I'll come back to the Ezra passage on that in a minute)). It seems that Jesus did acknowledge adulterous marriages as actual marriages, as the woman at the well incident shows - that is indeed a mystery, but Piper's conclusions that those who are remarried should repent of having entered into an adulterous situation and then make the best of their marriage - while not without its difficulties - does appear to be a reasonable position to take. But I have an open mind on the matter and I think Alyssa does too.


Difficult to say really as there is no Scriptural basis to turn to in order to solidify such a position. The woman at the well really isn't a good example to me because Jesus never really addresses the five husbands other than just to say that she had them. I don't think the five husbands were the focal point of what Jesus was trying to say there but rather the fact that the woman was currently living in sin with someone who wasn't her husband.


My wife struggles with this too and this is why she doesn't agree with my position. But is Christ not sufficient for EVERY trial and "valley" we must walk through in life? Will he not bring us infinite joy in that walk if we are walking in full obedience and joyful submission to His will? Paul himself said that to be in a state of singleness was in fact more blessed, because one was free to be wholly devoted to the Lord and His service!

Fully obedient? Are you fully obedient? Sure, being single and without a wife is easy for some. But as Paul also declared . . . it is not for all. Some folks would be headed straight off into sin without a spouse. It's easy to sit here and say things like, "Christ is sufficient . . . " and so on. But such a statement usually comes from folks who aren't in that position to begin with, so they really just cannot relate or speak from experience. The main reason Paul gives for marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 is so folks won't sin. Obviously, Paul takes the flesh into account a little more than others do.


Interesting - so you think that sexual immorality (what many commentators view as the most "normal" use of porneia) is a very bad translation? Is that because one should not divorce on these grounds? Or because the term isn't wide enough, in your view? But surely "idolatry" (in the context of Ezra 9-10) is pretty specific?!?

I do not think it's a bad translation. Sexual immorality is covered in the definition of the term. I'm simply saying that this is not the only definition of the term.


So you think there is more than one ground? You say "grounds" and say the NKJV and NIV "only" have sexual immorality as a ground - so do you adopt Instone-Brewer's poisiton viz that there are LOTS of grounds?

I don't know anything about this Instone-Brewer person or what they teach, so I'm certainly not going to support or vouche for someone I do not know. My position here is that either there is more than one grounds for divorce or the betrothal view is just between Jews. It cannot be more than that because Scripture does not support it as Ezra 9-10 points out.


Could you cite where the law actually states this, other than Deut 24?

What other Scriptures are needed?


You CANNOT divorce your children! I believe that is one of the reasons why the Hebrew for "put them away" is not the normal word for "divorce" , just as "taking" these pagan women is not the normal word for "marry" - the fact that the children were also "put away" confirms that it was not a "divorce" as such - in modern day parlance, these women would be long-standing mistresses and putting them away was ending the long-term "affair" with them. Not a legitimate marriage - so not a divorce.

I won't argue that is wasn't a legitimate or lawful marriage. However, if this marriage wasn't a legitimate marriage according to the law, why is it that the argument of many here is that other marriages between pagans is according to the law? You cannot have it both ways. Either it is lawful or it isn't. If these marriages in Ezra 9-10 were not legit marriages in the eyes of God then why are we supposed to believe that other marriages with those who are not God's people are legitimate and binding by a law that they are not or never were given?



I've just come across a passage that will really get us all thinking about what was and what was not permitted under the OT law - this one probably needs a thread all of its own!

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her. Deut 21:10-14 NKJV

I think from this that we have to conclude that Jesus DID change things that were under the Old Covenant. Otherwise "no delight in her" = "for any cause", surely?


Why would this mean Jesus "changed" things? I don't think this was ever the way it was intended to be. However, it was what the law allowed I will give you that.



In every situation? Even if - as a believer - he sins and marries an unbeliever, knowing it's wrong? I had a friend who did this - his words to me were chilling when I challenged him on it: "I'm praying I won't be led astray - but I'm not going to change my mind." The last I heard, he was completely away from the Lord.....

Now, if you're wanting to refer exclusively to folks who are married to an unbeliever before they're saved, of COURSE they don't need to leave - Paul (1 Cor 7) and Peter (1 Pet 3) make that abundantly clear! NO ONE here is advocating that! What situation are you referring to?


I agree with what another poster declared in that I really don't believe 2 Corinthians 6 is referring to marriage. I have a difficult time believing that a truly born again, Spirit-filled Christian would be so willfully disobedient as to marry an unbeliever.


But surely the captive women in Deut 21 were not God's people and therefore unclean?

You have a point here. However, maybe it was because they weren't considered pagan. I don't know for sure. However, it is interesting that they could put them away after taking them as wives as well. I appreciate you finding that Scripture and bringing it to the table. That brings another dimension to this conversation on what the law allowed.


No - they were never married to them, because it was a forbidden marriage under the law and putting them away was not therefore divorce. No need for God to judge them.

So then again, how would you then consider the passages you have presented from Deuteronomy 21? Were those not real marriages either, and were they not really divorcing them?


What about David's multiple wives? Was God in favour of polygamy under the old covenant?

I would say probably not. However, the Scriptures really do not speak out in condemnation over polygamy, so it's really difficult to say so conclusively.


Agreed, if we accept that the "putting away" was not divorce.

May or may not have been. However, what law then says that it is divorce if those who are not under the law do not stay together?


Hmm - which passage are you basing that on? Just because Ezra thought it was lawful doesn't mean it was - for many years, I thought it was lawful to refrain from lots of legitimate activity on Sunday because it was the Christian Sabbath - but was I right? Was it according to the law of Christ? I think I had an oversensitive (and possibly legalistic) conscience in those days (as well as a flatmate who had a strict Highland background!). Maybe Ezra had too - in thinking it was according to law. In both cases, I think it was "good" - but not according to law.

Do you think the Word of God would leave us to speculate whether or not it was really according to the law or not? Why do you think God would want us to guess whether or not it was lawful? Was Ezra considered to be an unrighteous priest who did not do things lawfully, or do you think he knew the law and what it allowed?


No - that was repentance - it wasn't in the law.

They clearly stated they were doing it according to the law. Were they lying? Why do you think God in His Word would leave us to speculate that what they were stating wasn't true?


Pretty bold statement! What about Deut 21?

What about it? I think that supports my position . . .

They were permitted to take wives and then put them away for more than just sexual immorality during the betrothal period.


No one is saying that God binds ALL marriages - if He forbids a marriage (like the forbidden categories in Lev 18), then that is not a legal marriage. Which marriages do you think are NOT bound by God that you feel "we" consider are?

Actually, that has been the argument from some that God does bind ALL marriages. Alyssa and Alaska have both made the statements that God joins and binds all marriage.


I think we're probably agreed on that - except what do you do with Deut 21? Whose law was that?

I would ask you, Alyssa and Alaska the same question as this Scripture also seems to hurt the betrothal view held by them also. I appreciate the fact that you presented those Scriptures because until then I had not even considered them.


Absolutely not - for the reasons stated (no marriage - no divorce).

So then what is binding two pagans and their marriages?


Cory, what exactly IS your position on non-Christians being remarried when one is saved? If the believer thinks "Hey, I'm married to a pagan - I can't produce godly seed - and there's that lovely, sweet single Christian girl in church that I'd much rather be with - I'll divorce my pagan wife and marry her instead!" Are you saying that THAT new marriage would be God-ordained? Would it make any difference if the original pagan wife didn't want to stay with the Christian husband yet the HUSBAND divorced her and she agreed?

Paul tells the believer in 1 Corinthians 7 not to depart from the unbeliever. Why would it be okay for the believer to disobey that Scripture and depart from the unbeliever anyway?

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 02:11 PM
[quote=9Marksfan;1757727]
It seems that Jesus did acknowledge adulterous marriages as actual marriages, as the woman at the well incident shows - that is indeed a mystery


Hi Marksfan9!

Great post, by the way. Deuteronomy 21 has been a HUGE issue for me as well. Also, the Gospels must harmonize regarding this divorce/remarriage subject. And you and I both know the doctrine that makes them harmonize... :)

I struggled with the adulterous woman at the well verse too. After diving into the Greek, the word for husband puts a twist on this John 4:16 verse. I would not be so sure to say that Jesus acknowledged adulterous marriages. Here's a possibility:

"He told her, "Go, call your husband (aner) and come back." "I have no husband (aner)," she replied. Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband (aner). The fact is you have had five husbands (aner), and the man (aner) you now have is not your husband (aner). What you just have said is quite true."

The Greek word, ANER, is used to denote both MAN as well as HUSBAND.

NT:435
<GREEK>a) nh/r
aner (an-ayr'); a primary word [compare NT:444]; a man (properly as an individual male):

KJV - fellow, husband, man, sir.


"He told her, "Go, call your man (aner) and come back." "I have no man (aner)," she replied. Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no man (aner). The fact is you have had five men (aner), and the man (aner) you now have is not your man (aner). What you just have said is quite true."

Of course that is redundant, and most likely what Jesus was not saying. But you can see if you replace "husband" with "man" in certain sentences, then the meaning conveyed can change.

The subject of this section of this chapter is not marriage and divorce, and not that it has to be. But Jesus revealed to the woman something a stranger would not know, in order that she realize WHO he was. I think it served two purposes. She was convinced he was a "prophet" because of what he knew about her presonal life, and then Jesus confirmed who he truly was. And also, it was his way of letting her know that he was aware of her sin of sleeping around with these 5 men (ANERS). What a word!!!!! :lol:

So if we put the right English words in the right place, the meaning changes to show this is a woman who is involved in sexual immorality. She is not married, and probably never was.

"He told her, "Go, call your husband (aner) and come back." "I have no husband (aner)," she replied. Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband (aner). The fact is you have "HAD" five MEN (aner), and the man (aner) you now have is not your husband (aner). What you just have said is quite true."

I don't think Jesus was acknowledging adulterous marriages when he clearly said in the Gosples that remarriage was adultery.

God bless you, Nigel!!
Alyssa

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 02:51 PM
Hey Marksfan9,

Just for clarification... and you already know... but so that others reading these posts know....

Alyssa and Alaska do NOT believe that God joins ALL marriages as VR untruthfully claims. We believe in Creation Marriage. The laws of the land might say that 2 gays can marry... we do not believe that. I also am very convicted about what Jesus calls adulterous marriages. Alaska is convinced that God does not join it. I am 99% there!

God blessshooo!!! :)
~A

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 03:07 PM
Hey Marksfan9,

Just for clarification... and you already know... but so that others reading these posts know....

Alyssa and Alaska do NOT believe that God joins ALL marriages as VR untruthfully claims. We believe in Creation Marriage. The laws of the land might say that 2 gays can marry... we do not believe that. I also am very convicted about what Jesus calls adulterous marriages. Alaska is convinced that God does not join it. I am 99% there!

God blessshooo!!! :)
~A

I think it obvious that my intention with that comment was that you and Alaska believe that when all men and women come together, regardless of whether or not they are God's people, they are truly joined by Him in this creation ordinance that you teach.

I think it pretty obvious that I wasn't suggesting that you believe God brings together gay people or anything else. I would think that would be simple enough to see in my comments . . . but apparently I was mistaken.

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 03:30 PM
[quote=9Marksfan;1757727]
I've just come across a passage that will really get us all thinking about what was and what was not permitted under the OT law - this one probably needs a thread all of its own!

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her. Deut 21:10-14 NKJV

I think from this that we have to conclude that Jesus DID change things that were under the Old Covenant. Otherwise "no delight in her" = "for any cause", surely?



AMEN! Jesus DID change things!! I had mentioned Deut 21 a few posts back showing how Jesus DID change things! But obviously not everyone reads my posts (not you though) Here it is....


6.) Moses' allowance for divorce and remarriage was NOT God's will....Moses' Law was terribly flawed.

*The (Law of Moses) said that if a man divorced his wife and she married another, and divorced him, the first husband could not take her back. (Deut 24). But.....

What does GOD say? (Jer 3:1) "THEY SAY if a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? (BUT I SAY)... RETURN to me."
(By the way, Michal returned to David after she married another. Gomer returned to Hosea. Herodias was commanded to return to Philip by John the Baptist...even though we know she didn't.)

*The (Law of Moses) said that anyone who divorces his wife is to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. (Deut 24) But....

What does JESUS say? (Matt 5:32) "IT HAS BEEN SAID ("THEY" SAY), 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. (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."
* (Deut 21:10) The (Law of Moses) told the Israelites that they could marry a captive woman of their enemies of war even if they were already married to a Jewish woman!! Moses allowed this as well because of the "hardness of their hearts," but the Gospels clearly teach against this. And....

What did GOD command? (Deut 7:7) When driving out the nations...."Do not intermarry with them."

So it would seem that what Moses "allowed," our LORD did NOT intend. And when we hear God's words, "THEY SAY," we can be sure that it was not HIS WORDS or COMMAND....and when he says, "BUT I SAY," we better take heed.

Also Jesus clearly tells his audience that the will of God concerning divorce and remarriage was not the same as Moses' allowance for it FROM the beginning. (Matt 19:8-9) NOTE: He did not say, "In the beginning" He said it was not this way ALL ALONG (FROM the beginning). It was not this way in the beginning at creation and it was never this way. Creation Marriage is till death parts the couple.

VerticalReality
Aug 21st 2008, 03:38 PM
AMEN! Jesus DID change things!! I had mentioned Deut 21 a few posts back showing how Jesus DID change things! But obviously not everyone reads my posts (not you though) Here it is....

No, Jesus didn't change things. All the things Jesus declared were the same yesterday, today and forever. They were still the truth even when Moses gave this direction in Deuteronomy 21. It is extremely flawed to state that Jesus "changed" anything. The Lord doesn't change. His ways are His ways regardless of what time it is.

I would also like to point out how you stated in your post that Jesus proclaimed that this was the way it was "From the beginning . . . "

Yet, you also stated that He "changed things".

Which is it? Did He "change things" or was it this way "From the beginning"?

Alyssa S
Aug 21st 2008, 07:47 PM
No, Jesus didn't change things. All the things Jesus declared were the same yesterday, today and forever. They were still the truth even when Moses gave this direction in Deuteronomy 21. It is extremely flawed to state that Jesus "changed" anything. The Lord doesn't change. His ways are His ways regardless of what time it is.

I would also like to point out how you stated in your post that Jesus proclaimed that this was the way it was "From the beginning . . . "

Yet, you also stated that He "changed things".

Which is it? Did He "change things" or was it this way "From the beginning"?

With all due respect, I have drawn the conclusion that it is almost impossible to communicate with you. Nothing personal, I just don't think we communicate well together. And therefore, I will not do so on this thread after this post because it gets absolutely no-where. But before I do, I want to make some things very clear to others who may be lurking about these pages.

The subject is not Jesus CHANGING.... We all (on this thread, Alaska, Marksfan9, and myself) agree about that.

Do you stone the women to death in your church who have cheated on their husbands? What about their lovers? WHO changed that? What do you call it, if it is not change? When was the last time you witnessed a fiance being killed for being immoral? Do you allow polygamy in your church, which the law allowed?? WHO exactly put an end to that if it WASN'T Jesus making a change? If someone puts an end to something... then that is what we call "CHANGE!!" ;) I'm not quite sure what you call it.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED whether you want to say they haven't or not. There is a big difference between Moses' law and God's creation Law. Jesus set the record straight.... and yes.... brought them back to the way they were intended to be in the beginning. To deny that we no longer practice these things in the law and to deny that things were not changed, is to be blind to the truth and the facts. It's that simple.

FROM the beginning, God has his laws, as we read in Genesis, which includes CREATION MARRIAGE. Jesus IS the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. WE are not! What was one of the things that changed? The allowance to keep doing the stupid things we were doing for so many years! ;)

Regarding the Early Church Fathers...

I gave you what you requested...their writings. And yet, that does not suffice. I find it quite interesting that you knock any evidence I present to you and yet, you have not presented any historical evidence of church father teachings for YOUR theology...(marriage after a divorce/after salvation or before salvation - or whatever you call it...I don't think any of us are sure what you believe. Not a slam... we just don't know.)... Nor have you presented one single verse in the NT to support this view that includes the so-called legal marriage you believe in. I have numerous verses to support my view, and yet, you claim that I am the one not rightly dividing the Word.

Regarding the Early Church Father's... Anyone who wants to disregard these men of faith like Augustine, Jerome, Justin Martyr and others, who poured their life into defending the Gospels, some unto death by martyrdom, should think twice before pointing fingers and fully categorizing them as what we know as the "Roman Catholic Church" today.

I would suggest one reading these men's writings before drawing conclusions on whether they are worthy to be thrown to the dogs. The author who put this paper together on Divorce in the Early Church made it clear that he did not hold to the belief that the authority of the ECF's can be equal to that held by the Apostles, who were personally taught by our Lord Jesus.

The early church father's themselves even CLAIMED that their own authority had limitations.

Yes, they were flawed. Some more so than others... just like some are today!

Yes they were fallable.

But these men were the human voices of faith at that time. This is what we have. These are the historical documents that we have to research and compare when it comes to the belief of that time (90-500 AD). This was the Early Church! They were much more personally familiar with New Testament times than we are today. This is an excellent reference and resource for knowing what was taught and believed for 500 years after Christ. Why would we completely ignore them? Why would we "throw the baby out with the bathwater" because ALL of their beliefs do not COMPLETELY line up with yours or my doctrine?

There are many on the Forum who believe in loss of salvation. Do we throw them to the dogs? Is their complete opinion on Scripture disregarded because they are not "mainstream"? Of course not!

I don't agree with everything that Augustine believed, but he was a Godly, holy man that was and still is highly respected amongst Protestants as well as Catholics. Augustine was also given credit, by the PROTESTANTS, for being one who influenced the Reformation!! And what was the purpose of the Reformation? It was an attempt to end the man-made religion of Roman Catholicsm that YOU have labeled him under!!!

So please, people, before we point fingers and possibly slander some of these great martyrs of the Christian faith, whether we *think* we are or not, let us be careful with the claims or opinions we have regarding their life and legacy until we know fully about their lives and sacrifices made for the Kingdom...even if they weren't perfect. Only our Lord Jesus is.


God bless Over and Out!! :)
Alyssa

VerticalReality
Aug 22nd 2008, 03:40 AM
With all due respect, I have drawn the conclusion that it is almost impossible to communicate with you. Nothing personal

That's exactly what it is . . . personal, which quite simply isn't needed in this discussion.

Now, as for the actual issues you are bringing to the table that have something to do with the discussion . . .

What law is it that you claim Jesus changed? You think He changed the law of Moses?

What do you think Jesus meant by this then . . .



Matthew 5:17-19
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Do you claim that Jesus is just talking about the Ten Commandments or something here? I would disagree with that. Jesus stated that until heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle of the law will pass.

If the law is passed away then why would Paul need to say . . .



Galatians 5:3
And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.


If the law is passed away and no longer in existence or changed in some way as you claim then how can Paul state that one can still attempt to keep it?

Or how about . . .



Galatians 5:16-18
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.


Why does Paul state that unless we walk in the Spirit we are under law here? How can we be under law if it is abolished or altered somehow?

The truth of the matter is that none of the law is abolished or passed away or changed. The truth is simply that those who are born again of Spirit are not under this law and do not have to keep it. It was not changed. It was not altered. It was not abolished. It was only taken out of the way for those who believe. Those who do not believe and walk by faith, however, cannot say the same thing. When you don't stone someone for adultery it is not that you are keeping some changed law that Jesus brought. The truth is that you are not keeping the law at all. You are showing grace. Why didn't Hosea have Gomer stoned for her adultery? Was he changing the law? No . . . he wasn't. He was showing grace and forgiveness.


THINGS HAVE CHANGED whether you want to say they haven't or not. There is a big difference between Moses' law and God's creation Law. Jesus set the record straight.... and yes.... brought them back to the way they were intended to be in the beginning. To deny that we no longer practice these things in the law and to deny that things were not changed, is to be blind to the truth and the facts. It's that simple.

I have already shown by the Word how they have not changed. The law is still there, and it will not pass away until the new heaven and new earth come to be a present reality.


Regarding the Early Church Fathers...

Yes, regarding these early church Christians . . .

Nobody is questioning their salvation. I'm questioning their doctrine, and I will not apologize for doing so considering some of the things they taught. The claim has been made by yourself that since these folks were part of the early church you feel somehow like they might have the more sound teaching on the truth with regards to marriage. However, I'm showing you and others here that their doctrine wasn't necessarily any more sound than the church today considering that at least one of them that you referenced taught what most of the church throughout history has believed to be heresy. Universalism is a widely rejected doctrine that Ambrose of Milan taught. Me personally, if someone preaches that all people are going to heaven regardless of whether or not they have believed by faith in Jesus I'm going to have a difficult time accepting anything they have to teach. This is the basic teaching of universalism. Ambrose of Milan also taught clearly in the quotes you presented that are attributed to him that he believes sin is forgiven by baptism when the truth of the Word declares that sin is forgiven by faith and faith alone in the work of Jesus Christ. In other words, he is teaching that unless a person gets baptized their sins are not forgiven them. So again, boasting of their works may be enough for some, but I'm going to examine what they teach.

9Marksfan
Aug 22nd 2008, 09:44 AM
That's exactly what it is . . . personal, which quite simply isn't needed in this discussion.

...which is one of the reasons why Alyssa has dropped out of it. She doesn't want it to become personal but she realises that sustained discussion between you guys can get heated.


Now, as for the actual issues you are bringing to the table that have something to do with the discussion . . .

What law is it that you claim Jesus changed? You think He changed the law of Moses?

You haven't answered her points about stoning adulterers etc - one might add the animal sacrifices etc - didn't His death and resurrection do away with these things? Weren't they purely temporary for the Old Covenant?


What do you think Jesus meant by this then . . .

Do you claim that Jesus is just talking about the Ten Commandments or something here? I would disagree with that. Jesus stated that until heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle of the law will pass.

But how die he fulfil the law? And do you think he meant the ceremonial law would not pass away?


If the law is passed away then why would Paul need to say . . .

If the law is passed away and no longer in existence or changed in some way as you claim then how can Paul state that one can still attempt to keep it?

Neither Alyssa nor I is saying the law has passed away! Of course God's law remains - but it's undeniable that many features of the law of Moses (the ceremonial aspects in particular) have (as the writer to Hebrews puts it) "passed away".


Or how about . . .

Why does Paul state that unless we walk in the Spirit we are under law here? How can we be under law if it is abolished or altered somehow?

The moral law of God (Ten Commandments) has never been altered, nor will it be. We're not saying that. However, all ceremonial and many civil laws have been superseded by the law of Christ and His death and resurrection.


The truth of the matter is that none of the law is abolished or passed away or changed.

What about the animal sacrifices? Does God want them to continue now that His son has fulfilled them? How do you read Eph 2:15?


The truth is simply that those who are born again of Spirit are not under this law and do not have to keep it.

So they just ignore or disobey it, then? How about obeying it by the Spirit?


It was not changed. It was not altered. It was not abolished. It was only taken out of the way for those who believe. Those who do not believe and walk by faith, however, cannot say the same thing. When you don't stone someone for adultery it is not that you are keeping some changed law that Jesus brought. The truth is that you are not keeping the law at all. You are showing grace. Why didn't Hosea have Gomer stoned for her adultery? Was he changing the law? No . . . he wasn't. He was showing grace and forgiveness.

I have already shown by the Word how they have not changed. The law is still there, and it will not pass away until the new heaven and new earth come to be a present reality.

I think YOU are the one who is getting off topic here - although I think this whole issue of the place of the law in general for the Christian merits an entire new thread.

Yes, regarding these early church Christians . . .

Nobody is questioning their salvation.[/quote]

Sure sounds like you're questioning Ambrose's! And, sadly, possibly correctly - he did have some really fundamental errors in his theology. But that's not to say he wasn't right on SOME things (as eg Rome is).

What about Justin Martyr and Augustine? These guys were giants in the early church and Augustine's influence on the Reformation was enormous - bearing in mind how much error was around in his day, he had an amazing insight into the truth of God's word. OK, baptism was a bit of a stumbling block for all of them - but it's still argued about on this forum as being essential for salvation! I don't believe that myself, but can we really slate them for taking verses like "He who believes and is baptised will be saved" (Mk 16:16); "Repent and let every one of you be baptised for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:42); and "an antitype, which now saves us - baptism" (1 Pet 3:21) at face value? No dount if the Lord tarries for another century, people will look back on us and be ASTONISHED at some of the things WE believed!


I'm questioning their doctrine, and I will not apologize for doing so considering some of the things they taught.

Fair comment - test all things.


The claim has been made by yourself that since these folks were part of the early church you feel somehow like they might have the more sound teaching on the truth with regards to marriage. However, I'm showing you and others here that their doctrine wasn't necessarily any more sound than the church today considering that at least one of them that you referenced taught what most of the church throughout history has believed to be heresy.

It is only one - can you find just ONE who taught that remarriage was OK?


Universalism is a widely rejected doctrine that Ambrose of Milan taught. Me personally, if someone preaches that all people are going to heaven regardless of whether or not they have believed by faith in Jesus I'm going to have a difficult time accepting anything they have to teach.

Fair point - but what about the others, esp Augustine?


This is the basic teaching of universalism. Ambrose of Milan also taught clearly in the quotes you presented that are attributed to him that he believes sin is forgiven by baptism when the truth of the Word declares that sin is forgiven by faith and faith alone in the work of Jesus Christ. In other words, he is teaching that unless a person gets baptized their sins are not forgiven them. So again, boasting of their works may be enough for some, but I'm going to examine what they teach.

Well that was what the Reformation was all about! I hope you're a big fan of it, because without it, we would all still believe that salvation was something other than by faith alone in the work of Christ! The enemies of truth have always been there and I think we can be unfair on some of the early church fathers because not all of their doctrine was as right as ours has become (I'm sure it's not all right yet!) - the early church was greatly persecuted for the first four centuries, so there wasn't a great deal of time to work out every clear aspect of thye church's soteriology - they didn't have that luxury - and perhaps there is really a much closer link between faith and baptism than we realise, if we look carefully at all the scriptures - but that's another thread! :)

valleybldr
Aug 22nd 2008, 11:15 AM
Do you claim that Jesus is just talking about the Ten Commandments or something here? I would disagree with that. Jesus stated that until heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle of the law will pass.


There are safeguards and protections within God's law that are not found in other legal codes. It's a hard sell to say that Jesus removed these protections and made the victim (especially women) more vulnerable. There is great wisdom, grace and love found within divine law and Jesus didn’t come and institute an oppressive alternative standard. todd

VerticalReality
Aug 22nd 2008, 12:56 PM
...which is one of the reasons why Alyssa has dropped out of it. She doesn't want it to become personal but she realises that sustained discussion between you guys can get heated.

Then by all means, drop out BEFORE the personal comments are made . . .

And for the record . . . I am not heated in the least. This shouldn't be a personal matter. This is a discussion on the Word of God and what He proclaims.


You haven't answered her points about stoning adulterers etc - one might add the animal sacrifices etc - didn't His death and resurrection do away with these things? Weren't they purely temporary for the Old Covenant?

Why haven't I? Aren't there still laws that bring about the death penalty? What Scripture do you have that states these laws are done away with? There are all sorts of laws in this world, not just the Mosaic law, that still permits the death penalty for certain crimes committed. This has not changed. The law is still there and the curse is still there. The only folks who are not under the curse are those who believe on Jesus Christ. Those who do not believe on Jesus the wrath of God abides on them.

I will address my question to you since Alyssa has bowed out . . .

Why did Hosea not have Gomer stoned for her adultery? Was it because the law had changed? The law was still there. He just didn't choose to enforce that law. He chose instead to forgive Gomer and take her back.


But how die he fulfil the law? And do you think he meant the ceremonial law would not pass away?

He fulfilled the law in those who believe. The law has not passed away, and it is still definitely in effect for those who choose to live by their works rather than the works of Jesus.


Neither Alyssa nor I is saying the law has passed away! Of course God's law remains - but it's undeniable that many features of the law of Moses (the ceremonial aspects in particular) have (as the writer to Hebrews puts it) "passed away".

The Hebrew writer did not say that the law has passed away. The Hebrew writer stated that the covenant has passed away and become obsolete. The new covenant with God is for those who will walk by faith and believe Him. The Scripture I referenced for Alyssa from Paul is talking about a person choosing to be circumsized must then keep the whole law. Circumcision is not some eternal law of God's that you guys keep referring to (I'm not sure what law of God is eternal other than the law of Christ which is love). Circumcision is part of the law of Moses, and Paul states AFTER the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ that if someone wants to be circumisized they must then keep the entire law. What law? The law that includes circumcision.


The moral law of God (Ten Commandments) has never been altered, nor will it be. We're not saying that. However, all ceremonial and many civil laws have been superseded by the law of Christ and His death and resurrection.

What Scripture can you provide declaring that the law has passed away and is now no longer in existence? Why would Paul inform his Galatian audience that they must keep an entire law that doesn't exist if they choose to do the circumcision thing?


What about the animal sacrifices? Does God want them to continue now that His son has fulfilled them? How do you read Eph 2:15?

If God wanted them to continue He wouldn't have sent His Son. Currently there is no temple in order to give a proper sacrifice according to Mosaic law, and I believe this is the way God wants it. That does not mean the law is abolished from existence. It just further shows how the law is impossible to keep, and how the Jews no longer have any other possible sacrifice for their sins than the Lord Jesus Christ. Without Him they have no more sacrifice. Even if they did have a temple the law would be impossible to keep. And as for Ephesians 2:15, Jesus took away the enmity for those who believe. However, for those who do not believe the wrath of God abides on them (John 3:36), and that enmity is definitely still there. Why does the wrath of God abide on them? Because they are practicing lawlessness, and Christ is not their Mediator. Christ is the Mediator for those who believe.


I think YOU are the one who is getting off topic here - although I think this whole issue of the place of the law in general for the Christian merits an entire new thread.

Actually, the law is very much a focal point of this thread as I am discussing what it allowed with regards to marriage. Therefore, establishing whether or not this very law is in existence is very much part of the topic.


Sure sounds like you're questioning Ambrose's!

Where?


And, sadly, possibly correctly - he did have some really fundamental errors in his theology. But that's not to say he wasn't right on SOME things (as eg Rome is).

I never stated he wasn't right on some things.


What about Justin Martyr and Augustine?

What about them?


These guys were giants in the early church and Augustine's influence on the Reformation was enormous

I don't refer to any man as a "giant" in the church or anything along those lines. They are just men. The point of my comments is not to bash them. The point of my comments is to show that their doctrine isn't necessarily more sound than many today just because they were part of the earlier church. And since this has been a declaration of Alyssa's I think it only appropriate to show how it simply is not the case.


- bearing in mind how much error was around in his day, he had an amazing insight into the truth of God's word. OK, baptism was a bit of a stumbling block for all of them - but it's still argued about on this forum as being essential for salvation!

So what other teachings may be a stumbling block to them? My point here is that just because someone was a part of the early church doesn't mean that they had more sound doctrine.


It is only one - can you find just ONE who taught that remarriage was OK?

Why would anyone teach remarriage is okay? However, there are a lot of things that people do before coming to the Lord that are not okay. Shoot, even after coming to the Lord people do things that are not okay. However, the real question is what should be done AFTER one discovers that what they've done is not okay.


Well that was what the Reformation was all about! I hope you're a big fan of it, because without it, we would all still believe that salvation was something other than by faith alone in the work of Christ! The enemies of truth have always been there and I think we can be unfair on some of the early church fathers because not all of their doctrine was as right as ours has become (I'm sure it's not all right yet!) - the early church was greatly persecuted for the first four centuries, so there wasn't a great deal of time to work out every clear aspect of thye church's soteriology - they didn't have that luxury - and perhaps there is really a much closer link between faith and baptism than we realise, if we look carefully at all the scriptures - but that's another thread! :)

Which pretty much just goes right along with my point. I certainly don't look down on folks who have given their lives to the Lord. I'm simply pointing out that ALL doctrine should be examined regardless of what time the folks teaching it were around because their teachings are not above this examination.

valleybldr
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:25 PM
What about Justin Martyr and Augustine? Not that it matters, but Augustine changed position from his earlier hardline stance against D&R . todd

9Marksfan
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:28 PM
Not that it matters, but Augustine changed position from his earlier hardline stance against D&R . todd

Au contraire, I think it is relevant - you gotta quote of his?

valleybldr
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:45 PM
Au contraire, I think it is relevant - you gotta quote of his?
"It is not clear from Scripture whether a man who has left his wife because of adultery, which he is certainly permitted to do, is himself an adulterer, if he marries again. And if he should, I do not think that he would commit a grave sin" - Augustine, On Faith and Works (Acw. No. 48), as cited in Deasley, Alex R. G., Marriage and Divorce in the Bible p.205. This and other quotes (a whole chapters worth of church father quotes in Guy Duty's D&R book) show that after more study (later in his life) even Augustine made allowances for remarriage. todd

9Marksfan
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:48 PM
"It is not clear from Scripture whether a man who has left his wife because of adultery, which he is certainly permitted to do, is himself an adulterer, if he marries again. And if he should, I do not think that he would commit a grave sin" - Augustine, On Faith and Works (Acw. No. 48), as cited in Deasley, Alex R. G., Marriage and Divorce in the Bible p.205. This and other quotes (a whole chapters worth of church father quotes in Guy Duty's D&R book) show that after more study (later in his life) even Augustine made allowances for remarriage. todd

That makes sense - no doubt this influenced the Reformers greatly.

VerticalReality
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:51 PM
"It is not clear from Scripture whether a man who has left his wife because of adultery, which he is certainly permitted to do, is himself an adulterer, if he marries again. And if he should, I do not think that he would commit a grave sin" - Augustine, On Faith and Works (Acw. No. 48), as cited in Deasley, Alex R. G., Marriage and Divorce in the Bible p.205. This and other quotes (a whole chapters worth of church father quotes in Guy Duty's D&R book) show that after more study (later in his life) even Augustine made allowances for remarriage. todd

Interesting, todd. Thanks for the input.

I think this just proves further that the teachings of these men were just as in need of examination as folks today.

I'm sure if I actually took the time to dig it up I would find that many of these "earth church fathers" weren't quite as strict on the matter as it has been proclaimed in some of these posts.

drew
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:32 PM
On the question of the abolition of the Law: VR posted this text:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

It is my opinion that Jesus did indeed abolish the Torah in the sense of it being a set of "rules and practices". I think the Scriptural case for this is overwhelming, not least stuff in Romans 10 and Ephesians 2:

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Besides, although I won't provide the actual argument here, I think that Paul teaches that the Torah was in place for a specific and dark purpose - to bring sin to its full height of expression in Israel so that it could then be passed onto her faithful Messiah and then condemned on the cross. That purpose has been fulfilled.

So, I believe that the Torah as a set of prescriptive rules and practices has been "retired with honour".

How do we make sense of the Matthew 5 text if Torah has been retired. That is a good question for which I can offer this: there is Biblical precedent of use of apocalyptic imagery used in a highly exagerrated form. Jesus himself uses references to "end of the world" imagery to explain what I think are actually the events of 70 AD.

Perhaps the phrase "heaven and earth pass away" is of that form - I think "all was accomplished" at the Cross.

But Paul is also clear - there is a sense in which Torah remains in force:

31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law

In short, I believe that the sense in which Torah remains in force is expressed here:

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23910c)] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

I will now express a position concerning the whole marriage and divorce thing that I suspect [B]all will disagree with. That is, the "rules" are no longer to applied "as rules" - so all efforts to define "pornea" and all arguments about what it means to "put away" vs what it means to "divorce" are besides the point.

The overarching principle is love for God and for others and all "prescriptive" hard and fast rules of any kind are no longer in force, even in respect to divorce and remarriage. This may seem like a formula for "anything goes". Well, with love, anything definitelty does not go.

Besides, I think a good argument can be put forward that Jesus' teaching about divorce does not even apply to our day - since divorce then was an entirely different kind of thing than it is today. Today, there are reasonable legal constraints that ensure that women are not forced into prostitution if they find themselves divorced.

People assume that Jesus' teachings are all directly translatable into our time. I have my doubts about this. Jesus was more of a product of His time than we realize.

VerticalReality
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:38 PM
drew,

Romans 10:4 reads that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for those who believe . . .

It doesn't state that Christ is the end of the law. It's only stating that through the law we are not justified or made righteous. We are justified and made righteous through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not stating that the law has been done away with. In fact, for as long as sin is in the world the law will be needed.

drew
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:47 PM
drew,

Romans 10:4 reads that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for those who believe . . .

It doesn't state that Christ is the end of the law. It's only stating that through the law we are not justified or made righteous. We are justified and made righteous through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not stating that the law has been done away with. In fact, for as long as sin is in the world the law will be needed.
That's not how my NIV reads:

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes

While the "plain literal" reading is not always the right one, the plain sense here is clear - the law has come to an end (at least in some sense).

I agree that your version is indeed compatible with your intepretation. But I cannot see how your position can survive this from Ephesians 2:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

How can the Law (the Torah) be considered to be in place in light of this?

VerticalReality
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:49 PM
That's not how my NIV reads:

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes

While the "plain literal" reading is not always the right one, the plain sense here is clear - the law has come to an end (at least in some sense).

I agree that your version is indeed compatible with your intepretation. But I cannot see how your position can survive this from Ephesians 2:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

How can the Law (the Torah) be considered to be in place in light of this?

I've already addressed this with 9MarksFan. The enmity has been taken away in those who believe. However, if you do not believe on Jesus that enmity in Ephesians 2:15 is still there, which is why the wrath of God abides right now on those who do not believe on Jesus (John 3:36).

drew
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:58 PM
I've already addressed this with 9MarksFan. The enmity has been taken away in those who believe. However, if you do not believe on Jesus that enmity in Ephesians 2:15 is still there, which is why the wrath of God abides right now on those who do not believe on Jesus (John 3:36).
Sorry, I can't go there. I read verse as a clear declaration of the Torah being abolished:

...15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Something has been abolished. What is it that has been abolished? The Torah. I do not see how one can read this any other way. Whatever enmity has been taken aways between whomever, this has clearly been accomplished by abolition of the Torah.

VerticalReality
Aug 22nd 2008, 06:08 PM
Sorry, I can't go there. I read verse as a clear declaration of the Torah being abolished:

...15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Something has been abolished. What is it that has been abolished? The Torah. I do not see how one can read this any other way. Whatever enmity has been taken aways between whomever, this has clearly been accomplished by abolition of the Torah.

The entire context of Ephesians 2 is talking about those who have been saved by God's grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the entire context of the passage. Therefore, you cannot apply the declarations of Ephesians 2 to those who are not Christian. Not only does this not fit into context with Ephesians 2, but it also contradicts numerous passages of other Scripture that declare the law still very much active.

drew
Aug 22nd 2008, 06:23 PM
Therefore, you cannot apply the declarations of Ephesians 2 to those who are not Christian. Not only does this not fit into context with Ephesians 2, but it also contradicts numerous passages of other Scripture that declare the law still very much active.
I am confused. Clearly the Torah has been abolished for some people -the text is clear:

by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

Who do you think it has been abolished for? I think that it has been abolished for the people who have been under it - the Jews.

But one cannot say that it not has been abolished for at least some people - the Law is the Torah and it has been abolished.

Paul is saying that the very thing that demarcated the Jew - the Torah - has been abolished. Since the Jews are the ones under Torah, the abolition of Torah is in relation to them.

But Paul is clear here - the Torah was a divider between Jew and Gentile - an artefact that allowed the Jew to think that he was in the covenant family to the exclusion of the Gentile. How can one possibly read the following block of text and not conclude that this barrier - the Torah - has been done away with by the work of Jesus, at least in the form of "rules and practices".

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

I agree that the Torah lives on - but not in the form of "commandments and regulations".

VerticalReality
Aug 22nd 2008, 07:34 PM
I am confused. Clearly the Torah has been abolished for some people -the text is clear:

by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

Who do you think it has been abolished for? I think that it has been abolished for the people who have been under it - the Jews.

So that those who believe by faith will be one in Christ Jesus. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. However, what about those who do not believe?


But one cannot say that it not has been abolished for at least some people - the Law is the Torah and it has been abolished.

Sure you can. For those who do not believe and do not accept the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ that enmity is still there because they are still carnal and not of God.


Paul is saying that the very thing that demarcated the Jew - the Torah - has been abolished. Since the Jews are the ones under Torah, the abolition of Torah is in relation to them.

I disagree. I believe He is only speaking to those who are saved in this passage. It's the saved Jew and Gentile who are one in spirit with Him. Those who are not saved, however, cannot say the same thing.


But Paul is clear here - the Torah was a divider between Jew and Gentile - an artefact that allowed the Jew to think that he was in the covenant family to the exclusion of the Gentile. How can one possibly read the following block of text and not conclude that this barrier - the Torah - has been done away with by the work of Jesus, at least in the form of "rules and practices".

I agree with this. For those who believe on Jesus they have become one family . . . and that is the family of God.

valleybldr
Aug 22nd 2008, 10:08 PM
I'm sure if I actually took the time to dig it up I would find that many of these "earth church fathers" weren't quite as strict on the matter as it has been proclaimed in some of these posts. IMO, the answers to the D&R quagmire lies more in understanding divorce as it was known anciently and knowing the Jewish culture within which the Scriptural passages were written. todd

Alaska
Aug 23rd 2008, 02:13 AM
Sorry, I can't go there. I read verse as a clear declaration of the Torah being abolished:

...15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Something has been abolished. What is it that has been abolished? The Torah. I do not see how one can read this any other way. Whatever enmity has been taken aways between whomever, this has clearly been accomplished by abolition of the Torah.

In the NT it is written:
Eph. 4:
28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
There are other NT rules that relate to "thou shalt not steal".

Consider this:
Romans 13:
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Jesus came so that we can "fulfill" the law, as in "complete its purpose" which was done by the introduction of the new man in Christ through the new birth and changing power only made available through Jesus' death and resurrection.
The NT reveals that our purpose now in Christ is to be a reflection of:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
In Romans 13 above, that means by the Spirit and the NT word in us, we will by his strengthening grace be obedient to the morally binding commandments he refers to such as "thou shalt not steal'. Doing such does indeed fit with loving our neighbor as ourself.
Obviously, however we are not under the many OT things that were not morally binding absolutes.
So to say the Torah was abolished has to be explained so as to not contradict the fact that numerous rules necessary to observe in the NT can also be found to have been required under the OT.
So drew, please explain in what sense "abolish" applies here and what was abolished.

So the following quote is a lie and is not found anywhere in a real bible:
...15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

This is what a real Bible says as directly translated and not paraphrased:

Eph. 2:
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Commandments and ordinances are like laws.
So to break down what Paul says so as to consider it more carefully, look at it as though Paul is referring to the "law" of laws contained in laws.

Paul refers to a kind of principle or law connected with laws in Rom. 7:
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.


Paul refers to this "law" as "the law of sin and death" in the next chapter.

Romans 8:
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Now look at the context of Eph. 2:15 to see if this law fits:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Christ's death allowed us to die to self by the power of regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Both Jew and Gentile were under the law of sin and death as they all can relate to the predicament Paul describes above in Rom. 7:15-21 whereby without Jesus they were under that law of sin and death.

"the law of commandments contained in ordinances" can be looked as the principle of non compliance to laws when faced with an ordinance or law to be obeyed.

This law was abolished for those having been made partakers of the "divine nature" as referred to by Peter.

2 Pet. 1:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

drew
Aug 25th 2008, 03:10 PM
IMO, the answers to the D&R quagmire lies more in understanding divorce as it was known anciently and knowing the Jewish culture within which the Scriptural passages were written. todd
I agree. We continually need to remember that Jesus was a real person in a real historical context. And we need to remember the focus of his mission to the Jews (although, of course, I am not saying that His great act of redemption was for Jews only - one would have to throw Paul's writings away if you believed that).

It's not "all about us", as if Jesus were talking above the heads of his hearers to us in the 21st century. I think that Jesus' teaching was about divorce as practiced in that time which basically destroyed the woman economically and socially. This is not true in many of our present societies - we have laws that force a revenue-generating husband to support a wife whose commitment to a marriage has caused her to leave the work-force. And it is acceptable for women to work. So divorce then was an entirely different animal than its modern version.

We need to continually remember these words:

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

We should not simply assume that everything Jesus was a universal truth valid for all peoples and all times. He was embedded in his world and had a very specific mission to the Jews. What He says about being sent "only to the Jews" may at first seem disturbing to Gentile Christians. But when you read Paul, you see how this actually makes sense. But that is a really complex argument that I won't pursue.