PDA

View Full Version : "Leaving house or parents or brothers or wife or children"



ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 05:21 PM
In another thread on ministry, a discussion emerged related to the following verse. As opposed to completely derailing that thread (probably too late), I would like input here in this thread.

Luke 18:
28 Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.”
29 So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

How do these verses apply today? Are there ever situations where God would call a man to do something that could potentially separate him from his family? Why would Jesus reward someone for leaving their family for the sake of the kingdom of God?

I'm not posing any position... I haven't framed my questions for a setup... I have no dog in this fight (politically incorrect, I know)... I'm not looking for what this verse does NOT mean, but what it DOES mean...

Aviyah
Oct 8th 2013, 06:23 PM
Reads to me that someone who has the courage to leave their family when the choice is between Christ and them that the person will be rewarded for their sacrifice.

Examples:
- Newly converted Christians in Asian families threatened with being disowned and arrested.
- Newly converted Christians in Islamic families threatened with physical abuse and death.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 8th 2013, 06:42 PM
Peter had the wrong idea that giving up all that he had, including his family - would earn him any better position in the Kingdom of God. God's gifts surpass anything we could or would give up for Him. So we don't have to make sacrifices as a means of getting a better reward, now do we?

[Look backwards a few verses to see the same regarding the rich young ruler.... for the rich have all they need -- for what or how much does one need to sacrifice/give up to receive the gifts of God?]

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 07:21 PM
I am curios about how people feel about the following two scenarios:

1. A man of God is called to the mission field for a period of one year. During this time, he is separated from his wife and family. He only has contact via phone, email, text.

2. A man is a member of the military (joined after being married) and is deployed overseas for a period of one year. During this time, he is separated from his wife and family. He only has contact via phone, email, text.

Are both of these men honorable? Is one right and the other wrong? Do both fit the category of "abandoning their wife and family?"

If only man #1 is wrong, is service to country more important than service to God?

Old man
Oct 8th 2013, 07:26 PM
Luke 18:
28 Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.”
29 So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

How do these verses apply today? Are there ever situations where God would call a man to do something that could potentially separate him from his family? Why would Jesus reward someone for leaving their family for the sake of the kingdom of God?

I'm not looking for what this verse does NOT mean, but what it DOES mean...

Sometimes in order to find out what something means you may need to eliminate what it doesn’t mean first, then what ever options you have remaining means you are that much closer to the truth.

You can possibly take this as a warning:


… there is no one who has left …. Wife …. who shall not receive many times more in this present time.

I don’t now but some men could use this as a reason not to leave their wife. If they have trouble with the one they already have in this life why would they want more? There may be a reason why King Ahasuerus during the time of Esther spent so much time in his man cave (throne room) with a bottle of wine close by when he had all his hundreds if not thousands of concubines vying for the spot of favorite to the king running around the rest of the palace. ;) :D

Seriously I think it is more of a priority context than Christ condoning leaving your spouse. The issue is similar in context to Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 07:33 PM
Sometimes in order to find out what something means you may need to eliminate what it doesn’t mean first, then what ever options you have remaining means you are that much closer to the truth.

You can possibly take this as a warning:



I don’t now but some men could use this as a reason not to leave their wife. If they have trouble with the one they already have in this life why would they want more? There may be a reason why King Ahasuerus during the time of Esther spent so much time in his man cave (throne room) with a bottle of wine close by when he had all his hundreds if not thousands of concubines vying for the spot of favorite to the king running around the rest of the palace. ;) :D

Seriously I think it is more of a priority context than Christ condoning leaving your spouse. The issue is similar in context to Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”

Well I don't think that Jesus is speaking of divorcing your wife.

The text is pretty clear. I don't think He is referring to preference. He says that elsewhere, as you quote. The word for "left" is (ἀφίημι) aphíēmi and means "to go away from."

Aviyah
Oct 8th 2013, 07:51 PM
1. A man of God is called to the mission field for a period of one year. During this time, he is separated from his wife and family. He only has contact via phone, email, text.

Only if they both agree.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Cor 7:3-5)


2. A man is a member of the military (joined after being married) and is deployed overseas for a period of one year. During this time, he is separated from his wife and family. He only has contact via phone, email, text.

There is no honor in overseas war. Unless the country is being attacked, joining the military while married is abandoning the spouse and prioritizing the world.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 8th 2013, 07:52 PM
I am curios about how people feel about the following two scenarios:

1. A man of God is called to the mission field for a period of one year. During this time, he is separated from his wife and family. He only has contact via phone, email, text.

2. A man is a member of the military (joined after being married) and is deployed overseas for a period of one year. During this time, he is separated from his wife and family. He only has contact via phone, email, text.

Are both of these men honorable? Is one right and the other wrong? Do both fit the category of "abandoning their wife and family?"

If only man #1 is wrong, is service to country more important than service to God?

I don't see how this is related to the OP text, but both men are doing the job that they have been called to do. So both are servicing God as you and I serve God in the work we have been given to do

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 07:57 PM
I don't see how this is related to the OP text, but both men are doing the job that they have been called to do. So both are servicing God as you and I serve God in the work we have been given to do

You really don't see the correlation of #1 with the verse in the OP? :confused:

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 07:58 PM
Only if they both agree.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Cor 7:3-5)



There is no honor in overseas war. Unless the country is being attacked, joining the military while married is abandoning the spouse and prioritizing the world.

Thanks for bringing up a great point Aviyah.... AGREEMENT! Yes. This is needed.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 8th 2013, 08:16 PM
You really don't see the correlation of #1 with the verse in the OP? :confused:

Post #3

keck553
Oct 8th 2013, 11:13 PM
2. A man is a member of the military (joined after being married) and is deployed overseas for a period of one year. During this time, he is separated from his wife and family. He only has contact via phone, email, text.


If only man #1 is wrong, is service to country more important than service to God?

I do not wish to mix secular culture with the Bible, so I'll say this.

You know my position from the other thread, but here is an interesting practice that was common in Israel in Biblical times. When a man married a woman, he was not only exempt, but prohibited from military service for a period of one year. And that was to fight within Israel! That is how important marrage was in ancient Israel. But even with that allowance, look at the potential chaos that ensued. Uriah, for example. God didn't allow that story to be told just for the sake of David. There are many layers we need to glean from it, the importance of a husband and the covering he provides for his wife (Ephesians 5:25-28) not the least significant, and we gain great wisdom when we understand that God provides to us an important lesson in there if we are willing to receive it.

As to your first question, I'm not going to flog that horse anymore, except to say that God does not contradict His own commandments, nor His character.

But I believe God is pleased that we investigate this important matter, so praise and glory be to Him. May His truth be revealed to our hearts and to our souls.

Balabusha
Oct 8th 2013, 11:25 PM
Biblically a husband has an honor of fulfilling his duty to his wife-this is to provide food,shelter and sex. In common venacular a place to live, a place to eat and relationship. If we have husbands that are only able to give us a shack or a mansion-good enough.
1 We should note that the bible gave a honeymoon period of one year for not working and not going to war.
2.Going to war overseas accomplishes the food and shelter part, but neglects the relashionsip part. So it is not a desirable situation for marriage and strains the marriage.
3. Going oversees to spread the Gospel is honorable, but might put huge strain on finances and relationship. We don't have to go into strained absolutes either-a hubby spreading the Gospel is good-and if he comes home late every week-good job!
-comparing a man who goes overseas for his job and spreading the Gospel is not the same-because spreading the Gospel can be done in your own town-actually you don't even have to leave your home-JW's and Mormons come knocking.
-the funny thing is that most people get these callings to tropical locations, begging the church for money, while their neighbors and associates have never been presented with the Gospel, or they slam the door on the JW knocking.

As a wife and mother, my role changed the day I became a mother-i finished what I started and others carried it on better suited than myself, now my mission field is my marriage and whatever babies are given to us. From conception I pray,sing and read the bible to them, and this continues until they can read-and then we can study together-my kids will be able to go to university and not only be equiped to defend the Bible-but to advance it in the face of opposition-then my role becomes a legace

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 11:32 PM
As to your first question, I'm not going to flog that horse anymore, except to say that God does not contradict His own commandments, nor His character.

But I believe God is pleased that we investigate this important matter, so praise and glory be to Him. May His truth be revealed to our hearts and to our souls.

Thanks. And I really don't have a firm position on what Jesus meant by including wife and children in that statement. But I'm pretty sure He meant something, and that we should try to understand the meaning. And a literal rendering of the text does not contradict scripture unless you have a verse that says a man is to never leave his wife for any period of time for any reason.

ChangedByHim
Oct 8th 2013, 11:36 PM
I do not wish to mix secular culture with the Bible, so I'll say this.


This really doesn't make sense. A Christian man leaves his wife for a year to serve God in missions. A Christian man leaves his wife for a year to serve his country. It's a valid comparison. What does secular culture have to do with it?

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 12:09 AM
I believe this could happen today. If a family is truly walking with God, and say the dad is called to go do a job in another country, that would be "leaving" his family right? I mean, the disciples all ended up with their families again didn't they, if they had family I mean? I suppose some folks might try to pull something like that off, when it isn't God's leading at all. But I do think God does those sort of things today. I remember hearing that Ruth Graham made a statement when asked "how she handled Billy being gone so much" and she said "a little time with my husband is like a lifetime with some, other man". I may not have that quoted right;)

Is that where you were going with that CBH? ysic, denise

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 12:13 AM
Reads to me that someone who has the courage to leave their family when the choice is between Christ and them that the person will be rewarded for their sacrifice.

Examples:
- Newly converted Christians in Asian families threatened with being disowned and arrested.
- Newly converted Christians in Islamic families threatened with physical abuse and death.

Yes Aviyah, and also, I believe God would always make provision for those loved ones. I do not believe God would call a "provider" away from his family without making provision for them. So part of God's reward would be to keep the man's family cared for;) denise, ysic

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 12:21 AM
Peter had the wrong idea that giving up all that he had, including his family - would earn him any better position in the Kingdom of God. God's gifts surpass anything we could or would give up for Him. So we don't have to make sacrifices as a means of getting a better reward, now do we?

[Look backwards a few verses to see the same regarding the rich young ruler.... for the rich have all they need -- for what or how much does one need to sacrifice/give up to receive the gifts of God?]

Being in the flesh (before the Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus) anyone could misinterpret Jesus meanings, but He knew that was going to happen, it was all part of the learning process. It has been for me as well. How many 1000's or more christians today are being led to believe if they give 10 dollars they'll get 100? Or if they give all they own, they'll end up rich according to the world's definition of rich.

denise, ysic PS just one more thing I forgot, if Love is sacrifice, then yes, we do need to sacrifice self, imo. As far as rewards, I do not believe we are to do anything with "gain" in mind. Give unconditionally I guess is what I am saying;)

keck553
Oct 9th 2013, 12:24 AM
Yes Aviyah, and also, I believe God would always make provision for those loved ones. I do not believe God would call a "provider" away from his family without making provision for them. So part of God's reward would be to keep the man's family cared for;) denise, ysic


We husbands are God's provision for our wives. Scripture lays that responsibility squarely on our shoulders. Scripture is very clear and very concise about that principal in many places, but in no place (that I know of) in God's Word are we told of what you propose. So, since we are commanded to test these things, I do challenge you to back up your proposition with Scripture.

keck553
Oct 9th 2013, 12:32 AM
This really doesn't make sense. A Christian man leaves his wife for a year to serve God in missions. A Christian man leaves his wife for a year to serve his country. It's a valid comparison. What does secular culture have to do with it?

To be honest, I don't think a married man should run off to play war. I served my country before I was married, and I also know married men can serve their country right here at home.

But consider this......

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus tells us some men who are compelled to serve the kingdom of God in certain ways should not marry. In a culture that stygmatized unmarried men, that was quite a statement. Knowing that, what type of service to the Kingdom do you believe Jesus was referring to?

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 12:40 AM
We husbands are God's provision for our wives. Scripture lays that responsibility squarely on our shoulders. Scripture is very clear and very concise about that principal in many places, but in no place (that I know of) in God's Word are we told of what you propose. So, since we are commanded to test these things, I do challenge you to back up your proposition with Scripture.

Well, tonight I am not about to search for something I don't even know if it exists, but if you are up to it, you can provide scripture to the contrary. I said I didn't believe, or I believed, but I freely admit that I don't know scripture that says that. So go for it, I'm always up to learning something new about God's Word, denise, ysic

PS I am not saying I am wrong or right, but it is said that if everything God/Jesus taught through the ages, was written down, there wouldn't be enough books to hold it. I may have that wrong too. Whatever, if you want to tango, my dance-cards full, sorry.

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 12:50 AM
Ok, actually, on a trip down the hall, something came to me Keck.

Isaiah 1:17

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor;[a]
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow.

What you are saying, unless I misunderstood you is, that the man is the sole provider, if he is gone, then the fam is outa luck. I don't think so. The above verse shows me that God's Word does make provision for those left behind.

Are we on the same page, same book? I just don't think I am that far off the mark, but I could be, denise, a sister in Christ

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 12:52 AM
To be honest, I don't think a married man should run off to play war. I served my country before I was married, and I also know married men can serve their country right here at home.


Thanks for answering.

Another question: do you believe that any of the apostles, other than Peter were married? If so, so you believe the 12 traveled with their wives during the 3.5 years of Jesus' public ministry? I know that Paul mentioned Peter leading about his wife. But I think he was referring to post ascension ministry.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 9th 2013, 01:54 AM
1 Corinthians 9:3 My defense to those who examine me is this:4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?

Luke 4:38 Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's home. Now Simon's mother- in- law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him to help her. 39 And standing over her, He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she immediately got up and waited on them.

keck553
Oct 9th 2013, 02:30 AM
Ok, actually, on a trip down the hall, something came to me Keck.

Isaiah 1:17

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor;[a]
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow.

What you are saying, unless I misunderstood you is, that the man is the sole provider, if he is gone, then the fam is outa luck. I don't think so. The above verse shows me that God's Word does make provision for those left behind.

Are we on the same page, same book? I just don't think I am that far off the mark, but I could be, denise, a sister in Christ

Well a widow or orphan is not a woman (or child) who has been abandoned by her husband, so your example is somewhat out of context. Besides, God's Law in Torah and reiterated in the prophets, writings, Psalms and in the New Testament establishes care for widows and orphans. There are so many Scripture references to the care of widows and orphans that you should have no problem finding them. Basically God's Word states clearly that where widows and orphans are concerned they are to be provided for by God's people; that is our collective responsibility. Again, God places the responsibility on us. He doesn't magically send her food in a red wagon, but He expects us to fulfill His commandments concerning widows and orphans, just as God expects a husband to fulfill his commandments to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Would our groom (Christ) abandon us? Neither should husbands abandon their wives if they are to love them as Christ loves us.

You asked for some Scriptures from me concerning "the opposite," so I copied the below from a post I made in another thread.

Ephesians chapter 5 (emphasis mine below)

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church."

1 Corinthians Chapter 7

"The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

1 Timothy 5

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever"

Deuteronomy 6

"These words that I am giving you today are to be in your heart. Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up."

Just to name a few. Abandoning one's family to "pursue a ministry" is breaking all the above commandments and principles. How could God be pleased with that kind of indifference to HIS LAWS? He can't, it is not in His revealed character!

As husbands, our foremost and most important ministry is to our wives and families. If we acknowedge our wives and children as gifts from God, then surely we are charged with being as good stewards of those gifts as we are charged to be good stewards of our spiritual gifts, His Word and of His Salvation. God has no use for someone who can not keep their charge. To whom much is given much is required. That is the joy of the Lord.

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 02:41 AM
Well a widow or orphan is not a woman (or child) who has been abandoned by her husband, so your example is somewhat out of context. Besides, God's Law in Torah and reiterated in the prophets, writings, Psalms and in the New Testament establishes care for widows and orphans. There are so many Scripture references to the care of widows and orphans that you should have no problem finding them. Basically God's Word states clearly that where widows and orphans are concerned they are to be provided for by God's people; that is our collective responsibility. Again, God places the responsibility on us. He doesn't magically send her food in a red wagon, but He expects us to fulfill His commandments concerning widows and orphans, just as God expects a husband to fulfill his commandments to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Would our groom (Christ) abandon us? Neither should husbands abandon their wives if they are to love them as Christ loves us.

You asked for some Scriptures from me concerning "the opposite," so I copied the below from a post I made in another thread.

Ephesians chapter 5 (emphasis mine below)

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church."

1 Corinthians Chapter 7

"The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

1 Timothy 5

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever"

Deuteronomy 6

"These words that I am giving you today are to be in your heart. Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up."

Just to name a few. Abandoning one's family to "pursue a ministry" is breaking all the above commandments and principles. How could God be pleased with that kind of indifference to HIS LAWS? He can't, it is not in His revealed character!

As husbands, our foremost and most important ministry is to our wives and families. If we acknowedge our wives and children as gifts from God, then surely we are charged with being as good stewards of those gifts as we are charged to be good stewards of our spiritual gifts, His Word and of His Salvation. God has no use for someone who can not keep their charge. To whom much is given much is required. That is the joy of the Lord.

I disagree with your first sentence so I will address that tomorrow a.m. I believe if God literally takes away a husband from His family with no provision, that could very well be like leaving widowed and orphaned. Need to look it up but as I said, I will do that in the a.m. Also, God has wiped out whole populations, but when calling men or women to follow Him, I don't believe He would leave the "left behind" uncared for.

bottom line, look forward to talking about this, denise, ysic

keck553
Oct 9th 2013, 02:45 AM
This really doesn't make sense. A Christian man leaves his wife for a year to serve God in missions. A Christian man leaves his wife for a year to serve his country. It's a valid comparison. What does secular culture have to do with it?


Thanks for answering.

Another question: do you believe that any of the apostles, other than Peter were married? If so, so you believe the 12 traveled with their wives during the 3.5 years of Jesus' public ministry? I know that Paul mentioned Peter leading about his wife. But I think he was referring to post ascension ministry.

It would be speculation (about the other 11 being married). There is no reason to believe wives didn't travel with their husbands who followed Jesus though. This format of Rabbi/disciple group was quite common in Israel, and other similar groups did include their wives and children, often joining caravans. It's not like we see in Hollywood movies you know...... The only thing I speculated on concerning the Apostles is the possibility that Paul was a widower. For him to be "a Pharisee of Pharisees," as a Jew, it would have been close to heresy that he wasn't married during that time. Plus he seems to understand women quite well. But beyond that, I haven't considered it too much. But I would imagine most of the Apostles outside of Peter were not much beyond their bar mitzvah when Jesus claimed them, so it's possible they never married, knowing what they were in for....

keck553
Oct 9th 2013, 02:49 AM
I disagree with your first sentence so I will address that tomorrow a.m. I believe if God literally takes away a husband from His family with no provision, that could very well be like leaving widowed and orphaned. Need to look it up but as I said, I will do that in the a.m. Also, God has wiped out whole populations, but when calling men or women to follow Him, I don't believe He would leave the "left behind" uncared for.

bottom line, look forward to talking about this, denise, ysic

I would enjoy that continuance and I appreciate your thoughts and prayers in this matter and your willingness to share what God has taught you!

Curtis
Oct 9th 2013, 02:55 AM
In another thread on ministry, a discussion emerged related to the following verse. As opposed to completely derailing that thread (probably too late), I would like input here in this thread.

Luke 18:
28 Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.”
29 So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

How do these verses apply today? Are there ever situations where God would call a man to do something that could potentially separate him from his family? Why would Jesus reward someone for leaving their family for the sake of the kingdom of God?

I'm not posing any position... I haven't framed my questions for a setup... I have no dog in this fight (politically incorrect, I know)... I'm not looking for what this verse does NOT mean, but what it DOES mean...

Not having studied this scripture before, I would call it a hot button topic for sure.
Let me give you first impressions in my spirit about this. We know that there were some Apostles that were married. We know Peter had a mother in law so he had to be married, James, and few others also where married. Did they abandon their wife's when they followed Jesus? We know they left all their belongings, like boats, fishing nets, and homes, but what about their spouses? Here is a interesting scripture.

1Co 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
1Co 9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
1Co 9:3 This is my defense to those who would examine me.
1Co 9:4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
1Co 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

It seems like that most if not all of the Apostles brought their wife's with them on there evangelistic adventures. Paul was speaking here about his right to do the same. They must have been camped a distance from the regular Apostles.
Here is something I would like to mention about leaving brothers, children and wife's. Remember when the Apostle Paul spoken in Romans about Jacob, and Esau.

Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
Rom 9:12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

He was talking about the election of God, how God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born, and before they had done any good or evil. Of course they could not have done anything good or evil because they had not been born yet! Keep in mind how God sometimes mentions things in the Bible before or after they happen like Jacob. Why would God mention that they had not done good or evil when they had not been born yet? Or how Jesus tells us that if a man looks at a woman and lust after her he has already committed adultery with her, even though he never touched her. Spiritual things happen first in the spiritual realm before they are manifested in the physical world. What am I getting at here.

Luk 18:27 But he said, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."
Luk 18:28 And Peter said, "See, we have left our homes and followed you."
Luk 18:29 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God,
Luk 18:30 who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

How many times do you suppose someone who's desire is to have a family, children, to be a parent, and to have a house to raise this family in. But then God calls them into the ministry to do his will. This person because of his calling decides to abandon his own desires and does what God has called him to do? Would that be considered leaving his children, wife, home, and not becoming a parent for the sake of the Kingdom? We are so tuned at looking at the things from this physical world view and not at what would have been if certain decisions would had been made.

Just some food for thought....
Curtis

Curtis
Oct 9th 2013, 03:45 AM
There are a lot to this topic, for instance....

1Ti 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

If a man can not take care of his own family, how can he take care of the Church?

1Co 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
1Co 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please
1Co 7:34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband.

God is diffidently not against the family because he is the one who started it. It is for sure easier for someone to be single and to serve the Lord, than to be married. But Paul also says that what ever state you are in when you got to saved, stay in that position. If married, stay married, if single stay single, unless you don't have the gift. It is better to marry than to burn, If you know what I mean! I myself don't have that gift so I am happily married. :) My wife and I were both Christians we got married, so my wife knows that the Lord is first in my life, and she likes it better that way. I am more nicer when I am in tune with God. One of the reasons why the world is so messed up is because of the collapse of the family unit.

Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

I do not believe the Lord has some kind of complex were he wants all the attention to himself. There is reason why this is. I think this scripture tells us that if we really want to love our Father, Mother, Daughter like we are suppose to then we need to Love God first, and fore most because all life, love, safety, peace, and joy streams out from God to us, and then it flows out to our family. If we love someone else more then this it does not happen.
Just ask my wife, she knows when I am constant fellowship with my Heavenly Father, my family is like in heaven. Everybody is at peace. Amazing how that works.

Curtis

Balabusha
Oct 9th 2013, 04:44 AM
Ok, actually, on a trip down the hall, something came to me Keck.

Isaiah 1:17

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor;[a]
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow.

What you are saying, unless I misunderstood you is, that the man is the sole provider, if he is gone, then the fam is outa luck. I don't think so. The above verse shows me that God's Word does make provision for those left behind.

Are we on the same page, same book? I just don't think I am that far off the mark, but I could be, denise, a sister in Christ

-If you want to defend a husband for leaving his wife and family, this is not the verse you want to quote-a household without a Father is considered an oppressed household, that is on the mercy of handouts from society-In this passage Isaiah is rebuking his society for not taking care of the unfortunate and vulnerable. This is not a prooftext for a husband to leave his family.
-This is repeated throughout the Bible

episkopos
Oct 9th 2013, 12:12 PM
I think the OP statement refers to the level of commitment that is required to be a disciple of Christ. When we forsake this world and the things in this world we then have an entrance into the very resting place of God. From there we can walk as learners (disciples) of His ways.

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 02:07 PM
I think the OP statement refers to the level of commitment that is required to be a disciple of Christ. When we forsake this world and the things in this world we then have an entrance into the very resting place of God. From there we can walk as learners (disciples) of His ways.

This is what I am seeing now as well, I think the OP may have been going for this. I'm going to learn some thing here, and hopefully, be able to understand why I believed that God would not leave wives and children to fen for themselves when calling husbands to go be disciples. It was for 3 years, not so different then going to school. Not to minimize Who their teacher was, God Himself:) I think you hit the nail on the head, it is exactly about the level of commitment, and who our first commitment has to be to, above all else. But I am finding as I read, Jesus did not want us to literally "hate" other things or people, just not put them before God, trust Him by putting them in His hands.

God bless, denise, ysic

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 02:25 PM
-If you want to defend a husband for leaving his wife and family, this is not the verse you want to quote-a household without a Father is considered an oppressed household, that is on the mercy of handouts from society-In this passage Isaiah is rebuking his society for not taking care of the unfortunate and vulnerable. This is not a prooftext for a husband to leave his family.
-This is repeated throughout the Bible

Ok, just to get this back on the track I originally replied to, I first of all meant "specifically" when Jesus called the disciples, that's where my head was at. Also, I was thinking of "anytime" God calls a man to leave his home and follow Him. As into some sort of ministry. War, and other reasons a man may need to leave home weren't what I was thinking about. Not that going to war could not be God's calling, I don't know anything about that. Seems like another topic to me.

So I am going to just go back to my op (original reply that is, to Aviyah) and see if I can find something to back that up. When I said it, I believed it but didn't know if I'd read anything in the Word that would "back it up". Now I am searching. My thought again is that if Jesus called the men to follow Him (leave family etc) I doubt if Jesus would leave them totally unprotected/cared for in some way. But if I find in His Word that He did, I will accept it. I do know one thing about Jesus calling all of us to follow Him. He does not want us to love anyone, or anything more then Him, or put anyone or anything before Him. But He is our God, and He wants us to understand that.

Also lastnight as I was reading, I read that "hate" in the bible when used in certain context, such as: Luke 14:26

26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

When Jesus uses the word "hate" in this context it doesn't mean despise or loathe, it means to love God first, above all else including family, love them second, hope that makes sense. With the rich young ruler I don't believe Jesus wanted the ruler to be without all his goodies as much as Jesus wanted him to understand he must love Jesus more.


Yes Aviyah, and also, I believe God would always make provision for those loved ones. I do not believe God would call a "provider" away from his family without making provision for them. So part of God's reward would be to keep the man's family cared for denise, ysic

So the above is the text I wrote that Keck called me on. First I want to say that I do realize I made a statement without using scripture to back it, I will be more aware of that in the future, especially when saying I believe or not believe, since I profess to believe the Word of God as my final affirmation on what and why I believe something. So good for you Keck in asking me to produce scripture.
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

For now, I will give out the verse above. I found it, for whatever reason, but this verse alone, affirms for me, that Jesus wasn't teaching us to "hate" our relatives, just to love Him above all, but not to "not" love others, just on another level, Jesus first, all else second. Also, if Jesus cared for His mother, then why would He ever teach others "not" to care for theirs?

I mean anybody chime in, but this post was mainly for Keck, God bless, denise, ysic

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 02:35 PM
-If you want to defend a husband for leaving his wife and family, this is not the verse you want to quote-a household without a Father is considered an oppressed household, that is on the mercy of handouts from society-In this passage Isaiah is rebuking his society for not taking care of the unfortunate and vulnerable. This is not a prooftext for a husband to leave his family.
-This is repeated throughout the Bible

Yes, I see your point on this, all the more reason to believe God would not have the disciples "leave" their families without taking care that they are cared for, provided for.

Maybe I am getting confused, it often happens in these discussions.

denise, ysic

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 9th 2013, 02:41 PM
I think the OP statement refers to the level of commitment that is required to be a disciple of Christ. When we forsake this world and the things in this world we then have an entrance into the very resting place of God. From there we can walk as learners (disciples) of His ways.

Hmm... If that is the case, then I would suggest that the OP refer to other scriptures other than Luke 18. But then the new question I'd have is - does one's level of commitment a byproduct of his salvation or an evidence towards his salvation or maybe earns his salvation? Stated another way, what is the threshold that God demands for saving faith to take hold and what will God require of each man towards those demands to ensure salvation?

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 02:56 PM
To be honest, I don't think a married man should run off to play war. I served my country before I was married, and I also know married men can serve their country right here at home.

But consider this......

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus tells us some men who are compelled to serve the kingdom of God in certain ways should not marry. In a culture that stygmatized unmarried men, that was quite a statement. Knowing that, what type of service to the Kingdom do you believe Jesus was referring to?

The way the world is going, we all might find ourselves fighting in our own, literal backyard. If that happens, it's more likely we will all be fighting much closer to home in order to protect our land, family, right to worship etc. denise, ysic

PS If a man's chosen job is to serve our country in the military, is he not to be married? I don't know, but I think when God called for men to follow David into war (for example) I know many were married with families. I don't see the difference there would be today. It is each man/womans choice, work at home, or go to battle.

I was just reading on the one's that grew tired and could not go on into battle with David, so they stay behind guarding the supplies etc. (1 Samuel 30 (21) Now David came to the two hundred men who had been so weary that they could not follow David, whom they also had made to stay at the Brook Besor. So they went out to meet David and to meet the people who were with him. And when David came near the people, he greeted them. 22 Then all the wicked and worthless men[a] of those who went with David answered and said, “Because they did not go with us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we have recovered, except for every man’s wife and children, that they may lead them away and depart.”

I know the men above were tired so their "jobs" changed. But God does have different jobs/gifts/talents for folks, again, choices as well on how to serve.

Anyway, thought that might add to the discussion, something possibly useful. denise, ysic

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 03:11 PM
Well a widow or orphan is not a woman (or child) who has been abandoned by her husband, so your example is somewhat out of context
This is from kingjamesbibleonline.org/Free-Bible-Dictionary-O.php (http://kingjamesbibleonline.org/Free-Bible-Dictionary-O.php) so it may not be a good source to some folks. But the definition of orphan came up as this:

Orphans
"(Lam. 5:3), i.e., desolate and without protectors. The word" occurs only here. In John 14:18 the word there rendered "comfortless (R.V., "desolate;" marg., "orphans") properly" "means "orphans."


Besides, God's Law in Torah and reiterated in the prophets, writings, Psalms and in the New Testament establishes care for widows and orphans.
agreed


There are so many Scripture references to the care of widows and orphans that you should have no problem finding them. Basically God's Word states clearly that where widows and orphans are concerned they are to be provided for by God's people; that is our collective responsibility. Again, God places the responsibility on us. He doesn't magically send her food in a red wagon, but He expects us to fulfill His commandments concerning widows and orphans, just as God expects a husband to fulfill his commandments to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Would our groom (Christ) abandon us? Neither should husbands abandon their wives if they are to love them as Christ loves us.

agreed


You asked for some Scriptures from me concerning "the opposite," so I copied the below from a post I made in another thread.

Ephesians chapter 5 (emphasis mine below)

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church."

1 Corinthians Chapter 7

"The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

1 Timothy 5

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever"

Deuteronomy 6

"These words that I am giving you today are to be in your heart. Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up."

Just to name a few. Abandoning one's family to "pursue a ministry" is breaking all the above commandments and principles. How could God be pleased with that kind of indifference to HIS LAWS? He can't, it is not in His revealed character!

As husbands, our foremost and most important ministry is to our wives and families. If we acknowedge our wives and children as gifts from God, then surely we are charged with being as good stewards of those gifts as we are charged to be good stewards of our spiritual gifts, His Word and of His Salvation. God has no use for someone who can not keep their charge. To whom much is given much is required. That is the joy of the Lord.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, and know the verses you are talking about. I think that the definition of "orphan" is interesting to look at. Think I will go look up widow now. The thing that I will close with is that if God teaches us to care for, not abandon our families (men specifically) then why would He ask His disciples to do that. That was my whole point in my reply to Aviyah you called me on for not having scripture in there. I guess I'm a bit confused. denise, ysic


I totally messed up the answers to your quoted text, apologies:(

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 04:11 PM
Hmm... If that is the case, then I would suggest that the OP refer to other scriptures other than Luke 18.

I had no agenda with the OP... in fact I was not looking for a topical discussion at all. I would really like for people to explain what they believe Jesus meant with His statement. Instead, we have essays on the importance of marriage and family, which I don't think anyone is disputing, certainly not me.

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 04:25 PM
I had no agenda with the OP... in fact I was not looking for a topical discussion at all. I would really like for people to explain what they believe Jesus meant with His statement. Instead, we have essays on the importance of marriage and family, which I don't think anyone is disputing, certainly not me.

Yes, I know I got way off track. My apologies CBH. Maybe I can come up with something that pertains to your OP;) God bless, denise, ysic

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 9th 2013, 04:25 PM
I had no agenda with the OP... in fact I was not looking for a topical discussion at all. I would really like for people to explain what they believe Jesus meant with His statement. Instead, we have essays on the importance of marriage and family, which I don't think anyone is disputing, certainly not me.

Whew, That's what I thought, but others seemed to see it differently so I took that into consideration. Salvation is a matter of the heart, and leaving someone or something is not a condition of ones faith or even obedience. Loving the Lord and another, and listening to His Spirit for works of obedience is the evidences of one's faith to self. For God knows who are His.

Curtis
Oct 9th 2013, 04:45 PM
In a nut shell. I do not believe Jesus is telling us to leave your family, or children and take off some where to do the will of God.. That would go against other scriptures that tell us if you do you will worse than an unbeliever, and have denied the faith.

1Ti 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

I believe Jesus is saying that there are and, will be many people who are called into the ministry that are willing to let go of these desires, even though they want them to do God's work. They will be rewarded for their sacrifice in this life, and the next. I think the Apostle Paul was one of them.

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 04:58 PM
In a nut shell. I do not believe Jesus is telling us to leave your family, or children and take off some where to do the will of God.. That would go against other scriptures that tell us if you do you will worse than an unbeliever, and have denied the faith.Well it's clear that He is not giving a command to do so. But He does say that someone will be rewarded if they leave for the sake of the kingdom of God. Only He knows who's doing it for the right reasons. And there is no indication that it is a permanent leave. I suspect that the 12 had temporarily left their families to follow Jesus. The context of the statement seems to indicate this. I do not believe that the 12 were traveling around with Jesus along with their wives and children.



1Ti 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

One can ensure that his family is provided for during a leave. In larger extended families, this would not be difficult (in-laws, adult siblings, etc.) There's no conflict.



I believe Jesus is saying that there are and, will be many people who are called into the ministry that are willing to let go of these desires, even though they want them to do God's work. They will be rewarded for their sacrifice in this life, and the next. I think the Apostle Paul was one of them.
I agree with this aspect of though as well.

Curtis
Oct 9th 2013, 05:08 PM
Well it's clear that He is not giving a command to do so. But He does say that someone will be rewarded if they leave for the sake of the kingdom of God. Only He knows who's doing it for the right reasons. And there is no indication that it is a permanent leave. I suspect that the 12 had temporarily left their families to follow Jesus. The context of the statement seems to indicate this. I do not believe that the 12 were traveling around with Jesus along with their wives and children.


One can ensure that his family is provided for during a leave. In larger extended families, this would not be difficult (in-laws, adult siblings, etc.) There's no conflict.


I agree with this aspect of though as well.

I can see how there can be a agreement between a wife, husband, and children if one of the spouses leaving for a time to do God's work. In my life, my wife is apart of my calling. She plays a supporting role in all that I do. I could not do it with out her help. This is why I have a hard time seeing the Lord telling someone to leave there family completely.

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 05:18 PM
I can see how there can be a agreement between a wife, husband, and children if one of the spouses leaving for a time to do God's work. In my life, my wife is apart of my calling. She plays a supporting role in all that I do. I could not do it with out her help. This is why I have a hard time seeing the Lord telling someone to leave there family completely.

Same with me, but I can see God calling someone out for an assignment that will separate him from his family. It would take an agreement between the husband and wife. In this case, there is no Biblical support to say that this person "abandoned his wife and family" as has been contended. If it is for personal gain (even if ministry related) and not the kingdom, that's a different story.

Aviyah
Oct 9th 2013, 05:24 PM
Something which may be important to note is that Christ's statement seemed to be directed towards people who are deciding whether or not to follow Him - not people who are already following. I believe this is substantiated by Peter's words before Jesus's response:

Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.”

The blessing is for people who make sacrifices to become followers of Christ. I do not believe God is asking current followers to abandon their families in order to follow Christ. That seems redundant. Nor is He implying that by becoming Christian, you must abandon your family. Instead, He promises that the sacrifices we make to become Christians will not be overlooked - especially if it means being disowned by your own relatives.

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 05:27 PM
Same with me, but I can see God calling someone out for an assignment that will separate him from his family. It would take an agreement between the husband and wife. In this case, there is no Biblical support to say that this person "abandoned his wife and family" as has been contended. If it is for personal gain (even if ministry related) and not the kingdom, that's a different story.


It seems I remember somewhere in the thread where people thought that by Jesus calling the disciples to follow, meant abandoning, and no, I don't get that from the Word at all. God bless, denise, ysic

keck553
Oct 9th 2013, 05:29 PM
The way the world is going, we all might find ourselves fighting in our own, literal backyard. If that happens, it's more likely we will all be fighting much closer to home in order to protect our land, family, right to worship etc. denise, ysic

PS If a man's chosen job is to serve our country in the military, is he not to be married? I don't know, but I think when God called for men to follow David into war (for example) I know many were married with families. I don't see the difference there would be today. It is each man/womans choice, work at home, or go to battle.

I was just reading on the one's that grew tired and could not go on into battle with David, so they stay behind guarding the supplies etc. (1 Samuel 30 (21) Now David came to the two hundred men who had been so weary that they could not follow David, whom they also had made to stay at the Brook Besor. So they went out to meet David and to meet the people who were with him. And when David came near the people, he greeted them. 22 Then all the wicked and worthless men[a] of those who went with David answered and said, “Because they did not go with us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we have recovered, except for every man’s wife and children, that they may lead them away and depart.”

I know the men above were tired so their "jobs" changed. But God does have different jobs/gifts/talents for folks, again, choices as well on how to serve.

Anyway, thought that might add to the discussion, something possibly useful. denise, ysic

This is a thought provoking post. The Bible doesn't say married men shouldn't go to war (unless its in the first year of marriage), so my statement is opinion and my thoughts were more centered on ow America fights wars at present.

Historically though, and not confined to Israel, when nations went to war, some of the men who weren't slaughtered, their wives and children were carried off to slavery. Many of the men were made eunuchs to serve a foreign king. So when we reference King David and his men, understand that those men were fighting literally for their wives and families' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in a collective format. So they fought for the principal of the rule of law in Israel that established security for their families. That is a role of provider and protector, and God calls all men to honor those commandments.

When I took my oath, I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. But it wasn't a document I swore to defend, nor was it a country as a label. My oath was to defend the principals that provide a collective people-group life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, our families, but in a collective format where military strength can be leveraged. In this sense, it is a high calling, and I believe I can support that Biblically. I would probably start in Genesis with my study.

Though I find myself leaning a bit towards "the other opinion'" I still would be extremely cautious about any ministry that would separate husband/wife, cautious that human choice does not enter into the mix. I've lived long enough to see many, if not most God loving Christian males (myself included) enter into ministries by force of guilt, by force of pride, of false humility and by force of obligation. None of these works are worthy unto The Lord.

I have only experienced three ways God has ever called me to anything - through His Word, through counsel of other believers I trust, and by opportunity. I'm not saying there are not other ways, but I know for sure that an emotionally driven choice always comes from fear or pride, neither being of The Lord. Emotion always takes a back seat to discernment. If, and I would say this is very rare....but if....God called a man to a ministry that led to separation from his wife, I trust that God, who instituted marriage and declared a husband and wife "echad" or a complex unity of one exactly as He declares Fwther, Son and Holy Spirit "echad," then it should be a logical conclusion the Holy Spirit speak to both husband and wife and they both come to a place of Godly agreement. There is evidence for this. After Josef and Mary were wed, God sent messengers to them both that they would know the events that transpired and were to transpire were of God and not of flesh.

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 05:32 PM
I still would be extremely cautious about any ministry that would separate husband/wife, cautious that human choice does not enter into the mix. I've lived long enough to see many, if not most God loving Christian males (myself included) enter into ministries by force of guilt, by force of pride, of false humility and by force of obligation. None of these works are worthy unto The Lord.

I completely agree with this comment.

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 06:03 PM
This is a thought provoking post. The Bible doesn't say married men shouldn't go to war (unless its in the first year of marriage), so my statement is opinion and my thoughts were more centered on ow America fights wars at present.

Historically though, and not confined to Israel, when nations went to war, some of the men who weren't slaughtered, their wives and children were carried off to slavery. Many of the men were made eunuchs to serve a foreign king. So when we reference King David and his men, understand that those men were fighting literally for their wives and families' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in a collective format. So they fought for the principal of the rule of law in Israel that established security for their families. That is a role of provider and protector, and God calls all men to honor those commandments.

When I took my oath, I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. But it wasn't a document I swore to defend, nor was it a country as a label. My oath was to defend the principals that provide a collective people-group life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, our families, but in a collective format where military strength can be leveraged. In this sense, it is a high calling, and I believe I can support that Biblically. I would probably start in Genesis with my study.

Though I find myself leaning a bit towards "the other opinion'" I still would be extremely cautious about any ministry that would separate husband/wife, cautious that human choice does not enter into the mix. I've lived long enough to see many, if not most God loving Christian males (myself included) enter into ministries by force of guilt, by force of pride, of false humility and by force of obligation. None of these works are worthy unto The Lord.

I have only experienced three ways God has ever called me to anything - through His Word, through counsel of other believers I trust, and by opportunity. I'm not saying there are not other ways, but I know for sure that an emotionally driven choice always comes from fear or pride, neither being of The Lord. Emotion always takes a back seat to discernment. If, and I would say this is very rare....but if....God called a man to a ministry that led to separation from his wife, I trust that God, who instituted marriage and declared a husband and wife "echad" or a complex unity of one exactly as He declares Fwther, Son and Holy Spirit "echad," then it should be a logical conclusion the Holy Spirit speak to both husband and wife and they both come to a place of Godly agreement. There is evidence for this. After Josef and Mary were wed, God sent messengers to them both that they would know the events that transpired and were to transpire were of God and not of flesh.

All excellent food for thought. I am with CBH on your comment about caution above in paragraph 4 for sure. I'm now off thinking about the fact it seems that it is a constant battle between what the "world" calls us to do, and what the Lord calls us to do. I know there are the verses about respecting our leaders, worldly ones like this verse:
Romans 13:1
13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

If only we were truly a nation under one God, which He is over all whether anyone believes or admits that, but I'm just thinking how confusing it can be. Submit to this government but follow Christ.

I know I'm off track, apologies, denise, ysic

Balabusha
Oct 9th 2013, 08:54 PM
Well it's clear that He is not giving a command to do so. But He does say that someone will be rewarded if they leave for the sake of the kingdom of God. Only He knows who's doing it for the right reasons. And there is no indication that it is a permanent leave. I suspect that the 12 had temporarily left their families to follow Jesus. The context of the statement seems to indicate this. I do not believe that the 12 were traveling around with Jesus along with their wives and children.


One can ensure that his family is provided for during a leave. In larger extended families, this would not be difficult (in-laws, adult siblings, etc.) There's no conflict.


I agree with this aspect of though as well.

There still is a problem, a husband and a wife is not just a financial agreement, but is a relationship. So how do the separated husband or wife please each other physically or emotionally? The Bible states we should not separate from each other or we will be tempted.

Keck-loved your words, as God is "echad" and not "yachid" we are also echad and not Yachid, we are together one.

Oregongrown
Oct 9th 2013, 09:07 PM
There still is a problem, a husband and a wife is not just a financial agreement, but is a relationship. So how do the separated husband or wife please each other physically or emotionally? The Bible states we should not separate from each other or we will be tempted.


Man, there is always someone who opens another can of worms, LOL:lol: I just wish I'd thought of it, here we go again, yeehaw!:pp

ChangedByHim
Oct 9th 2013, 09:16 PM
There still is a problem, a husband and a wife is not just a financial agreement, but is a relationship. So how do the separated husband or wife please each other physically or emotionally? The Bible states we should not separate from each other or we will be tempted.

Does not the word say that they may be apart from one another, with mutual consent? I don't believe I even used the word finances.

luigi
Oct 9th 2013, 09:21 PM
There are many parts to Christs body, the church. There are deacons, pastors, interpreters, faith healers, teachers, and disciples, along with other fields that I may have left out.
Except for disciples, I believe these lesser positions in the hierarchy of the church are home and community based, and therefore do not require hating your family as well as your own life.
As to being a disciple, unless you meet the criteria for despising your family members as well as your own life, you cannot be Christs disciple because it means to walk more fully as Jesus did.
And when looking at how Jesus lived, how could anyone who does not despise their current life, give it up to live as Jesus did?
At some point, people who did not despise their lives would turn back.

keck553
Oct 9th 2013, 11:31 PM
All excellent food for thought. I am with CBH on your comment about caution above in paragraph 4 for sure. I'm now off thinking about the fact it seems that it is a constant battle between what the "world" calls us to do, and what the Lord calls us to do. I know there are the verses about respecting our leaders, worldly ones like this verse:
Romans 13:1
13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

If only we were truly a nation under one God, which He is over all whether anyone believes or admits that, but I'm just thinking how confusing it can be. Submit to this government but follow Christ.

I know I'm off track, apologies, denise, ysic

We are blessed by the fact that in the USA, our governing authority is our constitution, and the rule of law. The same authority elected officials are to submit to. The moment our leaders disobey the Constitution they are bound to submit to by oath, they break Romans 13:1 and lose any authority granted to them.

keck553
Oct 9th 2013, 11:44 PM
Does not the word say that they may be apart from one another, with mutual consent? I don't believe I even used the word finances.

That verse applies specifically and exclusively to sexual relations. Jewish culture then and now requires a man to not withhold sex from his wife. Sounds backwards in our culture, I know.

Oregongrown
Oct 10th 2013, 12:17 AM
We are blessed by the fact that in the USA, our governing authority is our constitution, and the rule of law. The same authority elected officials are to submit to. The moment our leaders disobey the Constitution they are bound to submit to by oath, they break Romans 13:1 and lose any authority granted to them.

Well that shows how un-read I am if that is true. Is that true? Geesh, I need to pay more attention to some things. If that's true, then the christians that tell me we have to respect "some" people in office, is bunk if they've disobeyed the constitution! denise, ysic

Balabusha
Oct 10th 2013, 12:32 AM
Does not the word say that they may be apart from one another, with mutual consent? I don't believe I even used the word finances.

The abstaining is the concession in the passage, it is only for a short time-for fasting.Paul does not say this as a command as it would go against God'.

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 12:41 AM
Well that shows how un-read I am if that is true. Is that true? Geesh, I need to pay more attention to some things. If that's true, then the christians that tell me we have to respect "some" people in office, is bunk if they've disobeyed the constitution! denise, ysic

Unfortunately, many people think that simply because the government is under the Constitution it means we can disrespect them when we personally think their actions are unconstitutional. The Court is the interpreter of the Constitution, not the people. Unless the Court (or Scripture) says an action is unlawful, we are told to submit to their authority.

And remember that Jesus's words "give unto Caesar" were made under an oppressive Roman government. I'm sure if He would have us obey a violent pagan empire, He would have us obey a 21st century republic.

ChangedByHim
Oct 10th 2013, 01:13 AM
That verse applies specifically and exclusively to sexual relations. Jewish culture then and now requires a man to not withhold sex from his wife. Sounds backwards in our culture, I know.

Right. I was simply responding to someone's point about sexual temptation while apart.

Balabusha
Oct 10th 2013, 01:31 AM
Aviyah
The give unto Caesar what is Caesar's is actually a masterpiece of brilliance. Most think it was in relation to tithing, it is not-the true meaning blows that away. Jesus asked for a coin, and asked whose "image" was on the coin. When the Pharisees said "Caesars" Jesus said give what is Caesars what is Caesars.
Remember that Jesus pointed out "image"
Now the Master of metaphor drives the point home-the preists were to be shepherds of the faithful-but they were not-so the point is to give to God what is God's-the people.
Just a little side note, and you were right also

Oregongrown
Oct 10th 2013, 01:45 AM
Aviyah
The give unto Caesar what is Caesar's is actually a masterpiece of brilliance. Most think it was in relation to tithing, it is not-the true meaning blows that away. Jesus asked for a coin, and asked whose "image" was on the coin. When the Pharisees said "Caesars" Jesus said give what is Caesars what is Caesars.
Remember that Jesus pointed out "image"
Now the Master of metaphor drives the point home-the preists were to be shepherds of the faithful-but they were not-so the point is to give to God what is God's-the people.
Just a little side note, and you were right also

Oh wow, sorry if I am butting in but this is really interesting. Where did you discover this info? denise, ysic
PS I'm gonna go see if my commentary mentions it too.

Omannnnnn! my commentary says this:

c. And to God the things that are God’s: Everyone has the image of God impressed upon them. This means that we belong to God - not to Caesar, or not even to ourselves.
d. Had the Jews rendered unto God His due, they would have never had to render anything to Caesar. In New Testament times, they would never had the occupying oppression of the Roman Empire if they had been obedient to their covenant with God.


Oh I love learning new stuff about the Word!! Thank you for this Karaite!! denise

ChangedByHim
Oct 10th 2013, 02:24 AM
For those who believe that God would never call a man to do anything that could potentially separate him from his family, what are your thoughts on this verse?

This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, (1 Corinthians 7:29 ESV)

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 02:25 AM
Just a little side note, and you were right also

My mind has been blown :eek:! Gonna spend the next few hours cleaning up the mess...

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 02:26 AM
Well that shows how un-read I am if that is true. Is that true? Geesh, I need to pay more attention to some things. If that's true, then the christians that tell me we have to respect "some" people in office, is bunk if they've disobeyed the constitution! denise, ysic

For your reference:

President

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Congress:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

My state's elected officials:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) to the best of my ability.

My county sheriff's oath of office:

“I, (name), hereby do solemnly swear that I will support and defend this Constitution for the united States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God”.

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 02:31 AM
For those who believe that God would never call a man to do anything that could potentially separate him from his family, what are your thoughts on this verse?

This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, (1 Corinthians 7:29 ESV)

Well, if you read the previous verse, it makes more sense as to why he begins 29 with "This is what I mean..."

But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. (v28)

So, "Let those who have wives live as though they had none" must refer to living without "worldly troubles". I do not believe Paul actually means to ignore your wife any more than he means you should never rejoice per verse 30 "...And those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing"

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 02:32 AM
And remember that Jesus's words "give unto Caesar" were made under an oppressive Roman government. I'm sure if He would have us obey a violent pagan empire, He would have us obey a 21st century republic.

I believe is to be a mis-interpretation. Jesus was talking with Sadducees, who were bribed, bought, paid for and corrupted by Roman governmental officials. They gave Jesus a Roman coin, a symbol of their allegiance. Later, when Jesus was to be crucified, those same people said "We only have one King; Caesar!

Jesus was telling them this: "give your tribute to whom you worship."

Their amazement wasn't due to the simplistic interpretation you propose here; their response was because Jesus exposed their idolatry and hypocrasy.

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 02:34 AM
Not true. I myself took the oath, which means by default I am responsible for understanding its structure, content and application; otherwise taking the oath would be meaningless and about as much nonsense as voting for the ACA before reading it.

You can take an oath on Harry Potter and Star Wars - that doesn't give you the authority of the writers.

ChangedByHim
Oct 10th 2013, 02:38 AM
Well, if you read the previous verse, it makes more sense as to why he begins 29 with "This is what I mean..."

But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.

So, "Let those who have wives live as though they had none" must refer to living without "worldly troubles". I do not believe Paul actually means to ignore your wife any more than he means you should never rejoice per verse 30 "...And those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing"
Yes you may not prefer it to mean that but he clearly says that there will be circumstances happen in a short time where married men will be living as they are not married.

We are all very good at taking a plain text and saying "this is what it really means..."

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 02:48 AM
Yes you may not prefer it to mean that but he clearly says that there will be circumstances happen in a short time where married men will be living as they are not married.

We are all very good at taking a plain text and saying "this is what it really means..."

Okay so in effect you are saying that marriage is wrong, correct? Because if one were not to "live as though they had [no spouse]" they would be disobedient according to your interpretation. Also:

You cannot morn for a loved one: those who mourn, as if they did not
You cannot be happy: those who are happy, as if they were not
You cannot own property: those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep

So, I would like to hear your explanation keeping in mind what you said to me:

"We are all very good at taking a plain text and saying "this is what it really means..."

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 02:50 AM
Unfortunately, many people think that simply because the government is under the Constitution it means we can disrespect them when we personally think their actions are unconstitutional. The Court is the interpreter of the Constitution, not the people. Unless the Court (or Scripture) says an action is unlawful, we are told to submit to their authority.
c.

Not entirely accurate. A remedy may be necessary before adjudication can run its process.

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 02:53 AM
You can take an oath on Harry Potter and Star Wars - that doesn't give you the authority of the writers.

Neither does the oath give elected servants authority.

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 02:53 AM
Not entirely accurate. A remedy may be necessary before adjudication can run its process.

What I'm saying is our government is still a government. The Constitution is an inanimate object and has no inherent authority without an interpreter (the Judicial System). Until a disagreement is settled in court, the law is to be followed with the exception of unbiblical commands. This is how our country operates, and if you disagree I'm sure there are plenty of law enforcement officials who would love to have this conversation.

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 02:58 AM
What I'm saying is our government is still a government. The Constitution is an inanimate object and has no inherent authority without an interpreter (the Judicial System). Until a disagreement is settled in court, the law is to be followed with the exception of unbiblical commands. This is how our country operates, and if you disagree I'm sure there are plenty of law enforcement officials who would love to have this conversation.

The Biblical commands you refer to as written in your Bible is also an inanimate object. Does that fact also remove their authority?

ChangedByHim
Oct 10th 2013, 03:05 AM
Okay so in effect you are saying that marriage is wrong, correct? Because if one were not to "live as though they had [no spouse]" they would be disobedient according to your interpretation. Also:

You cannot morn for a loved one: those who mourn, as if they did not
You cannot be happy: those who are happy, as if they were not
You cannot own property: those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep

So, I would like to hear your explanation keeping in mind what you said to me:

"We are all very good at taking a plain text and saying "this is what it really means..."

No. I think Paul was saying that trying times were going to come to those who professed Christ. I'm not sure what the implications were, but he clearly said that married men would live as though they had no wife.

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 03:09 AM
The Biblical commands you refer to as written in your Bible is also an inanimate object. Does that fact also remove their authority?

The books are inanimate objects, but the words are not (Heb. 4:12). Are the words of the Constitution on par with Scripture?

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 03:10 AM
No. I think Paul was saying that trying times were going to come to those who professed Christ. I'm not sure what the implications were, but he clearly said that married men would live as though they had no wife.

And the Christians who didn't leave Jerusalem for to Pella in 70AD probably did live as they had no wife. The Roman's took 100,000 captives from Jerusalem to Rome as slaves.

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 03:11 AM
No. I think Paul was saying that trying times were going to come to those who professed Christ. I'm not sure what the implications were, but he clearly said that married men would live as though they had no wife.

Okay, so did his words apply only to that time period?
(And he is clearly making suggestions, not prophesying over what would happen.)

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 03:14 AM
The books are inanimate objects, but the words are not (Heb. 4:12). Are the words of the Constitution on par with Scripture?

This is where your arguement falls flat on it's face. ALL authority exercised by our government today is on inanimate paper. Are you saying then that our Congress has no authority to legislate because it's laws are on inanimate paper?

Aviyah
Oct 10th 2013, 03:17 AM
ALL authority exercised by our government today is on inanimate paper.

PEOPLE exercise authority... paper outlines the limitations, put in place by other PEOPLE.

Where do you think the Constitution came from?

ChangedByHim
Oct 10th 2013, 03:37 AM
Okay, so did his words apply only to that time period?
(And he is clearly making suggestions, not prophesying over what would happen.)
Perhaps, or times which would be similar.

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 05:13 AM
PEOPLE exercise authority... paper outlines the limitations, put in place by other PEOPLE.

Where do you think the Constitution came from?

And the founders also gave us the Bill of rights to exercise ultimate authority, the second amendment being the sword that We The People are authorized to bear should the government exceed their limitations. If the three branches of government that you seem to be convinced can not abuse the Consitiitution have the authority of a king, such that we are to abide in every law and oppression just because SCOTUS says so, then the founders would not have wasted their efforts writing the second amendment. That being said, I do not believe in mob rule. Our local sheriff is charged with invoking the sword of the second amendment, the local sheriff is my nearest authority who is sworn in by our community, and our local sheriff (along with 95% of all other sheriffs) would be in charge if such a scenario occurred. So in essence, I would still come under a proper authority.

The exercised authority belongs to WE THE PEOPLE, not elected servants. They are granted limited authority by the will of the people. The constitution, as you agree limits their authority. Therefore Romans 13 applies to elected servants in this country per the limitations outlined in the constitution. As I stated in the beginning, before all these verbal gymnastics came and had to be fleshed out.

Curtis
Oct 10th 2013, 02:39 PM
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Notice: God does not set people into office, he set up the authority that exist. The authority is not in a person, but in a office (position) If the person in that office is not wielding his authority that the office gives him according God's laws, we the Church are to pray to have him removed. That is prayer, we are to pray for all that are in authority, some we pray that God guide them, and some to remove from their position. John the Baptist and Jesus both criticized, and brought condemnation upon those in authority who were not using their office right.

Oregongrown
Oct 10th 2013, 03:10 PM
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Notice: God does not set people into office, he set up the authority that exist. The authority is not in a person, but in a office (position) If the person in that office is not wielding his authority that the office gives him according God's laws, we the Church are to pray to have him removed. That is prayer, we are to pray for all that are in authority, some we pray that God guide them, and some to remove from their position. John the Baptist and Jesus both criticized, and brought condemnation upon those in authority who were not using their office right.

I agree Curtis, and appreciate your reply, denise, ysic

keck553
Oct 10th 2013, 06:02 PM
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Notice: God does not set people into office, he set up the authority that exist. The authority is not in a person, but in a office (position) If the person in that office is not wielding his authority that the office gives him according God's laws, we the Church are to pray to have him removed. That is prayer, we are to pray for all that are in authority, some we pray that God guide them, and some to remove from their position. John the Baptist and Jesus both criticized, and brought condemnation upon those in authority who were not using their office right.

Agree. Well stated. With the caveat that the founders gave us the authority to be the answer to that prayer.
.