Christian Forums

Hello everyone,

Several years ago I came across some information that revolutionized my understanding of Jesus' statements concerning divorce.  As I researched further, I soon found many scriptural inconsistencies in the traditional doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (MDR).  Thus I wrote a book on the subject entitled, "God Is A Divorce' Too!  A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness".  Much of it can be previewed on amazon; however, I will be presenting a condensed version of it on this thread. 

I realize that this is a very controversial heated subject, but I pray that we can reason together without attacking each other.  Personal attacks typically reveal a weakness in the argument, communication skills, and/or character of the attacker.  It takes strength of character and argument to be gentle.  So please, let us do proceed with respect for each other and do our best to refrain from personal attacks. 

The doctrine of MDR is a mammoth, elephant-sized discussion, far larger than can be dealt with in an article, or even a series of articles.  And many of the things that I will present will challenge long-held beliefs and assumed meanings of phrases and interpretations of scripture.  Thus, I propose that we eat this elephant one bite at a time.  To start with, let me define what I mean by the traditional doctrine of MDR.

The traditional doctrine of MDR asserts that Jesus disagreed with Moses, and intended to repudiate (reject as invalid) the bill of divorce, making marriage indissoluble.  Some ministers amend this to say except for adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (the Pauline privilege).  Marriage came to be considered a sacrament, under ecclesial authority, and indissoluble – resulting in a "No Divorce

"Why is this topic important to me?

The Divine Ideal - The Goal,   Becoming One Flesh,

How one defines marriage is foundational to the theology of marriage.  What is marriage?  I believe it is a covenant-based relationship whereby a man and woman are legally and socially united for the purpose of establishing a new family.  It is "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family

Sherman, the topic on how to treat people who are divorced, divorcing, or remarrying is a very upsetting issue to me.  I have had people try to guilt me into boycotting Christian musicians who are divorced (or have had affairs) and dissolving friendships with people who are going through marital troubles.

I just don't feel urged by the Holy Spirit to give up on my friends like that.  I just assumed that the marital troubles are between my friends and God.

: Akrabbim  Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 14:31:23
Sherman, the topic on how to treat people who are divorced, divorcing, or remarrying is a very upsetting issue to me.  I have had people try to guilt me into boycotting Christian musicians who are divorced (or have had affairs) and dissolving friendships with people who are going through marital troubles.

I just don't feel urged by the Holy Spirit to give up on my friends like that.  I just assumed that the marital troubles are between my friends and God.

Akrabbim, that's a very good assumption to hold and thanks for sharing.  When it comes down to it, MDR is primarily a personal moral issue, though with limited civil oversight forbiding specifically immoral relationships and acts.  One of the most important issues that we must determine biblically is which authority structure is MDR under; is it personal, domestic (familial), ecclesial, or civil authority that governs MDR?  I'll cover that more later. 

Concerning your friends, I encourage you to continue to be there for them as a support.  Concerning Christian musicians who have or are going through divorce, the last thing they need is for everyone to boycott them.  How about let's pray for them and maybe find some way to bless them and encourage them in the Lord. Now that's a novel idea -- being loving and caring instead of judgmental and condemning!

Civil Law Designed by God

Before we look at the New Testament passages concerning MDR, it is very helpful to review the key passages in the Old Testament, especially Deut. 24.1-4. 

After delivering Israel from the slavery of Egypt, Moses definitely had his hands full maintaining order, and establishing religious and civil law and authority structures for the new nation of Israel, much less facilitating the radical paradigm changes required by the giving of the Law of Moses.  Law, inspired by God, was to be the foundation of man's government, rather than man governing man in the form of a dictatorship–civil, domestic, or religious!  

Many of the teachings of Moses brought significant positive social reform in the treatment of disenfranchised segments of society, especially women, children, slaves, and aliens (as in foreigners, not extraterrestrials).  In fact, most of the laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage are for the protection of women.  In Moses' day, the legal and social standing of women was drastically lower than that of men.  Women had few rights except those given them by their closest male relative.  In most Ancient Near Eastern cultures, women were considered property and almost completely dependent upon their father's, husband's, or owner's good will.  This is still prevalent today in some of the Arabic countries of the Near East.

In his book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible,

Civil Law Designed by God  part B

Concerning specific guidelines for marriage, divorce, and remarriage, relatively little is mentioned in Moses' teachings or the remainder of the Bible, especially considering the importance of the subject.  Moses forbids sexual intercourse and thus marriage with a close relative (Leviticus 18:6-17), marrying a woman and her sister (Leviticus 18:18) or a woman and her mother (Leviticus 20:14), and a priest marrying an expelled wife or prostitute (Leviticus 21:7).  A daughter in line to inherit property was not allowed to marry outside of her tribe (Numbers 36:8); and if a man took a slave girl as his wife and then married another, he was not to diminish the slave wife's food, clothing, or conjugal rights.  If he decided to divorce her or refused to meet her needs equitably in comparison to his other wives, she was to be given her freedom at no cost (Exodus 21:10 & 11).

Concerning divorce, a man who rapes a virgin must marry her if her father demands/allows it; and that man is never allowed to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:29).  A man may never divorce his wife whom he wrongfully accused of not being a virgin at the time of their marriage (Deuteronomy 22:19); and a man that divorces his wife may not remarry her if she has subsequently married someone else even though she is widowed or divorced by her second husband (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). 

Note the clarity and specificity with which Moses dealt with these issues.  Moses does not forbid divorce; nor does he establish guidelines for acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce.   Apparently, the common practice of the guilty party in a divorce losing the dowry was sufficient and that Moses, as inspired by God, saw no need for further civil legislation.

Moses clearly does not forbid divorce or a divorcée to marry again.  In fact, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 makes provision for a divorcée to remarry legally with no fear of social or legal retribution.  Even polygamy was not outlawed; and Exodus 21:10 & 11, Leviticus 18:18, and Leviticus 20:14 all assume that polygamy would continue. 

Having briefly reviewed the Ancient Near Eastern and Old Testament biblical culture of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, let us examine closely the passage concerning divorce that Jesus is questioned about in the Gospels by the Pharisees, Deut. 24:1-4.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.  (NKJV)

This passage is a prohibition of a man remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man, regardless of whether her second husband dies or divorces her.  One must ask why?  Why would Moses write this law?  What problem did this law address?  These questions cannot be correctly answered without an understanding of ancient Near Eastern cultures.  Recall that one of the primary reasons something is mentioned in the Pentateuch is to highlight beliefs and practices where the Israelites were to be different than the surrounding cultures. 

In ancient Near Eastern cultures, if a man dismissed or abandoned his wife, he could reclaim her several years later though she had married another man and had children with her second husband (Dr. David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. 28-33).  Not only was her first husband able to reclaim her, but he could also claim, as his own, any children from her second "marriage.

Just a note to share with everyone my joy in finding out this week that my book, "God Is A Divorce' Too!" is a required text for the "Family Law" class in the law school at Regent University!   As we continue with this thread you'll find out that I believe that MDR is under civil authority and that Moses', Jesus', and Paul's directives concerning divorce are best understood through the lens of the culture that they addressed, especially the civil law concerning MDR. 

Of course, before my book was published I asked pastors, ministers, and theologians from a wide range of denominations, including the CoC, to review the manuscript and endorse it.  I was gratified and affirmed when almost all did so, and the couple that did not endorse it did not do so based on personal reasons, not because they found any errant interpretations or non-substantiated information.  It's my prayer that my book will bring great freedom to the church.  Jesus said, "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."   

Blessings,
Sherman

Is Marriage a Sacrament?

Marriage is the legal and social union of a man and woman in an interdependent familial relationship established by the contractual exchange of relational vows—a marriage covenant.  But is marriage a sacrament?

A sacrament is "a formal religious act that is sacred as a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality; especially one believed to have been instituted or recognized by Jesus Christ.

The Covenant of Marriage

If the other dimensions of marriage are slats in a wooden barrel, the Marriage Covenant is the set of steel rings that holds them together.  It is the fundamental element that defines a relationship as a marriage.   Sexual intercourse does not constitute a marriage.  Having children together does not constitute a marriage; nor does just living together.  To marry someone is "to join as husband and wife according to law or custom.

Introduction to Jesus on Divorce

As an introduction to a detailed discussion of what Jesus said concerning divorce, I would like to briefly look at Paul's quote of Jesus on this subject in 1 Cor. 7:10-11 for I believe these two verses summarize well Jesus directives concerning divorce.  A detailed discussion of 1 Cor. 7 will be covered later in this thread; but for now let's take a brief look at Jesus' words. 

"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart (χωρισθaναι  chorizo) from her husband.  But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce (aφιέναι  aphiemi) his wife.

The "Plain

Do you actually type all this stuff, or are you just copying it from someplace?

: CSloan  Fri Sep 21, 2007 - 09:00:51
Do you actually type all this stuff, or are you just copying it from someplace?

Much of it comes from my book which I typed, but I adapt it and condense it for this forum.  I also continue to study the subject as I interact with others and they raise questions, concerns, or information that I haven't previously considered.  I'm always looking to learn more. 

Blessings,
Sherman

: Sherman Nobles  Fri Sep 21, 2007 - 09:59:48

: CSloan  Fri Sep 21, 2007 - 09:00:51
Do you actually type all this stuff, or are you just copying it from someplace?

Much of it comes from my book which I typed, but I adapt it and condense it for this forum.  I also continue to study the subject as I interact with others and they raise questions, concerns, or information that I haven't previously considered.  I'm always looking to learn more. 

Blessings,
Sherman

To be completely honest, I just skimmed your posts. But from what I've seen they look very sound and biblical. When I have more time, I'll devote more reading here. I'm sure I will enjoy your perspective from whats I've already seen.

Thank you for taking the time to share your work with us, especially on this difficult topic.

: CSloan  Fri Sep 21, 2007 - 10:06:19
To be completely honest, I just skimmed your posts. But from what I've seen they look very sound and biblical. When I have more time, I'll devote more reading here. I'm sure I will enjoy your perspective from whats I've already seen.

Thank you for taking the time to share your work with us, especially on this difficult topic.

You're more than welcome, and thanks for your openness and honesty.  I realize the posts are long and thus far a monologue, but I hope they are a blessing.  And I hope they will instigate more discussion in the future.

As mentioned before, the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage is a mammoth, elephant-sized discussion.  Of course, the critical issue, the crux of the matter concerning the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage concerns the meaning of Jesus' difficult statements in Matthew 5:31-32, 19:8-9, Mark 10:10-12, and Luke 16:18.  I call them Jesus' difficult statements because without understanding their cultural, historical, literary, and authorial context they are difficult, if not impossible, to interpret and correctly convey the meaning of the author.

You've likely heard before, "A text without a context is a pretext.

So, the Pharisees, hoping to trap Jesus in his words, ask him concerning the lawfulness of the Hillelite No-Fault (Any-Matter) divorce legislation. 

Mt.19.4-6
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

There are a few things concerning these verses that are helpful and important to note in our quest to understand Jesus' directives concerning divorce.  Let me ask you, how do you hear Jesus' reply?  What is the tone of His voice?  He knows the Pharisees are trying to trap him; how has he handled other such traps? 

Matthew and Mark record this confrontation.  Luke briefly mentions the difficult passage on divorce.  But John doesn't mention either the confrontation or the difficult verse; instead he tells the story of the woman caught in adultery.  This too was a trap for Jesus.  In that story, Jesus responded by drawing on the ground, telling the one without sin to throw the first stone, and then telling the woman to go and stop sinning.  Jesus knew the Pharisees were not interested in justice or righteousness, but in self-advancement and maintaining their control over the people.  So what was Jesus' tone? 

Unfortunately, many people hear Jesus' reply as harsh, even angry, pointing his audience to a Standard, that standard being the relationship between Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  However, rather than speaking in a harsh, strict, unyielding, uncompassionate, arbitrary, judgmental tone setting a "STANDARD

Mt.19:4-6 Marriage - Indissoluble or Breakable

One of the foundational elements of the traditional doctrine of MDR is the belief that marriage is "indissoluble", unbreakable.  However, Jesus' own words directly imply that marriage is breakable—not indissoluble!  Unfortunately, many times when sharing this concept, people "assume

Well, we finally come to the crux of the matter, the seed of much division in the Church for centuries concerning MDR -- the difficult statement of Jesus in the Mt. 19 passage.  Please pardon the length of this post, I shortened it as much as I could and still explain why I understand and thus interpret this passage differently than how it is traditionally interpreted. 

Based upon the historical and cultural context, we've established that the Pharisees' trap "likely

ok this is a lot of reading and thinking. I admit I hold to the traditional and hard beleive of the plain text. Once you are married that is it, except for adultry or abandonmnt, but am open to concider other interpretations. This will take some time to research and i am going out of town for a couple days, but wanted to reply that i have read some of what you wrote and agree and not quite agree with some of it.

Kamakaz,

Great, I look forward to hearing more.  And I appreciate your gracious reply.

Here is why it is so important to me...

When I got saved, and dedicated my life to the LORD, I was married, my mother had just died, and I had children.

My husband actually did look me right in the face and say... "I do not want to be married to a Christian"... and promptly left us to fend for ourselves.

My church, was my only family. No car, no monies, nothing but a church family who said to me... "Come, though your sins be as Scarlet, they can be white as snow"... and lived it. They gave me rides, they checked on me, they gave us food, they rented me the parsonage.. they fed me spiritually, and they loved us... this same church is where my husband met Jesus.  And then, he asked me to marry him. He thought when we met that I was an only child... that is how alone I was with my children. I rode the Church bus every Sunday just to get there to hear that WORD... It was my life source.

I have NINE brothers and sisters.  Nine... and it was my church who stepped up and took me and my kids under their wing.  That is where the rubber meets the road. And when we got married, I went to my pastors and sought truth about marriage and remarriage.

My sisters in the LORD bought me a wedding dress, and one made my bouquet.  Another kept our kids while we eloped. My husband adopted my children, and today... 23 years and 7 kids together... No one is telling me there is no grace for the divorced and the remarried.

I've even heard the preaching that if you are divorced and didn't stay single, you must divorce and go back or be single.. FAT CHANCE getting me to dirty up this marriage bed that way.  Either grace at the cross is grace, or it isn't. I'm remarried, and I am staying that way. God Bless!  ::tippinghat::

kensington, thanks for sharing.  Most Christians except the most hardline on this issue would probably agree you had a classic I Cor. 7:15 situation.

Not to minimize your situation in any way, but, try being the "guilty party" in a divorce situation (or marrying one).  See how they treat you then.  Been there, done that.

Kensington, thanks for sharing.  I'm very glad that your church treated you so well. That is awesome.  Sadly, that is not the norm in most denominations or non-denominations. 

Blessings,
Sherman

Quinn, thank you too for sharing.  I'm very sorry for the negative treatment you've received.  Sadlyl, among most denominations, there is little if any forgiveness for those who were the cause of their divorce, though they are repentive for their actions.  It's very sad.  I find it amazing that John does not mention the difficult passages on divorce; rather, he tells the story of the woman caught in adultery.  Jesus did not condemn her, but did encourage her to repent and live in righteousness knowing the acceptance and forgiveness of God.  It's also very possible that the woman caught in adultery was in that situation because her husband had expelled her but had not given her a bill of divorce.  Thus she was almost resigned to a life of adultery, living with another man not her husband. 

Anyhow, I pray that you'll be filled with God's love for you and yours.

Blessings,
Sherman

: Sherman Nobles  Fri Oct 12, 2007 - 09:11:34
Quinn, thank you too for sharing.  I'm very sorry for the negative treatment you've received.  Sadlyl, among most denominations, there is little if any forgiveness for those who were the cause of their divorce, though they are repentive for their actions.  It's very sad.  I find it amazing that John does not mention the difficult passages on divorce; rather, he tells the story of the woman caught in adultery.  Jesus did not condemn her, but did encourage her to repent and live in righteousness knowing the acceptance and forgiveness of God.  It's also very possible that the woman caught in adultery was in that situation because her husband had expelled her but had not given her a bill of divorce.  Thus she was almost resigned to a life of adultery, living with another man not her husband. 

Anyhow, I pray that you'll be filled with God's love for you and yours.

Blessings,
Sherman

another interesting thing on that a very interesting story, one of the best I think.

Who was she committing adultry with? Where was the other party of that party? The penalty was for both, but appearently they had a double standard going on. And what if it was one of the pharasees who did the act with her so that they could activate their plan, which had nothing at all to do with this woman, but rather everything to do with trying Jesus and see if they could catch him off guard.

What is most interesting is what was Jesus writing in the sand? Scripture? or maybe He wrote out peoples names that were their, and then also their sins. I always wondered why no one claimed to be without sin, the pharisees could have easily claimed that (and possibly/probably believe it) so why did none of them step up? I think Jesus exposed their hidden sins to everyone there. just a theory though. Who says the bible does not have mystery and suspense! Just try and imagine that scene as it unfolded. The woman was probably dragged out naked screaming and fighting and trying to cover herself as all these men where looking on and asking to stone her. and Jesus probably all so calmly sat down and started writing in the sand, must have blown the minds of everyone there.

Or it's possible that he shielded and covered her, and knelling beside her writing in the sand - Pride, Self-righteousness, Hypocricy, Lust, etc., with Fire in His Eyes, ANGRILY and Forcefully said, "He who is sinless throw the first stone!" All the while, kneeling beside the woman caring for her!  Maybe he was writing in the sand because he was so angry, that if he spoke he might just blow them away and he just took the time to count to 10 and control his anger!!!!!

Hello again, and thank you for taking of your time to review this and possibly discuss it.  If you haven't read the previous post on Matthew 19:1-9, please do so; some of the things that I share in this post will make more sense based on information shared there. 

First let's note that the Mark 10 passage is significantly different than Matthew 19, though very likely telling the same story.  These differences are very important and help us understand both passages and how to interpret and apply them to our lives, family, and society. 

In order to come to a clear understanding of what Mark meant, it's important to recognize his target audience.  Most biblical scholars agree that Mark wrote to a Roman audience.  This is evidenced by several things, but especially by the lack of information and phrases in Mark that would have meant much to Jews, but little if anything to Romans.  For example, the "any matter

For a change of pace, let's look at the following.

A scripture often quoted in discussions about divorce is Malachi 2:16; "For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously

Luke 16.18  Divorce in the Context of the Parental Love of God

In Chapter 16, Luke briefly mentions Jesus' words concerning "putting away.

Sherman,

I would like to know your thoughts on what I would call a simpler interpretation of Jesus' words about this.  It is the idea that Jesus was not being literal.  He was teaching with hyperbole (an intentional exaggeration to make a point).  I think especially about Matthew 5:32, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (NIV)

I wonder if this is hyperbole, because what sense does it make that a woman is divorced by her husband, presumably against her will, and she gets tagged as an adulteress?

Actually, the Puritans believed these difficult statements concerning divorce were hyperbole, as you suggest.  And it is possible.  However, there is significant evidence, biblical and extra-biblical that suggests that there were actually two problems Jesus was addressing:

1) Men expelling their wives and not giving them a bill of divorce.  This left them in a sad state of affairs, no family, no support, and not able to legally marry another man.  If she did marry, she and the man that married her were committing adultery, and were not legally married.

2) Marriages ending because of hardness of heart, and spouses divorcing so that they could marry another.

But either hyperbole or the cultural understanding that I present result in the same basic principles:

a) Marriage is breakable and should be treated with care.
b) There are moral and immoral reasons for divorce, but divorce breaks the marriage union regardless of the reason.
c) Remarriage is not contingent in any way upon the reasons (moral or immoral) for the previous divorce(s).
d) God recognizes marriages that do not fit the divine ideal, and will bless people in their current marriages if they but trust and follow his lead.

Hey Sherman,

On this subject we are in agreement   ::clappingoverhead::

: WileyClarkson  Mon Oct 29, 2007 - 22:21:58
Hey Sherman,

On this subject we are in agreement   ::clappingoverhead::

Praise the Lord!  See miracles do still happen!   ::noworries::

Even though I get irritated with some Orthodoxen in my online conversations with them -- I do like a lot of their church's views re: marriage, subsequent marriages, etc.

One thing I found interesting when one couple was describing how things were handled when they married -- She had been married before, at least, don't recall about him --

They entered almost a process of penitence and mourning, re: the failure(s) of the first marriage(s) that had ended -- regardless of who was at fault -- and after a time of discussion and study and careful consideration, they married.

I've often wondered how helpful it would be for the church to develop some ceremony that might help divorce'es bury their dead marriage?  I read a book on "The Get" concerning the Jewish tradition of rabbis being involved in the process of a man giving his wife a bill of divorce.  Of course, they do no recognize civil authority's place in divorce (which I disagree with), but the ceremony itself seems to help provide an end to the relationship.  Of course, we want to help people make a go of their marriage.  But if the couple decides to divorce, should we also not help them pick up the pieces of their lives and move on?  I'm just pondering.

: Sherman Nobles  Sun Oct 28, 2007 - 23:03:31
Luke 16.18  Divorce in the Context of the Parental Love of God

In Chapter 16, Luke briefly mentions Jesus' words concerning "putting away.

Shermon,

Another question.  What is your understanding of I Corinthians 7:11 where the wife who is separated from her husband is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband?  Is this a command for a single life if she is not reconciled?

Gracious thanks, and Howie, I believe the 1 Cor. 7.11 was briefly covered in one of the first posts.  Note two different words in the quote of Jesus concerning what a man does (divorce) and what is done to the woman (separation).  I believe Jesus was dealing with two different problems, both of them predominantly caused by men for they had the power socially and religiously.  In the case where the woman was to stay single, it was because her husband had expelled or abandoned her but had not given her a bill of divorce.  Thus she was still legally married because only the man, in Jewish culture, had the power of divorce.   Note that the man was given no such instruction, why? 1. Because he could legally divorce his wife. And 2. because polygamy was still practised, legal, socially acceptable, and even religiously acceptable.  I have a few posts on 1 Cor. 7 that are coming up soon. 

Now we come to a very interesting passage, another foundational passage for a biblical understanding of marriage, 1 Cor. 7.  It is a fascinating scripture, sadly often misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Again, context is important to understand what Paul says concerning MDR.  In this case, the literary context is very important.  Apparently, Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthian church in response to a letter with concerns and questions that the Corinthian church was struggling with.  1 Cor.7.1 introduces such a question.

"Now I will answer the questions that you asked in your letter.  You asked, 'Is it best for people not to marry?'

Apparently, some in Corinth were even divorcing their spouses in order to avoid sexual intimacy and devote themselves wholly to the Lord, and thus, Paul quotes Jesus general directives for men not to divorce their wives and for wives not to leave their husbands. 

1 Cor. 7.11-12 says,  "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: 'A wife is not to depart (chorizo) from her husband.  But even if she does depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried (agamos) or be reconciled to her husband.  And a husband is not to divorce (apheimi) his wife.'

"But if the unbeliever departs (chorizo), let him depart (chorizo); a brother or a sister is not under bondage (douloo) in such cases.

Well, I've saved the best for last.  Let's look at vs. 27 & 28. 

"Are you bound to a wife?  Do not seek to be loosed.  Are you loosed from a wife?  Do not seek a wife.  But even if you do marry, you have not sinned;  and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.  Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.

"A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

So what did Paul mean by "bound by law

Bound by Law (3 of 3)

Could it be that Paul did not mean, "law,

This keeps coming up on other threads so I thought to simply post and move it forward in the list in case anyone wants to read it or respond to it.

God divorced Israel. Jer 3:8

Jer.3.8 is actually the verse that I base the title of my book on -- "God Is A Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness". 

Sherman
I watch for your posts to help me keep my sanity.  They are always well thought out and obviously much study goes into them.  I am wondering what sin we have committed to attract all the wacky, "true gospel", "2 gospel" know it all, let me tell you horrible sinners how you should believe and act folks. 

It is heart wrenching to know how many folks are taught that they must stay in a marriage or live alone even if there is abuse and no love.  Thanks for the sunshine in you posts.  Later Johnb   

Thanks John, I appreciate the encouragement.  I too appreciate your heart and passion for the Lord.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

Jer.3.8 is actually the verse that I base the title of my book on -- "God Is A Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness".  

It does kind of put a weird spin on the whole MDR thing. It also creates a paradox in which we have to get to the Spirit of the matter rather than the letter of the Law.

Interesting enough I thought there was a scripture that says God hates divorce.

: MarkHooper  Sat Dec 29, 2007 - 17:34:34

Jer.3.8 is actually the verse that I base the title of my book on -- "God Is A Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness".  

It does kind of put a weird spin on the whole MDR thing. It also creates a paradox in which we have to get to the Spirit of the matter rather than the letter of the Law.

Interesting enough I thought there was a scripture that says God hates divorce.

Mal.2.16 is typically errantly translated that "God hated divorce."  Sadly, few translators know that they are trying to translate an idiomatic phrase in this passage.  In Israel there were two types of divorce, those based on morally acceptable reasons and morally non-acceptable reasons.  Divorces based on selfish morally non-acceptable reasons were called "hateful divorces".  Mal.2.16 is rebuking those who perform the "hateful divorce."

excellent point! I like it when I learn something. Thanks

Yes, I enjoy learning too.  I love to study the Word.  I especially love to study with those who know more than I do, and of those many I especially enjoy studying with those who understand the Word differently than I do.  It really helps to broaden my very limited perspective.

Mr. Nobles--I plan to copy out your lessons and take notes. i am really committed to this study. I've read homer hailey and Samuel Dawson--two devout scholars of God's word. both vilified because of their stand on mdr. Just thinking about the early Lord's Church as well as present day America. Did Jesus really want the dissolvement of marriages before people could enter his kingdom? What consternation, what heart-break, what untold poverty this would have caused the early church. Some churches won't baptise a person until they have started divorce proceedings against an innocent spouse. I can't stand it. By the way, I read your article on the web about God being a divorcee.

dmcca,

Thanks for your encouraging post.  I pray and trust that the material will be a blessing to you.  Sadly, due to the rampant anti-Semetism in the early Gentile branch of the church, it did not study the words of Jesus through the cultural lens of first century Jews. Instead they viewed it through the lens of Platonic thought.  Even today, Western thought is based a lot upon Plato.  When reading the Gospels, we make many errant assumptions unknowingly, and it takes significant study of the Jewish culture to uncover these errant assumptions.  Anyhow, I look forward to any questions or comments you may have as you go through my posts. 

What I uncovered in my studies was so radically different than anything that I had seen peaced together elsewhere, that before I sought a publisher for my manuscript, I had pastors and theologians from a wide range of denominations review it for me.  I'm thankful to say that almost all endorsed it, and the two that did not endorse it, did so because of pesonal reasons, not because they found anything they disagreed with.  Three of the ones who endorsed my book are professors at Regent University.   Anyhow, I was greatly honored and humbled by their endorsement.  I hope you too find the information helpful and inspirational.

Blessings,
Sherman

.

.

: Hehealedme  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 00:46:44

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

This is the first time that I see such a 'warning' on any message boards that I have been on in the past...
However, I believe that this thread should be bumped back up to page 1 so that others may be able to read/consult/or maybe even reply to it eventhough it has been a while since no-one has posted in it for the past almost nine months now...
Personally, I wish I could have known about this particular thread two years ago, but I wasn't a member of this board yet back then... ::pondering::

Sherman, I wish to thank you for writing this book, but especially for sharing some of it on this board...I have read the first page so far...it took me a while for I am a slow reader...I will definitely read the rest of it...and again, I thank you... ::smile::

Thanks Hehealedme.  I appreciate the encouragement.  My book, "God is a Divorce' Too!" is not a light devotional read; it's a systematic theology of MDR, though I tried to add some related inspirational material in it also.  I welcome any questions or comments you might have on my book or the issue.

Blessings,
Sherman

I believe in the "plain" text in the bible concerning marrage and divorce.

The problem with so much acceptance to divorce in this day and age is; Social Acceptance of divorce.  Since society, accepts divorce, Christians tend to fall into the trap of what is right by God and what is acceptable in society.

Similar, today, homosexuals get offended, when Christians quote from the Bible and say that being Gay is a sin and damnation follows the unrepentant heart. So, they argue back and condem Christians for saying they are going to hell.

Likewise, since divorce is becoming a social norm, people are trying to justify their reasons for divorce. When in doubt, go to what the word of God says about it....then do not add anything to the Bible to suit your needs...And there is your answer.

: Corbley  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 10:14:23
I believe in the "plain" text in the bible concerning marrage and divorce.

The problem with so much acceptance to divorce in this day and age is; Social Acceptance of divorce.  Since society, accepts divorce, Christians tend to fall into the trap of what is right by God and what is acceptable in society.

Similar, today, homosexuals get offended, when Christians quote from the Bible and say that being Gay is a sin and damnation follows the unrepentant heart. So, they argue back and condem Christians for saying they are going to hell.

Likewise, since divorce is becoming a social norm, people are trying to justify their reasons for divorce. When in doubt, go to what the word of God says about it....then do not add anything to the Bible to suit your needs...And there is your answer.

When it comes down to it that is exactly the answer.
Amen

: Corbley  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 10:14:23
I believe in the "plain" text in the bible concerning marrage and divorce...

Likewise, since divorce is becoming a social norm, people are trying to justify their reasons for divorce. When in doubt, go to what the word of God says about it....then do not add anything to the Bible to suit your needs...And there is your answer.

      The partisan, traditional view on divorce and remarriage is that God approves of them in two cases only: 1) Adultery; and 2) If an unbeliever deserts his/her believing spouse (Matt. 19:9 &1 Cor. 7:15).

    At this junction I'd like to pose a marital plight with which I'm personally acquainted. What you are about to read are the explicit, factual details of a marital relationship gone sour. Analyze this plight carefully, and then read my comments that follow.

    The man divorced his wife after almost 25 years of marriage. They both had an adequate income, especially the wife. The husband was a believer, and his wife was supposed to have been. After 25 years of a tumultuous marital relationship—arguing, feuding, fussing, fighting—she deserted him and moved out-of-state.

    He could never trust her to tell the truth. She was a chronic liar. She used him, manipulated him, and took him for everything she thought she could get by with, particularly money. Other than filing joint income tax returns for the first 15 years of their marriage, the only thing they had in common and experienced jointly was sexual intimacy. After 15 years of filing jointly, the husband discovered that his wife had been taking him for hundreds of dollars every time they filed income tax returns. Over that long period, she had manipulated him out of thousands of dollars. Filing jointly ended abruptly! When he discovered the loss, she refused to talk about it.

    Everything else was separate. They bought their groceries separately, stored them in separate food compartments, prepared their meals separately, ate separately, had separate bank accounts, charge accounts, and took turns putting out hand soap and toilet tissue. They did their laundry separately. When company came, the husband was responsible for providing all of the food if they were his family and relatives, and she supplied the food for her family and relatives. The wife would often inventory all of her food items prior to taking an out-of-town trip to make sure her husband didn't steal anything while she was gone!

    The husband tried desperately to improve the relationship. They mutually agreed to see a Christian marriage counselor. During each hour-long session, she told one lie after another. When she wasn't lying, she distorted the truth. Instead of the relationship improving as a result of counseling, it grew immensely worse. Finally the husband threw up his hands and informed his wife that he would never again step inside a marriage counselor's office with her. He told her that he would go separately, if necessary,  but not with her.

    On a Friday night, the two had a big argument and fight.  To regain his cool and composure, and to permit his wife to regain hers, he stayed the next two nights with local relatives. When he returned on Sunday morning, she had "cleaned him out"—everything but his twin bed, a 13 inch TV, and a microwave, including all of his personal items, and refused to return anything. A neighbor reported that she had hired three Hispanics who helped her load everything up during the night.  A few months later, the husband filed for and obtained a divorce. The rest is history.

    Tell me, will not God make allowances in cases like this? If not, why not? If Jesus approved of David and his men breaking God's law out of necessity (Matt. 12:3-4), why would He not approve of this man divorcing his spouse out of necessity, thus breaking God's law? And if God approves it, are they not free to remarry? They're no longer bound to their ex-spouse. They're now as free as they were before they married the first time.

    Under the Law of Moses, not even the Jewish priests were permitted to labor on the Sabbath. However, out of necessity God made allowances because the priests' duties entailed their working in the Temple on the Sabbath, their busiest day of the week, although they desecrated the day by thus doing. Yet they were innocent because of necessity. "Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?" (Matt. 12:5).

    Jesus also reminded the Pharisees that if an ox or sheep falls into the ditch on the Sabbath and they rescue the animal out of mercy, they are innocent (Matt. 12:11). We see, then, that God makes concessions in cases of necessity and mercy. How could he do otherwise and be a merciful God?

    I could give you ample examples of other cases where marital relationships have failed miserably, although no adultery was committed. And I'm talking about couples who sought professional and spiritual help, yet one of the parties refused to change. God is not so legalistic that he is without mercy.

     Many of our traditional views on marriage, divorce, and remarriage "stinks to high heaven." The old orthodox positions are still placing a noose around the necks of divorced believers, thus prohibiting them from remarrying, in spite of the fact that heaven's testimony teaches that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor. 7:9). Tell me, does God disapprove more of a divorced believer remarrying because of passion than he does if the same believer commits immorality because of his/her passion? Which is the lesser of the two evils, assuming both are evil? You tell me. Let's leave it where Paul left it.  "For it is better to marry than to burn
with passion."

—Buff.

: Corbley  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 10:14:23
I believe in the "plain" text in the bible concerning marrage and divorce.

The problem with the "plain" text is that "A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an assumed meaning that often misses the author's intent!"  In other words, when you take a text out of context, the "plain" meaning is very often the "wrong" meaning! 

Paul encourages us to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15).  You're welcome to stick to the simple "plain" text if you wish; or you can put the necessary work, research, study and prayer into the text to undestand what Jesus meant. 

The problem with so much acceptance to divorce in this day and age is; Social Acceptance of divorce.  Since society, accepts divorce, Christians tend to fall into the trap of what is right by God and what is acceptable in society.

Social acceptance of divorce is not nearly as problematic as the Church teaching errant doctrine on the issue.  For centuries, the church, instead of empowering people to have healthy marriages have instead tried to control people's lives and force people to stay married.  Has this approach worked?  Of course not, the divorce rate in the church is as high as that of non-Christians. 

The foundational traditional doctrine of marriage is that marriage is indissoluble, unbreakable which is completely unscriptural and irrational.  Marriage is breakable.  Jesus even noted that marriages joined together by God run the risk of being broken, torn apart by man.

Similar, today, homosexuals get offended, when Christians quote from the Bible and say that being Gay is a sin and damnation follows the unrepentant heart. So, they argue back and condem Christians for saying they are going to hell.

Likewise, since divorce is becoming a social norm, people are trying to justify their reasons for divorce. When in doubt, go to what the word of God says about it....then do not add anything to the Bible to suit your needs...And there is your answer.

A completely errant analogy!  How in the world can you compare homosexuality to divorce?  On one hand, homosexuality is repeatedly forbidden in scripture and is against nature itself.  On the other hand, many people suffer divorce though it is against their will.  Not only that, but God himself identifies with the pain of divorce, being a divorce' too! (Jer. 3:8).   

Buff,

I appreciate the passion in your post.  Please let me point out though that divorce, in and of itself, is not necessarily sinful and is certainly not unlawful.  God inspired Moses to legislate the bill of divorce so as to bring a proper legal end to disfunctional relationships and to free expelled wives so that they could legally marry another man and not fear their first husband reclaiming them. 

I agree with you that the "traditional views on MDR stink to high heaven". 

: Sherman Nobles  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 15:17:36

: Corbley  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 10:14:23
I believe in the "plain" text in the bible concerning marrage and divorce.

The problem with the "plain" text is that "A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an assumed meaning that often misses the author's intent!"  In other words, when you take a text out of context, the "plain" meaning is very often the "wrong" meaning! 
Absolutly, correct! Too much today is taken out of context. However, the "plain text" I refer to is in context. Those who take things out of context, tend to create various denominations. (i.e: babtist, methodist, Assemblies of God and so on)  There is only one Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that the denominational separation in our society has been a part of Satans plan to decieve (another debate)

Paul encourages us to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15).  You're welcome to stick to the simple "plain" text if you wish; or you can put the necessary work, research, study and prayer into the text to undestand what Jesus meant. 
That is good advice....I do that very thing. Also, I would add, take no MAN's word as truth. But read the word to find truth. Even in divorce.

The problem with so much acceptance to divorce in this day and age is; Social Acceptance of divorce.  Since society, accepts divorce, Christians tend to fall into the trap of what is right by God and what is acceptable in society.

Social acceptance of divorce is not nearly as problematic as the Church teaching errant doctrine on the issue.  For centuries, the church, instead of empowering people to have healthy marriages have instead tried to control people's lives and force people to stay married.  Has this approach worked?  Of course not, the divorce rate in the church is as high as that of non-Christians. 
That is true, but I disagree that is is the Churches fault. Society, (Satan's world) has made divorce more socially acceptable and people now get divorced for far too many reasons NOT acceptabler to God.
For example: Ilove Lucy was a TV show when I was a kid. Ricky and Lucy had to have twin beds for any bedroom shots. Today we know that it is far less descreet. Likewise, divorce is becoming acceptable for more reasons. That doesn't make those reasons right by God but socially acceptable.  Divorce was low  just 50 years ago, BECAUSE the Churches spoke against it, there still was divorce because of adultry and abandonment.  Not because he snores too loud.

The foundational traditional doctrine of marriage is that marriage is indissoluble, unbreakable which is completely unscriptural and irrational.  Marriage is breakable.  Jesus even noted that marriages joined together by God run the risk of being broken, torn apart by man.
I do not think that the doctrine was as strict as you suggest, more than the empowerment of women. Women today are stronger in mind and self assure of themselves more than in the past.

Similar, today, homosexuals get offended, when Christians quote from the Bible and say that being Gay is a sin and damnation follows the unrepentant heart. So, they argue back and condem Christians for saying they are going to hell.

Likewise, since divorce is becoming a social norm, people are trying to justify their reasons for divorce. When in doubt, go to what the word of God says about it....then do not add anything to the Bible to suit your needs...And there is your answer.

A completely errant analogy!  How in the world can you compare homosexuality to divorce?  On one hand, homosexuality is repeatedly forbidden in scripture and is against nature itself.  On the other hand, many people suffer divorce though it is against their will.  Not only that, but God himself identifies with the pain of divorce, being a divorce' too! (Jer. 3:8).   

I dont think it is, it is a socially acceptable sin. Just like divorce is a socially acceptable sin.  (If divorce is not according to scripture) If not, if divorce is because of argueing over bills. Then it becomes a sin.  Use any analogy you choose, there are many in our society. Sin is sin, and divorce for the wrong reason is a sin that a person should repent from. And understand that it is a sin (if done for the wrong reasons)

Buff, what I see is a lot of stroking and tickling of the ears going on.  A lot of what satisfies the flesh regardless of what the Word of God says.  Of course people are going to go for this.  Things have been going down hill for a long time within the church.  Watered down gospel most of us talk about from time to time but when we see it we don't seem to recognize it.

We admit we must give our will to God and our very lives. We know we'll have to make sacrifices for the sake of the Gospel but when do we think these things are done or how are they done or when will they be done.

Moses could have had a life of leisure, a palace to live in and servants at his beckon call.  Had he just changed the call from God.  Had he decided to figure out another way to do God's bidding.

What if he had decided he could do the Hebrews more good if he remained where he was.  After all he was the next in line to rule the Egyptians.  He could have decided I'll make it easier on them, give them less work to do, etc.  But he didn't.  He was obedient.

If we expect Christians to be Christians we need leaders who will return to the Word, preach it and live it.

God gave us commands on His will for us and marriage.  We should stop expecting this life to be all it can be and realize we are here as pilgrims and strangers with a great calling from on high.  Everything else takes a back seat to it.

Mark 8:35  "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it."

God Bless

: Corbley  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 16:59:52
I dont think it is, it is a socially acceptable sin. Just like divorce is a socially acceptable sin.  (If divorce is not according to scripture) If not, if divorce is because of argueing over bills. Then it becomes a sin.  Use any analogy you choose, there are many in our society. Sin is sin, and divorce for the wrong reason is a sin that a person should repent from. And understand that it is a sin (if done for the wrong reasons)

I agree that divorce for the wrong reason is sin, but you did not qualify your previous statement with "for the wrong reason".  You just made the general statement that divorce is sin.

Sadly, the church has so spiritualized marriage, that it's lost the practical aspects of marriage.  Marriage is a human covenant; and covenants have both stated and implied expectations.  Many marriages end in divorce because spouses fail to keep their part of the covenant of mariage.

And btw, scripture does not explicity lay out acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for divorce.  The Jews did have two categories of divorce, those based on commonly accepted moral reasons for divorce and those based on completely selfish reasons.  Selfish divorces were called "hateful divorces."  These hateful divorces are the ones mentioned in Mal. 2:16.  Unfortunately, this scripture is commonly translated as God saying "I hate divorce".  It would be better translated as God rebuking them for the "hateful divorce." 

  Ultimately divorce is the result of the hardness of heart, however that is expressed.  But God is the only one who really knows what goes on between a husband and wife and who is to blame. 

: Sherman Nobles  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 18:37:00

: Corbley  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 16:59:52
I dont think it is, it is a socially acceptable sin. Just like divorce is a socially acceptable sin.  (If divorce is not according to scripture) If not, if divorce is because of argueing over bills. Then it becomes a sin.  Use any analogy you choose, there are many in our society. Sin is sin, and divorce for the wrong reason is a sin that a person should repent from. And understand that it is a sin (if done for the wrong reasons)

I agree that divorce for the wrong reason is sin, but you did not qualify your previous statement with "for the wrong reason".  You just made the general statement that divorce is sin.

Sadly, the church has so spiritualized marriage, that it's lost the practical aspects of marriage.  Marriage is a human covenant; and covenants have both stated and implied expectations.  Many marriages end in divorce because spouses fail to keep their part of the covenant of mariage.

And btw, scripture does not explicity lay out acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for divorce.  The Jews did have two categories of divorce, those based on commonly accepted moral reasons for divorce and those based on completely selfish reasons.  Selfish divorces were called "hateful divorces."  These hateful divorces are the ones mentioned in Mal. 2:16.  Unfortunately, this scripture is commonly translated as God saying "I hate divorce".  It would be better translated as God rebuking them for the "hateful divorce." 

  Ultimately divorce is the result of the hardness of heart, however that is expressed.  But God is the only one who really knows what goes on between a husband and wife and who is to blame. 

Everyone picks the 1st words of verse 16 and discards the rest-  verse 13 has happened before there was a divorce and the partner by his/her actions has already broken the marriage covenant (faith with her) at this point and a God of love is not going to place continual punishment and shame on the partner who did not do the breaking but instead was broken by their spouse.  There may be frivolous divorces going on by some, but there are also those who have good reason and deserve the love/understanding and absence of judgement by those who have not been in their shoes-  God gives it why can't you, it is not for you to judge but only for God!  I find it sad that Christians will view everything people can do as forgivable and redeemable no matter how extreme even unto murder, but they call for eternal and continual punishment for someone who may have already been punished for years in a place that was supposed to be one of safety, security and unconditional acceptance.  So those who have already gone through so much pain are told that they now should be isolated and are not deserving of a true chance at genuine love.  Love as Christ loves the church!

It is ashame that there are so many Christians that are more self righteous and judgemental then the cruel world and because of this in order to get the help they need Christians in a situation such as is above have to turn to the world for the help and support they need because the church does nothing but condemn them.  Remember Jesus even said to the woman caught in adultery (by the way I wonder where the man was?) "neither do I condemn you".

Malachi 2:13-16
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.14You ask, "Why?

If the Bible is the Inspired word of God then surely He has been watching over His word as it has been translated over the centuries into different languages, and made sure that what is written enables us to work out what He is saying to us about how we are to live our lives. If we have to study in trememdous depth, like you have, to find out everything about how we are to live, we could  be doing everything wrong unless we are able to do this.
My feelings are that God would never have made things this complicated for the normal everyday Christian.
If we read the Bible and have to spend months and even years studying just to find out if what is said about one thing (such as divorce) is really what is said about divorce, then we could all be living in error about so many things in the Bible.
I listen to some teaching by a very well known and respected Bible teacher called Derek Prince, who is English, speaks Hebrew, has a very good knowledge of greek and lived in Isreal for many years and has a good back ground of Jewish history, but after all of his studying he still comes back to what the Bible actually says on this. ie Christians are told not to divorce unless it is for sexual immorality, and only then can they remarry, and that a believer who is left by a non believer can remarry.So with all of his knowledge, he returns to what the Bible actually says on this issue.
He himself married a divorced lady whose previous husband was unfaithful.he admits that there are some grey areas such as someone who was divorced before they bacame a Christian and then he suggests going to your church leader and asking him to pray with you to seek God on this matter and do what he leads you to do.

God tells us to come to him as little children, so surely that means that His teaching manual would be fairly simple for all to understand and not only to those like you who have spent so long studying this one subject.

: chosenone  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 21:29:59
If the Bible is the Inspired word of God then surely He has been watching over His word as it has been translated over the centuries into different languages, and made sure that what is written enables us to work out what He is saying to us about how we are to live our lives. If we have to study in trememdous depth, like you have, to find out everything about how we are to live, we could  be doing everything wrong unless we are able to do this.
My feelings are that God would never have made things this complicated for the normal everyday Christian.
If we read the Bible and have to spend months and even years studying just to find out if what is said about one thing (such as divorce) is really what is said about divorce, then we could all be living in error about so many things in the Bible.
I listen to some teaching by a very well known and respected Bible teacher called Derek Prince, who is English, speaks Hebrew, has a very good knowledge of greek and lived in Isreal for many years and has a good back ground of Jewish history, but after all of his studying he still comes back to what the Bible actually says on this. ie Christians are told not to divorce unless it is for sexual immorality, and only then can they remarry, and that a believer who is left by a non believer can remarry.So with all of his knowledge, he returns to what the Bible actually says on this issue.
He himself married a divorced lady whose previous husband was unfaithful.he admits that there are some grey areas such as someone who was divorced before they bacame a Christian and then he suggests going to your church leader and asking him to pray with you to seek God on this matter and do what he leads you to do.

God tells us to come to him as little children, so surely that means that His teaching manual would be fairly simple for all to understand and not only to those like you who have spent so long studying this one subject.

We are doing it all wrong.. its been plain to me for the last 40 years.  In spite of how good a preacher is or how good a book is or how plainly things might seem in the scriptures, I always come away with a feeling in my stomach that we are listening to the twisted words of the devil rather then the scriptures.

The scriptures are not meant to stand on their own.. they were meant to be shepherded by the church throughout the centuries to retain their original meaning and context.

I do not believe for one moment that God is watching over his scriptures, especially when it comes to translations.. because the scriptures were not meant to be in the hands of individual christians.

: Tantor  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 08:54:24

: chosenone  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 21:29:59
If the Bible is the Inspired word of God then surely He has been watching over His word as it has been translated over the centuries into different languages, and made sure that what is written enables us to work out what He is saying to us about how we are to live our lives. If we have to study in trememdous depth, like you have, to find out everything about how we are to live, we could  be doing everything wrong unless we are able to do this.
My feelings are that God would never have made things this complicated for the normal everyday Christian.
If we read the Bible and have to spend months and even years studying just to find out if what is said about one thing (such as divorce) is really what is said about divorce, then we could all be living in error about so many things in the Bible.
I listen to some teaching by a very well known and respected Bible teacher called Derek Prince, who is English, speaks Hebrew, has a very good knowledge of greek and lived in Isreal for many years and has a good back ground of Jewish history, but after all of his studying he still comes back to what the Bible actually says on this. ie Christians are told not to divorce unless it is for sexual immorality, and only then can they remarry, and that a believer who is left by a non believer can remarry.So with all of his knowledge, he returns to what the Bible actually says on this issue.
He himself married a divorced lady whose previous husband was unfaithful.he admits that there are some grey areas such as someone who was divorced before they bacame a Christian and then he suggests going to your church leader and asking him to pray with you to seek God on this matter and do what he leads you to do.

God tells us to come to him as little children, so surely that means that His teaching manual would be fairly simple for all to understand and not only to those like you who have spent so long studying this one subject.

We are doing it all wrong.. its been plain to me for the last 40 years.  In spite of how good a preacher is or how good a book is or how plainly things might seem in the scriptures, I always come away with a feeling in my stomach that we are listening to the twisted words of the devil rather then the scriptures.

The scriptures are not meant to stand on their own.. they were meant to be shepherded by the church throughout the centuries to retain their original meaning and context.

I do not believe for one moment that God is watching over his scriptures, especially when it comes to translations.. because the scriptures were not meant to be in the hands of individual christians.

So if you are correct, we cant believe anything of what we read in the Bible and what most teachers teach?Many of ppauls letters etc were writted to gentile converts who would have known practically nothing of jewish history and Paul knew this, so why did he still teach these things about marriage divorce and remarriage  to them. knowing that they wouldnt understand them in 'context'???
I am sorry, but I cant go along with this theory that ther Bible doesnt mean what it actually says because we dont knw in what context it was written. We have common sense and we need to use it I think.
If we believe that The Bible is the infallible inspired word of God, then maybe we have to stop trying to read more into it than is there?
he still teach these things

: chosenone  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 09:59:15

: Tantor  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 08:54:24

: chosenone  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 21:29:59
If the Bible is the Inspired word of God then surely He has been watching over His word as it has been translated over the centuries into different languages, and made sure that what is written enables us to work out what He is saying to us about how we are to live our lives. If we have to study in trememdous depth, like you have, to find out everything about how we are to live, we could  be doing everything wrong unless we are able to do this.
My feelings are that God would never have made things this complicated for the normal everyday Christian.
If we read the Bible and have to spend months and even years studying just to find out if what is said about one thing (such as divorce) is really what is said about divorce, then we could all be living in error about so many things in the Bible.
I listen to some teaching by a very well known and respected Bible teacher called Derek Prince, who is English, speaks Hebrew, has a very good knowledge of greek and lived in Isreal for many years and has a good back ground of Jewish history, but after all of his studying he still comes back to what the Bible actually says on this. ie Christians are told not to divorce unless it is for sexual immorality, and only then can they remarry, and that a believer who is left by a non believer can remarry.So with all of his knowledge, he returns to what the Bible actually says on this issue.
He himself married a divorced lady whose previous husband was unfaithful.he admits that there are some grey areas such as someone who was divorced before they bacame a Christian and then he suggests going to your church leader and asking him to pray with you to seek God on this matter and do what he leads you to do.

God tells us to come to him as little children, so surely that means that His teaching manual would be fairly simple for all to understand and not only to those like you who have spent so long studying this one subject.

We are doing it all wrong.. its been plain to me for the last 40 years.  In spite of how good a preacher is or how good a book is or how plainly things might seem in the scriptures, I always come away with a feeling in my stomach that we are listening to the twisted words of the devil rather then the scriptures.

The scriptures are not meant to stand on their own.. they were meant to be shepherded by the church throughout the centuries to retain their original meaning and context.

I do not believe for one moment that God is watching over his scriptures, especially when it comes to translations.. because the scriptures were not meant to be in the hands of individual christians.

So if you are correct, we cant believe anything of what we read in the Bible and what most teachers teach?Many of ppauls letters etc were writted to gentile converts who would have known practically nothing of jewish history and Paul knew this, so why did he still teach these things about marriage divorce and remarriage  to them. knowing that they wouldnt understand them in 'context'???
I am sorry, but I cant go along with this theory that ther Bible doesnt mean what it actually says because we dont knw in what context it was written. We have common sense and we need to use it I think.
If we believe that The Bible is the infallible inspired word of God, then maybe we have to stop trying to read more into it than is there?
he still teach these things

::amen!:: ::amen!::

: chosenone  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 21:29:59
If the Bible is the Inspired word of God then surely He has been watching over His word as it has been translated over the centuries into different languages, and made sure that what is written enables us to work out what He is saying to us about how we are to live our lives. If we have to study in trememdous depth, like you have, to find out everything about how we are to live, we could  be doing everything wrong unless we are able to do this.

Proverbs repeatedly encourages one to seek knowledge and wisdom. And the Word repeatedly commends meditation upon the Word of God; meditation means to chew, to ruminate over, to tear apart and injest like a cow chewing its cudd.  

Of course, life, relationship with God and our fellow man is relatively simple; if we simply love God and love our neighbor as ourselves then we'll be fulfilled and will fulfill the desires of God for our lives.  But that does not make ignorance a premium, nor does it mean that we should NOT devote ourselves to a serious indepth (not simplistic cursory "plain") study of the Word.  

Please don't misunderstand me; I affirm the divine ideal for marriage - the monogomous faithful life-long loving covenant relationship of a man and woman establishing a family.  We should do all we can to support marriages and help couples have lasting loving relationships.  And I believe a correct doctrine of MDR will help Christians have such.  Sadly, the traditional doctrine of MDR is errant in many ways.  Marriage is not indissoluble but is breakable and should be treated as such.  Marriage is not under ecclesial authority, but is primarily a domestic affair under limited civil authority.  Marriage is not a sacrament but is a covenant; and marriage is not a divine covenant, but is a human covenant.  And covenants are only as strong as the character of the covenantors.  Jesus did not intend to repudiate the bill of divorce; rather, He affirmed the bill of divorce explaining the reason Moses was inspired to legislate it.  Remarriage of divorce'es is not sinful; in fact, Paul specifically writes that if a divorce' remarries he does not sin.  

My feelings are that God would never have made things this complicated for the normal everyday Christian.

God doesn't make things complicated and difficult for us; rather, sin makes things complicated and difficult for us.  Jesus said that if we are his disciples that we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free; we experience this progressively as we grow in Christ as individuals and as a community of faith together.  Not only that, but God does give us apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to equip the "normal" Christian in the things of God.  Teachers dig deep into the Word and communicate doctrine in a way that takes what is complicated and makes it simple.  Theology is often defined as "Faith seeking Understanding."

If we read the Bible and have to spend months and even years studying just to find out if what is said about one thing (such as divorce) is really what is said about divorce, then we could all be living in error about so many things in the Bible.

Actually, the basic principles are simple, love God and eachother being faithful to and servants of God and oneanother.  If we do that, divorce would be greatly minimized.  Other elements of attaining a biblical doctrine of marriage do take some study though.

I listen to some teaching by a very well known and respected Bible teacher called Derek Prince, who is English, speaks Hebrew, has a very good knowledge of greek and lived in Isreal for many years and has a good back ground of Jewish history, but after all of his studying he still comes back to what the Bible actually says on this. ie Christians are told not to divorce unless it is for sexual immorality, and only then can they remarry, and that a believer who is left by a non believer can remarry.So with all of his knowledge, he returns to what the Bible actually says on this issue.

He himself married a divorced lady whose previous husband was unfaithful.he admits that there are some grey areas such as someone who was divorced before they bacame a Christian and then he suggests going to your church leader and asking him to pray with you to seek God on this matter and do what he leads you to do.

I respect highly Derek Prince, though I've only read a little of what he's written.  But even so, I don't hold his doctrine as inerrant and follow him, or any other, blindly.  Rather, in my studies on MDR, I've read the writings of many ministers from the Church Fathers to contemporary.  One of the things I found most fascinating was that the basic principles that I've come to believe concerning MDR were also taught by the Puritans.  One of the core elements of their doctrine on MDR was that marriage is not a sacrament or under ecclesial authority, but marriage is a covenanant under civil authority.  But of course, finding this tood a little study.

God tells us to come to him as little children, so surely that means that His teaching manual would be fairly simple for all to understand and not only to those like you who have spent so long studying this one subject.

Faith is very simplistic by nature and transcends logic and reason.  One aspect of faith is trust and faith often calls us to step out and obey the leading of the Lord even when we don't understand.  But doctrine and theology are not simple.  In fact, a good definition of theology is "Faith Seeking Understanding."  Ignorance is not a premium in the kingdom of God!  

"A wise man will hear and increase learning,  and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel." (Prov. 1:5)

Prov. 2:1-5
1 My son, if you receive my words,
     And treasure my commands within you,
      2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
     And apply your heart to understanding;
      3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
     And lift up your voice for understanding,
      4 If you seek her as silver,
     And search for her as for hidden treasures;
      5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD,
     And find the knowledge of God.

Faith and relationship with God is simple, understanding God and his word is like search for a hidden treasure - takes work, diligence, perservence, tools, and faith.

: Tantor  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 08:54:24
We are doing it all wrong.. its been plain to me for the last 40 years.  In spite of how good a preacher is or how good a book is or how plainly things might seem in the scriptures, I always come away with a feeling in my stomach that we are listening to the twisted words of the devil rather then the scriptures.

The scriptures are not meant to stand on their own.. they were meant to be shepherded by the church throughout the centuries to retain their original meaning and context.

I do not believe for one moment that God is watching over his scriptures, especially when it comes to translations.. because the scriptures were not meant to be in the hands of individual christians.

Tantor, it's not either/or (either personal relationship or tradition/community) rather we need to recognize that it's both/and.  We need to have a personal relationship with God and study scripture for ourselves; and we need to respect and value the greater community of faith, past and present! 

: chosenone  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 09:59:15
So if you are correct, we cant believe anything of what we read in the Bible and what most teachers teach?Many of ppauls letters etc were writted to gentile converts who would have known practically nothing of jewish history and Paul knew this, so why did he still teach these things about marriage divorce and remarriage  to them. knowing that they wouldnt understand them in 'context'???
I am sorry, but I cant go along with this theory that ther Bible doesnt mean what it actually says because we dont knw in what context it was written. We have common sense and we need to use it I think.
If we believe that The Bible is the infallible inspired word of God, then maybe we have to stop trying to read more into it than is there?
he still teach these things

But Paul sent these letters to church leaders that he had already taught and indoctrinated into his teachings and therefore would understand the context and culture of Paul's writings.  None of Paul's writings were just sent out to the unwashed masses expecting them to automatically pick things up.

The bible cannot be understood logically or looked at as a cryptographic document like a 'divinci code'... the bible is meaningless without the context of a living and thriving christian community that is actively seeking it's original meanings.

As Stanley Hauerwas would say, our basic education and world view that we are indoctrinated with by our school systems make it very difficult for any of us to interpret the bible... he even goes as far as to say that the west should remove the bible from individuals hands and place them back in the custody of the church, where it belongs.

I tend to agree with him.. we are all too dumb to discern its meanings individually.

: Sherman Nobles  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 10:21:50

: Tantor  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 08:54:24
We are doing it all wrong.. its been plain to me for the last 40 years.  In spite of how good a preacher is or how good a book is or how plainly things might seem in the scriptures, I always come away with a feeling in my stomach that we are listening to the twisted words of the devil rather then the scriptures.

The scriptures are not meant to stand on their own.. they were meant to be shepherded by the church throughout the centuries to retain their original meaning and context.

I do not believe for one moment that God is watching over his scriptures, especially when it comes to translations.. because the scriptures were not meant to be in the hands of individual christians.

Tantor, it's not either/or (either personal relationship or tradition/community) rather we need to recognize that it's both/and.  We need to have a personal relationship with God and study scripture for ourselves; and we need to respect and value the greater community of faith, past and present! 

I do not believe the new age 'personal relationship' mantra that is present to today's evangelical christian
mainstream.  To believe you can have a personal relationship with Jesus is to believe that Jesus lied!... there is a reason he sent the Holy Spirit to look after us in his absence.  And you cannot confuse the 3 persons in the God head... Jesus is currently unavailable to us.

I realize that you wrote the following in reply to Tantor's post, but I wanted to point out a couple of things.

: chosenone  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 09:59:15
Many of pauls letters etc were writted to gentile converts who would have known practically nothing of jewish history and Paul knew this, so why did he still teach these things about marriage divorce and remarriage  to them. knowing that they wouldnt understand them in 'context'???

Our problem is that not only do we not understand the Jewish Context, but we don't even understand the Greco-Roman Context.  1 Cor. 7 is an interesting passage though, Paul actually quotes Jesus (speaking to the Jews) and interprets/applies it to the Greco-Roman context of Corinth.  But of course, a cursory simplistic overview of that chapter would never pick that up.

Not only that, but did you know that in the Greco-Roman context of Corinth the Gentiles actually had 5 significantly different types of marriage relationships, the most common of which was "tenting together" which was the only type available to slaves.  And of course, 75% of the people of Corinth were slaves and thus could only "tent together".   But working through how Paul's words would apply to a slave who's "marriage(s)" was subject to it's master requires us thinking, really studying the passage and not just taking a simplistic, "plain" approach.

: Tantor  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 10:27:45

: Sherman Nobles  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 10:21:50

: Tantor  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 08:54:24
We are doing it all wrong.. its been plain to me for the last 40 years.  In spite of how good a preacher is or how good a book is or how plainly things might seem in the scriptures, I always come away with a feeling in my stomach that we are listening to the twisted words of the devil rather then the scriptures.

The scriptures are not meant to stand on their own.. they were meant to be shepherded by the church throughout the centuries to retain their original meaning and context.

I do not believe for one moment that God is watching over his scriptures, especially when it comes to translations.. because the scriptures were not meant to be in the hands of individual christians.

Tantor, it's not either/or (either personal relationship or tradition/community) rather we need to recognize that it's both/and.  We need to have a personal relationship with God and study scripture for ourselves; and we need to respect and value the greater community of faith, past and present! 

I do not believe the new age 'personal relationship' mantra that is present to today's evangelical christian
mainstream.  To believe you can have a personal relationship with Jesus is to believe that Jesus lied!... there is a reason he sent the Holy Spirit to look after us in his absence.  And you cannot confuse the 3 persons in the God head... Jesus is currently unavailable to us.

But of course, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, so to speak of having a personal relationship with Jesus is simply a modern way of speaking of having a personal relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.   Not only that, but to completely divide God into three seperate entities/beings is to deny the Oneness of God.  We serve One God, not three gods.  When one relates to the Holy Spirit, one is relating to Jesus and God the Father. 

I hope you're not trying to say that you don't believe a personal can have a relationship with God through being born of the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit.

We cannot have the relationship we want until after the final judgment.  Until then we have to satisfy ourselves with a faint example that Jesus has afforded us.

: Tantor  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 10:49:55
We cannot have the relationship we want until after the final judgment.  Until then we have to satisfy ourselves with a faint example that Jesus has afforded us.

Hmm, didn't Jesus tell Nicodemous that "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again (born from above), you cannot see the Kingdom of God.

: Sherman Nobles  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 11:40:41

: Tantor  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 10:49:55
We cannot have the relationship we want until after the final judgment.  Until then we have to satisfy ourselves with a faint example that Jesus has afforded us.

Hmm, didn't Jesus tell Nicodemous that "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again (born from above), you cannot see the Kingdom of God.

: Bonnie  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 17:03:18

God gave us commands on His will for us and marriage.  We should stop expecting this life to be all it can be and realize we are here as pilgrims and strangers with a great calling from on high.  Everything else takes a back seat to it.

God Bless

    I hear you, Bonnie.  Here are a few other thoughts on divorce & remarriage.   In Matthew 19:9, Jesus gives one cause for divorce and remarriage, unfaithfulness or adultery. There's some question whether "adultery" in this passage refers to a sexual act with another person or the actual breaking of the marriage vow—or both. I am not discussing this phase of the subject at this time. Rather, I wish to lay before you the idea that God makes allowances in cases of necessity and mercy.

    Permit me to make the application to a case involving marriage, divorce, and remarriage. A husband comes home late at night, intoxicated, and demands sex of his wife of 20 years. When she refuses, he physically abuses and rapes her. Out of concern for their four children, she endures his drinking problem and abuses. For 20 long years she puts up with him while trying to make a good home for the family.

    Finally, she cannot take his abuses any longer. She leaves him, taking the kids with her. She refuses to return. And he refuses to seek help for his problems—and continues to drink as heavily as before. When the wife sees that no change in his behavior is forthcoming, she divorces him. No adultery has been committed. Out of necessity she divorces her husband. Under the circumstances, she has no other choice. In time, she marries another man who cares for and loves her.

    Will not God's mercy override this woman's plight?  Out of necessity she divorces her husband.  If God made allowances for David and his men when they were famished, if he made allowances for the Jews when, out of mercy, they pulled an ox out of the ditch on their Sabbath, thus violating the Sabbath, will he not make allowances for those caught up in tumultuous martial relationships?  After all, He is a merciful God!

—Buff.

: Reformer  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 15:15:27
    I hear you, Bonnie.  Here are a few other thoughts on divorce & remarriage.   In Matthew 19:9, Jesus gives one cause for divorce and remarriage, unfaithfulness or adultery. There's some question whether "adultery" in this passage refers to a sexual act with another person or the actual breaking of the marriage vow—or both. I am not discussing this phase of the subject at this time. Rather, I wish to lay before you the idea that God makes allowances in cases of necessity and mercy.

    Permit me to make the application to a case involving marriage, divorce, and remarriage. A husband comes home late at night, intoxicated, and demands sex of his wife of 20 years. When she refuses, he physically abuses and rapes her. Out of concern for their four children, she endures his drinking problem and abuses. For 20 long years she puts up with him while trying to make a good home for the family.

    Finally, she cannot take his abuses any longer. She leaves him, taking the kids with her. She refuses to return. And he refuses to seek help for his problems—and continues to drink as heavily as before. When the wife sees that no change in his behavior is forthcoming, she divorces him. No adultery has been committed. Out of necessity she divorces her husband. Under the circumstances, she has no other choice. In time, she marries another man who cares for and loves her.

    Will not God's mercy override this woman's plight?  Out of necessity she divorces her husband.  If God made allowances for David and his men when they were famished, if he made allowances for the Jews when, out of mercy, they pulled an ox out of the ditch on their Sabbath, thus violating the Sabbath, will he not make allowances for those caught up in tumultuous martial relationships?  After all, He is a merciful God!

—Buff.

::amen!::  and how many Christian women have been destroyed from the inside out (heart, spirit soul) and/or maimed or murdered because another Christian or someone from the church told them they would be sinning if they tried to help themselves by separating from the abuser and the broken marriage.  Marriages do not become broken only after a divorce- they have already been broken by one or both spouses before the papers of divorce are sought.

One of the primary keys to healthy relationships is the individuals having strong personal boundaries.  Sadly, the church for centuries has focused it's attention on being anti-divorce and anti-remarriage, instead of being pro-marriage.  By being anti-divorce, the church has not enabled people, especially women, to have strong personal boundaries; instead they've been taught to, in effect, allow abuse and thus enable the abusers. 

To have a healthy relationship, couples must be enabled to hold eachother accountable for their attitudes and actions towards one another.  They must be enabled to draw a line and say "No more.  You cannot continue to have a relationship with me if you ....." 

Surely if a man repeatedly rapes his wife that is sexual immorality?That is a Biblical reason for divorce anyway.
I dont think many would suggest that someone shouldnt seperate from their spouse if they are truly abusive and they are in danger,.however maybe seperating from someone is a different issue from divorcing and remarrying?

Also maybe we need to remeber that abuse, emotional abuse especially, is also carried out by women as well as men. (I am female by the way). I have know women who are controlling, manipulative and extreemly bossy, and then they wonder why their husband withdraws emotionally and gets frustrated with them. A controlling and manipulative person is very hard to live with whether they are male or female.

Another point is that there a a few people, and I know one of them, who have played the emotional abuse card to get rid of their spouse, especially if they have met someone else and have no other reason as a Christian to divorce their spouse. True emotional abuse in its worst form is terrible, but that word can be misused  with little reason to convince themselves that they can divorce someone for their own selfish reasons. The reason given in the case I know of was that their spouse didnt meet their 'emotional needs'. (no one person can ever meet all of our emotional needs anyway, only God can do that).The person they divorced hasnt got an abusive bone in his body, and I should know, because I am the  lucky person who very very happliy married to him.
 

Let me ask this again, if you shoot your husband in the back with a shotgun, can you remarry?

Goodness knows, you had better ask God!
Mind you, I wouldnt want to be the person that you married!

: Reformer  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 15:15:27

: Bonnie  Thu Sep 11, 2008 - 17:03:18

God gave us commands on His will for us and marriage.  We should stop expecting this life to be all it can be and realize we are here as pilgrims and strangers with a great calling from on high.  Everything else takes a back seat to it.

God Bless

    I hear you, Bonnie.  Here are a few other thoughts on divorce & remarriage.   In Matthew 19:9, Jesus gives one cause for divorce and remarriage, unfaithfulness or adultery. There's some question whether "adultery" in this passage refers to a sexual act with another person or the actual breaking of the marriage vow—or both. I am not discussing this phase of the subject at this time. Rather, I wish to lay before you the idea that God makes allowances in cases of necessity and mercy.

    Permit me to make the application to a case involving marriage, divorce, and remarriage. A husband comes home late at night, intoxicated, and demands sex of his wife of 20 years. When she refuses, he physically abuses and rapes her. Out of concern for their four children, she endures his drinking problem and abuses. For 20 long years she puts up with him while trying to make a good home for the family.

    Finally, she cannot take his abuses any longer. She leaves him, taking the kids with her. She refuses to return. And he refuses to seek help for his problems—and continues to drink as heavily as before. When the wife sees that no change in his behavior is forthcoming, she divorces him. No adultery has been committed. Out of necessity she divorces her husband. Under the circumstances, she has no other choice. In time, she marries another man who cares for and loves her.

    Will not God's mercy override this woman's plight?  Out of necessity she divorces her husband.  If God made allowances for David and his men when they were famished, if he made allowances for the Jews when, out of mercy, they pulled an ox out of the ditch on their Sabbath, thus violating the Sabbath, will he not make allowances for those caught up in tumultuous martial relationships?  After all, He is a merciful God!

—Buff.

Buff, this is a sad case and my heart goes out to any woman or man who suffers from physical or verbal abuse.  I would say get away before something worse comes along or you are killed.

I don't like to get involved in a what if case and make judgments.  I think a woman like this needs the counsel of her Pastor.  If they're not Christians the Word of God doesn't apply to them anyway for they are carnal minded and not subject to His commands.

Blessings

: HRoberson  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:16:56
Let me ask this again, if you shoot your husband in the back with a shotgun, can you remarry?

You're talking about willfil sin and the trampling underfoot of the blood of Christ.  A serious matter.

: Bonnie  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:30:49

: HRoberson  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:16:56
Let me ask this again, if you shoot your husband in the back with a shotgun, can you remarry?

You're talking about willfil sin and the trampling underfoot of the blood of Christ.  A serious matter.

Yes, yes.

But can you remarry?

: HRoberson  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:39:27

: Bonnie  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:30:49

: HRoberson  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:16:56
Let me ask this again, if you shoot your husband in the back with a shotgun, can you remarry?

You're talking about willfil sin and the trampling underfoot of the blood of Christ.  A serious matter.

Yes, yes.

But can you remarry?

I'm not sure you are still a Christian at that point.
Why be concerned about remarrying?

: HRoberson  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:16:56
Let me ask this again, if you shoot your husband in the back with a shotgun, can you remarry?

Mind you the question doesnt really apply as the one who shot their husband would be in jail , probaly for life, so would be highly umlikely to remrry.

: HRoberson  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:16:56
Let me ask this again, if you shoot your husband in the back with a shotgun, can you remarry?

Do you thnk God would really want you to marry again, when you have murderd one husband already?
If you are a Christian, its highly unlikey that you would shoot anyone anyway, and if you arent, the Bible teachings dont apply to you as such.

: chosenone  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 18:18:10

: HRoberson  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 17:16:56
Let me ask this again, if you shoot your husband in the back with a shotgun, can you remarry?

Do you thnk God would really want you to marry again, when you have murderd one husband already?
If you are a Christian, its highly unlikey that you would shoot anyone anyway, and if you arent, the Bible teachings dont apply to you as such.

::amen!::

Choosenone (are you Obama rofl)  any way you said
Mind you the question doesnt really apply as the one who shot their husband would be in jail , probaly for life, so would be highly umlikely to remrry.

Not true.  Mass murders get marriage offers all the time and marry while in jail.

Are we placing  a "Yoke on your neck that neither your are your fathers were able to bear"?

I've personally known God fearing Christian people who will actually admit that they actually believe that if someone cheats on a spouse and repents they can not marry but if someone murders a spouse and repents they can marry because their spouse is dead.  There are folks who believe this.  Is there anyone hear that believes that?

: Johnb  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 18:24:00
Choosenone (are you Obama rofl)  any way you said
Mind you the question doesnt really apply as the one who shot their husband would be in jail , probaly for life, so would be highly umlikely to remrry.

Not true.  Mass murders get marriage offers all the time and marry while in jail.

Are we placing  a "Yoke on your neck that neither your are your fathers were able to bear"?

Dont know anything much about Obama.I'm not even American and I dont live there.

yes, thats weird that many women in particular want to marry murderers who are in prison.Why do they do that?

Not sure if we are talking about a Christian who has murdered their spouse, but if not then none of this applies anyway and if we are I cant see why God would find another husband for someone who has murdered their first one!

: Serenity432001  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 18:27:19
I've personally known God fearing Christian people who will actually admit that they actually believe that if someone cheats on a spouse and repents they can not marry but if someone murders a spouse and repents they can marry because their spouse is dead.  There are folks who believe this.  Is there anyone hear that believes that?

I think that murdering someone is surely more serious that cheating on them, although they are both terrible things to do.

Bonnie while we are pointing out "clear text".  What about "suffer not a woman to teach or preach.."

Now think about the logic of your position.  Under the law (that had to be kept perfectly for one to be justified)  God allowed divorce. But under the law of grace where the blood of Christ flows both backward and forward; one gets a divorce for other than adultery or murder they will be without hope??  Does not fit anything I know about Jesus!

: Johnb  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 18:35:55
Bonnie while we are pointing out "clear text".  What about "suffer not a woman to teach or preach.."

Now think about the logic of your position.  Under the law (that had to be kept perfectly for one to be justified)  God allowed divorce. But under the law of grace where the blood of Christ flows both backward and forward; one gets a divorce for other than adultery or murder they will be without hope??  Does not fit anything I know about Jesus!

Are you asking two questions  ???

yes.

: Johnb  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 18:35:55
Bonnie while we are pointing out "clear text".  What about "suffer not a woman to teach or preach.."

Now think about the logic of your position.  Under the law (that had to be kept perfectly for one to be justified)  God allowed divorce. But under the law of grace where the blood of Christ flows both backward and forward; one gets a divorce for other than adultery or murder they will be without hope??  Does not fit anything I know about Jesus!

A woman isn't suppose to take the authority over a man, such as Pastor.  Is that what you want to know?

No one could keep the law.  That's why they sacrificed yearly.  God gave man what he wanted because of the hardness of his heart; but He never intended it to be so.

He still does that today.

Bonnie
My point is that if you are going to take a legalistic literal view of all scripture it has to be consistant.  I am a former CoC preacher.  I can remember having to either have a woman bus driver or a man teaching the children on the bus.  This was because if a man was driving and a woman was teaching she was usurping his authority.  What you do on this board would clearly be teaching to men therefore under the literal view you would be usurping authority.  (Not my view but that of the conservative CoC)

I agree that God's wants one man and one woman together for life  (by the way I have been married to the same woman for 40 years)  However it is also God's will that we not sin and that we be obedient.  However, we know that we will sin and not be obedient in all things.  We have the grace of God and the blood of Christ that covers our short commings and sin.  The view that you and others posting here make divorce and remarriage unforgivale sin.

: Johnb  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 19:05:19
Bonnie
My point is that if you are going to take a legalistic literal view of all scripture it has to be consistant.  I am a former CoC preacher.  I can remember having to either have a woman bus driver or a man teaching the children on the bus.  This was because if a man was driving and a woman was teaching she was usurping his authority.  What you do on this board would clearly be teaching to men therefore under the literal view you would be usurping authority.  (Not my view but that of the conservative CoC)

I agree that God's wants one man and one woman together for life  (by the way I have been married to the same woman for 40 years)  However it is also God's will that we not sin and that we be obedient.  However, we know that we will sin and not be obedient in all things.  We have the grace of God and the blood of Christ that covers our short commings and sin.  The view that you and others posting here make divorce and remarriage unforgivale sin.

I disagree that discussing on this forum is usurping the authority of a man.

I don't say divorce and remarriage is unforgivable.  I say that Christians are taking a chance by doing it because it is wilful sin the same as murder, stealing, etc., are.  Too many are making it to easy to just cast off.

::clappingoverhead:: Congrats! on your long marriage.   ::applause::

Bonnie said
I disagree that discussing on this forum is usurping the authority of a man.

I agree I was giving the traditiona CoC view.  But then I now attend where we have women elders.


I don't say divorce and remarriage is unforgivable.  I say that Christians are taking a chance by doing it because it is wilful sin the same as murder, stealing, etc., are.  Too many are making it to easy to just cast off.

If a murder or a thief comes to Christ will they be forgivin?  If they were a Christian and ask God forgiveness would they be forgiven?  Sure they would so why is divorce and remarriage any different?

  Congrats! on your long marriage.


Thanks.   

: Johnb  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 19:28:47
Bonnie said
I disagree that discussing on this forum is usurping the authority of a man.

I agree I was giving the traditiona CoC view.  But then I now attend where we have women elders.


I don't say divorce and remarriage is unforgivable.  I say that Christians are taking a chance by doing it because it is wilful sin the same as murder, stealing, etc., are.  Too many are making it to easy to just cast off.

If a murder or a thief comes to Christ will they be forgivin?  If they were a Christian and ask God forgiveness would they be forgiven?  Sure they would so why is divorce and remarriage any different?

  Congrats! on your long marriage.


Thanks.  

To make it short ~ I'm not a believer of OSAS or any such doctrine that teaches we can sin all we want and it's okay.

Bonnie said
To make it short ~ I'm not a believer of OSAS or any such doctrine that teaches we can sin all we want and it's okay.

Me either.  God wants us to do our best help others and live as good a life as we can.  But we will fall short in many areas and will always need God's grace.

: Johnb  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 19:58:29
Bonnie said
To make it short ~ I'm not a believer of OSAS or any such doctrine that teaches we can sin all we want and it's okay.

Me either.  God wants us to do our best help others and live as good a life as we can.  But we will fall short in many areas and will always need God's grace.

::amen::

: Serenity432001  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 18:27:19
I've personally known God fearing Christian people who will actually admit that they actually believe that if someone cheats on a spouse and repents they can not marry but if someone murders a spouse and repents they can marry because their spouse is dead.  There are folks who believe this.  Is there anyone hear that believes that?

Which was my point.

We strain at gnats (the adulterer can't remarry -ever) but swallow camels because we do not grasp God.

: HRoberson  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 21:30:55

: Serenity432001  Fri Sep 12, 2008 - 18:27:19
I've personally known God fearing Christian people who will actually admit that they actually believe that if someone cheats on a spouse and repents they can not marry but if someone murders a spouse and repents they can marry because their spouse is dead.  There are folks who believe this.  Is there anyone hear that believes that?

Which was my point.

We strain at gnats (the adulterer can't remarry -ever) but swallow camels because we do not grasp God.

::amen!::

     There's some question as to whether or not Jesus addressed sexual adultery in Matthew 19:9. You may be acquainted with Olan Hicks. He is expertly versed on this subject. He says in one of his  Newsletters:

    "Jesus, in citing a case of a man committing adultery [Matt. 19:9], specified two actions: 1) putting away a faithful wife and 2) marrying another. It is covenant breaking, yes, but it is done by leaving one and going to another—not by leaving only.

    "When Israel 'committed adultery' against God, they did two things: 1) broke their covenant with God and 2) joined themselves to idols. The man in Matthew 19:9 does the same two things: 1) breaks his covenant with his wife and 2) goes to another wife. Jesus said that is adultery."

    Yes, as brother Hicks indicates, adultery is committed even prior to marrying the second woman. "Adultery" is not always associated with sex. A believer is guilty of spiritual adultery when he breaks his covenant with God and places his allegiance in the things of this world. As Olan pointed out, the nation of Israel was guilty of adultery when she left God and joined herself to idols.

    I might add that the man who divorces his wife without justifiable cause and marries another woman cannot commit adultery with the woman he has just married. Sexual adultery is not committed with someone we're married to. And Jesus recognized that the two are married when He said,  "...and marries another woman" (Matt. 19:9).

      Remember the woman at the well? Jesus said she had had five husbands. Why didn't He say, "You've had six men in your life, but only one was your husband. You've been shacking up with the other five."  No! Rather, He recognized the truth that she had had five husbands, and she was only shacking up with her current male friend. The point is: God hates divorce, but He recognizes legal marriages.

    The man in Matthew 19:9 sinned by leaving his wife and joining himself to another. There's no issue at this point. The adultery occurred when he divorced his first wife—that is, he broke the marital covenant. It is not an unpardonable sin. Sexual adultery did not occur when he married his second wife and went to bed with her. The adultery had already been committed when he divorced his first wife.

    Then when does a married man and/or woman commit sexual adultery? When either one has sexual relations with another person while married to his/her spouse.

     But what about Romans 7:2?  "By law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage."    

    The man is no longer her husband if she has divorced him or he has divorced her. And if they are divorced, regardless of the cause, and each marries again, they are truly married to their second spouse. And if married (and Jesus recognized this fact in Matthew 19:9), they cannot commit adultery with their current spouses.

—Buff.

Good post Buff.

: Reformer  Sat Sep 13, 2008 - 15:33:01

More On Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage  

     There's some question as to whether or not Jesus addressed sexual adultery in Matthew 19:9. You may be acquainted with Olan Hicks. He is expertly versed on this subject. He says in one of his  Newsletters:

    "Jesus, in citing a case of a man committing adultery [Matt. 19:9], specified two actions: 1) putting away a faithful wife and 2) marrying another. It is covenant breaking, yes, but it is done by leaving one and going to another—not by leaving only.

    "When Israel 'committed adultery' against God, they did two things: 1) broke their covenant with God and 2) joined themselves to idols. The man in Matthew 19:9 does the same two things: 1) breaks his covenant with his wife and 2) goes to another wife. Jesus said that is adultery."

    Yes, as brother Hicks indicates, adultery is committed even prior to marrying the second woman. "Adultery" is not always associated with sex. A believer is guilty of spiritual adultery when he breaks his covenant with God and places his allegiance in the things of this world. As Olan pointed out, the nation of Israel was guilty of adultery when she left God and joined herself to idols.

    I might add that the man who divorces his wife without justifiable cause and marries another woman cannot commit adultery with the woman he has just married. Sexual adultery is not committed with someone we're married to. And Jesus recognized that the two are married when He said,  "...and marries another woman" (Matt. 19:9).

      Remember the woman at the well? Jesus said she had had five husbands. Why didn't He say, "You've had six men in your life, but only one was your husband. You've been shacking up with the other five."  No! Rather, He recognized the truth that she had had five husbands, and she was only shacking up with her current male friend. The point is: God hates divorce, but He recognizes legal marriages.

    The man in Matthew 19:9 sinned by leaving his wife and joining himself to another. There's no issue at this point. The adultery occurred when he divorced his first wife—that is, he broke the marital covenant. It is not an unpardonable sin. Sexual adultery did not occur when he married his second wife and went to bed with her. The adultery had already been committed when he divorced his first wife.

    Then when does a married man and/or woman commit sexual adultery? When either one has sexual relations with another person while married to his/her spouse.

     But what about Romans 7:2?  "By law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage."    

    The man is no longer her husband if she has divorced him or he has divorced her. And if they are divorced, regardless of the cause, and each marries again, they are truly married to their second spouse. And if married (and Jesus recognized this fact in Matthew 19:9), they cannot commit adultery with their current spouses.

—Buff.

The word used in the Bible passage about divorce as in 'except for adultery' is in fact 'pornea' so the theory above about adultery not being sexual (or not just being sexual) is surely wrong. Pornea means sexual immorality such as adultery, fornication, homosexual sex, and other such sexual sins.

yes, Jesus does recognise the lady at the well's marriages,(and I love that story) but that doesnt mean that she should have married that many times (of course we dont know the reasons for the marriages not lasting)or that God approved of what she had done.

Of course we can , in civil law, get married and and divorced as many times as we like for whatever reason, but surely that doesnt mean that this is right with God? We are supposed to be trying to obey what He says about this and other things in our lives.

Adultery. or 'pornea' can be fogiven of course as can divorcing someone for selfish reasons, but these things have consequenses, and isnt it possible that one of them MAY be that we arent able to marry again?   
If we murder someone we can be forgiven, but it doesnt bring that dead person back to life and it doeant mean that we wont have to spend most of our lives in prison paying for dong it. So why do we see adultery so lightly. It may not be murder, but it still extreemly serious in Gods sight, and it the ultimate betrayal for the spouse.
There are consequenses for everything we do.

Do people think that if someone thought that by cheating on their spouse and divorcing they would have to remain unmarried that less would do it? Do you also think that if someone was considering divorcing their spouse for selfish reasons, they would think twice of they knew that they couldnt remarry? I do.

We also have to remember that before Jesus came the punishment for those who committed adultery was generally to be stoned to death. That is how serious God saw that betrayal. We seem to have played down the absolute seriousness of it, maybe as it is so common now and doesnt shock anymore. Could this be why The Bible indicates that this is the only reason for a divorce?
If God saw it as something that should be punished by death, then its maybe not surprising that the consequenses of doing it may be that we will never be able to remarry.

As I've pointed out in previous posts on Mt.19, the passage is often torn from its cultural, historical, and literary context and interpreted to mean something Jesus never intended.  Mos people misunderstand this scripture because they do not understand:

1. The trap in vs. 3 was about the "any-matter" debate over civil law - "No-fault" divorce procedures and philosophies.  The original question/trap did not have anything to do with acceptable reasons for divorce, though that is how it is commonly mistranslated.  Rather, it would be better translated (thought for thought) as "Some Pharisees came to Him to test Him saying, "Is No-fault divorce the right way to go (or should we stick with traditional divorce showing cause?"

Jesus illudes the trap and replies affirming the divine ideal for marriage, refusing to get sucked into a debate about civil law, and in essense saying that they should be more concerned about helping people's marriages last instead of arguing over divorce procedures.

2. Jesus repeatedly fully endorsed the Law, saying that not the least letter or vowel mark would disappear until heaven and earth come to an end.  Thus Jesus fully endorsed the Mosaic bill of divorce too. 

3. People often fail to not the in Mt. 19, the Pharisees ask Jesus another question, "Why then did Moses give the bill of divorce?"  To which Jesus replies with 2 reasons why Moses was inspired by God to legislate the bill of divorce.

Reason 1 - the transcultural reason - the hardness of heart.  Sometimes, though it is not what God intends or desires for his loved ones, one or both of a couple harden their hearts against their spouse.  Thus in order to prevent greater hardening, and to hold eachother accountable for their actions, divorce is a necessary evil kind like amputation.  If your leg is full of gangrene, amputation can save your life; but you certainly don't want to go around hacking legs off.

Reason 2 - to stop the ancient near-eastern cultural practice of men expelling their wives and thus causing them to commit adultery and the men that marry such expelled wives from committing adultery.  It stopped this common practice by providing a proper legal end to an otherwise broken marriage, freeing the woman to marry another man legally and not fear being reclaimed by her "ex"-husband. 

4.  The "except for fornication" clause is not about acceptable reasons for divorce, the whole passage is not about that; rather, it is a reference to illegal relationships that don't need a bill of divorce because they are not legal to begin with.  And it likely alludes to the adulterous relationship between Herod and Herodias (Herod's brother, Phillip's wife).  The same relationship that John the Baptist lost his head over.

So it was a trap to get Jesus to loose his head over too.  The traditional doctrine that Jesus wished to repudiate the bill of divorce, make marriage indissoluble, and thus remarriage an impossibility is completely unscriptural.  Jesus affirmed the divine ideal for marriage as a life-long loving monogomous covenant relationship between a man and a woman; but He did not in any way indicate that marriage was indissoluble or a divorce' could not remarry!

For a longer review of Mt. 19 look at post #19 on this thread.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php/topic,20182.15.html (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php/topic,20182.15.html)

P.S.  The Mark 10 passage is very different with a very different message as noted too in a previous post on this thread!  Mark wrote to a Greco-Roman audience who had no such thing as a bill of divorce and a free woman could initiate a divorce as easily as a free man simply by leaving.  Of course, the rules for slaves was different.  The key point of Marks passage is that if either a man or a woman leaves their spouse so that, or in order to, marry someone else, they are committing adultery.  Jesus spoke concerning the attitude of one's heart, condemning selfish motives for divorce. But here too He does not forbid remarriage.  Remarriage was just not an issue.

"Law of the husband