Christian Forums

Wily
I think the article you referred to was either written by John Edwards or quoted from his book, Marriage and Divorce. You are right a better translation of "commits adultery" is "has been adulterated." That person is not doing the wrong, but is being wrong.
In Jer 3:6-10 God refers to Israel's unfaithfulness to him as adultery, and that had nothing to do with sex. Adultery is the violation of a covenant. Physical abuse is a violation of the marriage covenant and would qualify for divorce. There is so much more to this subject than the simplistic treatment we normally give it.
Sorry I get upset when I see people being mistreated in the name of God!!!
Johnny

I tried to copy  certain portions of the reply above and was unsuccessful.

I have not read the past replies to this question, but from my studies, His helpmeet has a pretty good summary of the teaching.

Adultery is the breaking of a covenant.  If we break the covenant with our first spouse for reasons other than what God has permitted and form another covenant, that is an adulterous relationship.  And we have no right to it.  Repentence requires change. goes hand in hand with forgiveness.
The Corinthians had much to repent of and Paul wrote:
II Cor. 7:8ff: Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it.  Though I did regret it - I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while - yet now I am happy, not because you you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance.  For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.  See what this Godly sorrow has produced in you:  

what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness just to see justice done...  

Repentance requires change of action.  If we are in an adulterous relationship (a new marriage recognized by men or otherwise) we have no right to be in, Godly sorrow would produce and eagerness to clear ourselves.  We would have to leave the adulterous relationship.  That is evidence of repentance.  This is not like returning a candy bar or paying for something you stole from an antiques shop years before as it involves excruciating pain. Faith (and repentance) does result in obedience and sometimes unbearable pain in executing that obedience.  I imagine Abraham knew something of the pain that sometimes goes along with obedience on his way to sacrifice his boy, Isaac.

I realize anything can happen in our lives, but it is so important to teach from the pulpit and in our homes God's instruction on MDR.

MaSouth

Jones518,

You got it my friend,  to me this is reasonable thinking.

Although I used to hold the more traditional veiw on this subject I have sence changed my mind because I could not reconsile some questions?       Just a couple.

Matt. 5.32 How can a woman be "causeth to commit adultery"?   Lets see....man divorces woman..woman commits adultery?

Why is it that so many Christians think that its ok to divorce as long as they never remarry?

The only thing I can think of, is a bad translation.

Our God is a reasonable God.  All children of God are taught by God.  His word, is, put in the hands of men as it was first spoken to men.  Christianity is a thinking religion.  Words, Grammar is nothing more nor less than the organized presentation of thought.      If it doesn't make sense, then I'm going to have a hard time with it.

In Him,
Bubba :)

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Bubba @ May 28 2002,6:16)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Why is it that so many Christians think that its ok to divorce as long as they never remarry?[/quote]
Or (real world situation) think you may live seperately as single people yet think you are blessed because you have not divorced.

I know of a couple that seperated 15 or 20 years ago as members of the church. They now live 120 miles apart from each other and do not speak or communicate and have not for more than a decade. The wife had filed for a divorce at one point but his legal manuevering ran the costs up so high that she finally gave up and dropped the suit. She had to give up her wish of having children because she could never be free from him.

The situation is nearly identical to why God told Moses to have the people give the wife a certificate of divorce.

This same man objected to a man who had been divorced, remarried and then came to God serving the communion trays.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Arkstfan @ May 29 2002,12:14)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Angi, hate to wade back in here but...

God only asked Abraham to offer his son. He did not take his son.

Remember the story of the rich man in Mark 10? Did Jesus want him to sell all he owned or just be willing to? Did he demand he give it up or was he demanding that the man place following Jesus higher on the scale of importance than having his riches?

In Acts 5 Peter is quite clear that Ananias and Sapphira could have sold their property and kept some or all of the money if they wished but their sin was lying and claiming they were giving all.

We are ALL called to that level of devotion to Christ. God is supposed to be a our first love and the one we will follow if forced to choose but I do not think God has told us that the remarried must break a covenant. Instead I think you go back to what Paul said and if your spouse is willing to stay with you then you should stay with them. If they are not willing to stay with you as a Christian then you have to choose and you have to choose God.[/quote]
Abraham did not know that though. He was willing to make the sacrifice.  Be willing to make the sacrifice of the life with your mate if it is what God says do.  

The rich young man showed he did not put Christ there BECAUSE he was not willing to part with the riches.  He did not go away justified.  Christ demands that we stop committing the works of the flesh, adultery being one of them, you either show that you put Him up there by stopping, or show that you don't uphold Him by not stopping.

Our devotion is shown by our willingness to obey Him.  No matter the cost.

His helpmeet:  

Having already covered most of these verses in context--which makes them say quite different things--I will ask a simple question.  If we are under law, why does Paul say straight out "we are not under law but under grace?" (Romans 6).

A couple of quick notes on some of the verses that haven't been discussed.

As to Hebrews 7, read to the end of the chapter.  The writer never mentions a new law being put into place, but the last verse says "For the law appoints as high priests those who are weak, but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever."

Did you catch that phrase?  "After the law?"  Sounds like law's over doesn't it.  As a matter of fact, in the next chapter, we are told what the law has been replaced with--a covenant written on our hearts!! This is wonderful, exciting stuff.  Grasping it has made such a difference in my life.

1 Timothy 1 says straight out the law only applies to those who oppose God.

As to James--we've talked about this before.  Whenever the Bible talks about "The Law of Christ" it makes it clear that it's not a written code.  Here it's referred to as the law that gives freedom!  The whole book of James is dedicated to the concept that following Jesus changes our whole lives.

What is lawlessness?  It is opposition to God. It is turning our backs on God and living as we please.  This is contrasted in The Bible not with lawkeeping, but with living by the Spirit.

Human definitions just don't cut it.

You are the one promoting false teachings, MG.  
If you spent as much time promoting expository investigation
of Matt 19:9 as you do salvation/baptism etc you would
come to the same conclusion as these liberals.  

Ace 2

Hey,

Bell is Buddy Bell of Landmark C of C in Montgomery, Alabama.
He is an awesome minister for the Lord and I personally have never heard anything that is not straight form the bible preached by that man.  He was branded as teaching baptism is not essential for salvation which is a LIE.  He has a 4 tape series on baptism that you can obtain from this congregation that was preached maybe 11 months ago.  He has requested in these taped sermons that when you hear people spreading this lie to encourage them to seek truth and get the series.  Things like this man has suggested are NOT from God.  End of discussion.

GGGG US

Charlie,
Repentance would first require a clear understanding of what the sin was - Breaking covenant/vows & divorcing is the sin.  Upon understanding their sin repentance would be turning away from that option in the future.  One who repents of divorce would enter a new marriage with the determination never to divorce again.  

I do not have Moody's sources for his background on "adultery."  I did do a word study on the word and its related forms & confirmed generally 5 ways it is used in the Bible.  The overall, uniform meaning appears to be unfaithfulness, breaking covenant.  

Wiley,
Reference the continuous action verses a one time act of "adultery," I found the following article that basically said that the greek does not prove & can't be proof of a continuous action (as I heard years ago):  Osburn, Carroll D. "The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9." Restoration Quarterly 24, no.4, 1981.  Article on-line. Available from http://www.rq.acu.edu/Volume_024/r q02404osburn.htm.
Internet.  

Even though breaking any marriage vow would be unfaithfulness (adultery), those acts of unfaithfulness are not grounds for divorce (Something some tend to assume).  Matt.19:9 makes clear the only Scriptural grounds for divorce is sexual infidelity.

ikearcher

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (His_helpmeet @ May 25 2002,6:07)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I was wondering if we could separate the individual parts of the problem in the MDR equation.

Beginning with divorce.  I believe we would agree for the most part that to divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality is sin.  So we have a couple. Mr and Mrs Smith.  She decides that she does not want to be married to Mr Smith anymore, so she asks for a divorce. He says ok.  They get divorced just 'cuz.  So we have a situation where sin is involved - the divorce for a reason other than sexual immorality.  Now can she ask forgiveness for this when she realizes her error? Sure she can.  But does it change the fact that she divorced for a reason other than sexual immorality? I don't believe that repentance and forgiveness changes history.  You are no longer still held accountable for the sin that you have been forgiven of, but there may yet be circumstances that still stand.  For example a man takes a candy bar without paying for it.  Whether it was intentional or not doesn't really matter.  He later realizes the sin of taking the candy bar with paying for it.  He asks forgiveness for doing this and is forgiven because he is truly sorrowful over his choice.  Does this change the fact that he stole the candy bar?  No it does not.  He still has a responsibility to correct his wrong with the person who he wronged (the store, owner, whatever).  He can either take the candy bar back or go back and pay for it.  His forgiveness does not change the fact that it is stolen property.   So what can Mrs Smith do about the situation she has created?  If she now realizes the importance God places upon the marriage relationship, she may be able to work out the difficulties she felt and then attempt to go back to her husband.  This is the man to whom she is bound as far as God is concerned, no matter what the law (man's) says.  Because Jesus said do not divorce unless for sexual immorality.  She may not be able to go back to Mr Smith, but to truly repent of the act she needs to attempt to turn away from the act by offering what is due to Mr Smith.  If this can't be done, then she has an option to remain unmarried (1Cor 7).

Now, next step.  Mrs Smith gets divorce for whatever reason.  She attempted to go back to Mr Smith, but he would not have her.  Now according to Paul, she must remain unmarried (1Cor 7:11).  A few years later she meets Mr. Wonderful.   She is so in love with him, she is lonely and would like for her life to be fulfilled.  She has forgotten the teaching of 1Cor 7:11, so she agrees to marry Mr Wonderful.  But let's remember she has been divorced for a reason other than sexual immorality.  She was forgiven of the sin in making the choice.  But this has left her a divorced woman who divorced for reasons other than sexual immorality. Her forgiveness does not change her position.  But now she has remarried.  According to Christ she is committing adultery with Mr Wonderful and so is Mr Wonderful committing adultery with her.  She has something that is due the Mr Smith (whether he wants it or not) (1Cor 7:3-5).  What Mr Smith wishes does not change what Christ commanded.  Now Mrs Smith-Wonderful gets her Bible back out and realizes that she is committing adultery by having sexual relations as husband and wife with Mr Wonderful.  What can she do to correct this?  She is truly sorrowful over her actions.  Well, if being married to Mr Wonderful and being his wife means they are both committing adultery (Matt.5:32; Matt 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Rom 7:1-3 and others), then this must come to an end.  She can ask for forgiveness (confession) but she can not repent without turning from the sin of adultery.  No more than Paul could not have repented and then continued to murder Christians or demand circumcision of Gentile believers.  There must be a change in behavior as well as attitude. The behavior shows the attitude.  If Mr Wonderful is too wonderful to give up so that she might serve Christ then she does not truly serve Christ. Luke 14:26.

I believe the scriptures show this clearly.  Why do we want to change what Christ said so clearly?  It may difficult, but He did not promise us a bed of roses.  In fact He promised us much difficulty in our endeavor to serve Him.  Our desire to serve Him is shown in our dedication to obedience in all things.[/quote]

Quote

In Matt.19, when it talks aboout marriage, something really stood out for me a couple months ago. 19:11 "Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but ONLY for those whom it has been given.'"   Interesting verse, huh?

seekr

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (His_helpmeet @ May 28 2002,4:42)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Please understand, I don't say this without my heartbreaking at the thought of the confusion that will come from such a circumstance.  I am married, and I have two lovely girls. I can understand the emotions that motivate us to think "But He can't really expect that of us." But if He expected Abraham to offer his son on the altar,( and our faith is to be patterned after Abraham's) so that He might test Abraham's faith, why would He not expect the same type of gut renching sacrifice from us if need be? Christ gave His life for us, is too much to ask that we may have to give up some things in this life for Him?  These are the things that tear at me.  

His_helpmeet[/quote]
Angi, hate to wade back in here but...

God only asked Abraham to offer his son. He did not take his son.

Remember the story of the rich man in Mark 10? Did Jesus want him to sell all he owned or just be willing to? Did he demand he give it up or was he demanding that the man place following Jesus higher on the scale of importance than having his riches?

In Acts 5 Peter is quite clear that Ananias and Sapphira could have sold their property and kept some or all of the money if they wished but their sin was lying and claiming they were giving all.

We are ALL called to that level of devotion to Christ. God is supposed to be a our first love and the one we will follow if forced to choose but I do not think God has told us that the remarried must break a covenant. Instead I think you go back to what Paul said and if your spouse is willing to stay with you then you should stay with them. If they are not willing to stay with you as a Christian then you have to choose and you have to choose God.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Arkstfan @ May 29 2002,12:23)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The relationship of David and Bathsheba occurs to me. The relationship WAS WRONG. The Bible is clear about that. David had no right to be married to her yet he did it any way.

Their first child died. But their unlawful union produced Solomon and eventually God took human form as a descendant of the unlawful union.

If Husband divorces Wife 1, marries Wife 2 and has children what is the message sent to the children if Husband leaves Wife 2? They are illegimate (which actually used to carry a stigma) children? They are taught that if they had been born 2000 or so years earlier under the law of Moses that they could still live with their Daddy but God so loved the world that he sent his son so that their Daddy would have to live someplace else.[/quote]
After the death of her husband, she was free to marry David. Their marriage wasn't wrong. It was all the things that transpired to bring it about.  Their adultery was wrong, the murder was wrong.

Angi,
I'm borrowing from a previous post from Jonesy. Until I learn how to do that quote in a box thing that you all do I will have to do the old fashioned cut and paste way. Here it is.

"Are you married? Do not seek a divorce (Gk, lusin = dissolve a marriage bond). Are you unmarried (Gk, lelusin = already in the situation of having dissolved a marriage bond)? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned . . ." (1 Cor. 7:27-28a).

I know that we have seen the argument that the phrase concerning "Are you loosed", could have multiple meanings, but even in the multiple meanings, it reads the same.  

On 1Tim3: I have a problem with this referring to divorced or widowed men. Nowhere else in scripture are these people being referred to as "husband of more than one wife." They are either said to be widowed, divorced, or married. I believe that this is a classic example of where misguided bible teachers twist a simple scripture in order for the scripture to fit their preconceived ideas of who is in the church and who isn't. They are convinced that the church was made up of one-man one-woman households only. All polygamist certainly would have reduced their households to one wife and all divorced and remarried couples would have certainly got new divorces in order to make the church the perfect family place that we have always been told it is. From this logic, we get crazy arguments about whether or not a widower who is remarried can serve as an elder. And don't even mention a divorced man serving in this capacity. We have come to the conclusion that no polygamist families were in the church because since God requires all divorced and remarried couples to seek new divorces this would most certainly include those who came to the Lord with their five wives. At least this is our human logic of the scriptures. However, we still have Paul saying to remain in the (marriage) situation you were in when called to the Lord. I believe that these families understood what God desired with marriage because polygamy quickly died out in the church.

Also, even if this is not referring to polygamy you stated that it could be divorced and remarried men. If this is true we still have to face the fact that there were divorced and remarried men in the church (Christ body). No one told them to dissolve their unscriptural marriage, only to not seek the eldership. However, given the culture, and the style of writing, I believe it is more likely to be men married to multiple wives at the same time.
take care,
terry

Does anyone care about biblical authority? Matt 19:9 plainly says there is only one reason for divorce. Sure , society says anything at all is reason enough but God makes it clear through His word, fornication only. Death of a spouse, of course, re-marriage is allowed. How many times in the old and new testaments has God shown that He will not tolerate deviations from His instruction? Look in 2 Chron. 26  Uzziah thought he could do as he wanted because he had been blessed greatly by God in years past but he was punished. In Lev. 10:1-2 Nadab and Abihu followed all rules except  for the strange fire they offered. The whole book of Lev. tells of God's instruction on offerings (when -what -where - how) Where the fire comes from would seem trivial to me but the fact is God expects His will to be followed not ours. Some say God is a loving God and would not allow us to be lost. He is a loving God, to be sure, He provided us a way of salvation but He is also a "just God" which implies laws, rules, hence      justice. Why would I be so bold (arrogant) to say God will let me do things differently than was done in the first century church. Jude 1:3 says the faith was once delivered, that means it will not change and no other faith will be delivered to us. James 2:10 says if a man keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point he is 'guilty of all'. If you are guilty of all will you go to heaven? Why don't we just do what God says and keep our opinions out of it?   You say that is harsh ( a favorite word of the liberals) well, the bible is full of examples of God destroying those who chose the ways of man instead of His way. I think the fact that God killed transgressors was harsh but I know He did and that is sufficient for me to know He means what He says.
This site and the liberals who promote such  Shelly- Cope- Beam- Bell -Lucado and the like are going to have to bear a tremendous load of responsiblity for the souls they have led astray. I would never sleep again if I were guilty of contributing to such mass apostasy. My prayer would be they would turn to sound publications such as the Gospel Journal and even better how about the BIBLE!

Hey,

Bell is Buddy Bell of Landmark C of C in Montgomery, Alabama.
He is an awesome minister for the Lord and I personally have never heard anything that is not straight form the bible preached by that man.  He was branded as teaching baptism is not essential for salvation which is a LIE.  He has a 4 tape series on baptism that you can obtain form this congregation that was preached maybe 11 months ago.  He has requested in these taped sermons that when you hear people spreading this lie to encourage them to seek truth and get the series.  Things like this man has suggested are NOT form God.  End of discusion.

GGGG US

Ikearcher,

I read an article a couple of years back (I guess) in Wineskin Magazine dealing with 'adultry" and the greek translation.  It was a different view to say the least.  I looked for that particular magazine so I could quote the article exactly but couldn't find where I put it.  It may have been one of the magazines I loaned to the elders of the CoC that used to be close to the house.  I think they must have used my magazines for bird cage paper  because they never came home and nothing was ever said as to where they went to!
Mostly what I did hear was not complimentary toward Wineskins or some of their writers.  Anyway, the writer said that a close study of the Greek regarding Jesus' teaching about divorce showed translation tense problems in regards to the divorced party committing adultry or being caused to committ adultry.  His view was that a better translation of Greek would be to say "causes the person that was divorced to be adultrated" rather than commit adultery.  If that view is correct, then the "adulterated" view becomes a one time thing rather than a continuous action and the emphasis is removed from the sexual sin issue and put on the marriage vows that were broken.

BTW, I agree with those thoughts on adultery being a broader issue than just the sexual sin and the marriage being adulterated by the introduction of sexual sin, the introduction of physical or mental abuse, and other actions that would break the vows of marriage.

Maybe someone on the forum has that article still and can give a more accurate discription of what it said.

Wiley

Thank you everyone for your imput.  This is a wonderful board for discussion.

For several reasons, I have to disagree with the dissolving a second marriage.  One reason is that when Jesus taught, he had not yet risen from the dead, completing the gospel , thus starting the New Covenant.  Another reason  is because of Jesus reaction to the woman who had five husbands and whose last man was not her husband (John ).  Another reason is because Jesus says in Sermon on the Mount that lusting after a woman is the same as committing adultry(Matt 5). Another reason is because of King David and God's approval of him , and God's approval of many other good kings, wives and all. Another reason is that Paul has added further teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 in regards to an unbelieving spouse leaving , let him do so and  lastly ,but most importantly because we are under the law of the spirit of life in Chirst.

If someone is told that they must undo a marriage , it must be made in view of Paul's teachings in Romans :
Romans 4: 15 because  law brings wrath. And where there is no law, there is no transgression."
And Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace-."
And Romans 7:4 "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

To understand Romans properly is to understand that being a Christian is  a matter of allowing ourselves   to be transformed by his Spirit, with a repentant heart .

Missionaries have told stories about converting tribesman in Papa New Gunia who had many wives and children, all dependant on the husband.  Which relationship would he then end ?  
Galatians 3:12 "The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."
Galatians 5 "15 "The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
How would putting away a second marriage fufil the law of love?  
             Thanks for your responses,
              Good conversation,
              Lauren

Not every one is born into a christian family, not everyone has the same opportunity to be raised in a two parent coc family.  There are perhaps millions of children who are in nonchristian dysfunctional families.  They have parents who have been married and divorced and would consider this as a normal way of life.  Children of such families quite possibly would enter into marriage with an attitude of oh well if it doesn't work out I can always get a divorce.  You see, the playing field is not always a level.

Now if a person who was raised in such a family and who had been divorced and remarried and while in that second or third marriage repented of his sin and had become a Christian , What is to become of him/her.  Will she/he be eternally lost, because they were unscriptually divorced and remarried, of course not.  Paul said to remain in the state that you were in when you became a believer.  I would be willing to bet that there were a few MDR'S in the Corinthian Church.

The Cross levels the playing field and gives meaning to what Jesus said in one of the parables when he said to inivite  to the  feast the lame, the blind, the poor; in other words, the spiritually bankrupt those who know they need a saviour.      

Worst case scenario, the MDR person is living in a state of sin, but arn't we all living in a state of sin--Masouth, His help meet, Mrbill need to ask for forgiveness every day unless we claim to have no sin.  In the same way all who are christians are living in a state of grace and all need that grace every day including MaSouth, His helpmeet,Mrbill who much to his shame is an MDR. Listen, we don't come to Christ because we have stopped sinning, we come to Christ because we are sinners who need his Grace and need his Grace every day. Just as the song says that we love to sing "Just as I am without one plea but that thou blood was shed for me".

If David was not justified by Grace then should all the MDR's go out and murder their exspouses and then seek forgiveness, of course not --that is absurd.  The only answer is God's mercy and grace.

mrbill

Help Meet,
One other thing I wanted to mention is that your scriptures read just as you have read them from the Bible.  But they also must be understood in view of the whole Bible , including grace oriented books such as Romans and Galatians. They must fit together as a whole for the child of God who is not under law (Romans 6 )but under grace.
Lauren

The relationship of David and Bathsheba occurs to me. The relationship WAS WRONG. The Bible is clear about that. David had no right to be married to her yet he did it any way.

Their first child died. But their unlawful union produced Solomon and eventually God took human form as a descendant of the unlawful union.

If Husband divorces Wife 1, marries Wife 2 and has children what is the message sent to the children if Husband leaves Wife 2? They are illegimate (which actually used to carry a stigma) children? They are taught that if they had been born 2000 or so years earlier under the law of Moses that they could still live with their Daddy but God so loved the world that he sent his son so that their Daddy would have to live someplace else.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (terry @ May 30 2002,3:35)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I don't condone divorce. In fact, I think there is way too much of it that could be prevented if churches would be supportive towards struggling families instead of condeming. However, it is not up to me to say that someone must divorce again to undo the first divorce in order to receive their salvation. I would only encourage someone to study, fast, and pray. The Holy Spirit can tell them much better what to do than I can. Or do you still think this guidance would lead to an emotional complication?[/quote]
terry,

I believe the Holy Spirit guides by the word He provided.  He does not intervene with answers different than the scriptures.  So if the answer from the Holy Spirit is motivated by emotions and can not be confirmed by scriptures then I do believe that would be error.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (terry @ June 01 2002,5:03)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Angi,
So are you saying that Timothy made an error in his letter? That the only people in the church were men who were married only one time to one partner? It seems if this were the case than he wouldn not have given specific instructions for only men who were the husband of one wife to aspire to the eldership. This statement implies that there were men in the church who had more than one wife. Otherwise, to make this statement would just be useless and silly.
terry[/quote]
More than one wife. Divorced then married to another.  Widowed then married to another.

Polygamy being different than adultery, I have not really thought of polygamy being a condoned behavior.  That circumstance in particular I do need to study more on.  I have thus far been dealing with adultery.  Let me study on the polygamy thing, and I'll get back to you.

Angi

Mg,
I'd like to think my way is the only way to look at things also. It takes getting beyond what "my congregation teaches", dictionaries, men's opinion of Greek and Hebrew, what my parents taught me when I was growing up, figuring things out on my own (w/o God)and the commentaries of men to grow in understanding the word.  An evaluation of MDR should consider the whole of God's revelation (including the O.T, Romans, and Galatians) and why  God considered righteous the holy polygamists of old(Abraham, David, Jacob, the good kings ect..), in their polygamist state without any repentance displayed by them or without any repentance asked for by God  on the polygamists part.  

Have a good day
Lauren.


Lauren

guess I'm going to have to teach my old fingers how to spell adultery since they keep wanting to spell it like a Texas country boy says it :>)

Wiley

Thank you everyone for your imput.  This is a wonderful board for discussion.

For several reasons, I have to disagree with the dissolving a second marriage.  One reason is that when Jesus taught, he had not yet risen from the dead, completing the gospel , thus starting the New Covenant.  Another reason  is because of Jesus reaction to the woman who had five husbands and whose last man was not her husband (John ).  Another reason is because Jesus says in Sermon on the Mount that lusting after a woman is the same as committing adultry(Matt 5). Another reason is because of King David and God's approval of him , and God's approval of many other good kings, wives and all. Another reason is that Paul has added further teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 in regards to an unbelieving spouse leaving , let him do so and  lastly ,but most importantly because we are under the law of the spirit of life in Chirst.

If someone is told that they must undo a marriage , it must be made in view of Paul's teachings in Romans :
Romans 4: 15 because  law brings wrath. And where there is no law, there is no transgression."
And Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace-."
And Romans 7:4 "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

To understand Romans properly is to understand that being a Christian is  a matter of allowing ourselves   to be transformed by his Spirit, with a repentant heart .

Missionaries have told stories about converting tribesman in Papa New Gunia who had many wives and children, all dependant on the husband.  Which relationship would he then end ?  
Galatians 3:12 "The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."
Galatians 5 "15 "The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
How would putting away a second marriage fufil the law of love?  
             Thanks for your responses,
              Good conversation,
              Lauren

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (His_helpmeet @ May 28 2002,11:29)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]ark,

" 'To suggest that there is one sin, the sin of adultery, for which Jesus' blood is insufficient is sacrilege.' "


Where has anyone ever said such a thing?  I can at least say that I know I have not said such.  The fact that adultery is obviously used in specific application to the marriage BED (1Cor 7) then every time that bed is entered with one you have no right to be with then adultery is committed again.  It's only continual as long as you continue in it.  Does that make sense?  When you ask forgiveness for killing someone today, that does not cover the sin you commit next week, or next year by killing someone else.  Adultery just tends to be repeated more frequently.[/quote]
Angi, the language you quoted as coming from me clearly did not as I pointed out it was from a paper written by someone else.

I will not continue in this discussion with you because you I have wasted too much bandwidth here and elsewhere on this topic. You will not convince me that Jesus words are to be translated so that a person is bound for life to one spouse when they have married another and that his blood is insufficient to grant the new husband and wife a new life.

To demand destruction of the very thing God demands be protected is to create demands that are contrary to love and forgiveness and contrary to all else he has done.

terry (and His-helpmeet),

According to your description, the first wife wanted a career.  If she is the one who broke the covenant- wanted the divorce, then my understanding is she is the guilty party and the man is free to marry.  He is no longer obligated.

MaSouth

Amen Ark, very well put.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ May 30 2002,11:16)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I've been away from the computer for a couple of days, and planned to just let this drop, but I had to respond to this:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]married to another-to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."
        Dead to one law that we might be married to another (law)[/quote]

That's not what Paul says.  He doesn't say married to another law--let's not insert words.  He says married to another-to Him who was raised from the dead.  He explains this point blank.

Just like in Galatians.  From law to relationship.  No longer married to law, but married to Christ.

Yep, Paul told the Romans the same thing he told the Galatians.  He told them "we are not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:15--in the context of being slaves to righteousness and not using freedom as an excuse to sin.  Just like in Galatians).  And just after the verse you quote, in chapter 7, he says "we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."  And again in chapter 8 we hear about this "law of Christ" and see it's quite a different animal.   "In Christ Jesus The law of the spirit of life has set me free from the law of sin and death."  And then "And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit."

That law stuff, that "You sin you die", that condemnation, that's all over now.  The only "new law" is the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ.  Not a written law.  Not a set of commandments.  A relationship to God throught the Spirit living in us (8:9-17).

What is often more important than harmonizing scriptures is reading them in context.

Yet I understand; we have heard this old law/new law stuff so long we are convinced it's scripture, even though it is not found in the Bible.[/quote]
Marc,

Do you believe that it is acceptable to be a drunk, a liar, a thief, a murderer... etc?  Because God's grace covers all things?

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ June 01 2002,5:11)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]HIs Helpmeet--

This all goes back to lawkeeping, doesn't it?  We keep wanting to create law, even though God told us we no longer live under law.

Whenever asked to present a scripture that says something, instead you present a scripture that says something that if viewed or turned just the right way must say what you want it to say.

God doesn't work that way.  He says what He means.

I think a key to why this conversation is going nowhere is back in the reply where you suggested that worshipping with an instrument was just as important as atonement. This implies a complete disregarding of grace.  It implies trying to live by law, or as Paul put it, having begun by the Spirit, then trying to be saved by human effort.

So much is being said that the Bible never said.  Second marriages must be abandoned.  "one wife" means never having divorced.  Think a minute about the meaning of the word divorce.  It means to end a marriage.  To end it!  That's the sin, and that is also the reality.  If the marriage weren't ended, there would be no sin!  Yet if the marrage has been ended, the man no longer has a wife.  And if he marries again, then none plus one equals one--he then has one wife.

Much has also been said by many people regarding this issue, but I get the idea you are seriously considering little of it.  You refuse to even read an article, yet dismiss it as man's word and slander the author.  Perhaps considering others point of view is a good idea.

You may believe that the way you read the Bible is the only valid way, but I would ask you to consider your own humanity.  You mentioned earlier you don't believe in the continued work of the Spirit outside of the word.  Then consider this:  you are a human.  You bring a life full of experiences, of doctrines, of teachings of personal preferences to the Bible.  As an imperfect human, these things will affect the way you read the scriptures.  The same is true with any of us.  The scriptures are infallable, but our reading of the scriptures is not.

I would suggest a serious re-reading of the entire New Testament.  Try to clear your mind of previous opinions and just let the scriptures speak to you.  See whether this is a book of law or the revelation of the One whom we submit ourselves to.  Any one of us who does this honestly will likely find several verses we have mis-read and several opinions we have formed that aren't based as solidly on scripture as we think.  Personally, doing this has changed my life. And I know that when I do this again I will find many other new teaching I had never considered--just as I do nearly every day.

We all need to approach the scriptures with humility.  Only when we do this can God mold us into what we need to be.

I do not mean this to sound condescending.  Quite the opposite--I say this because I realize how little I know, yet how much I once thought I knew. No one on this board believes he has arrived.  We all talk things out and consider the others' point of view.  I have learned much from the others here, and will continue to do so.  If you open your heart, I believe you will also.[/quote]
Marc,

I appreciate your comments.  And I will endeavor to do as you suggest.  But it does not come back to lawkeeping. It comes back to God's grace teaching me to live a certain way, and my faith in Christ is SHOWN by my obedience. Any one of those parts by itself is nothing.  I've posted some other verses in reference to one of your other posts.  I'll give you time to look at those.

I do have one question.  Can you be forgiven of anything if you do not stop it?  I know what you said about everything else, but I still have not been told how forgiveness covers adultery while we are still doing what is adultery.  It's this point that makes it difficult for me to consider the other arguments in contrast to what the scriptures say.  I still put forth that if it is adultery to be married to someone else after you have been divorced from someone, then the only way to not be in adultery is to not be with that second person.  Please explain, as I am trying to understand, how that can come about any other way.

As to Rubel Shelly, I have read many of his sermons/articles and such.  And I often agree with him. On the doctrine. But I differ with him mainly in that I believe there can be only one doctrine/faith/gospel, and we can not have fellowship with any other.  I have not said anything that I can't show why I believe it of him from his own words.

If he is teaching truth, then his being spoken against should be something people glory in, because it is persecution for the Lord.  


I'm off for the evening, take care.

Angi

OldDad

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Shelly and Lucado, I know...Beam, I'm just getting to know...But now I've GOT to know who Cope and Bell are!  However, the "Gospel Journal" I couldn't care less about, so there breaks my analogy.[/quote]

Cope is Mike Cope, pulpit minister at Highland CoC in Abilene,TX,  and co-editor of "New Wineskins Magazine" (shares that position with Rubel Shelly!).  I don't know who Bell is, he's a new one to me.  Guess we owe MG thanks for giving us a new name to look into.  My youngest daughter worships at Highland (when she isn't back here  :) ) and really loves it.  If you can't find the web related sites of Highland and New Wineskins, I have their links on my web site links page at http://www.clarksons.org/links.html.  Check them out.

Wiley

That is sickening. That is not what Christianity is about.

Charlie,

In regards to divorce & remarriage we also need to examine Mal.2:14-16 & Mark 10:2-12 (specifically v 11) in connection with Matt.19:1-12.

In dealing with divorce-remarriage:
- We need to understand that divorce is the sin, not remarriage.  As with all sin, when God forbids something that does not mean it can not be done. Murder is forbidden, yet men kill.  When they do it is a sin.
- The ideal that God does not recognize divorce & the ideal of being "still married in God's eyes" is not in Scripture, but comes from RCC council of Trent in 16th century.  Matt.19:6 does not say "you can not separate (you can't divorce), it says "let no man separate (do not divorce)."
- We also need to have an understanding of what "adultery" means.  There are numerous reasons to dismiss the traditional definition of adultery & to define it according to what scripture describes - "unfaithfulness", generally.  A specific application of adultery would be unfaithfulness to any covenant men make, including a marriage bond.  Adultery can take place by non-sexual & sexual infidelity.
- It is also significant to know that all English bible translations before the time of the RCC Council of Trent translated "adultery" along the lines of "breaking wedlock."  Tyndale's NT of 1526 is still available in print.
- With matt.19:6 clarified to say that we are not to divorce & a proper understanding of "adultery," all the contradictions between the hardline traditional approach with other passages, such as 1 Cor.7 are cleared up.  I think the whole matter revolves around - What is the sin & what is the Biblical meaning of Adultery.
- If we take Matt 19:10-12 in context with the preceding verses we see that Jesus defines marriage as a choice.  He neither commanded men to marry, nor did He command anyone not to marry.

To your question as to how to deal with divorce & remarriage -

- First we need to help them to understand that God intends one man for one woman for life.  That is His ideal.  
- They need to understand that divorce is sin, not marriage (note: "remarriage" is not in scripture).
- Sin, including divorce is forgivable by the blood of Christ.  To deny divorce as forgivable is to deny the power of the cross & place a condition upon men to perform to be saved or remain saved, and that I believe is adding a work to salvation, which is strongly condemned by Paul in Galatians.
- Finally, upon their understanding & repentance, we must accept them back in fellowship, there are no second class Christians.

We should focus our efforts on saving troubled marriage, not placing judgmental penalties upon their backs.  Gen.2:18 - The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

I spent 9 mo studying this & presented 4 lessons based in Matt.19:1-12. I found Olan Hick's information helpful, along with tapes of Randy Moody.  If you are interested I have 4 sermons in pdf format & a list of my sources I could email to you.

I hope this helps & spurs some thought.

In Christ,
Ikearcher

Charlie,

Reconciling question 1:
- In ref. to Matt.19:9, consider Mark 10:11, which describes the act of adultery as being against the spouse that was divorced.  This would support the "unfaithfulness