Which Authority Structure is over issues concerning MDR?

[Sherman Nobles]

I'm wrestling through the following and would appreciate everyone's input.

Foundational assumptions as Christians:
     
1) ALL authority comes from God and every aspect of life is under God's ultimate authority. 
     
2) God has delegated authority to mankind that can be divided into the following: the family (domestic), the church (ecclesial), national and local governments (civil), and individual (personal). 

Of these, which one, or combination, governs issues concerning MDR, biblically speaking? 

Who says who can marry whom?  Is a couple married though they did not get a marriage license?  Is marriage completely a personal decision?  Is a couple married if they aren't married by a minister, pastor, or priest?  Can a minister marry a couple apart from civil authority? Does a couple need anyone (minister or judge) to marry them for it to be a viable marriage and not just shacking up? 

Concerning divorce, is it purely a personal decision? What is the role of the church? What is the role of the civil government?  What about remarriage?  What about polygamy or polyandry?

These are just a few of the questions that we can wrestle through on this thread.

Thanks,
Sherman

P.S. The foundational concepts of the Traditional Doctrine of marriage and divorce were clearly expressed in the sixteenth century at the Counsel of Trent (AD 1546–1565).  At that time marriage was affirmed to be a sacrament, under the auspices (authority and control) of the Church, and, once solemnized (performed with formal religious rites) indissoluble until death.  Though most Protestant churches do strictly affirm this doctrine, the influence of this doctrine still permeates every denomination.  Is MDR under the auspices (authority and control) of the church?

[david johnson]

Who says who can marry whom?  i find most folks rely upon themselves within the context of what is the prevalent practice within their culture
Is a couple married though they did not get a marriage license?  yes
Is marriage completely a personal decision?   i don't have a reference frame to answer the question
Is a couple married if they aren't married by a minister, pastor, or priest?  can be
Can a minister marry a couple apart from civil authority?  i would accept that, but there can be resulting legal problems.  it's wiser to work within the acceptable legal frameworks.
Does a couple need anyone (minister or judge) to marry them for it to be a viable marriage and not just shacking up?  i do not think so.  isn't that a common-law marriage if it goes on for a set number of years?

Concerning divorce, is it purely a personal decision?  who else makes the decision?  i have a friend whose wife rapidly succumbed to the problems of Alzheimer's disease and was soon placed in the state hospital for mental patients.  after the guy visited several weekends, her dr. explained that she was quickly gone and would never know he was around or even whom she was.  he said they could expedite her care more efficiently if the husband divorced the spouse and let the social system take over.  that's what he did.  i think it was personal, but on the advice of a dr. and for the better care of his spouse.
What is the role of the church?  to realize that they can offer and provide valuable care during this time 
What is the role of the civil government?  to ensure things are done legally
What about remarriage?  you have to make up your own mind
What about polygamy or polyandry?  who the heck wants more than one spouse at a time!

Is MDR under the auspices (authority and control) of the church?  heck, no.  they can advise only.

dj

[Sherman Nobles]

Ok, so what's your scriptural support/reasoning for your answers? 

[david johnson]

the answers are mostly what i've noticed.  which do you want support for?
can't see that i have to support 'who the heck wants more than one spouse at a time!'
if you want more than one, i'll be glad to read your scriptures.

dj

[Sherman Nobles]

David, ultimately what I'm seeking to understand more is which authority is over MDR; personal, domestic, religious, or civil.  From your responses to the individual questions it seems that you lean towards MDR being primarily a personal issue with little if any oversight by either religious or civil authority. Do I understand you correctly? And if so, how do you come to that general conclusion scripturally?

[david johnson]

i see.  i guess we weren't on the same channel.  sorry.

civil authorities i've been around (usa) insure marriages are within the acceptance of the legal system w/proper legal forms and registrations.  i assume each nation has a similar procedure.  civil govt. dosen't usually feel the need to base it's operations upon the bible, hence they will allow procedures as legal with which many christians would not agree.  that doesn't make things 'right', just legal.
is there a scripture that forces a christian to accept or oppose this state of affairs?  i don't think so,  it's just the way it is.  bible verses verify that we should both 'render caesar his due' and 'obey God rather than man'.
we must be aware of how things work and realize the legal isn't always proper for christians.

that's only one question, i know.  is that what you
are interested in?

dj

[HRoberson]

I'm wrestling through the following and would appreciate everyone's input.

Foundational assumptions as Christians:
     
1) ALL authority comes from God and every aspect of life is under God's ultimate authority. 
     
2) God has delegated authority to mankind that can be divided into the following: the family (domestic), the church (ecclesial), national and local governments (civil), and individual (personal). 

Of these, which one, or combination, governs issues concerning MDR, biblically speaking? 

Who says who can marry whom?  Is a couple married though they did not get a marriage license?  Is marriage completely a personal decision?  Is a couple married if they aren't married by a minister, pastor, or priest?  Can a minister marry a couple apart from civil authority? Does a couple need anyone (minister or judge) to marry them for it to be a viable marriage and not just shacking up? 

Concerning divorce, is it purely a personal decision? What is the role of the church? What is the role of the civil government?  What about remarriage?  What about polygamy or polyandry?

These are just a few of the questions that we can wrestle through on this thread.

Thanks,
Sherman

P.S. The foundational concepts of the Traditional Doctrine of marriage and divorce were clearly expressed in the sixteenth century at the Counsel of Trent (AD 1546–1565).  At that time marriage was affirmed to be a sacrament, under the auspices (authority and control) of the Church, and, once solemnized (performed with formal religious rites) indissoluble until death.  Though most Protestant churches do strictly affirm this doctrine, the influence of this doctrine still permeates every denomination.  Is MDR under the auspices (authority and control) of the church?

Depends, doesn't it?

In some sense, all of life is under the auspices of the church, since Christianity is supposed to be our life, not something we do on weekends, and we live Christianity in community, which is the church. We submit to one another all the time, and we accept correction and encouragement from other Christians all the time.

But, are you married if you've only had a civil ceremony? Yes. Just like having a baby, once you've had one, you've got it. And the church gets to be involved in how you raise that kid. And the church gets to be involved because you've chosen to be married.

Can you be divorced even if the church says 'no?' Of course. Just like you can commit adultery without the church's permission. Doing so though, allows the church to become involved.

[FoC]

I'm wrestling through the following and would appreciate everyone's input.

Foundational assumptions as Christians:
     
1) ALL authority comes from God and every aspect of life is under God's ultimate authority. 
     
2) God has delegated authority to mankind that can be divided into the following: the family (domestic), the church (ecclesial), national and local governments (civil), and individual (personal). 

Of these, which one, or combination, governs issues concerning MDR, biblically speaking? 

My view is and always will be that Gods word is the authority in marriage issues.
A couples reasons are:

-God created 'marriage' in the garden and it is His alone to govern as far as 'permission' to marry and how each partner is to behave.
-what happens when mans law starts defining male/male unions as 'marriage' ?
-what happens when mans law tells a man he cannot marry a woman whom God would permit?

I personally do not believe that man has been given the 'authority' over Gods marriage covenant.

Who says who can marry whom?

Barring other laws being broken....incest, sex with minors, etc, Gods word doesnt give much in the NT as to limitations. Neither should human law be permitted to deny permission since marriage was created by God in the Garden.

Is a couple married though they did not get a marriage license?

For legal purposes as far as the state goes, it depends on the state a person lives in.

My personal view is this: "Lack of a godless governments licensing does not nullify a covenant made to and before God Almighty"

When the states start prosecuting a couple living without making a covenant of marriage to each other while living together in a sexual relationship, then it might be a bit more acceptable for that same state to tell a couple that they MUST get a license in order to live together as man and wife whom HAVE made a life covenant to each other before God.

As it stands few, if any, states will actually complain about a man and woman living together with NO covenant to each other, let alone making a claim as to whether God accepts a covenant of marriage if no license is in place.

Im one of few christians, one of a rapidly growing group, who believe that the church should never have turned our marriages over to government 'supervision'.
There are laws in place that will defend a battered woman or if a man has sex with an underage girl, so I personally dont believe there is a whole lot of need to for the Government to oversee our marriages.

Of course there are issues such as insurance and who my death benefits go to, as well as my estate, so we DO need some legal involvement...and Lord knows that some men will change who their 'wife' is as soon as they find some young woman to run off with, but I dont like this 'permission' nonsense that  says I must go get a license ("permission") to marry.

Ceasar can be involved, as Moses was, when necessary, such as divorce or in the mistreatment of a wife, without being in so great a position as to actually 'define' what 'marriage' is (gay marriages are only a step away).

Is marriage completely a personal decision?

*IF* the man and woman are of an acceptable age (personally, I think 18 is too young to make that decision) then I think it should be completely personal between those two alone.

Is a couple married if they aren't married by a minister, pastor, or priest?

Absolutely.
Marriage is a family affair and never needed priest when God created it. It is a nice custom, but not necessary.

However, I do agree that if one wants their marriage recognized by the state, that they need to follow the states proceedures to get that acknowledgment (ie. licensing).

Can a minister marry a couple apart from civil authority?

Actually there is a growing group of christians who are doing just this. Marrying without state licensing.
Of course the state doesnt have to offer the protections and benefits to these couples that it does with a licensed couple..

Does a couple need anyone (minister or judge) to marry them for it to be a viable marriage and not just shacking up? 

In my opinion GOD is the one who matters.
A man might think he's getting away with covenanting himself to a woman then later running off with little Jane Doe Downthestreet....but just like any other person living in sin, he will answer to God Almighty.

The question that ought to be asked is this.
Does licensing CHANGE a single thing as far as 'shacking up' and this man ditching out on his 'wife' ?
It doenst.
All licensing does is make a LOT of money for crook lawyers who charge some poor woman her entire life savings to divorce this man who bailed out on her 5 years prior with 4 kids and a mortgage.

I have been married three times and I assure everyone here that having that license didnt keep my exs from whoring around on me, didnt keep one of them from trying to take my life, didnt keep them from moving out and in with another man....
All it did was cost me thousands of dollars to get it over with.

It really comes down to one issue.
Are BOTH persons in this union sincere ?
If BOTH are, then its going to work.
If one or both arent, then no license or civil ceremony, and no amount of money is going to make them keep their vows.

Concerning divorce, is it purely a personal decision?

Absolutely.
ive seen cases where a person put on such a great show that NO one around them knew how terrible they were.
My ex wifes brother was convinced that I was the cause of our divorce. You should have heard the list of things she told him that were horrid lies. She was so infuriated when she found out that I had told him the REST of the story that she literally tried to stab me in the kitchen.

Many times only the persons in the marriage actually know what is going on.

What is the role of the church?

Counciling only.
I do not believe the church should have any authority to permit or deny divorce.
Far too many times they have no clue what is actually going on in the home.

What is the role of the civil government?

I dont even want to get started on civil law and divorce.

What about remarriage? 

This is one reason why I feel GODS word must be the authority. Remarriage is simply no big deal to Civil law at all. A man can literally divorce TO remarry some young woman and the law isnt going to condemn the action at all if he can pay for the divorce.
Of course, she can sue for alimony, but somehow that just doesnt seem like enough to me.

What about polygamy or polyandry?

Again, I think Gods word should be the authority.
While these arent out right forbidden, they are presented as not being very desirable in a couple places.

P.S. The foundational concepts of the Traditional Doctrine of marriage and divorce were clearly expressed in the sixteenth century at the Counsel of Trent (AD 1546–1565).  At that time marriage was affirmed to be a sacrament, under the auspices (authority and control) of the Church, and, once solemnized (performed with formal religious rites) indissoluble until death.  Though most Protestant churches do strictly affirm this doctrine, the influence of this doctrine still permeates every denomination.  Is MDR under the auspices (authority and control) of the church?

I dont think the church should have any more control that what is given to them in Gods word in a very clear manner.

[Scoobydoo]

Sherman, greetings

In real time of the first century--in the Greek-Roman world there were four acceptable types and kinds of marriages.

FATHER POWER--Father had total absolute power over family--includes wife and all children male and female.

Again, in our "society" this is unthinkable and we don't

[Sherman Nobles]

Hey everyone, I appreciate your responses. I've swamped and don't have the time this week to respond or ask more questions.

Blessings,
Sherman

[FoC]

Careful study shows no conflicts--none at all

Impossible.

The moment Jesus says 'except' there is technically a 'conflict'.
An exception is, by its very definition, contrary to the general rule....thus an 'EXCEPTion'...ie a 'conflict' against the rule.

Just like when God says 'keep your vows' (an idea taught in a few different places in His word) while turning around in Numbers 30 and offering 'exception' for a woman who is kept from keeping her vows by her father or husband....a definite 'conflict' in the texts, but fully and completely explained and harmonized very easily.

God says marriage is for life....EXCEPT in a case of whoredom. This exception is in conflict with the general rule.
Just as Moses sufferance for divorce was contrary to the rule.....just as Exodus 21 showing an allowance for a wife to leave her husband if he failed to provide for her presented something contrary to 'marriage is for life'.

There is a lot of things in scripture that seem contrary or to be in conflict....Jesus saying that John WAS Elijah (Mat 11:14), while John himself saying he was not (Joh 1:21)....'conflict'.

[OkiMar]

Depends upon which sense the question is asked.  For example, two people may divorce in the State of Texas.  According to the authority of the State, the marriage bond may be legally broken and no longer binding; however, according to God, the two persons may still be married. 

[FoC]

Depends upon which sense the question is asked.  For example, two people may divorce in the State of Texas.  According to the authority of the State, the marriage bond may be legally broken and no longer binding; however, according to God, the two persons may still be married. 

Im just thinking aloud here, but Ive been contemplating if this couple is actually still 'married' if she is put away for no just cause, or if Jesus was simply assigning guilt in Matt 19 concerning this 'for every cause' divorce since the Jews believed that they were not 'guilty' because of Moses suffering them to put their wives away frivolously and not actually assigning any guilt.

I mean, in Matt 19 He says 'and marry another'...the word there meaning precisely that.
In 1 corinthians 7:10-11 (to an equally yoked couple) Paul says if this wife leaves her husband she is to remain 'unmarried' or reconcile to her 'man'(looking at the greek here as well).

The word 'unmarried' there is only used four times in scripture and in every other case the context shows conclusively that it is an 'UNmarried' individual being spoken to or about...(see HERE..go down to 'unmarried').

My views over the last few months have been steering more to the idea that when this spouse is 'put away' with THAT intent of abandoning the marriage, that they ARE indeed 'divorced' if we've followed proper procedure for divorce, and that Jesus isnt dismissing that in Matt 19 at all, but is instead STILL assigning guilt to the situation....that we DO still commit adultery against that spouse if we have put them away 'for every cause' (no just cause at all) and then taken another.
Jesus saying 'and marry another' just doesnt fit if it isnt 'marrying' that we are doing but simply committing adultery.

again, Im just thinking out loud and Im going to keep pondering it alone (ie, not interested in debating or discussing it much) and see if that thought can be harmonized with the whole....

[WileyClarkson]

There is a very interesting study on the "put away" issue that was written by Dyrel W Collins called "Marriage is God's Plan".  It was originally published by Star Bible Publishing but is no longer listed in their catelog.  I highly recommend this study as it looks at the Hebrew and the Greek words used foe divorce and being put away and how these words would have been understood in the 1st Century.  Star Bible is located at http://www.starbible.com/page/page/1906830.htm if you wish to see if they still sell Dryel's study.  I will be happy to send Dryel Collins last published address to you by PM if you wish to order a copy direct from him.  I have had the priviledge to talk with Dryel at ACU Lectureship a couple of times.  Very interesting conversations!

[4Christ]

Depends upon which sense the question is asked.  For example, two people may divorce in the State of Texas.  According to the authority of the State, the marriage bond may be legally broken and no longer binding; however, according to God, the two persons may still be married. 

Im just thinking aloud here, but Ive been contemplating if this couple is actually still 'married' if she is put away for no just cause, or if Jesus was simply assigning guilt in Matt 19 concerning this 'for every cause' divorce since the Jews believed that they were not 'guilty' because of Moses suffering them to put their wives away frivolously and not actually assigning any guilt.

I mean, in Matt 19 He says 'and marry another'...the word there meaning precisely that.
In 1 corinthians 7:10-11 (to an equally yoked couple) Paul says if this wife leaves her husband she is to remain 'unmarried' or reconcile to her 'man'(looking at the greek here as well).

The word 'unmarried' there is only used four times in scripture and in every other case the context shows conclusively that it is an 'UNmarried' individual being spoken to or about...(see HERE..go down to 'unmarried').

My views over the last few months have been steering more to the idea that when this spouse is 'put away' with THAT intent of abandoning the marriage, that they ARE indeed 'divorced' if we've followed proper procedure for divorce, and that Jesus isnt dismissing that in Matt 19 at all, but is instead STILL assigning guilt to the situation....that we DO still commit adultery against that spouse if we have put them away 'for every cause' (no just cause at all) and then taken another.
Jesus saying 'and marry another' just doesnt fit if it isnt 'marrying' that we are doing but simply committing adultery.

again, Im just thinking out loud and Im going to keep pondering it alone (ie, not interested in debating or discussing it much) and see if that thought can be harmonized with the whole....

Hey brother FOC,

I know you don't want to debate, so I won't.  LOL     But I do have a question.  When you write what I have bolded above, are you thinking committing in "ongoing adultery" against the wronged spouse,  or a "one-time" act?

[FoC]

Hey brother FOC,

I know you don't want to debate, so I won't.  LOL     But I do have a question.  When you write what I have bolded above, are you thinking committing in "ongoing adultery" against the wronged spouse,  or a "one-time" act?

Hi 4Christ :)

Actually I believe in both, in a manner of speaking.

Lets say your husband isnt 'sorry' for what he did in your case.
What he did was an 'act' of adultery upon remarrying this woman against you as per Mark 10.

I personally believe that if he isnt sorry about what he did, if he isnt repentant for his sin, how can he be forgiven of it?
If, in his heart, he is perfectly content with the wrong he committed against you, with the adultery he committed against your marriage, then just as any other sin, it simply isnt required of God to forgive.

So, I do believe that, as I said above 'in a manner of speaking', that it is possible for this sin to be an ongoing thing of sorts...altho I do not believe it is like some others believe that it is a 'state' of being, supposedly being defined as such because of the word 'committeth' in the KJV bible. I believe it is 'ongoing' where there is a lack of repentance in a mans heart.

But, as you know, I do not believe that scripture teaches us to tear apart one marriage to reconcile another.
altho, I do not believe it would be an unforgivable sin if that happened, anymore than I believe it is unforgivable to make the first mistake.

What would worry me personally, would be the persons complete lack of concern about the meaning of 'marriage' who could so frivolously cast aside their mate.
Honestly, if my wife did that to me, theres no way I could ever feel trusting enough of her to allow her back into my wife in that way. Id be far to afraid of a repeat, given human nature.
But that is just a personal view of mine that is based on two terrible marriages....

[Scoobydoo]

Greetings,

One of the battles being fought around the beginning of the fourth or fifth century and actually voiced and argued and debated until 1529 and the council of Trent is who has the authority over people and in marriages and divorces.

IN the world of the first century and up till the sixth century--God's control over marriages can be identified here --

Rom 13:1  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Rom 13:6  For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Rom 13:7  Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Most folks do not associate this with the problem of the trational view of MDR today and they do not know that this is a battle fought between civil government and the Roman Catholic Church--who by the way won that battle at the council of Trent.

Marriage became a "sacrament" ruled and governed by the church--not by civil government.

We today who fall into the trap of following along after the thinking of the Catholics on this--Should know and understand that marriages have always been governed by God via the Governments.

One of the harder things for us to grasp is the idea that Matt 19:9 is old Mosaic Covenant--so some cling to the traditional view not understanding covenants and that man is governed by covenants.

This does nothing to negate the thinking of 2 Time 3:16-17 when put in perspective of 2 Tim 2:15.

Scoobydoo

[FoC]

who created marriage, man or God?
Does Gods word give any rules for marriage and how each spouse is supposed to behave?
Is it a 'sin' if we disobey those rules?

Personally, I dont believe that civil govt was ever given the right to oversee Gods marriage unions.
Marriage is a family issue that is overseen by God and His word alone and should have been kept there.

[Sherman Nobles]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for the input.  As I've reviewed the discussion thus far and the revelation of scripture, I've increasingly come to understand that MDR is primarily a personal/domestic issue with limited civil oversight. 

In Israel, Moses established both civil (judges) and religious (priesthood) authority structures. Marriage was primarily a personal/domestic issue as governed by personal and familial morality with limited (very limited) civil oversight.  Even the laws against certain relationships imply the possibility of one breaking the law and establishing illegal and immoral marriage covenants.  So civil authority helped to define and regulate socially acceptable mariage relationships.

When it comes to divorce, this came to be under civil authority, though when one reads Deut.24:1-4, the institution of the bill of divorce, divorce too appears to be primarily a domestic issue, with little, if any, civil oversight.  By the time of Christ, civil law had been defined to such a degree that Rabbis (civil/religious leaders) acted as judges and judicated divorce proceedings.  Under rabbinical leadership, based on a legalistic interpretation of Deut.24.1-4, men had the perogative of divorce, but women did not.  Thus if a woman left her husband who refused to give her a bill of divorce, she had to remain single.  If she did marry, it was not considered a legal/legitimate marriage actually living in adultery.  Of course, this was due to the civil law of the Jewish culture. 

Paul's writings in 1 Cor. 7 also allude to MDR being under civil authority.  Paul actually applies Jesus' words to His Jewish audience concerning divorce to Paul's Greco-Roman audience, noting that Jesus said a "separated" wife must remain unmarried, but gave no such directive to husbands that divorce (only telling them they shouldn't divorce).  In the Greco-Roman world wives could initiate divorce as legally as men, and thus Paul applies Jesus' words to that culture telling both husbands and wives that they should not divorce their spouses, and does not tell women who either divorce or have divorced their husbands to remain unmarried. 

Furthermore, in Israel, I am aware of no scriptural or extra-biblical evidence that suggest that religious authority (the priesthood), before or during the time of Christ, had any authority over MDR. As mentioned in a previous post, the concept that the church had authority over MDR was not officially endorsed in the RCC until the 11th century when marriage was declared to be a sacrament, under the auspices of the Church. 

Relatively few Christians who espouse the traditional doctrine of MDR are willing to critically consider whether or not the church even has the authority to declare who can or who can not marry, divorce, or remarry.  Without such authority, the church is powerless to effect such edicts and thus ends up spending tremendous energy to accomplish nothing, making it's doctrine irrelevant to the everyday lives of people in, much less outside of, the church. 

In conclusion, Moses, Jesus, and Paul all recognized the limited rule of civil authority over MDR, and to my knowledge there is no scriptural precedence for the priesthood having any authority concerning MDR. 

On a seperate note, one of the biggest problems that the traditional doctrine has caused is how it keeps many Christian divorce's from moving on with their lives, especially if the errant spouse was a Christian too.  When a legal divorce occurs, regardless of the reason (moral or immoral), the marriage is oven and both parties are free to move on as they see fit, even if a husband or wife divorced his/her spouse so that he/she could marry another.  Remarriage was not the issue before God, but the motive of the heart(s) that caused the divorce.  Sadly, by teaching that marriage is indissoluble, unbreakable, the one left holding the bag and not being able to move on with his/her life is often the victim, the one that was left who did not want the divorce.  Forgiveness is hard enough, without trying to figure out why the errant spouse seems to go on with his/her life with seemingly little if any negative repercussions for his/her evil actions.  And yet the victim (according to the traditional doctrine) is left and can not seek a new relationship.

Well, I had better go for now.  I've started back to school and thus have little time to correspond.  So please understand if I do not reply to individual posts.

Blessings,
Sherman

[WileyClarkson]

Sherman,

You have gained manna for a great response.      You and I think exactly the same on this issue.  So does Deryl Collins  as he says basically the same thing in his little booklet I recommended earlier.  I suspect it will be a long time, though, before many good Christians realize that the "traditional" view is not the scriptural view.  Those of us who are involved in the gender battle know already how difficult it is to change "traditional" views, no matter how wrong they are, and the MDR issue falls into the same category of degree of difficulty!

[FoC]

When it comes to divorce, this came to be under civil authority, though when one reads Deut.24:1-4, the institution of the bill of divorce, divorce too appears to be primarily a domestic issue, with little, if any, civil oversight.

Its interesting that you deem this as 'civil' when Deuteronomy is quite clearly the 'law' of our God.
Divorce was under Gods law, not mans, as Deuteronomy IS Gods law. It was never turned over to godless Ceaser by God or by His prophets and apostles.
That foolishness was done by us....

Marriage was created by God and is to be governed by HIS law, not mans where it conflicts with His.
Divorce has been explained in His law, and the reasons for divorce also included.
Godless men have no right or authority to override  or supercede HIS law pertaining either to marriage OR divorce....meaning if HE has declared that a divorce is not just, there is nothing ceaser can do to alter that fact.

What bothers me is when men try to take religion out of the marriage just enough to justify divorce where God has said 'NO"....

In conclusion, Moses, Jesus, and Paul all recognized the limited rule of civil authority over MDR, and to my knowledge there is no scriptural precedence for the priesthood having any authority concerning MDR.

I personally dont know of anyone who has made the claim that the priesthood had anything to do with marriage law.
Moses seems to have hade the sole authority during his lifetime, given the laws laid out for whom man may not lie with, and how divorce is to be handled.

While these 'laws' are, as you say, 'civil' in nature....possibly.....they ARE Gods 'law' and thus quite religiously based. We CANNOT remove the spiritual or the religious from marriage because GOD is the one who created it.

[OkiMar]

I believe marriage to be ultimately governed by God.  Neither the Church nor the civil government has the authority to separate what God has joined.  Accordingly, I hold to what some refer to as the "traditional" church of Christ view...once two proper candidates (male and female) are married, they remain married in the sight of God until either 1) death severs the marriage bond or 2) one spouse chooses to put the other away due to marital infidelity. 

[Sherman Nobles]

When it comes to divorce, this came to be under civil authority, though when one reads Deut.24:1-4, the institution of the bill of divorce, divorce too appears to be primarily a domestic issue, with little, if any, civil oversight.

Its interesting that you deem this as 'civil' when Deuteronomy is quite clearly the 'law' of our God.
Divorce was under Gods law, not mans, as Deuteronomy IS Gods law. It was never turned over to godless Ceaser by God or by His prophets and apostles.
That foolishness was done by us....

Marriage was created by God and is to be governed by HIS law, not mans where it conflicts with His.
Divorce has been explained in His law, and the reasons for divorce also included.
Godless men have no right or authority to override  or supercede HIS law pertaining either to marriage OR divorce....meaning if HE has declared that a divorce is not just, there is nothing ceaser can do to alter that fact.

What bothers me is when men try to take religion out of the marriage just enough to justify divorce where God has said 'NO"....

Actually, Deuteronomy is the 2nd recording of the Mosaic Law.  Moses was inspired by God to inact these laws for the people of Israel.  When you say "God's Law", it implies a universality that is not appropriate, imo.  It's wise for all individuals/cultures/governments to respect the Mosaic Law as inspired by God and draw from the Mosaic Law the universal principles that it reveals, but it's wrong to imply that the Mosaic Law can be legalistically applied to all individuals, cultures, nations, and governments.

Furthermore, Moses, as inspired by God, established both civil and religious authority structures for Israel.  Civil authority included local judges and even cities of refuge.  Of course, the Levitical priesthood provided the religious authority of Israel.  Based upon their understanding of Deut.24.1-4, the Jews understood divorce as a civil issue, and not a religious issue.  It is true that all authority comes from God, but God has also delegated authority to man and institutions of man including domestic, civil, and religious authority institutions. 

If one reads Deut.24.1-4, where Moses instituted the bill of divorce, it appears that divorce was a domestic issue and the passage did not delineate either acceptable or non-acceptable reasons.  Also, there seems to be a difference between the two divorces mentioned (though it is not specifically delineated). 

The first divorce, vs.1, being because the man's wife "finds no favor in his eyes, because he found a matter of uncleaness in her".  This one implies some negative characteristic of the wife, something the man found displeasing.  It's unlikely that it was anything of a sexual nature for such issues were handled specifically via other laws.  And it's also important to note that Moses was very specific when he intended to be specific. However in this verse his wording is non-specific. 

The second divorce mentioned in vs. 3 was because the man detested/hated his wife, apparently due to the man's negative attitude and not some negative action or character flaw of the wife.

Whether this verse reflects a then current view of morally acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for divorce, or this verse influenced the Jews to understand two classes of divorce is not known.  But it's important to understand that the Jews came to classify divorce into two categories, divorce in general and "hateful divorces" (those based on selfish, morally unacceptable reasons).  And it's also important to recognize that whether divorce was based on morally acceptable reasons or morally non-acceptable reasons (the hateful divorce), that divorce ended the marriage covenant and relationship in the eyes of men and God.

Also, you said, "What bothers me is when men try to take religion out of the marriage just enough to justify divorce where God has said 'NO"."  The amount of "religion" that is involved in a marriage is determined by how much "religion" the couple brings to the marriage.  If marriage/divorce is not governed by the church then "justifying" divorce is between the individual, God, and civil authority, and not for the church to judge or declare as either just or unjust.   Divorce is always tragic and most often is sin (imo), but divorce is not always in and of itself sin.  Divorce always is the result of the hardness of heart; it is always the result of sin, though divorce itself is not necessarily sin in itself.

Not only that, but many churches and church leaders, acting under assumed illegitimate authority has sat in seats of judgement and tried to judge specific divorces as either just or unjust.  This practice has caused much trouble in the church and in people's lives.  The church has no resposibility to or authority to sit in judgement concerning divorce.  Ultimately, only God knows what goes on behind closed doors between a married couple. 

In conclusion, Moses, Jesus, and Paul all recognized the limited rule of civil authority over MDR, and to my knowledge there is no scriptural precedence for the priesthood having any authority concerning MDR.

I personally dont know of anyone who has made the claim that the priesthood had anything to do with marriage law.
Moses seems to have hade the sole authority during his lifetime, given the laws laid out for whom man may not lie with, and how divorce is to be handled.

While these 'laws' are, as you say, 'civil' in nature....possibly.....they ARE Gods 'law' and thus quite religiously based. We CANNOT remove the spiritual or the religious from marriage because GOD is the one who created it.

I agree that we can't remove the spiritual or the religious from marriage, but that does not mean that the church or church leadeship should attempt to control, legislate, or judge MDR.  The church's role is to empower people to lead godly lives and have lasting marriages and healthy families. But too often the church has attempted to control and judge people, overstepping their biblical authority and oppressing the very people they are called to serve!

Back around the 11th century, the church errantly assumed authority that it did not have biblically, declaring that marriage was a sacrament, under ecclesial authority, and indissoluble.  Each of these points is unscriptural. 

Marriage is not a sacrament. It is not a means of grace. It is a covenant.  Also, it is not a divine covenant, but a human covenant and thus only as strong as the character of the covenantors.  Furthermore, the marriages of unbelieving heathens are just as valid and real as the marriages of Christians.

Marriage is certainly not under ecclesial authority, but under limited civil authority, scripturally speaking. I discussed this in depth already.

And marriage is not indissoluble, but is very breakable.  Marriages shouldn't be broken, but sadly often are.  And the church should stop trying to control people and focuse rather on empowering people.

[Sherman Nobles]

I believe marriage to be ultimately governed by God.  Neither the Church nor the civil government has the authority to separate what God has joined.  Accordingly, I hold to what some refer to as the "traditional" church of Christ view...once two proper candidates (male and female) are married, they remain married in the sight of God until either 1) death severs the marriage bond or 2) one spouse chooses to put the other away due to marital infidelity. 

All of life is ultimately governed by God and we are all responsible before God individually, but that does not negate the fact that God has also instituted both civil, religious, and domestic (family) authority structures.  Concerning what "God has joined together,"  Jesus said "what God has joined together, let not man put assunder."  The "let not" (a conditional negative) is to be understood as "should not" recognizing that man can tear apart what God has joined together, though we shouldn't.   It is not an absolute negative, as in it's impossible for man to tear apart what God has joined together.   Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble.

Also note that it recognizes that "man" is capable of breaking apart what even God has joined together, though man shouldn't.    Marriages break apart - reality. The church needs to empower people to have healthy relationships, lasting marriages, and freedom from false religious bondage (which the tradtional doctrine is). 

[FoC]

I agree that we can't remove the spiritual or the religious from marriage, but that does not mean that the church or church leadeship should attempt to control, legislate, or judge MDR.

On this point we surely will agree. There are far too many rogue flocks out there who would damn an innocent woman to actually STAY with her abusive husband, even to the point if dying at his hands if he so felt the urge.
This group is probably the sickest body of 'christians' Ive ever seen, and thank the Lord not too great in numbers.

i believe that the choice to marry, the choice to divorce and the choice to remarry is entirely up to the individual.
If the marriage is outright condemned as sin in the law, such as not taking our brothers wife, or our fathers brother, then I do not think the church has any right to condemn the marriage as unlawful.

if the local body cannot discern truth in the matter, and reject the repentance of someone who may have done wrong, and then try to forced a second divorce, then they should simply ask the person to leave their congregation.

I personally am eager for judgment day because of this whole MDR matter. Im eager to see the responses of those standing before the Lord who are guilty of causing a brother and sister an unjust divorce by using fear tactics to cause them to do so.
Maybe that says something negative about me, so be it. But Im really sick of seeing a few trying to tear down marriages that Christ has permitted. And honestly, I want those who have done so held responsible instead of those they lied to and tricked into divorcing (are you reading this 56ford?)

[Sherman Nobles]

I'm suprised that no one has really promoted the church as having authority of MDR.  And for those who haven't read the thread on "Divorce, MDR, & Mt.19", I encourage you to do so. It's an interesting read, especially what my posts!   

[Scoobydoo]

Sherman, greetings,

you stated

I'm suprised that no one has really promoted the church as having authority of MDR.  And for those who haven't read the thread on "Divorce, MDR, & Mt.19", I encourage you to do so. It's an interesting read, especially what my posts!   

My observation--I have known over the last 20 years or so--just a few who were willing to state that the church had authority over marriages--since that is clearly and distinctly a Roman Catholic Church concept and application.

Scoobydoo

[Sherman Nobles]

Sadly, to my knowledge, few, if any, evangelical or protestant pastors or theologians that hold to the traditional doctrine have thought through the issue of authority even though it is foundational to the doctrine of MDR.  If the church does not have the authority to declare who can or cannot marry, divorce, or remarry, then it is powerless to either enforce its related edicts or judgements.  That's why when the Catholic Church decided to rule over such and declare that marriage is indissoluble it could only do so where it wielded civil authority.  Even then it had to in some way facilitate the breakup of marriages; it did this by "annulment" rather than divorce.  I believe their intentions were good - to strengthen marriage and family; however, their means were twisted - usurping civil and individual authority and redifining marriage as a sacrament. 

[Scoobydoo]

Sherman greetings,

you states

Sadly, to my knowledge, few, if any, evangelical or protestant pastors or theologians that hold to the traditional doctrine have thought through the issue of authority even though it is foundational to the doctrine of MDR.

My response--It is, I believe that around 595-60506 AD that the man just prior to the first pope took a look around and asked the question: Who has the authority?

Romans 13 is pretty clear that the government has been given juristriction over such matters by God. Note, I did not say they always did a good job because they did not.

The church does not control the world and unfortunately, the church is more influenced by the world than the other way around.

you stated..

If the church does not have the authority to declare who can or cannot marry, divorce, or remarry, then it is powerless to either enforce its related edicts or judgements.

My question--where in scripture can we find such authority? God never gave the church such authority--and if He had, why stop with just this issue?

If the church is the authority--which church? When was the Lord's church ever given such authority?

you stated

That's why when the Catholic Church decided to rule over such and declare that marriage is indissoluble it could only do so where it wielded civil authority.

My response--Are you familiar with Martin Buccer? He lived during and after the council of Trent where this finally became law--RCC law.

To the best of my knowledge this power is still working in RCC churches across the world. And, they do not control the USA.

you stated

Even then it had to in some way facilitate the breakup of marriages; it did this by "annulment" rather than divorce.  I believe their intentions were good - to strengthen marriage and family; however, their means were twisted - usurping civil and individual authority and redifining marriage as a sacrament.

My response--I disagree--they have made literally billions and billions over this control of people and yes, they did usurp civil authority over this when they redined marriage as a sacrament. 

Scoobydoo

[Sherman Nobles]

Scoobydoo,

I'm not familiar with Martin Buccer; I look forward to studing more of church history in years to come.   

[Scoobydoo]

Sherman, greetings

Also, I just thought of another man, John Milton, the poet--He has a full volume in the middle of his poems on this issue.

There is another person--one of the greatest hebrew scholars ever--last name of Fagan, I think, He and Martin Buccer bones were burned along with many of their books by the Roman Catholic church four years after they had died.

They make interesting reading--both of these guys made Fox's book of Mrytrs??

These guys were around at the end of the council of Trent

Scoobydoo

[Sherman Nobles]

Concerning John Milton, the following is a from my book, "God Is A Divorce' Too!":

Furthermore, to Protestants and Evangelicals it is compelling to note that the Puritans too rejected the traditional doctrine of divorce.  John Milton, Puritan writer and theologian, author of Paradise Lost (AD 1608–1674) wrote two books concerning divorce, "The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce I & II,

[4Christ]

You know.  We can debate MDR until pigs fly and hell freezes over.  The point of the matter is that divorce is one of the most destructive human structures there is.  Especially where children are involved.  Sin destroys, both temporally and eternally.

If God is not the authority structure over issues concerning MDR, that certainly does explain the plain evilness of divorce - no matter who is/was at fault.  The only good that comes from it is when God intervenes and turns ashes to beauty on someone's behalf.  I wish those blessings more upon the children of divorce than the man or woman who instigates it. 

[FoC]

You know.  We can debate MDR until pigs fly and hell freezes over.  The point of the matter is that divorce is one of the most destructive human structures there is.  Especially where children are involved.  Sin destroys, both temporally and eternally.

If God is not the authority structure over issues concerning MDR, that certainly does explain the plain evilness of divorce - no matter who is/was at fault.  The only good that comes from it is when God intervenes and turns ashes to beauty on someone's behalf.  I wish those blessings more upon the children of divorce than the man or woman who instigates it. 

Amen, sister.
Divorce and its causes are literally tearing the church apart.
And the spirit that is behind the causes of those divorces is surely not helping even where there is no marraige.....envy, selfishness, hatred, anger, malice.....marriage or not, those things are destroying all things good and wonderful....

[Sherman Nobles]

Divorce is a tragedy. Speaking as one coming from a broken home, divorce can be and most often is a sourse of ongoing, neverending struggles and pain.  Often times, the joy is either stolen from or tempered during most, if not all, family events and holidays for the children and their parents. 

Typically, the hardest thing to overcome is bitterness, to be able to live in forgiveness.  It's especially hard for the responsible spouse left behind, especially if the errant spouse seems to go on with his/her life, remarry, and seems to be happy and blessed or not held accountable by God for their evil actions.

Sadly, ongoing bitterness, continual mourning, and even jealousy can negatively effect the responsible spouse's relationship with his/her children, especially if the errant spouse comes to be seen by the children as repentive and just trying to go on and make the best out of the mess that they've created.   

Divorce is tough on all involved, even extended family and friends.  In-laws become out-laws, and the church and friends are often expected to choose sides and in some way penalize the errant spouse.  Sadly, divorce is often worse than the death of a spouse, especially when there are children involved.

Unfortunately, the traditional doctrine of MDR has actually weakend marriages and made divorce worse than it is just naturally.  For example: by teaching that marriage is indissoluble, couples are not empowered to hold eachother in godly accountability.  We must recognize that though love is "unconditional", relationship is NOT unconditional; there are expectations of mutual fidelity, provision, love, and respect (in the typicaly Western marriage). These are elements of the marriage covenant though they are unstated.  If these expectations are consistently not met or broken, then the responsible spouse has the right to threaten the errant spouse with either separation or divorce.  Love is not only forgiving, but it also holds another accountable for his/her actions, meeting out justice with mercy. 

I need to close now, but please hear my heart on this issue. Divorce is not to be taken lightly in any way, but divorce happens, marriages end for morally "acceptable" and "non-acceptable" reasons. But regardless of the reason for the divorce, we need to help both parties pick up the pieces of their lives and go on with life, especially walking in forgiveness.

Blessings,
Sherman