Jump to content

Warrior777

Members
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

19 Neutral

1 Follower

About Warrior777

  • Birthday 05/05/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    True Gospel of Jesus Christ

Recent Profile Visitors

2,033 profile views
  1. Sorry guys, I am trying to read some of your answers and still want to get back to some of you, but we had a death today in our immediate family and I am just having a hard time concentrating here right now. I will come back to this thread at a later time, maybe a few days, and will try to weed my way through all of this. Please keep responding, especially if you see anything else that maybe we missed (mostly in regards to the remarriage issue itself), but make sure it follows and is in line with all scripture and principle of interpretation. Thanks, God bless...
  2. This is the key issue here….does the couple stay separated then for life? Waiting for the abusive spouse to repent? What if the abusive spouse refuses to repent? Again I will explain this below 1 Cor 7:10-11 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. I think that clearly answers your question. Everything else is speculation and/or unbiblical. Nobody says it's easy or fair or a good deal, it's just what scripture says, if we make more out of it we are moving out of alignment with the word of God. You state we shouldn’t build our doctrines on assumptions I totally agree. The best approach is to allow scripture to interpret scripture What is the scriptural definition of a Christian who refuses to repent? Matthew 18v.15-17, If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. So we can agree scripture tell us that if a Christian refuses to repent and refuses to listen to the church….then that Christian should be treated as I would a pagan? This is scripture telling us so, this is not an assumption or an opinion. Now lets look again at the following 1 Timothy 5:8, If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. If a Christian who beats his wife, is that Christian providing for his immediate family? Is this Christian providing the emotional needs for his family? The answer is no, how can he be? In what shape or form does this Christian provide for his family? In this case the believer is said to have denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Now you have scriptural evidence on the conduct of a believer who has denied repentance therefore denying the faith and must be treated as a Pagan or treated worse than an unbeliever. Now that we have a “Christian” who is scripturally called an unbeliever under certain conditions….there is no theological difference between the unbeliever just described by Mathew 18: 15-17 & 1 timothy 5:8 to that of an unbeliever 1 Corinthians 7:15, they are one of the same now. Unless you can tell me the difference between the unbeliever in Mathew 18 and Timothy 5 with the unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 7:15? Lets relook at 1 Corinthians 7:15, below is the greek translation If more over the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself….. I want to focus on this first bit, it mentions separates himself. Based on Scripture Jeremiah 3, Israel’s covenant with God is pictured as a marriage contract. God had kept His covenant promises, but Israel had continually broken them without repentance or any attempt to right the wrongs. In verse 8 God says, “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce. . . .” Though the separation and divorce of Israel from God was based on Adultry, the principle still stays the same, it does not change…if an abusive Christian continuously breaks his marriage covenant by physically abusing his wife, refusing to repent, the marriage covenant becomes irretrievably broken…He has separated himself from the marriage covenant. Any Christian who abuses his wife has placed His marriage in a position of disrepair, by further neglecting to repent makes this repair irreversible…It is the unbeliever (Christian Abuser) who has now separated himself by his actions from the marriage covenant….In this case let the unbeliever (Christian Abuser) separate himself….so that the wife of the marriage becomes no longer morally bound to the marriage…she is the victim. None of this is my assumptions, all of what I’ve said was based on the principle of why God divorced Israel and what constitutes the conduct of a Christian who refuses to take accountability and repent. It is about high time the church draws the line in the sand and takes the side of the victim on this. To claim that the Bible does not permit divorce on the reason of physical abuse takes the side not that of the victim but that of the perpetrator and offers no accountability for the abuse conducted in the marriage….that marriage becomes unholy. I refuse to believe in a God who would not be merciful or RIGHTEOUSLY justified in condemning this type of marriage. Lucky for us we have a God who is Merciful and RIGHTEOUS. Again the question must be put forward to you….what's the difference between the unbeliever in Matthew 18: 15-17 & 1 Timothy 5:8 to that of an unbeliever 1 Corinthians 7:15? The two scriptures you mentioned do not apply to marriages, because in trying to apply this here, you just made the point for divorce for any reason. If you want to make the point for Matt 18 then you can pretty much deem anybody an unbeliever for anything and therefore have restored the condition again we had under Moses and totally disregard what Jesus is saying (or Paul). Then anyone could be divorcing anybody for any sin or fault they find in them. That is not in principle with known scripture at hand in this matter. Paul talks about an unbeliever who does not have a covenant with Christ. Otherwise we would make ourselves God to judge a person and decide if they are saved or not, when indeed they are, but just have lost their way or entangled or bound by the enemy or just dealing with a sin issue and need to repent (like pretty much all of us in one way or another).e.g. one could divorce their wife because she sometimes lies or is jealous too much or just too nagging (imagine that). Further it's the unbeliever that has to leave for good and it also does not automatically mean to the one being left this way that they are free to remarry. That needs to be investigated further. Timothy mentioned someone who does not support his family, and does not in any way or form mention for a wife to leave a husband over that, now doesn't he? In fact he is talking about widows and their families are behaving like unbelievers if they will not even provide for their mother or sister, etc.. - again even though it is definitely not the optimal situation in any case, you cannot make the direct comparison. There are rules that deal with other believers and unbelievers, that do not apply to marriages where two are one! Jeremiah just talks about Israel committing adultery - here it's spiritual...
  3. ONCE AND FOR ALL: ABUSE is NOT a biblical reason for divorce, NOWHERE in scripture is it mentioned (now specifically talking about our new covenant and the rules that JESUS and PAUL set which applies to us today). One can read things into scripture by speculation as with all scripture and make assumptions but it is not a valid comparison that one could build doctrine on. Should a physical abused spouse separate if it gets too violent or life threatening, yes! Should there be reconciliation and repentance, yes! In any case if the spouse separates then they need to stay single until they can reconcile and nobody is or was implying that a spouse should stay in the same house with that violent partner. If there is an unbeliever involved and they leave (not if the believer leaves!), then the believer is not bound anymore to that unbeliever. This is found in the scriptures and anything else in that case is opinion, which many people here have been giving a lot of, without at least trying to support it with other scripture like I asked and applying sound bible interpretation rules). Please keep it on topic of the OP and questions and back it up with scripture and biblical principles, biblical historical backgrounds (they all have to agree with/can't contradict known scripture and need to be compatible with the NEW Covenant)
  4. Well partially of what you are asking I wanted to know also, that's why I started this thread. There have been answers given so far, so I will not go into detail here. One has to take some scriptures and apply in principle to fully explain or understand. Scripture is not quite clear on some detailed issues. Taking what Jesus said as basis, then it depends who divorced and why and what happens afterwards. If you mean that the 2 Christians marry each other again after they have been divorced, then this is not adultery (they both have to still be single), it's actually desired and the best possible outcome. If the one that divorced (except for adultery) remarries someone else, they both commit adultery (the ex-spouse and their new partner). Some suggested that only the new union at creation of the new marriage is seen as adultery, not the ongoing marriage, since it is again a new covenant between two people. There has to be repentance for adultery though. The one that had been divorced (not for adultery) can remarry after their spouse who divorced them remarries first (which by extension would still be adultery against the first spouse). I hope this answers your questions. Take it prayerfully with caution though, these are somewhat logical conclusions derived from scripture and principles, not written in stone anywhere.
  5. When there are unknowns it is unwise to build a solid doctrine on that belief with unknown factors. You choose to see no contradiction but base that on what? Nothing. Lets deal with what is known as you suggested. We know Jesus said there is only one reason for divorce. What we know is that Paul then says well actually there is a bit more which is not in any way indicated in what Jesus said. Yet for some reason you want to think Paul is just clarifying what Jesus said! Sorry just does not add up. So it comes back to what I said which is that it isn't as simple as you suggest. I am not going into this any deeper here, this is somewhat of a side study and you can open another thread to discuss this. A simple answer: If you see this as a contradiction, then just take of what is known - Jesus mentioned one reason, Paul adds another (or explains further, whatever). BOTH are scripture, so very easy to follow. Case closed.
  6. Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think. Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread. Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it. Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known. but that is what you are doing. Jesus said there was only one reason for divorce which is adultery. You have decided that since Paul said there was another reason then he is just expanding on what Jesus said! Sorry but no you can not read that into it. As I said it is not as clear as you are making out. You also have not addressed the other question. The very real argument about there being a difference between putting away and divorce. I'm saying scripture is not as clear as one suggests. Others have posted things that are known that have not been addressed and affect this topic. If correct then people need to examine their view. You are essentially approaching this with a view in mind and then reading scripture rather than reading scripture and forming your view. with all due respect you should not be telling people to read back through the thread to find things if you are not willing to do so. No you have not addressed it but it is repeated here in this post anyway. I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known. To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before). Also you have asked many questions , how am I supposed to know which one is not answered and which one you actually mean? I have many people to answer here and write and read and research, I just do not have the time that I can go all the way back and reread everything and then guess on top of it, when it is of no great time consuming deal for you to just rewrite your question to me, as you now did, thanks. To answer that question you could have just done a quick word study yourself (blueletterbible): "To put away" - apolyō Meanings: To set free, release, to let go, dismiss and it is used here for the meaning of divorce. It is the term the KJV uses to describe divorce in these cases you were questioning, so it's the same meaning. As I said if you are going to tell others to go back to find stuff then you should not have a problem with others telling you the same thing. Essentially I am asking you to apply the same standards to yourself that you expect of others. Put away and divorce are not the same. Also looking at context such as cultural situations it was practice for men to not actually divorce their partners but ignore them and not support them as required. There was words used in original languages that translated as divorce so why use a different word that is not clear in its meaning if divorce is meant? The question really is not that easily answered. The word study I showed you was a greek word used in the NT and in context of the issue at hand it ALWAYS can be substituted for divorce. The issue you are talking about was the reason that Moses allowed and started to implement the letter of divorce back under the law, so that the spouses legally where separated otherwise they would just "hang in there" if left by their spouse for just any reason and there was a lot of confusion as one would just go with another spouse without really being legally unbound, etc... but this is under the law and does not apply nowadays, since Jesus changed it (back to what it should be).
  7. Your confusing the issue...firstly Yeshua didn't come to change or abolish any of Moses laws but to fullfill them by expanding on them. Lets deal with abuse Biblical Legal grounds for a Divorce In domestic Abuse: 1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him do so; in such brother or sister is not morally bound. But God has called us to peace. Key Issue: - who is an unbeliever? - Who caused the separation? Now the argument one would immediately raise is 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not speak of Abuse or about Christians....this is really superficial. 1st Issue - who is an unbeliever In the church we are to take sin seriously and that includes sin within a marriage. Yeshua instructed his disciples as to what should happen if someone refuses to repent of sin as a Christian. Matthew 18v.15-17, If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. What Jesus insists on is that sin, even sin between a married couple in their own home, is the responsibility of the church. The church’s role is to call to account those who are guilty of wilful, deliberate, and persistent sin. And those who refuse to repent are to be treated as unbelievers. Further 1 Timothy 5:8, If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Now would we all agree that if a Christian spouse batters another Christian spouse refuses to repent, refuses to seek counciling from the church is not providing for his or her immediate family? and is that a true believer? In such a case SCRIPTURE calls that "type" of a Christian worse than an unbeliever and should be treated as a Pagan. 2nd Issue - Who caused the seperation. The unbeliever is doing the separating; in this case its the "Christian" spouse who is refusing to repent and has thus destroyed the covenant he has committed the act of desertion. It permits the victim of abuse to take out a legal divorce as she is no longer MORALLY BOUND In other words 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a no-fault divorce clause for abuse, HOWEVER 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same as allowing divorce for any disaffection. Because abuse is defined as a pattern of conduct designed to obtain and maintain power and control over the other. Have the couples, once they divorced tried to reconcile? Has there been any repentance? if the one spouse has remarried to a third party, then who broke the covenant first? If the Male spouse broke the covenant first and after a passing of time remarries to a third party, the female spouse of the first marriage is not morally bound to that covenant any longer and may freely marry. To conclude the Bible teaches 3 Grounds for Divorce 1. Adultery within marriage permits the believer to instigate a divorce 2. Abandonment or desertion by unbelieving spouse permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce). 3. Abuse which results in constructive desertion permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce) Thanks for answering my last question, that's pretty much what I was looking for. About the abuse issue, I think you are taking this to a point where context does not allow to make this an automatic reason that you can read into 1 Corinthians 7, otherwise others could come and make up other reasons that also would validate the spouse to be an unbeliever. Oe actually could insert any sin into this. This is then again almost right there where we had it with Moses and the letters of divorce. BTW I did not say that Jesus abolished the law, of course He fulfilled it but he also changed it, as can be seen in this subject matter we are talking about. Thanks for your input, even though I don't agree on the one issue, you helped this along quite a bit.
  8. another poster: regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the actual marriage relationship faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him' is kind of disingenuous IMO faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison? It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually puts men in a pretty bad light too Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ I would have thought we were pa Forget the slave example, for your sake, bad example. However, scripture does not give "abuse" or other reasons as justifications, right? If so, where? Actually I thought it wasn't that bad of an example myself. To anyone who is taking offense by this: Faith pleases God was taking two examples and comparing them in principle and NOT in content. It is biblical to do that. Jesus is doing that all the time: Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. Now Jesus is not saying to hate your family, since that would directly contradict anything else He said about it. This is not hate in context of the content of this scripture, it is a comparison to the love we should have for Him that makes everything else seem as "hate" or to love less. The same way a woman and a slave or husband and master are not directly compared but there is a relation in principle of endurance. If this one is to endure, not being one in flesh, how much more should the other one, that is - so: if you love your family like that that, who are NOT God, how much more should you love Jesus, which actually means one should follow Him and do His will and nobody else's, not even your family. Also Jesus is using these kind of principle comparisons in pretty much all of the parables. He compares us to sheep! Now that's not even in the same category of species! If stupid sheep can even follow their master, how much more so should we. Now why is no one offended by that? That's at least how I understood it and "faith pleases God" can correct me if I am wrong. Well God knows the heart, eh? I have to really pause at a man who would believe there is ANY comparison that equivocates marriage to a slave and his/her master Please don't mention Jesus. He does not see marriage the way some people here seem to see it. Where does Christ call the members of His body slaves? I thought that faith did a pretty good job of explaining his opinion already. Now I understand that other tents have been put up in that camp. endurance? Really? I'd like to see Jesus approve of a man throwing his wife...who weighs almost 90 lbs less then him, across the room into a wall and then walk away while she can't even straighten up because he put her back out. Jesus would call that endurance? I can't say what I would like to say without breaking the TOS I just love how someone can sit in judgement regarding abuse and act all high and mighty and tell someone that is God's will for their life And so people who disagree that continuing and unrepented of abuse ends the marriage covenant are offended? Yet, Jesus said if anyone offends one of these little ones...children...it would be better if a millstone were tied around his neck and he went swimming in the ocean But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6 Since y'all are taking such liberties with scripture, let me take one. A man who abuses the woman he married and kicks her in the stomach after throwing her down a flight of stairs, throws suppers on the floor and laughs, lies about her and to her constantly, spits in her face, slams her around, throws her out of bed and sundry and various other things, and all the while pretending to be a Christian, has not broken the covenant he made between the woman, God and a bunch of witnesses in church? But if a man commits adultery and does not otherwise harm his wife, the wife can leave and divorce and remarry? koo koo Jesus died for each person INDIVIDUALLY.. Marriage is not the reason Jesus died. And an abusive man is not a Christian IMO....there is no love in his heart and Christ is NOT his Head. I don't care what excuse is offered. If a man can act proper in church then he can control himself in the home as well. And people wonder why spousal abuse continues in Christian circles.....phffffftt! Some people here and myself have been giving good biblical reasons and answered correctly with many biblical examples according to biblical hermeneutics to make it very comprehensible what we mean and what the Bible/GOD states about that matter, but you are creating one straw man after another and turn around the words, meaning and intensions that have been stated, because you do not want to understand. This is now all that I can say about this. You state a lot of IMOs, now that is your right but again, it's your opinion and only that, if you cannot find it in the Word of God. I want to get this back on track to my OP, so I am done discussing this side topic.
  9. another poster: regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the actual marriage relationship faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him' is kind of disingenuous IMO faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison? It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually puts men in a pretty bad light too Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ I would have thought we were pa Forget the slave example, for your sake, bad example. However, scripture does not give "abuse" or other reasons as justifications, right? If so, where? Actually I thought it wasn't that bad of an example myself. To anyone who is taking offense by this: Faith pleases God was taking two examples and comparing them in principle and NOT in content. It is biblical to do that. Jesus is doing that all the time: Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. Now Jesus is not saying to hate your family, since that would directly contradict anything else He said about it. This is not hate in context of the content of this scripture, it is a comparison to the love we should have for Him that makes everything else seem as "hate" or to love less. The same way a woman and a slave or husband and master are not directly compared but there is a relation in principle of endurance. If this one is to endure, not being one in flesh, how much more should the other one, that is - so: if you love your family like that that, who are NOT God, how much more should you love Jesus, which actually means one should follow Him and do His will and nobody else's, not even your family. Also Jesus is using these kind of principle comparisons in pretty much all of the parables. He compares us to sheep! Now that's not even in the same category of species! If stupid sheep can even follow their master, how much more so should we. Now why is no one offended by that? That's at least how I understood it and "faith pleases God" can correct me if I am wrong.
  10. No worries. Hopefully it is understood. Of course as I said I disagree with your conclusion because of the other factors that I don't feel you have considered in that scenario. There have been some scriptures given that could suggest otherwise although are not clear. However your position still relies on assuming the debate over put away vs divorce has been resolved. I have raised that several times and only one person has responded to it. There is what I believe to be credible evidence that word was wrongly translated as divorce and instead should have been put away which was a practice where a man would basically ignore his wife and refuse to give her a certificate of divorcement which means she could not go back to her parents and would not be having her needs met as the husband is required while the husband goes and gets himself a new wife. It is interesting also that Jesus says there is only one reason for divorce but as you say there are two reasons given. So is Jesus wrong? Or is Paul wrong? The very act of Paul giving another reason contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus said except for this ONE reason. I myself find myself in the category Paul mentioned. Mind you I have no desire to remarry because a part of me will always love my ex wife. Also since things did not work out when I discussed things and compromised on some things (not important things and not my beliefs) then next time I would approach marriage with a my way or the highway approach which simply would not work so no point in trying. Of course legally I am not divorced because I have no desire to be the one to fork out the court fees to process the paperwork. If she wants to remarry then she can pay for that. So I can't actually remarry even if I wanted to! I am sorry to hear about your situation, this definitely cannot be easy, but can there be a reconciliation in time, does she believe in Jesus at all? There are many testimonies, where there was a separation even after many years and the couples had a great marriage afterwards. One of my friends had a divorce and both stayed single for several years. Each one God worked on in the time they were separated. Then they had a reconciliation and some deliverance and worked things out, then remarried and now have a very good marriage. Well Paul actually doesn't give a reason for divorce, it's more a reason one would not be bound anymore to their spouse, if they left, being an unbeliever and divorce the believer. The believer is NOT to divorce the unbeliever as long as they stay with them. There is already a spiritual covenant issue (like spiritual adultery) if you want to see it like that.
  11. Thanks for the word study. The reason for abuse is not given in the NT though. Jesus gives the only rule for divorce to be allowed and that is due to adultery. The same point I would make in the case of the Samaritan woman: Well Moses law is still "there", but we are not under it, especially in the case of divorce, Jesus did change it, when He said that the letter of divorce can only be given in case of adultery, not like Moses who allowed the letter to be given for other reasons. The actual "rule" before that, was Jesus mentioning the original intent for marriage to be lifelong. Well back then one could marry another divorced woman, if I understand this correctly, who also was divorced through a letter of divorce by her husband for other reasons than adultery. So this should be the same then as one's own wife coming back to her first husband after she had remarried? Even if she was an unfaithful wife, one still could take her back through forgiveness? I just still don't see the harder case for remarrying the ex-wife again, than marrying another one's ex-wife. Just not clear to me, I thought maybe God gave a reason for it somewhere in scripture why this is treated as such ( or maybe by principle of another deeper issue?). It depends what the reason was for the divorce. Remember one thing if its a wrongful divorce.... it constitutes adultery ..... if its for the right reason like domestic Abuse, how could it constitute adultery? the laws of Moses on divorce and remarriage was constituted to combat lustful affairs.....If the wife divorces a husband from abuse....and no reconciliation is attainable ....and she remarries THERE IS NO ADULTERY The divorce is based on legal grounds she is protected by Deut 24:1-4 I believe this is the answer you've been searching for. Not really, since what you are saying then would contradict Jesus who mentioned ONLY adultery as a reason - NOT abuse. Further the abuse issue is a very vague one at best. Like I had stated before in a post, almost anything can be used to describe abuse that is not done just so in a loving way that it should be. There is all kinds of abuse and having a verbal agreement can already be seen as some kind of emotional, verbal abuse. Then anybody could find any reason to get rid of their spouse, if they just don't want to be married anymore. She cannot be legally divorced when Jesus says that if she divorces her husband for any other reason than adultery, she is committing adultery (if she remarries). And then goes on to say that who marries her also commits adultery. So unless she is not remarrying, she can be reconciled to her husband, after she marries again, she can't. So if she divorces and no adultery was committed (yet), then goes to marry another, then she commits adultery, otherwise it would not make any sense. So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question. Deut 24 only talks about giving a letter of divorce, because the husband found some unclean issue (does this now always imply adultery?), nothing about abuse either... Deut 24 doesn't protect the wife (nor a future husband!) under what Jesus said , if she committed adultery (uncleanness found in her!?) then she is not to remarry at all according to Jesus - not Moses.
  12. Just to quickly interject here, I think you answered you own question/statement here that you stated in the prior post. If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin. In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is: Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law. Uh...no.... I answered fire's post....NOT the op. You are drawing conclusions here and not representing my post I have given my thoughts on the matter throughout this thread. I have not altered my position. I am starting to get irritated by those who want to jam their take on one verse into everyone elses' life. Didn't draw any conclusions that are misrepresenting your post: This was your prior post I was referring to: "I simply no longer believe God expects us to stay with a spouse that is unfaithful to the marriage covenant and I believe there are more ways then one to break that covenant"-- Then you answered fire's post with the truth from scripture, you answered him exactly that what you were saying you didn't believe in that statement you made prior. I have read your thoughts, that's exactly why I posted this. Nobody is jamming their take (especially) on ONE verse down anybody's life. Why would you think that? If at all this is a quest for truth and we are comparing all scriptures with each other (not just one) in light of scripture itself and the principle of it. Reread what I stated, there is only an answer to how scripture is and must be interpreted so that it is not done wrong. There are scriptures that can't be changed into any other meaning, they are self explanatory. If it says, e.g. "you should not lie" one can't go and say well, if it helps someone else, a little lie is not that bad or permissible. That would be altering scripture by adding to it. We just can't do that and still be in God's will. That's what I meant. You are definitely entitled to your own opinion and believe but you have to be aware that it could be out of the will of God to do so, and the example you gave on this topic it just is not supported by scripture, no matter how anybody wants to turn or interpret it, there is just no interpreting that into it there. That's all. yeah....no, I understood pefectly what you said and why you said it. You consider my statement to be opinion and what I replied to fire as biblical truth. Well, you haven't read my thoughts...or the times I change what I wrote...you have read what I wrote; that's it...that's all. I have plenty more thoughts on the matter which I have not expressed and most likely will not express. FYI, I have already done my quest for truth and agonized over it, so again, you do not know my thoughts. My statement does not contradict anything. I answered fire according to his situation. Nothing more nothing less. There is nothing for debate in his situation because it is simple and involves adultery. Try and hold two thoughts together on that one and you might see what I am getting at. As far as what you state regarding scripture, well I have no arguement with that...but you are not the final authority on all that scripture states...I don't believe anyone is. I believe the Bible is the word of God...but too many people try and make it their own words and then say they speak for God. Been there, listened to that and wish I hadn't. I disagree. Telling someone they may be out of the will of God and believing they know everything a person thinks because they read a few posts is really stretching things IMO. Really. I meant "your thoughts" as far as you put them down here - the very same words you used -- "I have given my thoughts on the matter throughout this thread." --, please do not twist my words now to mean something else. Of course I don't know your thoughts that are not expressed. You said you replied fire with biblical truth, that's exactly my point. So there is biblical truth, whatever else that is NOT written, you cannot add it in there because you think or believe, it should be in there. That would be NOT biblical truth. Doesn't have anything to do with me being a "final authority" - where do you even get that from and why do you make this personal? I just stated that there are rules by what "authorities", if you want to call them that, agreed upon what are a sound interpretation rules for scriptures, called biblical hermeneutics. If you believe one just can make up other reasons (for whatever), when these reasons are not specifically given in scripture or through comparison with scripture and sound principles, then that is out of context and seen as unbiblical, no matter what you say. That's all I have to say about that. But this is not my point for the OP, to discuss something not biblical and I asked for scriptures, biblical principles in context and or background historical info, etc. so please keep it on topic, thanks.
  13. Which couple specifically are you referring to? My earlier point was that there has to be a rule that guides this matter one way or another, God is not a respecter of persons. One just can't give their blessing to one couple remarrying and not to another, when their situations are pretty much the same. There is too much at stake, running of finto a direction that easily could be out of God's will and into sin. Then they don't know that they need to repent of it, because it is not seen as sin, since a church gave it's blessings to something they should not have... The couple I was referring to was in the OP. If they cannot be reconciled to their previous marriage and their hearts are right with God, they should be able to marry. This couple knows more about themselves than others. This whole thread sounds more like a group of Talmudic Rabbis than anything else. There is no actual couple really in the OP. It's a question about certain situations of divorce and remarriage that are not quite clear or specifically addressed in the scriptures and the quest for truth of how to deal with that. The one that divorced btw, has NO right to remarry unless their former spouse has committed adultery. This has nothing to do with Talmudic Rabbis, this is a biblical scriptural debate, the Talmud is not part of the Word of God. They are manmade laws, but I for my point want to know the will of God (not man), not only for my life but others that might also benefit about finding the truth, so what is so bad about this?
  14. Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think. Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread. Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it. Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known. but that is what you are doing. Jesus said there was only one reason for divorce which is adultery. You have decided that since Paul said there was another reason then he is just expanding on what Jesus said! Sorry but no you can not read that into it. As I said it is not as clear as you are making out. You also have not addressed the other question. The very real argument about there being a difference between putting away and divorce. I'm saying scripture is not as clear as one suggests. Others have posted things that are known that have not been addressed and affect this topic. If correct then people need to examine their view. You are essentially approaching this with a view in mind and then reading scripture rather than reading scripture and forming your view. with all due respect you should not be telling people to read back through the thread to find things if you are not willing to do so. No you have not addressed it but it is repeated here in this post anyway. I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known. To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before). Also you have asked many questions , how am I supposed to know which one is not answered and which one you actually mean? I have many people to answer here and write and read and research, I just do not have the time that I can go all the way back and reread everything and then guess on top of it, when it is of no great time consuming deal for you to just rewrite your question to me, as you now did, thanks. To answer that question you could have just done a quick word study yourself (blueletterbible): "To put away" - apolyō Meanings: To set free, release, to let go, dismiss and it is used here for the meaning of divorce. It is the term the KJV uses to describe divorce in these cases you were questioning, so it's the same meaning.
  15. Just to quickly interject here, I think you answered you own question/statement here that you stated in the prior post. If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin. In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is: Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law. Uh...no.... I answered fire's post....NOT the op. You are drawing conclusions here and not representing my post I have given my thoughts on the matter throughout this thread. I have not altered my position. I am starting to get irritated by those who want to jam their take on one verse into everyone elses' life. Didn't draw any conclusions that are misrepresenting your post: This was your prior post I was referring to: "I simply no longer believe God expects us to stay with a spouse that is unfaithful to the marriage covenant and I believe there are more ways then one to break that covenant"-- Then you answered fire's post with the truth from scripture, you answered him exactly that what you were saying you didn't believe in that statement you made prior. I have read your thoughts, that's exactly why I posted this. Nobody is jamming their take (especially) on ONE verse down anybody's life. Why would you think that? If at all this is a quest for truth and we are comparing all scriptures with each other (not just one) in light of scripture itself and the principle of it. Reread what I stated, there is only an answer to how scripture is and must be interpreted so that it is not done wrong. There are scriptures that can't be changed into any other meaning, they are self explanatory. If it says, e.g. "you should not lie" one can't go and say well, if it helps someone else, a little lie is not that bad or permissible. That would be altering scripture by adding to it. We just can't do that and still be in God's will. That's what I meant. You are definitely entitled to your own opinion and believe but you have to be aware that it could be out of the will of God to do so, and the example you gave on this topic it just is not supported by scripture, no matter how anybody wants to turn or interpret it, there is just no interpreting that into it there. That's all.
×
×
  • Create New...