Marriage and divorce

[BigBert]

Hi JC--thanks for your measured and considerate reply. And I do think you present things in such a way that should cause those disagreeing to at least consider your position.

Upon reflection, I still am definitely not as clear as you on the allowances for divorce and remarriage, though again I think your comments deserve deep reflection (I'll continue to research this subject as well).

This is partly because I'm still not as comfortable with you regarding David's murder of Uzziah (Bathsheba's husband). As you stated, David may have done so in part due to his belief that he'd be "in the clear" so he could pursue his wrongful lust for Bathsheba.

While God punished him, as you note, the reasoning you give for David is troubling. (Ie if I have the husband eliminated, then his wife is mine to pursue). I see that as one problem with an attempt to be wholly legalistic when Jesus' command of love one another covers the gamut far better than technical details ever could, the latter which can cause men to calculate a loophole like David did.

Perhaps the marriages in Ezra were "illegal"--that seems conjecture; maybe it's correct though. Certainly at this stage subject to our interpretation. Another way of saying this, as you did, is God commanded against it. To that we might deduce the same regarding "unequally yoked" marriages today. Paul gives his answer in that the non-believer is free to leave and the believer should allow it. He notes if the non-believer opts to remain, then it's in the proper loving spirit for the believer to remain in the marriage, that a non-believer may end up coming to Christ and that the marriage is one of comparative peace. You stated why you felt there was a difference in the OT with Ezra demanding divorce; again, it's an example of differing viewpoints on this.

Admittedly, I find your rationale regarding God and Israel in Jeremiah (the word used for His action in Jer 3:8 is the Hebrew word "keriythuwth," which in that culture meant a complete, legal breaking apart--ie full fledged divorce) also a bit hard to accept.

Further, if we read the context of Paul in Romans that you cited, we see that he was referring to the spiritual contrast between being bound by the law and now under grace, noting the preceding text ending in Chapter 6 and continuing in the beginning of Ch 7 in his brief marriage illustration (v 2-3) that you noted, then resumed in verse 4 where he gets back to his primary point. It certainly doesn't appear that Paul was doing a teaching on the technicalities of marriage and therefore did not go into detail, other than to discuss the general principle as it correlated to our now spiritual freedom. Verses 2 and 3 were used to parallel Christ's work on the cross that allowed us to "die to the law" and be under that of grace and love. While you may be correct, still, I believe it's a stretch to use his brief aside for illustration as a catch-all for any marital situation.

Again, though, I will further review your thoughts and research the whole subject and don't mean any disrespect in our disagreements.

I am reminded at this point of the many marriages God seems to greatly bless that come as a result of a remarriage following divorce. These are who you'd consider people with big hearts for God who left situations they deemed unbearable after many years of tremendous pain and effort. Once "loosed" by what I believe a merciful God would consider valid grounds, these people inevitably remarried godly spouses (now being equally yoked) and went on to produce wonderful marriages that, frankly, God would seemingly be proud of.

Obviously, in your view, this is all deception in some sense and these individuals are bound for hell. While I again respect your sincerity, there's much to question, to consider.

It seems to me, anyway, that we might generally come from at least slightly differing camps or approaches to Jesus and what His death and ensuing life mean for believers. For myself, He time and time again reveals to those, who are so presumptuous to assume they can earn their way to heaven, that they miss the boat badly in believing that merely holding to technicalities of the law (assuming they are, for the most part, in the first place) is enough. For He literally went right to the "heart" of the matter, knowing that's where people truly are godly or not, by their inner being. [and I believe however we analyze His teachings on any subject, divorce or otherwise, should be based on this spirit.]

Those who are humble of heart and recognize their own inability to earn anything approaching heaven are saved solely by Jesus' love, death and resurrection, and sealed by the Spirit for eternity. For the rest, well, I'm afraid it's not a good ending, since their pride prevents them from being under the "law" of grace. Their eternal destiny rests not in just their outer appearances, but their inner heart. Jesus made it clear only He is worthy of eternity based on such stringent criterial of holiness.

Not to sound too repetitive, but I want to again note the respect I have for your position, agreed or not. It obviously comes from a sincere heart.

God bless.

Edited August 28, 2009 by BigBert

[JCISGD]

BB you obviously have a honest approach and seeking heart, and i admit i could be wrong in any point. I am certainly no authority, i trust our Lord will lead us in the way as long as we are prepared to accept His answers.

I do need to clarify my comments on David. I dont mean to say that David thought he had any right to do what he did, only that one sin led to another and the cover up job that ensued, did not take into account our all seeing and holy God who does not overlook sin that we have sufficient light on.

I will admit my position on Ezra is part conjecture, but do not see how Ezra could command such unless it was in accordance with the known will of God. This does now make me wonder about the legality before God of believers who go against the command by Paul not to marry an unbeliever?

I think the main thrust is that God sees all marriages and considers them covenants unless they were wrong to begin with, but if entered in with sincerity on by both parties, then we are not to "deal treacherously with the wife of our youth" Mal 2:14+15.

Otherwise the 10 commandments are only for the Jews and we gentiles are free to break them as long as we become Christians, but they are social laws that are based on the highest good of all and God who created us expects our submission and willing worship.

I too was persuaded by those who profess a second chance marriage and testify to Gods blessing even into ministry, but must also be mindful that often God is silent as with the Jews who heard no prophet for the 400 yrs before Christ. Also Satan promises the kingdoms of this world if we will bow down to him. We must also be mindful of Math 7:21-23 where even if we see miracles but are lawbreakers, Jesus will deny us entry into heaven.

Again i will say, i wish there was allowance for remmariage it certainly would mean i dont have to go against the flow of the majority of present day churches, and those in my sphere of contact.

God bless,

Arthur.

[BigBert]

BB you obviously have a honest approach and seeking heart, and i admit i could be wrong in any point. I am certainly no authority, i trust our Lord will lead us in the way as long as we are prepared to accept His answers.

I do need to clarify my comments on David. I dont mean to say that David thought he had any right to do what he did, only that one sin led to another and the cover up job that ensued, did not take into account our all seeing and holy God who does not overlook sin that we have sufficient light on.

I will admit my position on Ezra is part conjecture, but do not see how Ezra could command such unless it was in accordance with the known will of God. This does now make me wonder about the legality before God of believers who go against the command by Paul not to marry an unbeliever?

I think the main thrust is that God sees all marriages and considers them covenants unless they were wrong to begin with, but if entered in with sincerity on by both parties, then we are not to "deal treacherously with the wife of our youth" Mal 2:14+15.

Otherwise the 10 commandments are only for the Jews and we gentiles are free to break them as long as we become Christians, but they are social laws that are based on the highest good of all and God who created us expects our submission and willing worship.

I too was persuaded by those who profess a second chance marriage and testify to Gods blessing even into ministry, but must also be mindful that often God is silent as with the Jews who heard no prophet for the 400 yrs before Christ. Also Satan promises the kingdoms of this world if we will bow down to him. We must also be mindful of Math 7:21-23 where even if we see miracles but are lawbreakers, Jesus will deny us entry into heaven.

Again i will say, i wish there was allowance for remmariage it certainly would mean i dont have to go against the flow of the majority of present day churches, and those in my sphere of contact.

God bless,

Arthur.

Hey Arthur,

I've been naturally following this thread with great interest.

Re: your reference of Matt 7 and lawbreakers are denied heaven;

I think a critical area we may disagree on relates to our salvation and Jesus' grace and forgiveness. It's wholly against my view of what salvation entails if it's that easy to lose. None of us are remotely close to approaching Jesus' holiness, as I'm sure you're aware, and I believe that it's when we reject His death on the cross for our sins that we're then under every aspect of the law, even more than what the OT stated--that being both deeds and even thoughts! Jesus did His best to make it clear to anyone willing to listen that it was utterly futile to try and attain salvation on our own merits--even partially! [i've studied the verse you cited as well as others that seem to conflict with salvation by grace through faith, and I've found it to not be as contradictory to that notion as at first appears. However, I definitely will acknowledge the occasional verse that causes great reflection and research.]

I believe that's why Paul scolded the Galatians (?) in stating how foolish they were to have correctly believed that their receiving the Spirit was in faith but that now they believed they could "gain points" by trying to perform in the flesh. We're to submit to the Holy Spirit regularly, but Paul himself admitted how often he failed, how he "did the very things he hated." He recognized that though God within was superior to the evil, fleshly side, Paul still had that "old man" as a portion of his being and that he would often fail (Romans chapter 7). I don't believe Paul lost his faith-obtained (per him) salvation [notice when he gets back to recognizing and praising Jesus for paying the penalty Paul rejoices again (v 25)] and I don't believe you would either. It may be another whole matter entirely to totally reject or ignore the need for repentance following wrong actions. I suspect that's a subject for its own thread, huh (smile).

As you stated, maybe God views all marriages as covenants unless wrongfully executed in the first place. That point leads to additional questions that you touched on, with the immediate one coming to mind when marriages are performed between those unequally yoked. Even so, as one book on the subject of marriage and divorce pointed out, the only instance of an actual divorce being cited in the Bible is the very one that God executed against Israel. We can try and work our reasoning around that, but it inevitably draws us back to the tremendous difficulty in taking a cut-and-dried, hard line approach.

It reminds again, to me, the importance of letting all of our actions and beliefs be managed through the Spirit of love and less so the letter of the law. Unfortunately, we don't get that a lot of the time. It seems that a number of folks are either too legalistic and void of love and compassion (I"m not including you here), or they take it the other extreme and view any kind of real standards as wrong. I think of the overly permissive parent who's afraid to discipline his child for fear of seeming too cruel when, in fact, true love would demand disciplining.

Once again, wishing you God's best!

Edited August 29, 2009 by BigBert

[JCISGD]

BB you open a whole other can of worms if we are to discuss Pauls treatise of progression of sinner to saint in Romans 6, 8 + 9.

While i do enjoy our discussion and i have full respect for your beliefs and position, i have to point out that Gods divorce was not of the nature or moral requirements between a man and wife. God did not divorce in the sense we do, and the fact that He always keeps a remnant proves this i think?

I fully agree we are not saved by keeping the law once we have broken it as "all have sinned". It is clearly foolish to also try to go back to trying to be saved by keeping this or that law, but it must be remembered that Jesus commanded we keep his commandments if we love Him. Surely it is possible to love the Lord our God with all our hearts and our neighbour as ourselves, so then it is atleast possible even if none do. We can but wont, God can and will.

Blessings in Christ.

[BigBert]

BB you open a whole other can of worms if we are to discuss Pauls treatise of progression of sinner to saint in Romans 6, 8 + 9.

While i do enjoy our discussion and i have full respect for your beliefs and position, i have to point out that Gods divorce was not of the nature or moral requirements between a man and wife. God did not divorce in the sense we do, and the fact that He always keeps a remnant proves this i think?

I fully agree we are not saved by keeping the law once we have broken it as "all have sinned". It is clearly foolish to also try to go back to trying to be saved by keeping this or that law, but it must be remembered that Jesus commanded we keep his commandments if we love Him. Surely it is possible to love the Lord our God with all our hearts and our neighbour as ourselves, so then it is atleast possible even if none do. We can but wont, God can and will.

Blessings in Christ.

I felt the need to bring in Paul, at least momentarily, in light of some of the comments I'd read from your posts. However, I don't think there's any question Paul was a saved man due to his faith, not his own righteousness. Certainly, it's a process in becoming more perfect like Christ, though as the thief on the cross realized, that and salvation are not necessarily the same thing. But, you're right, it is a whole 'nother subject, as they say.

Afraid I don't agree about trying to differentiate God's divorce and our own. Of course God's relationship to His people is not the same in every aspect as a man to a woman due to the physical component. But He often parallels the two, and therefore His divorce is the same in spirit/intent, if not exact detail. I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this.

[JCISGD]

yes i agree my friend, we have laid out our cases now its up to us to ask the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. If im wrong i want to be corrected, and i certainly dont want to be responsible for speaking error and adversly influencing another. I agree to disagree amicably and let your words to me check my honesty.

God bless.

[BigBert]

well said, as usual, my friend.

I do appreciate your points and you've made me think more deeply about the subject. Like you, I want to be correct and not just right in my own mind. To that end, I think you've helped make me think more about the whole crux of the Good Book, the spirit of it, etc. This has brought me perhaps to conclusions that I wasn't as sure of before. In other words, you posed things in such a thoughtful manner that it inspired me to research and contemplate to another level.

Thanks for that and the sincerity with which you present.

[JCISGD]

well said, as usual, my friend.

I do appreciate your points and you've made me think more deeply about the subject. Like you, I want to be correct and not just right in my own mind. To that end, I think you've helped make me think more about the whole crux of the Good Book, the spirit of it, etc. This has brought me perhaps to conclusions that I wasn't as sure of before. In other words, you posed things in such a thoughtful manner that it inspired me to research and contemplate to another level.

Thanks for that and the sincerity with which you present.

It is very refreshing to discuss the way with others such as yourself who can disagree without denigrating the other, while also being open to the possibility of improvement. I think we have an infinate need of being improved, being holy in the same quality as God but forever lacking in the quantity of Gods holiness.

At this point i must give glory where it is due, first to God who alone is good and worthy of all praise, and in this case to the vessel He used to change many of errors in christian doctrine. I have been greatly influenced by the writings of Charles Finney who is much misaligned by those who listen to lies and bias spread about him.

I fully acknowledge the work of the Holy Spirit in showing us truth and without whom we all would be brute beasts, and Paul said follow him as he follows Christ. Likewise there is no conflict in giving credit to those whom we have learnt off, indeed we are indebited or else be prideful i think.

After reading so much of Finney`s writings i most often hear myself paraphrasing him, my mode of speech also affected. It was through Finney that i began to see why the golf between what we see in Acts and our lives today. Finney was a lawyer before being marvelously converted and almost immediatly called into ministry due i think his grasp on doctrine even before he was saved. I have found his teachings which i sometimes do injustice to, convincing and unrefutable by use of sound doctrine and use of proper and enlarged powers of reasoning.

To God be the glory for the mighty revivals that he ushered in through Finney and the praying saints of their time. Many on this site are irked and even antagonised at the mention of him, but i nonetheless must thank God for him as i was a liberal christian unaware of my many errors and those of the churches i frequented.

[BigBert]

Like you, I too want to know the truth, even where it hurts. What I'm finding in large part is the traditional teachings of the church are often to be seriously questioned and sometimes flatly in error, at least the more in depth one searches.

We need to get at the heart of the matter, take the whole of the Bible into account while also ensuring we're understanding the context of the times. There are many matters that Jesus or an apostle makes a comment in a way that easily would have been understood in their day, yet to us seems confusing, even contradictory to what we read elsewhere or have been raised to believe.

For those wishing to stick to whatever doctrine they've grown up adhering, it can be a rugged journey to be exposed to other possibilities. Yet, if they find their long held beliefs to hold up, then they're on that much firmer ground and can walk in deeper confidence.

I'm finding that ground, and I appreciate this thread and those who've participated thus far.