Remarriage after divorce

[GoldenEagle]

I don't serve a God who would approve of a battered wife waiting all day for her husband to come home so that she can be battered again.

 

And again

 

And again

 

And again

Exactly!

 

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 

 

No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? 

Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused.

husband and wife are on flesh.

Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together.

That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point

 

 

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!

[Sevenseas]

I don't serve a God who would approve of a battered wife waiting all day for her husband to come home so that she can be battered again.

 

And again

 

And again

 

And again

 

 

That sounds more like one of those gods from a country the Israelites were told to destroy

[lmab]

 

That was the question I was going to ask GE.  Because I believe that Jesus made it pretty clear that anyone who looks at someone else with lustful eyes is committing adultry.  And we also know that adultry = idolatry in God's eyes.  Now I may be wrong but I feel that if one spouse abuses his/her spouse than they have commiteed adultry by betraying their vows, that they have exchanged their love for their spouse for their love of violence, power or whatever else is driving them.

 

Sorry I thought that I was the poster right after Golden Eagles remark.  This is what he said: 

I have followed this thread with interest.

I'd like to ask a question if I may: What if a Christian divorces an abusive spouse who also claim to be a "Christian"?

God bless,

GE

 

Sorry about the mix up.  It is late and now I haven't read the entire thread because I thought GE's was the last one.     Just too tired right now to make sense I guess.     Night all.

With this logic...What if one thinks about and looks upon abusing their spouse...Is this adultery and a reason to divorce?

 

If one thinks about and looks upon abusing their spouse than they should run and not walk to get counciling and seek forgiveness and a change of heart.  And yes they have committed a sin against God and their spouse (rage and violence is a sin).  God looks at our hearts and where are hearts dwell so eventually will our actions.  We are children of God.  Do you think any father would approve of their child being beaten?  I think not.

[Fez]

 

 

That was the question I was going to ask GE.  Because I believe that Jesus made it pretty clear that anyone who looks at someone else with lustful eyes is committing adultry.  And we also know that adultry = idolatry in God's eyes.  Now I may be wrong but I feel that if one spouse abuses his/her spouse than they have commiteed adultry by betraying their vows, that they have exchanged their love for their spouse for their love of violence, power or whatever else is driving them.

 

Sorry I thought that I was the poster right after Golden Eagles remark.  This is what he said: 

I have followed this thread with interest.

I'd like to ask a question if I may: What if a Christian divorces an abusive spouse who also claim to be a "Christian"?

God bless,

GE

 

Sorry about the mix up.  It is late and now I haven't read the entire thread because I thought GE's was the last one.     Just too tired right now to make sense I guess.     Night all.

With this logic...What if one thinks about and looks upon abusing their spouse...Is this adultery and a reason to divorce?

 

If one thinks about and looks upon abusing their spouse than they should run and not walk to get counciling and seek forgiveness and a change of heart.  And yes they have committed a sin against God and their spouse (rage and violence is a sin).  God looks at our hearts and where are hearts dwell so eventually will our actions.  We are children of God.  Do you think any father would approve of their child being beaten?  I think not.

 

Do you think any father would approve of their child being beaten?  I think not.

 

Do you think same father would tell his daughter to stay and get beaten because divorce is worse?

 

If your answer is yes, that is slavery.

[lmab]

 

 

 

That was the question I was going to ask GE.  Because I believe that Jesus made it pretty clear that anyone who looks at someone else with lustful eyes is committing adultry.  And we also know that adultry = idolatry in God's eyes.  Now I may be wrong but I feel that if one spouse abuses his/her spouse than they have commiteed adultry by betraying their vows, that they have exchanged their love for their spouse for their love of violence, power or whatever else is driving them.

 

Sorry I thought that I was the poster right after Golden Eagles remark.  This is what he said: 

I have followed this thread with interest.

I'd like to ask a question if I may: What if a Christian divorces an abusive spouse who also claim to be a "Christian"?

God bless,

GE

 

Sorry about the mix up.  It is late and now I haven't read the entire thread because I thought GE's was the last one.     Just too tired right now to make sense I guess.     Night all.

With this logic...What if one thinks about and looks upon abusing their spouse...Is this adultery and a reason to divorce?

 

If one thinks about and looks upon abusing their spouse than they should run and not walk to get counciling and seek forgiveness and a change of heart.  And yes they have committed a sin against God and their spouse (rage and violence is a sin).  God looks at our hearts and where are hearts dwell so eventually will our actions.  We are children of God.  Do you think any father would approve of their child being beaten?  I think not.

 

Do you think any father would approve of their child being beaten?  I think not.

 

Do you think same father would tell his daughter to stay and get beaten because divorce is worse?

 

If your answer is yes, that is slavery.

 

You are absolutely correct Fez!  I would also like to point out that Jesus blasted those who used the letter of the law to justify their own sins - in this case trying to force a spouse to stay in an abusive relationship because of what Christ said about divorce.

[another_poster]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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. 

 

 

 

Sorry, could you write your question again, there was a lot to read and I had to respond to many people, if the question wasn't directed to one of my quotes I either did not pick up on it or I might have answered it in one of my posts/answers to other quotes/questions. Did you read all my posts to see if I might have touched your subject you are referring to? If I did, then I most likely have not posted an additional answer to it again. Thanks.

 

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.

[another_poster]

 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).

 

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.

[another_poster]

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

 

Where does Christ call the members of His body slaves?

 

 

Sorry but once again you are not reading but rather assuming people are saying what you want to argue against. At no point in time did anyone make any comparison. So stop repeating that false accusation please. It has been explained by three people what was being done and yet you still repeat this accusation. Do you not think that if others understand what Faith Pleases God was saying then perhaps you might be wrong in your understanding? Granted it wasn't clear at first. Look at my response. I understand what he was saying but still disagree. So understanding what is being said doesn't mean one has to agree. 

 

We are either slaves of righteousness or slaves of sin. So no matter what we are slaves. Romans 6. Sure that is a different type of slave to the passage where faith please god is getting the principle from.

[Tiger Eye]

Please help.

I don't know if these questions have already been asked.

Please answer them again if they have been asked.

If 2 born again Christians gets divorces and then remarry each other, under any circumstances, many are saying they are living in adultery.

Those of you who agree with this, please answer.

 

Do these people live in sin the rest of their lives?

Do these people never get God's blessings in their marriage?

Do these people lose their salvation?