Divorce/Remarriage

[firehill]

Hello everyone,

On the subject of husband and wife roles, I'd like to recommend a ministry seminar that my wife and I attended this weekend "Love and Respect". Their ministry is www.loveandrespect.com . It's a very inspirational and challenging series that I'll recommend to everyone.

It's based on 1 Pet. 3:7, "Husbands love your wives, and wives love your husbands." This scripture reveals the most basic needs, strengths and weannesses of men and women. Women are by creation nurturning and loving, but they need Love; Men are by creation more honoring and respectful of authority, but they need Respect. Men struggle to be loving; and Women struggle to be respectful. I know these are some broad statements with individuals not falling in these generalities.

At first glance the 'Love and Respect' title of the seminar is recognizable as Pauline. The reasons why I say this is because at the very end of Ephesians 5 on husbands and wives, in v.33, where Paul is summing up what he's been instructing all along in the previous verses 21-32 1) he actualy defines 'submit' precisely as 'respect' and 2) since througout vv.21-32 he address mostly husbands to love their wives he says it again and first in v33.

33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Love and respect is exactly what Paul's teachings for husbands and wives, in Eph 5 boils down to!

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look into this website when I get a chance.

[Sherman]

Hello everyone,

On the subject of husband and wife roles, I'd like to recommend a ministry seminar that my wife and I attended this weekend "Love and Respect". Their ministry is www.loveandrespect.com . It's a very inspirational and challenging series that I'll recommend to everyone.

It's based on 1 Pet. 3:7, "Husbands love your wives, and wives love your husbands." This scripture reveals the most basic needs, strengths and weannesses of men and women. Women are by creation nurturning and loving, but they need Love; Men are by creation more honoring and respectful of authority, but they need Respect. Men struggle to be loving; and Women struggle to be respectful. I know these are some broad statements with individuals not falling in these generalities.

At first glance the 'Love and Respect' title of the seminar is recognizable as Pauline. The reasons why I say this is because at the very end of Ephesians 5 on husbands and wives, in v.33, where Paul is summing up what he's been instructing all along in the previous verses 21-32 1) he actualy defines 'submit' precisely as 'respect' and 2) since througout vv.21-32 he address mostly husbands to love their wives he says it again and first in v33.

33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Love and respect is exactly what Paul's teachings for husbands and wives, in Eph 5 boils down to!

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look into this website when I get a chance.

Firehill, good catch! I quoted from my faulty memory, Eph.5.33 is the scripture they base their ministry on, not 1 Pet. 3:7 which speaks of the wife being the weaker vessel. Years ago I asked the Lord about that scripture. My question went something like this:

Lord, what do you mean she's (my wife, Chantal) is the "weaker vessel". She's a strong woman, and in her personality she's often much more forceful and stronger than I. So how can she be the "weaker vessel"?

The Lord answered me very clearly. He said, "Remember, I made you like a cast-iron pot, but I made her like a China vase." It's amazing, when the Lord speaks a few words, it speaks volumes. I understood from what he said, that both Chantal and I were created to carry the presence of God, but concerning our relationship, I needed to treat her with great tenderness and gentleness, like she was a priceless China vase! I also understood that I was strong and meant to protect her. I was to cover her with my prayers and with my life as called for.

Anyhow, thanks for catching that mistake earlier. Eph. 5 is a powerful passage!

[Sherman]

Hello everyone,

Well, I've about shared what I can on Mt.19. I believe that Jesus' difficult passage was in answer to the Pharisees direct question as to why Moses legislated the bill of divorce. He noted two reasons:

1) Transcultural - because of the hardness of heart of mankind

2) Cultural specific - to stop the practice of men putting away their wives, causing them to commit adultery, and the man that marries them to commit adultery. It did this by bringing a legal end to a broken marriage, legally freeing an abandoned woman to marry someone else.

Jesus also called all believers to a powerful level of holiness when He said, "If a man divorces his wife so that he can marry another, he commits adultery!" Apparently, regardless of the "reason" for the divorce, even if his wife commits adultery, if a man divorces her out of hate and selfishness so that he can marry someone else, he commits adultery against her. He's the one that ultimately breaks the marriage covenant, though she radically sinned against it and him. Of course, in Jewish culture only the man could enact divorce, but in our culture women can too!

As I mentioned, I've about shared what I want to on this passage, unless someone else has further things they would like to discuss or questions you might have. And it seems like this thread has taken several turns off topic. Anyhow, I would like to suggest that we start another thread on another topic or scripture. Does anyone have anything specific they would like to look at? Maybe 1 Cor. 7, Mark 10, or a topic like; What is marriage? Is marriage Indissoluble? Which authority is over MDR?

Shalohm!!!!!

[SammySmile]

Hello

A few comments here.

Here is one presumed axiom quoted from a website referenced in the thread:

"FACT: We all know its dealing with sexual sin by a person we have entered into a marital covenant with." (referencing the exception clause)

I don't think we can accept this statement as a fact. The term "fornication" as used in Jesus' day had a very broad meaning, referencing sexual sins within and without marriage, but its use in the Bible seems to be mainly confined to unlawful sexual unions outside marriage. (I Cor 5:1, I Cor. 7:2)

The term "adultery" or "marital unfaithfulness" was not used by Jesus as an exception. Therefore, the term "fornication" may actually be referencing the unlawfulness of the marriage/relationship rather than sexual sin of one within a legal marriage.

Also, to describe the "any matter" divorce procedure as "frivilous" divorce, and that Jesus was condemning this divorce procedure seems to be connecting dots that don't really deserve to be connected here.

The "any matter" divorce procedure was not really meant to be an instrument for frivilous divorce, but was just a procedure that allowed divorce without the blood and guts display that the Shammaites required. Joseph was going to divorce Mary under the "any matter" divorce procedure and the Bible says that Joseph was a righteous man.

In fact, in that day, it was a well accepted fact that the any matter divorce was considered the more righteous. The Shammaites' divorce procedure was looked upon as harsh and impractical and was eventually banned from civil practice altogether.

So the concept that Jesus was establishing that divorce for "any matter" was adultery makes zero sense, IMHO.

Thanks for reading

Frank

[firehill]

Hello everyone,

On the subject of husband and wife roles, I'd like to recommend a ministry seminar that my wife and I attended this weekend "Love and Respect". Their ministry is www.loveandrespect.com . It's a very inspirational and challenging series that I'll recommend to everyone.

It's based on 1 Pet. 3:7, "Husbands love your wives, and wives love your husbands." This scripture reveals the most basic needs, strengths and weannesses of men and women. Women are by creation nurturning and loving, but they need Love; Men are by creation more honoring and respectful of authority, but they need Respect. Men struggle to be loving; and Women struggle to be respectful. I know these are some broad statements with individuals not falling in these generalities.

At first glance the 'Love and Respect' title of the seminar is recognizable as Pauline. The reasons why I say this is because at the very end of Ephesians 5 on husbands and wives, in v.33, where Paul is summing up what he's been instructing all along in the previous verses 21-32 1) he actualy defines 'submit' precisely as 'respect' and 2) since througout vv.21-32 he address mostly husbands to love their wives he says it again and first in v33.

33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Love and respect is exactly what Paul's teachings for husbands and wives, in Eph 5 boils down to!

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look into this website when I get a chance.

Firehill, good catch! I quoted from my faulty memory, Eph.5.33 is the scripture they base their ministry on, not 1 Pet. 3:7 which speaks of the wife being the weaker vessel. Years ago I asked the Lord about that scripture. My question went something like this:

Lord, what do you mean she's (my wife, Chantal) is the "weaker vessel". She's a strong woman, and in her personality she's often much more forceful and stronger than I. So how can she be the "weaker vessel"?

The Lord answered me very clearly. He said, "Remember, I made you like a cast-iron pot, but I made her like a China vase." It's amazing, when the Lord speaks a few words, it speaks volumes. I understood from what he said, that both Chantal and I were created to carry the presence of God, but concerning our relationship, I needed to treat her with great tenderness and gentleness, like she was a priceless China vase! I also understood that I was strong and meant to protect her. I was to cover her with my prayers and with my life as called for.

Anyhow, thanks for catching that mistake earlier. Eph. 5 is a powerful passage!

Yes, indeed it is a powerful message! PTL!

[firehill]

Hello everyone,

Well, I've about shared what I can on Mt.19. I believe that Jesus' difficult passage was in answer to the Pharisees direct question as to why Moses legislated the bill of divorce. He noted two reasons:

1) Transcultural - because of the hardness of heart of mankind

2) Cultural specific - to stop the practice of men putting away their wives, causing them to commit adultery, and the man that marries them to commit adultery. It did this by bringing a legal end to a broken marriage, legally freeing an abandoned woman to marry someone else.

Jesus also called all believers to a powerful level of holiness when He said, "If a man divorces his wife so that he can marry another, he commits adultery!" Apparently, regardless of the "reason" for the divorce, even if his wife commits adultery, if a man divorces her out of hate and selfishness so that he can marry someone else, he commits adultery against her. He's the one that ultimately breaks the marriage covenant, though she radically sinned against it and him. Of course, in Jewish culture only the man could enact divorce, but in our culture women can too!

As I mentioned, I've about shared what I want to on this passage, unless someone else has further things they would like to discuss or questions you might have. And it seems like this thread has taken several turns off topic. Anyhow, I would like to suggest that we start another thread on another topic or scripture. Does anyone have anything specific they would like to look at? Maybe 1 Cor. 7, Mark 10, or a topic like; What is marriage? Is marriage Indissoluble? Which authority is over MDR?

Shalohm!!!!!

I would like to look at Mark 10 then 1 Cor. 7. I think that Mark 10 relates to the topic of this thread directly therefore I would first like to look at it.

Also I would like an answer to the two questions, 'What is marriage, Is marriage it indissoluble?

The authority that is over MDR foremost is civil authority is it not?

[firehill]

A bride is a woman just married or soon to be married. Why don

[firehill]

IF you can show me a CLEAR scripture that nullifies the context of these, then give me a ring...

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

(1Pe 3:5-6 KJV)

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

(1Pe 3:1 KJV)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

(Col 3:18 KJV)

I'll give you a 'ring' one day, one precept, one principle at a time that nullifies your interpretation of the context of the verses above. If you want to presently discuss Ephesians 5 in another thread then that's a different matter.

[firehill]

Hello

A few comments here.

Here is one presumed axiom quoted from a website referenced in the thread:

"FACT: We all know its dealing with sexual sin by a person we have entered into a marital covenant with." (referencing the exception clause)

I don't think we can accept this statement as a fact. The term "fornication" as used in Jesus' day had a very broad meaning, referencing sexual sins within and without marriage, but its use in the Bible seems to be mainly confined to unlawful sexual unions outside marriage. (I Cor 5:1, I Cor. 7:2)

The term "adultery" or "marital unfaithfulness" was not used by Jesus as an exception. Therefore, the term "fornication" may actually be referencing the unlawfulness of the marriage/relationship rather than sexual sin of one within a legal marriage.

Also, to describe the "any matter" divorce procedure as "frivilous" divorce, and that Jesus was condemning this divorce procedure seems to be connecting dots that don't really deserve to be connected here.

The "any matter" divorce procedure was not really meant to be an instrument for frivilous divorce, but was just a procedure that allowed divorce without the blood and guts display that the Shammaites required. Joseph was going to divorce Mary under the "any matter" divorce procedure and the Bible says that Joseph was a righteous man.

In fact, in that day, it was a well accepted fact that the any matter divorce was considered the more righteous. The Shammaites' divorce procedure was looked upon as harsh and impractical and was eventually banned from civil practice altogether.

So the concept that Jesus was establishing that divorce for "any matter" was adultery makes zero sense, IMHO.

Thanks for reading

Frank

I'm still trying to catch up here and have to re-read this. Thanks for contributing Sam/Frank!

[firehill]

IF you can show me a CLEAR scripture that nullifies the context of these, then give me a ring...

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

(1Pe 3:5-6 KJV)

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

(1Pe 3:1 KJV)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

(Col 3:18 KJV)

I'll give you a 'ring' one day, one precept, one principle at a time that nullifies your interpretation of the context of the verses above. If you want to discuss Ephesians 5 in another thread then that's a different matter.

Im quite sure you will give it your best shot in a vain attempt to do away with the context of the whole.

Prayfully no young wives are listening to you, FH, while you tell them that Paul was wrong with he told them to be submissive to their husbands.

Then in this case perhaps you'd like to quote where I've said that wives are not instructed to submit to their husbands?

You've been missing what I've actualy been trying to say all along!