Marriage & Divorce question

[Smalcald]

I don't think anyone should stay in horrible depressing situations or of course abusive relationships or ones that include addictions or adultery. Scripture is certainly clear that adultery or abandonment by an unbeliever is a perfectly valid reason for a divorce.

But there is no promise in scripture that Christians must be in relationships all of the time. Yes divorce sometimes must happen. But should it happen to 1/2 of all Christian marriages? Should it be allowed in cases of unrepentant adultery?

I don't believe men or women who leave a marriage because they want to commit adultery should be allowed to marry again in a Christian Church without some serious consideration. Maybe part of their repentance their true repentance is to remain single for the rest of their lives. After all we all agree that we would give up our lives for Christ, that our faith would call us to give up everything, well our faith would probably be calling us to do this to give up our adulterous affair, why is that so hard?

[Richard_yaash]

Aside from the fact that he denies that Jesus was or came to be the Messiah.

I was not aware of that either. I will have to look into it sometime. Not doubting your word Biblicist, but I always look into such as this before coming to a conclusion for myself.

[Guest Biblicist]

Aside from the fact that he denies that Jesus was or came to be the Messiah.

I was not aware of that either. I will have to look into it sometime. Not doubting your word Biblicist, but I always look into such as this before coming to a conclusion for myself.

Please, don't take my word for anything. Always search to see what you are told is true.

There's a couple of threads about it and he actually wrote a book on the subject...

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=82947&hl=

[Theopolitan]

The situations are hypothetical but common to our times.

1. What if a relationship that began as adultery results in divorces for one or both parties, and they decide to marry because they are "in love"? Will God bless the marriage that had an illegit start?

Nope. It's not a marriage. It's adultery.

2. What if casual sex results in a pregnancy and the couple decide to marry? Will God bless the marriage that had an illegit start?

If they couple in their hearts truly repent of their sin, then, yes.

[Richard_yaash]

Please, don't take my word for anything. Always search to see what you are told is true.

There's a couple of threads about it and he actually wrote a book on the subject...

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=82947&hl=

Thanks Biblicist. I spent at least two or more hours looking into it this evening and reading the threads and links provided. As I am not that familiar with John Hagee to begin with, even in reading all that has been presented so far, I am no closer to a conclusion.

About spring 97 I think it was I was in attendence at a place in which John Hagee gave a sermon, it was very good as I remember it.

I do have some reservation currently, however without digging much deeper into this, I will withhold comment/judgment.

Again, thank you.

[Richard_yaash]

Even so, divorce does not end a sacramental marriage.

Actually, yes it does.

IMO: While divorce may dissolve a marriage from a legal standpoint. It does not and can not break the bond of the flesh [ie one flesh]. The bond of the flesh remains until death. Thus the serious nature of this.

Consider if you will: 1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

[Richard_yaash]

Will we judge another's servant?

I agreed Greg. IMO: We should be very careful in that regard.

[Richard_yaash]

As a side note, I find it amazing that strict adherants to the traditional "Christian" doctrine of MDR actually demand that people who have been divorced and remarried, divorce their current spouses and remarry their first spouses in order for them to receive full fellowship in the church. They say this even though this was specifically forbidden in Deut.24.1-4.

With this I agree with you Sherman. More correctly, I agree with what the Scriptures have to say upon the topic. It is taking a situation which is already bad enough and turning it into an abomination.

Third, note that this scripture mentions TWO divorces, not just one! The 1st was because the wife found "no favor" in her husband's eyes because he "found some uncleaness in her". The 2nd was because the husband "detests/hates her". The Pharisees during the time of Christ got caught up arguing over the meaning of the phrases associated with the 1st divorce mentioned. Based on their beliefs concerning these phrases, they developed two significantly different philosophies and procedures for divorce. One was called the "Any Matter" divorce and was similar in philosophy to today's "No-fault" divorce. This type of divorce was administered by Hillelite Rabbis acting as civil judges. Basically, if a man was willing to pay the full dowry, he need not reveal the reasons for the divorce. This was considered the more righteous/kind type of divorce. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, mother of Jesus, was going to divorce Mary "quitely" and not broadcast her "sin". "Quitely" was an idiomatic, culturally specific way of referencing the "Any Matter" divorce procedure.

Though I understand what you are saying, I am not in full accord here.

Under the 'liberal' school of thought, a man was allowed to divorce for such ludicrous reasons as she burnt his toast. That IMO was not the intent of the law and would indeed be breaking faith with one's wife. A man involved in such a divorce would indeed be dealing/acting treacherously toward the woman. IMO the intent would cover two parties completely unable to get along. Let's say such as a wife guilty of adultery. Perhaps even to the extent of a contentious wife [No offense ladies].

In fact, Phillip refused to give his wife Herodias a bill of divorce, though she had left him and was living with his brother, Herod, like a wife.

The above seems to me to be merely conjecture with no corroborating evidence.

Mark 6:18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother

[Richard_yaash]

Sadly, Mal.2.16 is often mistranslated because the translators fail to recognize and properly interpret the idiomatic phrase "hateful divorce."

I strongly disagree. However I see where you have spoken of this more so I will reply further there.

And in Mal. 2, God is chastising the men of Israel for breaking their covenants, even their marriage covenants. They were hatefully divorcing the wives of their youth, divorcing them without any morally legitimate reason, and likely divorcing them in order to marry younger women, foreign women to boot. So men who hatefully divorced (divorce for selfish reaons) their wives were bloody, violent, evil, wicked, mean-spirited men, covenant-breakers!

I will agree with the gist of this however. I am not in complete accord.

[Richard_yaash]

However, the Hebrew is not so clear.

I would be more than happy to transliterate it here so that we may examine it closely.

15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residued of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.  16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (KJV)

First notice that the "he" in "he hateth putting away" is NOT capitalized. The King James Version is a wooden, literal version that attempts to stick closely to a word for word translation of the original language. The word