SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Marriage/Divorce & Remarriage- What does God say about it?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
Therefore, could it be possible that he is saying in the 1 Timothy verse that she should not be someone who had put away her husband and then married someone else at some point in her life?


absolutely my point.
if she has put away or been put away and been remarried, she is not be be put on this list of widows.
If a man has been put away or put away his wife, then he is not to be considered for the position of bishop.

Altho, Im not sure yet that this is not modified by the man or woman who lawfully has put away a spouse for scriptural reasons.

I believe the phrase 'spouse of ONE spouse' is completely interchangable as divorce and remarriage was a common problem at the time and since we know there was no issue with women having multiple husbands, the one logical conclusion is that Paul is addressing divorcees who had remarried...something not quite the example to live by.
This rule applied to a widow and also applied to those applying for the positions of overseer or others of authority in the church.

I believe its very easy to make ALL relevant scripture fit perfectly in this matter....I have yet to find any scripture that doesnt fit quite easily.


Quote:
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
(Mar 10:11-12)


Also, it would seem from Scripture that the only exceptions to these rules of marriage are adultery (Matthew 19:9) and desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15).


There are MANY contingencies not covered in scripture where the 'spirit' of the law should guide us when we have no clear words from our Lord.

Does a God who would permit divorce in a case of whoredom then turn and say 'youre stuck with your animal' when this man savagely beats and rapes his wife and even their own daughter ?

I think the spirit of the law is just as important as the letter of the law.
when i 'test'this scenario of abuse against Gods whole word concerning marriage I see a God who surely would not tell this woman she was bound to this man till death, then release the woman who was simply deserted.

 2006/5/9 18:32









 Re:

Quote:
lastblast:
"The Lord clearly says that if married couples are at odds, their prayers are hindered



uh, technically it says the mans prayers are the ones hindered (cut off) if he isnt treating her as a co-heir in Christ.
[b]
1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
[/b]

Very critical that we interpret that correctly.

 2006/5/10 18:19









 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:
Robert,

Is the woman in Deut. 24:1-4 called an adulteress in her new marriage? The writ of divorcement given to her allowed her to remarry---it was even in the wording of the document given to her. It appears that the second marriage was viewed as lawful, not adultery. Jesus however, taught unbiblical remarriage=adultery---not lawful marriage. Adultery CAN be repented of/forsaken. One is not deemed "unclean" when they repent. A marriage CAN be restored. I see a big difference between what Jesus taught and what is being said there in Deut. 24:1-4. Besides, we are not Jewish nor follow Jewish customs----which back then, women had no rights concerning divorce---the husband's did the divorcing.

Jesus clearly showed that a woman COULD divorce and He forbade it. To make this only about a man not being able to take back someone "unclean/defiled", but a woman can take back a man who has been defiled doesn't make a whole lot of sense---biblically. Throughout scripture we see that God Himself continually takes back those who are "defiled"-----in the OT and especially in the NT. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy

What you continually dismiss, cindy, it that in Romans 7 Paul is speaking to those who know the law in Rome, possibly Hebrews there.

These that knew the law would have understood that Pauls statement was comparing the Mosaic law to this 'law of the husband' he speaks of that is until death.

You seem to think Romans 7 has ADDED this dynamic that marriage is for life until death, it hasnt.

This 'law of the husband', as you full well know, was put into place 'from the beginning'...so Paul isnt introducing some NT 'until death' policy at all in Romans 7.

That being the case, we see that this 'law' cannot have been UNconditional or Moses finds himself being the greatest lawbreaker of all time by permitting men to divorce as far back as Leviticus 21, then not only that, but adding to Gods LAW (Deut 24:1-4) actual instruction as to how to BREAK this supposed UNbreakable law of the husband.

Something is quite amiss in your belief system if this is your doctrine.

Since we KNOW Moses would not have defied God in such a manner, we know that his allowance for divorce had to have been within Gods will.

Any serious study shows that Moses permitted EASY divorce so that a man could rid himself of this wife he no longer wanted, rather than have her who had done no wrong be victim to this animals savage treatment of her.

Moses permitted EASY divorce, as evidenced both by Deut 24:1-4 and historical facts themselves, to protect this wife.

There is no allowance in the law to divorce an adulterous wife.
Her punishment was death according to Deut chap 22, very clearly.

When Joseph was about to put Mary away, consummated or not, she was his covenant wife, lawfully and completely bound in marriage to Joe.
He was not invoking some unwritten permission to put away a betrothed wife who had committed sexual sin....her punishment under the Mosaic law they lived under would have been death had she actually committed sexual sin against her husband (aka 'adultery").

Joe was going to put her away (divorce)quietly because he knew what the possibilities were for her.

Now we believe also that during this time that capital punishment was forbidden by the Jews in general due to Roman rule (evidenced by Jesus being put to death by the Romans and not the Jews themselves)...most of the time divorce, not death, was being used to deal with adultery as well.

Deut 24:1-4 clearly shows a divorce has happened and this wife given a bill of divorce.
A frivolous, yet lawful divorce has taken place.

In Romans 7, NO divorce is spoken of to these that 'know the law'....she apparently had not been lawfully released from the 'law of the husband' there and as such would be an adulteress if she remarried.

These that 'know the law' would surely know that *IF* she had been freed from this 'law of the husband' with a bill of divorce, that she would have been free to remarry and then could never return to her first husband under any circumstances.

I believe the reason you misunderstand Romans 7 is that you seem to reject that this 'law of the husband' that Paul refers to is NOT something new, nor is this idea of being bound for life to a spouse.


 2006/5/10 18:44
lastblast
Member



Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan

 Re: Repentance from Sin

Quote:
We can clearly see that in God's Word, remarriage is wrong. Divorce, in some cases, is acceptable under the Jewish betrothal and such. But remarriage is not.

As for the "repent of the sin of remarriage, and then keep living together", this is a grave error. i say grave, because the Bible says that God will judge the unrepentant (Paraphrase there ). Repentance is not only haveing a change of mind, but of action too. To say that a drunkard can repent of being a drunkard, and keep drinking is not right, so why would we say it is alright for two to stay together, who are in adultery? So, we see that it is (As John Baptist said) not lawfull to have her...



Amen brother. I think I've said my peace on this issue in this thread, so I won't add anymore. Blessings in Him, Cindy :-)


_________________
Cindy

 2006/5/10 19:22Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: A lot of questions

I'm intertupting a very interesting presentation with questions that has been on my mind for years. I haven't read the entire thread, so if these questions have already been answered, please let me know:

Can someone discuss the marriage vows: ex where did they originate, how biblical are they, (re saying vows... ) What about saying vows that one has no ability to keep because of immaturity, or some personality defect?

"What GOD has joined to gether.. " Does this come from scripture? At what point does GOD join a union? And what unions might GOD not be joining - any? What about non-believers, rebellious sinners who marry for all the wrong reasons?

What about those countries where parents arrange marriages - sometimes even marrying children - sometimes against their will?

Does God join only state-liscenced unions?
What power does the religious leader have from God in saying, 'Before God I now pronounce..." What about non-believeing clergy?
Can the head of the household not do that - ex the father of the bride?


Feel free to ignore these questions if you believe they are off the topic. I'am just wondering if some of our traditions or our understanding of marriage may actually contribute to the issues surrounding divorce.

We need to be clear about the laws. After all, if something is law, then breaking that law a crime, and must be treated as such.

Diane



_________________
Diane

 2006/5/10 19:53Profile









 Re:

Quote:
What about those countries where parents arrange marriages - sometimes even marrying children - sometimes against their will?


Thats an interesting question.
Ill see what I can dig up if this is actaully against the persons will altogether.



Quote:
"What GOD has joined to gether.. " Does this come from scripture?

Absolutely.
both in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 Jesus uses the phrase.
altho, both of those accounts are one and the same event.
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/25.html

Quote:

Does God join only state-liscenced unions?


Lack of a license does not relieve one of vows/oaths/promises made to another person and before God.

A license is a 'permission' to do something...only God has the authority to tell a man and woman they cannot be husband and wife before Him.

A license is surely a good idea to protect ones spouse and children from a godless state tho.

AS for these supposed 'laws of the land'...when the states begin prosecuting those who live together in a sexual union without a covenant before God, then we can assume it is 'unlawful' to live in the same manner, except having made a covenant of marriage before Him.


Quote:
What power does the religious leader have from God in saying, 'Before God I now pronounce..." What about non-believeing clergy?


None.
Isaac took Rebekkah without this nonsense.
who 'requires' it is the state.
and it is for their protection so that you dont use the protections they have offered your spouse for one woman this week and another the next.

The state, if you are claiming to be 'married' wants to be sure that your marriage is set in stone.
Otherwise things like insurance companies are going to be put at great risk.




 2006/5/10 20:41









 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:
Amen brother. I think I've said my peace on this issue in this thread, so I won't add anymore. Blessings in Him, Cindy :-)


stick around and lets discuss this topic for a while :-)

 2006/5/10 20:44









 Re:


"Bound by law " vs "not in bondage"
a game of semantics


Some say that this wife is bound to her husband unconditionally only after consummation. That during the betrothal period she can be put away for fornication.
They reject that Gods word shows that the betrothed wife is still a covenant wife...fully bound in marriage to her husband both lawfully and religiously.

They reject arguments about the believer not being still bound to the deserting UNbeliever stating that it is a 'different greek word' that means she is not in bondage, not in 'slavery', but she is still 'bound' to her husband by the terms of the greek in 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2..

Here are the passages in question and the definitions of relevant greek words.

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
(1Co 7:39 KJV)

And also in Romans 7:2

"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
(Rom 7:2 KJV)

The word 'bound' in 1 Cor 7:39 is"deo" (g1210)

bound
G1210
????
deo?
deh'-o
A primary verb; to bind (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind. See also G1163, G1189.

The wife is 'bound' to the husband as long as he lives.

Versus this passage...

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
(1Co 7:15 KJV)

Bondage
G1402
???????
douloo?
doo-lo'-o
From G1401; to enslave (literally or figuratively): - bring into (be under) bondage, X given, become (make) servant.

They say that since its not the same word that the believer may not be in bondage, but they are still 'bound' to the deserter.



Let us also play greek scholar here and go to 1 Corinthians 7:27, concerning virgins, and see if we can use their logic consistantly and still maintain consistancy in the scriptures..

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
(1Co 7:27 KJV)

bound
G1210
????
deo?
deh'-o
A primary verb; to bind (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind. See also G1163, G1189.

Here we see that this person is also 'bound' in the same manner as in 1 Corinthians 7:39 by the use of the word 'deo'.
The greek word is the same in both instances.

Using same logic our friendly anti-remarriagers do, that the word must be the same to have the same meaning and intent, we see that this this virgin in 1 Corinthians 7:27 is 'bound' to his wife in the SAME exact manner that this wife is 'bound' to her husband in 1 Corinthians 7:39. and in Romans 7:2.

This means, if we do as these folk do, that this virgin in 1 Corinthians 7:27 is 'bound' for life already to his wife because the greek word is the exact same word as in 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2. where it shows she is 'bound for life' to her husband supposedly without condition.

The anti-remarriagers say that this betrothed virgin CAN be put away as per Jesus exception, for harlotry,
But playing greek scholar here, we see that it is the SAME word that binds a wife to her husband in 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2 that binds this man to his wife in 1 Corinthians 7:27....thus meaning she CANNOT be put away because she is 'bound' already by the SAME greek word that binds the wife in 1 Corinthians 7:39...

They cant have it both ways.
They cant say the difference in the wording shows one thing in one case, then reject the wording in another case....*IF* this is how rendering and interpretation might be done.

Thank goodness it isnt.
My boss can 'fire' me....he can 'terminate' me......he can 'let me go'.....in every case I am no longer his employee....the differences in wording are irrelevant...the intent, the 'meaning' is the same..

1 Corinthians 7:27 says 'bound' and calls her his 'wife'...as she lawfully was according to Jewish betrothal.
1 Corinthians 7:39 shows that a 'wife' is 'bound' by the law to her husband for as long as he lives.
NOTHING in scripture ever states that it only occurs AFTER consummation that she is bound to him.
That is because she is bound to him for life by the 'law of the husband' until his death from the moment she is betrothed, not only after consummation.
This law is not, nor ever has been, unconditional.

Conclusions:
-If the wife is bound by law without condition to the husband in 1 Corinthians 7:39 because of the word 'deo' then playing the the anti-remarriagers methods that means that the virgin in 1 Corinthians 7:27 is also 'bound' unconditionally to his wife there for life already..

-This clearly means that the exception clause would not apply to these betrothed virgins based simply on the fact that Paul used the same word 'bound' (deo, g1210) for both the "wife" and the virgin who is bound to a wife".....making Jesus exception both a contradiction and meaningless to even those of this doctrinal view.

We know that Jesus didnt give His exception to no one.

Thus this argument that the believer is still 'bound' even tho not in 'bondage' the the deserter is a mere game of semantics.

A freed slave no longer in bondage to his master is free indeed...he is not still "bound" to him...

 2006/5/11 0:35









 Re:

Quote:
His statment is further solidified by refering to Deut 24:1-2. The situation presented by Moses is a woman marrying a man under false pretences, by claiming to be a virgin. Moses spelled out, that he may divorce her by writing a letter of divorcement, simply to state that he is okay with anyone else marrying her.


Absolutely incorrect.

The crime of a woman being found not a virgin is covered just two chapters before in Deut 22....her punishment is death, not divorce.

=====================================================
[b]If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

--->But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
(Deu 22:13-21)
[/b]
======================================================

The allowance in Deut 24 is exactly as the pharisees had presented it except that it was not a 'command' but a permission.

Moses clearly states in Deut 24 that "she find no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleaness in her".

Jesus in no way corrects the pharisees understanding of the law meaning 'for EVERY cause'.

Deut was given over approximately 40 days.
That means that *IF* your doctrine were actually correct, then God made a law about this woman not found a virgin and her punishment being death in Deut 22.....then turned around in less than a month and supposedly AMENDED this law in Deut 24.

Oddly enough not many christians are going to believe that either Moses or God is that absent minded.

Also, *IF* your doctrine were correct, then according to the WHOLE law, the husband would be the ONLY person not permitted to put this woman to death.
Later in Deut 22 we see that this same betrothed woman is STILL to be put to death for willful whoredom.
======================================================
[b]If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
(Deu 22:23-24)[/b]
=====================================================

That is a fairly blatant contradiction.
Either this woman is to be divorced or put to death.
You say the husband is to divorce her, but since there is no AMENDMENT to Deut 22:23-24, this seems to make Gods word a complete mockery in this issue.

 2006/5/11 0:47
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3422
Texas

 Re:

So did yaw folks figure this one out? or are you more confused now more than ever? :-?


_________________
Bill

 2006/5/11 14:01Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy