| Poster | Thread |
| |  2006/12/8 1:56 | |
| | Re: Does God hate divorce | | Dear Cindy,
As you may have gathered, I don't find any of God's word in opposition to itself in spirit.
And, I do believe that its application is situational. Just like you wouldn't take out a person's appendix, who needed their broken leg to be set in plaster [i]instead[/i], and you wouldn't take out a healthy kidney, leaving the diseased one untouched.
In my first example which you quote, I agree completely that if the cheater is repentant, their estranged (now ex-)spouse should forgive them if possible. However, that might take a while.
My point is more that, [u]even if the now estranged ex-spouse does forgive them[/u], he or she has the option to sue for divorce AS WELL, and, FIRST.
Those who understand the meaning of the word 'except', make sense of Jesus' words in Matt 19:9 and Matt 5:32 this way, the more, because HE makes no specific mention of reconciliation. He was answering a question about [u]divorce[/u] and HE [i]stuck to the issue[/i] in His reply.
The difference, therefore, between your position and mine, is, that you believe reconciliation at a marital level is a [u]necessary[/u] part of forgiveness. But the Lord didn't say that, even though it is obvious to Christians this might be possible, the Lord didn't say it was the [u]only[/u] way out for the one who did not sin.
It is also clear, therefore, that when the ex-spouse (who had not sinned), chooses to divorce the sinner (whether the sinner is repentant or not), that ex-spouse [u]is not[/u] sinning, [i]no matter how disappointed his or her local assembly may be[/i]. This is what we all call 'a matter of the heart', and we don't judge them for it. God will do that.
Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly about how significant a choice marriage is, but I don't think the seventy times seven commandment, (which Jesus speaks to 'brothers'), also applies to spouses.
This is because after the [u]first[/u] infidelity, [u]the vows of one to the other have been broken[/u], and even if that is the [i]last[/i] time, a very serious betrayal has been brought to bear on [u]both[/u] people, which affects not only each person's physical integrity, but their psychological, emotional and spiritual health.
I believe Jesus understood ALL the [u]real[/u] implications and that's why His word includes the exceptions and callings which it does.
Please remember we are sure Peter was married. He said 'We have left all and have followed Thee', [i]to Jesus[/i]. My point is more that there is [i]liberty[/i] ..... which is hard to discover in your thesis.
Jesus also states that one's [i]children[/i] are not to stand in one's way of the service to which He calls some men. There is an assumption the man will go and serve the Lord, but the way you speak, you would not be able to believe that God had called your husband in such a way, leaving you without his support and conjugal comforts. However, this is not scripture.
Quote:
As was ascertained in the previous thread on this topic Dorcas, we are miles apart on our views of marriage.
Ah! This may be true. You, in particular, because you seem to put it above obedience to the word of God, whether written or spoken by Him to the heart of a believer. Aren't you making marriage a [i][b]god[/b][/i]?
Quote:
dorcas asked
Isn't it time 'the Church' accepted that Jesus gave options to people in certain well-defined circumstances, and stopped criticising those who take the most extreme course in His service?
Cindy replied
No, I don't believe it's time to accept what many of us believe is sin.......a little leaven and we have what we now see in the "church"----a big mess which noone wants to touch.
I don't think you see that the solution you propose would solve nothing for a great many people.
GUILT is a very real state of being in a person, but it is not obviated by [i]anything[/i] other than being washed in the blood of the Lamb. Only then can a person walk in holiness under the provisions of the [u]New Covenant[/u].
Any return to Old Covenant thinking, attracts a return of condemnation, [i]and guilt[/i], not letting the life of Christ take over. Stating this reminds me of freecd's excellent thread called RESTING IS THE REQUIRED OBEDIENCE.
Really, we [i]must[/i] rest in the fulness and efficacy of Christ's death, and be raised with Him to walk in newness of life. As witnessed in 1 Cor 7, if this doesn't happen to both in a marriage at the same time, the [i]believer[/i] is free to let the unbeliever go, for the sake of the peace to which Christ has called us. (I gather you find this a mysterious concept of which you would deny the outworking to those who [i]should[/i] lay hold on it.)
So, as far as I can ascertain from your posts, it seems you don't believe God EVER forgives people for divorce, (that is, what [i]scripture[/i] would define as divorce leading to adultery), [i][u]or[/u] for remarriage[/i] (because you believe these both ALWAYS lead to adultery), regardless of His written word or His word to their hearts. [b]Is this correct?[/b]
And [u]people who have been forgiven[/u] - for fornication, adultery, divorce, remarriage - [b]their testimony[/b] - you dismiss those too, (as liars and deceived). Is this correct? |
| | 2006/12/8 7:37 | |
| | Re: Does God hate divorce | | [b]By the way, I checked up the meaning of the word used for 'woman' in John 8, and it [u]does[/u] include virgins, so, I wonder if you would share your thoughts now, on whether if Jesus forgave a single woman for adultery, she would have been free to get married for a [u]first[/u] time?[/b]
(This is the same word Jesus uses in Matt 19:9 and Matt 5:32, which means He is speaking as much to those in consummated marriages as He is to those so far only espoused under Jewish law, which law (Rom 7:1 - 3) both on marriage and divorce has been changed by Him, for both Jewish and Gentile [i]Christians[/i].) |
| | 2006/12/8 7:44 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
dorcas wrote:
[b]By the way, I checked up the meaning of the word used for 'woman' in John 8, and it [u]does[/u] include virgins, so, I wonder if you would share your thoughts now, on whether if Jesus forgave a single woman for adultery, she would have been free to get married for a [u]first[/u] time?[/b]
(This is the same word Jesus uses in Matt 19:9 and Matt 5:32, which means He is speaking as much to those in consummated marriages as He is to those so far only espoused under Jewish law, which law (Rom 7:1 - 3) both on marriage and divorce has been changed by Him, for both Jewish and Gentile [i]Christians[/i].)
Good study, Dorcas :)
The twist that is used in this is to say that the pharisees are asking Jesus about putting away and He is 'correcting' their interpretation concerning Deut 24 by stating that Moses hadnt intended for divorce to be used EXCEPT in casees of whoredom.
But see, the problem there is that Deut 22 had already covered this issue just two chapters prior. The law prescribed the death penalty, not divorce, for fornication (harlotry, illicit sex)
Deuteronomy was given over ~ 40 days and is pretty much a repeating of the law. It has a few additions, Deut 24:1-4 being one of those.
This means that *IF* Deut 24:1-4 were actually an 'amendment' to Deut 22, as many of this doctrine erroneously believe, that it came within DAYS of Deut 22:13-21 !
Does ANYONE here actually believe God and Moses were so absent minded that they AMENDED laws for sexual sins that quickly?
The fact is, as proven by Lev 21, that putting away had been going on for quite some time before Deut was given.
What 'fits' here is not that Deut 24 is an amendement to Deut 22:13-21 (which leaves the absurd contradiction that ANYONE other than the husband could STILL have the cheating espoused wife put to death, btw, see Deut 22:22-24 :-? ).....but is Moses attempt to REGULATE this "putting away" that we see evidence of in Lev 21 (the priests could not marry a woman put away from her husband).
Deut 22 is about sexual sins of the wife.
Deut 24 is about this 'for every cause' (some uncleaness) divorce that Moses had permitted but was now trying to regulate.
It gets no simpler than that, and that is what the evidence as a whole presents.
To cindy can company, there is no 'immorality clause' in the Law. Sexual sins were handled with the death penalty under the Mosiac economy.
To interested READERS of this thread, please check out my studies on these pages.
(some of them are very brief)
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/backgrnddivorce.html
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/ervah.html
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/deut24.html
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/divrempredeut.html
One thing becomes clear after studying out the details, Deut 24:1-4 is NOT about sexual sins.
This means that Matt 19 is not about sexual sins either, but this 'for EVERY cause' divorce Jesus was being asked about...
|
| | 2006/12/8 10:05 | |
| | | 2006/12/8 21:39 | | lastblast
Member
Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan
| | Re: | | Quote:
Those who understand the meaning of the word 'except', make sense of Jesus' words in Matt 19:9 and Matt 5:32 this way, the more, because HE makes no specific mention of reconciliation. He was answering a question about divorce and HE stuck to the issue in His reply.
Dorcas,
Mt. 19:9----"except for" we disagree on. You think because I disagree with your rendering of it, that I am ignoring Jesus'Word. Yet, I see the exception clause as pertaining to either betrothal marriages in which the two have not yet come together (as in Mt. 1:18-24) or it regards UNLAWFUL unions in which the Lord did not join those together(adulterous, homsexual, incestual). Those and those alone are the only ones Jesus allows the putting away of.
You believe it to mean sexual immorality within the marriage that God joins together. I do not---- and the reason I do not see it as such is because of Rom. 7:2-3 and I Cor. 7:39 as well as the other gospel teachings on divorce/remarriage (Mk. 10, Lk 16).
To take it to mean what you believe it to mean would be to do the opposite of good hermeneutics (to take the CLEAR and use those to determine the meaning of a seemingly contradictory single passage).
_________________
Cindy
|
| | 2006/12/9 13:57 | Profile | lastblast
Member
Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan
| | Re: | | Quote:
I don't think the seventy times seven commandment, (which Jesus speaks to 'brothers'), also applies to spouses.
All I can say, Dorcas, is "wow"........
Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, yet you believe continual forgiveness does not apply in marriage............ :-(
_________________
Cindy
|
| | 2006/12/9 14:01 | Profile |
| | Re: | | a 157 posts and counting, and I believe 3300 odd pages views. I thought this thread was gonna die the death it so richly deserves at 100 posts and 2500 pages views. guess I was wrong.
all I can say, Cindy is "wow".
arguing about religion is fun, aint it?
neil |
| | 2006/12/9 14:19 | | MrBillPro
Member
Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3422
Texas
| | Re: | | Quote:
bartle wrote:
arguing about religion is fun, aint it?
neil
Probably is not as much fun to those dying because of Religion.
Either way dying or arguing it's sad.
_________________
Bill
|
| | 2006/12/9 14:25 | Profile |
| | yep | | more than sad.
"Jesus wept".
neil |
| | 2006/12/9 14:30 | |
|
