Lloydminster, Alberta, Canada
| Re: |
In my case, God gave me the word from Mal 2:16niv , from a natural perspective, there was no hope, we were done. But when I got that word, it wasn't Law to me, It showed that God is on the side of marriage, so I decided to hate divorce too, and trust Him to heal our marriage, it was the toughest emotional thing I have ever went through, but within two months, we were back together, and after twenty five years, we have never looked back. Our love for one another is still growing. I could have, and it seemed easier, at the time, thrown it all away. Our God is for us, he will heal your marriage.
For those who are re married, God is full of love and mercy, and forgiveness, cast your past at the cross.
Love in CHRIST tom
| 2009/3/29 2:06||Profile|
| Re: Divorce and Re-marriage|
Is there any biblical precedence for re-marriage, other than the death of a spouse ?
Right when divorce is shown as dissolving the marriage covenant.
| 2009/4/2 22:45||Profile|
| Re: |
Hi Brother, good to hear from you.
I would just like to address a couple of points. On any number of subjects the "Jewish," people had a very incomplete understanding of Scripture. This of course culminates in the very wisest of them, the scribes from both sides, rejecting the King of Kings Himself. They were so wise in their understanding of the letter of the law, that they completely missed the spirit of it. Jesus is often astonished at their lack of understanding, so to study what they thought marriage and divorce meant is to miss the heartbeat of God and the clear teaching of Jesus. The clear danger here is straining out gnats and swallowing the camel of "its ok to get divorced."
Its ironic to me that in a day and age , esepecially in Britain and America, where divorce is tearing apart society, that any time at all is speant studying why its really ok to get divorced. That was why I was basicly asking "whats the point of this debate?" If you think that divorce is fine under most circumstances, as long as it is done properly, then I think you should be honest and say that clearly ;-)
"While Jesus didn't endorse 'any cause' divorce, He definitely left open the option of divorce for the spouse of an adulterous marriage partner, under the New Covenant."
Now brother, I can say amen to that, as long as we know that forgiveness and reconcilliation is the preferred path.
I think you misunderstood my point about Romans 7. The point is, Paul is comapring one covenant with another, therefore, the marriage is a covenant, not a contract. I make vows to my spouse, before the living God, without proviso's.
Now, people may not take vows to God very seriously these days, but it is vows. God's own hauntingly beautiful example that he set down by the prophet Hosea's life, speaks volumes. An adulterous wife redeemed from the market place, her nakedness covered is an example of the love of God that will carry all the way to Calvary. He redeems an adulterous generation and the chains of hell are broken because where justice was deserved, mercy was found. This is a continuing theme throughout the Scriptures, this is the heartbeat of God. Instead of exploring for technicalities whereby people can feel good about themselves and their choices, we should be declaring from the mountaintops the supernatural love that redeems, even when it could find justice in casting away. The world understands the first point very well, but the supernatural victory of the second point is what the world desperately needs to see brother........brother Frank
| 2009/4/3 0:29|
| Re: |
But we arent Hosea who was instructed to take a wife of whoredoms for a purpose, are we ?
Apples and oranges.
Secondly, while God does want us to keep our vows, Numbers 30 shows us that He does understand that someone else can keep us from being able to fulfill those vows and in such a case we can be released from the obligation of that vow and the guilty party held responsible for it being broken instead.
| 2009/4/3 23:57||Profile|
| Re: |
Ekklesia, it might be worth studying why Hosea was asked to do what he did. Hosea represents God and his wife represents the children of Israel. As i said, this theme runs through the Word of God. God is telling us something as we read the story of Hosea. Or the story of the Israelites in the desert or idol worship or adultery and so on and so on.
As to your second point, I am not saying that you do not have a technical point as far as someone committing adultery and the innocent party being released from that covenenant or vow. I am not that interested in the technical point, I am searching for the heartbeat of God, the Spirit of God. Because of the hardness of our hearts , it was written, but we have , if we truly know Jesus, redeemed hearts. Hearts that are more than conquerers. What was once impossible, now is possible. What is impossible for a lost world, is possible for a redeemed saint. And just so the point is not lost, we are talking about the rule here, not the exception. The numbers prove that divorce is even higher in the "church," than it is in the world. Quite frankly, this is a disgrace and brings mocking from the world. They look at what is called the church and they see no difference to the way they lead their lives, no difference to the way they sort their problems out. This luke-warm, watered down version of what passes for the church will surely pass. Instead of seeking technicalities all the day long so that we can pursue the life that we want to pursue, shouldnt we rather seek the presence of God and embrace suffering? Rememeber, Jesus came to this earth and He humbled Himeself and took on the likeness of man, a servant. And He was humiliated for our sake, and died the death, even the death of the cross for us. Where are today's soldiers of the cross? Where are His servants today who gladly die to themselves and all of their rights? I am not denying that a wronged party in the case of adultery has the right to divorce. They certainly do. I am personaly not a stranger to this subject, either in my own personal life or my parents life growing up. I have seen the majesty and the beauty of forgiveness in action. The power of God over yielded hearts is truly remarkable. I would just argue that the world has a desperate need to see this power in action. Maybe then the divorce rate within the "church," will be less than is in the world. ............Frank
| 2009/4/4 1:27|
| Re: Divorce and Remarriage|
Hello brother Frank,
First, sorry for taking so long to get back here. I want to pick up on points you made in your concise reply, and hope mine answers your wonderings.
Quote:I think this is a bit unfair, because hearts were not able to be regenerated before the Holy Ghost was sent at Pentecost.
to study what they thought marriage and divorce meant is to miss the heartbeat of God and the clear teaching of Jesus.
I had a moment of clarity, the day after writing my last reply to you, which I will put at the end of this post. It returns to 'the clear teaching of Jesus', which I agree does establish 'the heartbeat of God'. However, I believe Moses also understand the heartbeat of God, and that's why the law became what it did.
It appears divorce was always available as [u]part of the law[/u], according to Deuteronomy 24:1. Divorce for adultery though, was an innovation to protect the lives of women who were not receiving a fair deal [i]within[/i] the terms of their marriage at the least, and may have been suffering violence too, contrary to the heart of God for wives.
Quote:I particularly liked this sentence, because to me, it is ironic that another group of Christians (than the ones in churches committing fornication, adultery and getting divorces), don't want to acknowledge that Jesus understood perfectly both the law which allowed divorce (which came from Him), and the changes He made to it. The changes He made with the cross in near view - the Lamb of God through whom God, in reconciling the world to Himself at last, opened the way for genuine reconcliation within human marriages - did not preclude (as we agree), divorce for adultery (which is just as important for non-Christians as for Christians, due to how we are made in His image).
Its ironic to me that in a day and age , esepecially in Britain and America, where divorce is tearing apart society, that any time at all is speant studying why its really ok to get divorced.
Quote:There would be no point if everyone understood all the issues and expounded God's heart identically, so, for myself, I have engaged with this 'debate' for the sake of my own understanding God's point of view, and I think, (as of the day after my last post), that finally (after literally years of grappling with the topic), I do 'get it', now. ;-)
That was why I was basicly asking "whats the point of this debate?"
Quote:Let me acknowledge that I agree with this point. However, repentance and an actual ceasing from the sinful behaviour that threatens a marriage, are pre-requisite to forgiveness having any meaning with regard to reconciliation. The danger is that marriage partners get backed into a corner by their local church body, as if to ignore the need for the actual issues causing pain to the marriage to be teased out, faced, prayed through, and proper time given for healing on all sides.
as long as we know that forgiveness and reconcilliation is the preferred path.
Congregations don't like to be known for their love and patience towards warring couples in their midst. They want the couple to go away until they have sorted [i]themselves[/i] out, without any visible support at all, so as not to ruffle the smooth water of appearances, where the rest are having apparently unstrained pure fellowship. I suspect that 'pure fellowship' is just as much a facade, where [i]no-one[/i] wants to turn over any more stones to take an honest look at any other [i]real[/i] issues.
While this may seem an unfair sweeping generalisation, the courage which is required to lead a flock into a deeper relationship with God, is in short supply, and undoubtedly requires the leaders to go first. Flaws on their part will filter down to the way their flock deal with the self-same issues.
Quote:In previous threads on SI, we have had vehement claims that the individuals are making their vows to God, and that's what makes it a marriage. However, I agree with your statement that the vows are made between the marriage partners, in the presence of God. (Everything is in the presence of God, and men of old knew this. The introduction of 'church weddings' threw a big spanner in the works. Perhaps it was actually an early step in the direction of [i]separating[/i] family heads from God.) However, God made it clear of old, that He does not intend to bless certain behaviours within marriage. Fornication, idolatry and adultery, were all deemed by God as reasons for stoning the guilty party. Thus, the innocent party was freed to remarry a person whose heart was towards God and the keeping of His laws, without any adverse reflection on his or her character.
I make vows to my spouse, before the living God, without proviso's.
Quote:Well.... I used the word 'contract' advisedly, because of Ron's choice of that word. As I said earlier, he did not expound the difference between a contract and a covenant during his talks.
I think you misunderstood my point about Romans 7. The point is, Paul is comapring one covenant with another, therefore, the marriage is a covenant, not a contract.
But, through others, I've heard the difference expounded like this: that in a contract, both parties have responsibilities to fulfil for the contract to retain its integrity. If a party defaults, the contract is automatically invalidated.
On the other hand, God's covenants with man (or covenants we make with money or other promises to another party), [u]depend entirely[/u] on the [i]offerer of the covenant[/i]. The other party only has to receive and appropriate that offer, for the covenant to be validated. Bad behavior on the part of the receiver, does not alter the original offer of a covenant arrangement - unless the covenant offerer decides to withdraw the offer. A marriage covenant then, has to be [u]two[/u] reciprocal offers of a covenant arrangement, both requiring nothing in return from the receivers. What a challenge!
Looking at the purpose of the Old and the New Covenants, God offered arrangements whereby He attended to the [i]sin[/i] of mankind, so that He could retain a degree of fellowship with man. However, the first covenant could never [i]take away sin[/i] (Heb 10:4). Thus, the eternal nature of the second covenant, where Jesus took away sin once and forever, cannot be understated.
The covenant to come - the marriage of the Lamb - presupposes that the Bride has made herself ready to join with an equally binding offer of everlasting love, such as He offers us. It is unthinkable that [i]sin[/i] should disturb that covenant, since it is now vanquished, and by then, so will Satan be (not wishing to digress).
Regarding Paul's example in Romans 7, it is clear (to me now), that he is describing a Jewish marriage under the old covenant, in which a woman did not have the right to divorce her husband if she wanted another man, whereas he had the right to take another wife and was bound by the law to keep them.
Part of Paul's point is that only death could let the man off the hook of the law under which he had taken on even only one wife. (Obviously, he could divorce her for infidelity.) Paul, though, is using the example of a woman who can be married only to one man at a time, to show how believers must cleave to their new spiritual Husband. He is not attempting to discuss the indissolubility of marriage, as some would interpret that verse. He is speaking to those who 'know the law' (Rom 7:1), who were totally acquainted with how it worked in practice.
| 2009/4/13 9:51|
| Re: Divorce and Remarriage|
And so to the clarity I have gained:
Quote:In David's story, Nathan relays this to him:
and the clear teaching of Jesus
[color=003399]Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 2 Samuel 12[/color]
This is confusing to anyone who has grown up with the idea that God intends men to have only one wife - because David had many wives, [u]clearly with God's approval[/u]. God then through Nathan pretty much says that if that had not been enough wives for David (among anything else David thought he needed), he only had to ask, and God would have given it to him. What David did wrong, was [u]take another man's wife[/u]; [i][b]that[/i][/b] was how he committed adultery. That he was not automatically committing adultery against [i]all[/i] of his wives by having more than one, had always bewildered me. :-o until I heard Ron's expositions. (See post by BeYeDoers on p6 of this thread.)
Whether Jews in Jesus' day could have more than one wife, I am unclear, but the Pharisees were clear about one thing - divorce released both a man and a woman from a marriage contract, thus setting them both free to be married to someone else.
However, Jesus had touched on this topic long before they asked Him in Matthew 19, when He stated: [color=003399]For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: Matthew 15:19
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28[/color]
Therefore, what I 'saw' clearly, was that Jesus' teaching about 'the heart', was way beyond being able to be kept by the unregenerate heart or the unrenewed mind; that He was saying [i][b]to us[/b][/i], that the man who went as far as committing adultery within marriage, or divorcing his faithful wife for another woman, was thereby telling the world all about [u]the state of his heart[/u]. (Obviously, the same applies to a wife.)
I see, also, today, that Ron's allusion to 1 Cor 7:3, 4, (in a different talk about how we should deal with individuality within the context of the local church, [url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/download.php?file=572]'Called into Fellowship'[/url]) fits perfectly into the definition of covenant love, which is the kind of love we should all be giving one another anyway. The ability to do so presupposes we have understood the death of Christ for sin - Rom 6:6 and Gal 2:20.
Overall, without understanding the context of Jesus' teaching, I was just going round in circles.
Quote:Still, in Christ taking the sin of the world upon Himself, we see a task which He only, could undertake to obtain that justice God required. Wthout it there could be no mercy.
He redeems an adulterous generation and the chains of hell are broken because where justice was deserved, mercy was found.
Quote:Yet we need to be careful that sin within marriage is dealt with in every way practically, spiritually and appropriately. Only this can open up the [i]possibility[/i] of the spiritual healing necessary for meaningful restoration, and this is not always obtainable - although your optimism and love speak volumes for hope, and transformation through Christ.
This is a continuing theme throughout the Scriptures, this is the heartbeat of God. Instead of exploring for technicalities whereby people can feel good about themselves and their choices, we should be declaring from the mountaintops the supernatural love that redeems, even when it could find justice in casting away. The world understands the first point very well, but the supernatural victory of the second point is what the world desperately needs to see
| 2009/4/13 10:32|
Central Alberta, Canada
| Re: |
Here is a study I have read on the subject of divorce and remarriage; I am not a cessationist concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit the way this person is, but I thought some valid points were being made, so I post it for review.
Instead of a large cut and paste, here is the link.
[url=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/2338.htm]Jesus' Teaching on Divorce[/url]
| 2009/4/25 12:08||Profile|
| Re: Divorce and Remarriage|
Quote:Please could you say which 'valid points' you have in mind?
I thought some valid points were being made
Also, I have questions about John McArthur's staement here:
Quote:(Bold added by me.)
They wanted Him to say it, also, so that He would be unpopular with the resident ruler who ... Herod Antipas by name...had already beheaded John the Baptist for saying something similar to that, for [b]he himself was one illegitimately divorced and remarried[/b].
For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put [him] in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.
But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,
For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy [u]brother's wife[/u].
I don't find any mention of divorce here - or of remarriage. Surely, if Philip had divorced his wife, and she had married Philip, John the Baptist would not have commented - just as Jesus had not commented about her five divorces, to the woman at the well in John 4?
Isn't it rather, that Herod was out of order for committing adultery with his brother's wife?
| 2009/4/25 18:34|