Poster | Thread |
| Re: The husband of one wife | | Mike (crsschk), thank you for a truly great post.
Quote:
The seeds of adultery are in the eyes and the heart and the flesh well before being carried out, before the putting away.
From Mat 5:32 '... whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, [u]causeth her to commit adultery[/u]...', I see (I think 'I see' for the first time), that Jesus is addressing the hypocrisy of those who would not take a second sexual partner [i]while still officially married[/i]. They muse that divorcing their wife would set them free.
While this is just one aspect of 'for any cause', Jesus seems to be addressing the heart-state in which a man would effectively [i]create[/i] an adultery, to permit his own remarriage... that is, [i]for the purpose of[/i] setting himself free to remarry.
It is only a short step to the next stage, of deliberately becoming the adulterer, to create a situation in which one will be divorced by the faithful partner.
In this respect, the emphasis put on the forgiveness of sins by God, right at the start of the paper from Bethlehem Baptist Church, (which philologos linked) is helpful, I believe. God knows our hearts.
Quote:
while denying the One whose establishment it is
Good point.
Quote:
if you find it difficult to stay chaste unmarried there is every possibility that it may be required of you for a season while being married. Will you be willing to suffer that?
I have often thought about this in regard to the respect a woman needs after childbirth, but it applies just as much during the physical illness of either partner.
There is also the matter of [i]mutual[/i] consent within marriage, in an era when control of pregnancies may be taken for granted by some. Perhaps the word 'mut(e)ual' could bear some consideration.
Mike, again, thank you for a very thought-provoking dissertation. |
| 2007/5/27 16:05 | | UniqueWebRev Member
Joined: 2007/2/9 Posts: 640 Southern California
| Re: | | Going back to the heart of the matter:
philologos wrote:
Quote:
What is to come for this young woman? She has done EVERYTHING to save her marriage! Is she condemned to a life of physical solitude for the rest of her life? Her brother asked me about what the Bible says in this matter. I had to admit to him that the topic is subject to much controversy and diversity of interpretation. Will this woman "sin" if she eventually falls in love again and decides to marry?
This is a pattern I have seen repeated, with variations, several times and I have asked all the same questions. I was once asked to talk to a young woman of 22. She became a Christian within weeks of her wedding and because she determined to alter her life style and abandonned 'clubbing' her husband immediately began divorce proceedings saying that she was 'no longer the woman he had married'. What do you say to a such a young woman? You have to be very sure that your interpretation is right before condemning such to a lifetime of singleness.
The statement of John Piper has an interesting URL embedded in it which I thing deserves as wide an airing as his position statement. It is called [url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/135/1543_A_Statement_on_Divorce_and_Remarriage_in_the_Life_of_Bethlehem_Baptist_Church/]"A Statement on Divorce & Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church"[/url] I think the spirit expressed in this 'statement' is to be highly commended.
Then Krispy replied, and I agreed! But we were talking about the qualifications for leadership in the church.
UniqueWebRev wrote:
Quote:
KrispyKrittr wrote:
Quote:
A person need not be an elder to work for the Lord. God can use a person whose life has been touched by this regardless. In fact, God can do exceeding and abundant above all we could ever ask or think.
Absolutely!! No doubt about it.
In fact, being an elder generally is not all it's cracked up to be.
Krispy
I quite agree. And to me, a Bishop may not be divorced, or the wife of more than one woman at a time, and must have a Christian Walk above reproach.
Then Robert replied to my post, but chose only to address the one point, not the entire argument. Quote:
RobertW wrote:
Quote:
Forrest's: To me, anything less is a lack of loving of a brother or sister wronged by no fault of their own, and directly against the will of Christ.
Hi Forrest,
As a word of encouragement let me offer a little advice. There are those among us who are radically unconditional earthly matrimony. They believe that a man and woman who have married are bound until death no matter what the circumstances. They disregard all of the exception clauses. In short, to them, there is no such thing as a divorce (putting away)...If a person will lightly break their covenant with their spouse they will likely break it with Christ. Forgive me for saying, but I believe this is true. We are in covenant with Christ and we need to be in reputation for keeping covenant.
To which I replied, in full:
Robert, you, and those of similar views, must take a long, hard look at what you are doing to yourselves, and to others. You are putting reputation of covenent above Christ's own command.
And how gently you inform me that I cannot possibly understand the higher plane of existance you strive for, higher than Jesus requires of you, yet tell me it is all to honor Him?
You consider putting away even an admittedly adulterous spouse 'a light matter', as if there was no breaking of the covenent already! The marriage covenent has already been broken by the guilty party, and there is no sin in being a victim of betrayal.
By your actions, views, and traditions, you put yourself above Jesus, and the concept of grace. You put your tradition of marriage above all others who are under Christ's grace.
Jesus himself gave the exceptions to the law oriented view that you take toward marriage.
The Jesus exception for a man:
[color=993300][b]Matthew 5:31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.[/b][/color]
[b]The Jesus exception for a woman:[/b]
[color=993300][b]Matthew 5:31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away her husband, let her give him a writing of divorcement: 32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away her husband, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth him to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry him that is divorced committeth adultery.[/b][/color]
[b]You are making up your own law, placing your ideal of a covenant marriage as a tradition against what Jesus knew to be impossible for humans to attain. He gave this exception in particular, since the act of adultery breaks the marriage covenant as nothing else can. Adultery is the ultimate betrayal of a covenanted marriage, and it is the universal symbol of the ultimate betrayal against God, idolatry.
Believe me, it is not that I do not take marriage seriously. I do. But having kept my vows, and been forced into a divorce I didn't want so that my husband could marry one of many women he committed adultery with after leaving me, I am bound only to forgive him, not spend my life mourning his memory, and walking in overweening pride as a symbol of my own righteousness.
When you require more than your Saviour does of anyone, you are adding law to grace. When you teach a different standard of righteousness than Christ Himself, penalizing those who are innocent under both law and grace, are you walking out your Christianity in thought or deed? What are you doing that is diferent than the Pharisees by forcing others into your traditions?
[color=993300]Matthew 7:1. Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Matthew 15:3. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Romans 9:31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. [/color]
It is no wonder to me that you cannot find a Pastor, divorced or not, adulterous or not, to lead such a congregation. No one can lead those who refuse to submit to authority, or whose traditions are in direct violation with Christ's grace, much less His own words.
And since we are called not to judge anyone, I wonder that you expect more perfection from people than God does Himself. Jesus at least calls us to love one another, not punish one another with the foolishness of merciless rules and regulations.
Tell me, have you not, by this over-reliance on the decisions of man's reasoning, already shown the Holy Spirit the door?
Truly, I do wonder at such 'covenant keepers' who will not consider mercy to the righteous, lest they break their own traditions.
In His service,
Forrest[/b]
Oddly, the original question we were discussing was not my particular position as a woman divorced against her will by the adulturer, but of another young person who had a similar case.
We were speaking not in general, and not to divorce as a 'rule', but as the exception that Christ allowed for. The fact that the case would have to be so plain and obvious, due to the difficulty of discerning fault in behavior within a marriage, much less within a man or woman's heart, was the point. And we were discussing it in terms of whether such a condition disallowed a man, or in some cases, a woman, in the event of no Christian man being available, from serving in the Church in a position of authority.
Considering that in Christ's time a woman's father or brother had to seek a divorce for her, and the man had to do the divorcing even if he was at fault, if she were not permitted to remarry, her father or brother would be permitted to stone the adulturer, so that she would be a widow. I know that my father, were he allowed to, would have made sure I was a widow. He isn't allowed to, according to our law, and so my ex-husband is still alive.
At the time of Christ, however, that was a consideration that a man had to face if he were to desert his wife. It still is a consideration in the Middle East, where an honor killing is the norm, not the exception. The reason Christians take their vows seriously there is the real possibility of being killed! And when our society in the West took away any penalty at all for breaking a covenent, my argument is that you must allow mercy to have her way, lest you be judgemental.
You need to allow for cultural context in interpreting the famous exceptions to divorce. Consequently, to condemn another person to singleness for life for what is not their fault is extreme in my view. If that is the victim of adultery's choice, that is one thing. To force on another person what is out of the context of the culture and time that the exception rule was made was in is a pointless exercise, because it cannot be enforced.
It is impossible to turn back time and culture perfectly. One has to interpret the divorce exclusions in the terms of mercy it was made in, not in terms of perfection, which none of us can reach.
This entire thread has been brought back away from the discussion of divorce several times to clarify that the exclusions of divorce, except as a RARITY, not a NORM, was what Jesus was speaking of, and then only to add that to the consideration of a leader's qualifications.
And yes, Jesus, in not specifying what the victim was able to do or not do, may put all the following marital sin of the victim on the victimizer's head. But you know, He didn't say so, and so I hesitate to go there.
I don't want to go into judgement of anyone for anything, even in reply to what they have said in this thread. Consequently my last post, to which you seem to take exception to, was a statement against judgementalism, not to mention against putting a covenant broken by the adulturer above the mercy in Christ's famous exception to divorce.
What I was trying to get to, orginally, is that an obvious victim, divorced due to accident or illness, is still eligible for even the highest office in the church, whether he re-marries or not.
Robert took me out of context, and replied only to that single statement, which was not pertinent to the entire thread. I replied to his statements that did not address the topic of the thread, and did so with vigor, because I was appalled, and still am, that there is no mercy in that viewpoint, not even the mercy of Christ.
Christ never said one word that was not meant exactly as He said it, and His words are directly in line with what the Father states, or He wouldn't say it.
Since Jesus said that 1)adultery, or 2)un-yoking from a non-believer who wouldn't allow Christianity to be practiced, are the only reason to divorce, it is sufficient for me. Why is it not for you?
With a migraine,
Forrest
_________________ Forrest Anderson
|
| 2007/5/28 1:29 | Profile | lightwalker Member
Joined: 2007/4/27 Posts: 52 Missouri
| Re: | | I would like to throw this out here for you all to consider...... Maybe it will help someone...I know it will not be popular....
A Marriage Covenant, Marriage Vows, a Marriage Agreement and a Covenant Marriage are all conditional. There is no such thing as an "unconditional" marriage covenant. The very terms: marriage agreement, marriage vows and marriage covenant all mean they are conditional. That is what a vow, covenant or an agreement is: a union based upon conditions.
By: Stephen Gola
Instant Printable PDF Download
What is a Covenant?
The word "covenant" is defined as "a compact" which is an agreement between two or more parties. In our case, we mean a marriage covenant. Within the very meaning of the name "covenant" lies the essential fact that there are conditions to a covenant. A "covenant" is made up of conditions (terms of agreement) which each party has agreed to uphold, otherwise, there is no covenant. Covenants are legal documents or verbal agreements whereby oaths of faithfulness are expressed between two or more parties. A covenant carries legal authority in which all parties are constrained (obligated) by the conditions of the covenant. It is always conditional upon each of the parties involved to fulfill their part of the covenant. There is no such thing as an "unconditional" covenant. "Unconditional" means no conditions or that anything goes. This in itself would negate the very use of the word covenant. However, there is such a thing as a conditional covenant becoming a "permanent" covenant after all of the conditions of the covenant have been fulfilled.
Establishing a covenant is different than fulfilling a covenant. Establishing a covenant is the successful agreement of the parties involved regarding the terms and conditions of the covenant. Fulfilling the covenant is the actual carrying-out of that agreement.
Because a covenant depends upon each party fulfilling their agreed-upon part, it carries the legal authority that conditions must be met by all parties or the covenant is broken.When a covenant is broken without seeking remedy for reconciliation and restitution or both, the covenant obligations cease and the agreement is terminated. In the case of the marriage covenant when there is a divorce, there is actually an additional covenant which comes into play resulting from the children who are born within the marriage covenant. This additional covenant (the covenant between the children and the parents), continues despite the ended marriage covenant.
God Makes Conditional Covenants
Unconditional marriage covenants did not start with God, but with man by His church teaching (tradition) that a marriage covenant is indissolvable. Even when God first created man in the Garden of Eden, He made a conditional covenant with them. To enable the man and woman to prove their love to Him, God put a tree in the midst of the Garden called: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God's only command to them was for them not to eat of this specific tree. Everything else in the world was theirs; otherwise, they would start dying both spiritually and physically. This was their proof of loyalty and love to God because of the awesome responsibility and authority He had given them over the entire universe. You cannot have true love unless you have the option not to love.
Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." The keeping of the commandments (the conditions) of the covenant is the way we show God that we love Him. Without the keeping of the commandments of the covenant, there is NO display of commitment (love) to God. We have broken covenant! His justice requires us to e ither make restitution and/or reconciliation or else we break our relationship totally with God.
God only operates upon truth. Therefore, if it appears that God is not doing His part in our life it is because WE are not fulfilling our part of the covenant. Covenants are conditional.
One of the conditional covenants that God made is one that almost everyone in the world is familiar with, the covenant with the condition of circumcision. In Genesis 17:10, 14 the Lord said to Abraham, "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised."Then in verse 14 the Lord gave Abraham the penalty for not fulfilling the condition of the covenant: "And the uncircumcised male child, WHO IS NOT CIRCUMCISED in the flesh of his foreskin, that person SHALL BE CUT OFF from his people; HE HAS BROKEN MY COVENANT."
Another example of God's covenants is the one He made with Israel: "Now therefore, IF you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, THEN you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine" (Exodus 19:5). When a covenant has to do with man, a covenant is always conditional if it is to be a covenant. God does not make unconditional or unbreakable covenants with fallible sinful man. However, He does turn a conditional covenant into a permanent covenant when all of the conditions of the covenant have been met. This can be seen in the case of the covenant God made with Abraham. The covenant was actually made with Abraham's Seed to come, Jesus. After Jesus fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the covenant (which included living a sinless life, taking the penalty for man's sins upon Himself in hell, and being rightfully raised from the dead forever incorruptible), God turned it into a permanent covenant. (See Galatians 3:16 and Hebrews 1:8-9).
Because God knows our sinfulness, He does not make unconditional or unbreakable covenants with man. Therefore, who are we as sinful man, to even consider that the covenants we make with each other (in this case, marriage), are indissolvable or unbreakable because of unsurpassing violations by the other party? Covenants are conditional; that is why they are called "covenants" because they contain provisions to protect the party of the agreement who do not violate the covenant.
Marriage Covenants
Unconditional, Defined
The very word "unconditional" means without conditions. In other words, it does not matter how many violations of the marriage covenant that a partner makes, the covenant is still intact. The word "unconditional" is a contradiction of the word "covenant." If a marriage covenant did not have conditions it would be like saying that one partner can abuse the other, or a spouse can have sex or play around with anyone outside of the marriage and always feel welcomed back into a safe, secure and happy relationship. This is too ridicules to even consider! Nevertheless, this is exactly what has been taught by the church in saying that a marriage is indissolvable! Because it has been taught as truth that "God hates divorce," it is implied that marriage covenants are unconditional and unbreakable and that NO violations of the terms of agreement will affect the covenant because there are NO conditions! To imply that a marriage covenant has no conditions is a corruption of the marriage institution itself! Whenever the conditions of the covenant have been violated, broken or not met, there is a breech of contractand the covenant agreement was not fulfilled as agreed upon. Therefore, restitution, reconciliation and/or dissolving of the marriage covenant is sought. Covenants always stand upon the foundation of justice, truth and love rooted in morality.
Marriage covenants Sacred? YES! Permanent? No!
Only in two places in Scripture is marriagedefined aspermanent and indissolvable. They are in Deuteronomy 22:13-30 where God has actually REMOVED the right to divorce; not allowing the violating spouseto dissolve the marriage covenant. This means that when needed, the right to divorce (the dissolving of the marriage covenant) has always been there. In these cases that right was abused, so God revoked it for the sake of the woman. The first instance was when the husband claimed that his new wife was not a virgin, when in fact, she was proved to be so. Because the husband brought a bad name upon her, "...He cannot divorce her all his days" (Deuteronomy 22:19). The other case was when a man had sex with a virgin single woman. He must pay support money (the dowry of a bride) to her family, and by having sex with her he has taken her as his wife and "...[Was not] permitted to divorce her all his days" (Deuteronomy 22:29). But "if her father utterly refuses to give her to him [the marriage would be cancelled and father and daughter would keep the dowry]" (Exodus 22:16).
These are the only two cases where the covenant of marriage was NOT allowed to be dissolved. God removed the man's rights to dissolve the marriage in this case because he violated the woman without marrying her which was a greater violation. God forbad it to protect the woman so she would always be supported during her life. However, the wife still had the right to divorce her husband even though her husband could not divorce his wife. The right to divorce has always existed in the case of a marriage covenant being violated; however, in these cases, that right was lost. Thus, God recognizes that covenants are conditional.
Vows: Conditions of the Marriage Covenant
The vows of a marriage are the conditions of the covenant set forth before the marriage takes place. The marriage ceremony is the "place of agreement" where each partner takes a solemn oath to uphold the terms and conditions of the marriage covenant to which both parties have agreed. The "living together in a marriage union" is the environment in which the agreed-upon conditions of the covenant is carried out by both parties. Marriage IS a lifetime commitment; however, it is not a lifetime commitment without conditions. The ability to keep ones promise to love (keeping the marriage vows) is rooted in godly character. (See articles on The Extreme Significance of The Fruit of The Spirit and God's ("Unconditional") Love: It's Moral Its Conditional.
Because the marriage covenant has been taught to be unconditional and unbreakable, it is powerfully inferred that there is no violation that can qualify for the covenant to be dissolved except in several far-reaching cases. Vows have come to mean nothing.
Let me give an example of an unconditional one-sided covenant agreement. It is your wedding day and you exchange vows with your beloved. The man says, "I take my wife, to have as I wish and to abuse if she does not listen, to meet all my needs, to hurt her as often as I desire because she is now my wife and cannot escape. I own her. I can have sex with anyone I desire and do as I please in complete disregard to her feelings." The wife says, "I take my dear husband to have and to hold, to cherish and to love, in sickness and disease, for better and for worse, always seeking ways to strengthen and grow our relationship till death do us part." NOBODY would ever consider such a vow; however, this is exactly what is taking place when the conditions of the marriage covenant are taught as being unconditional.
Covenant is Relationship
Covenant is relationship! "Relationship" in its very definition carries the fact that there is mutual caring andmoral obligations between each party, and the fulfilling of needs within each other.Simply because there is a relationship, they are in covenant. Covenants are protected by the covenant partners. This results in a covenant that has conditions and can be violated. The covenant partners are to protect their covenant from those outside the covenant, namely, those who have not been invited to be a part of their relationship. In the case of marriage, it would be any person outside the marriage because that person does not have exclusive rights to sharing the depths of each others emotions, bodily contact and sexual enjoyment.
How the Devil Used the Errors of the Marriage Covenant Being "Unconditional"
The devil was able to spin a web of lies and deceit which drove couples away from the original marriage covenant because of the errors taught by God's church. Of course the church did not decide to teach error; rather, the truth has been lost through time.
Let me explain. I believe that because the truths of marriage, divorce, remarriage, submission and covenant have been lost through time, it gave the devil a powerful opportunity to actually use the errors that are being taught as truth within the church to enslave many of God's people in bad marriages. His church, the very people of God, who have been given the awesome responsibility to uphold these truths have become the very taskmasters enslaving God's people by ignorantly upholding the devil's agenda.
Somewhere down through history well-intended translators of the Bible have adopted these errors as truth. I believe some were done purposely to fit their desires, but most were probably through ignorance. Because the famous Scripture of Malachi 2:16 has been translated and taught as "God hates divorce" instead of its real meaning of "God hates a separation (to marry another person without getting divorced first)," the devil was able to convince us that marriage covenants are unconditional. If he could get the church to believe that marriage covenants are unconditional, he could use the church itself as a prison camp to enslave God's people thereby disabling them from fulfilling the calling of God on their lives because of fear, guilt and shame. Sadly, He has accomplished his mission, to a great extent.
The devil was also able to tie together the wrong translation and teachings of "God hates divorce" to the church teaching that there are no valid claims in which one can divorce (because marriage is taught to be an unconditional covenant). This has propagated the message that the marriage vows (the conditions of the marriage covenant), are useless and invalid, thus binding the victim of the violation into an indissolvable relationship. (See For Better or For Worse.) As sin and lukewarmness have been escalating within society and particularly the church, more and more people have been making wrong decisions regarding which mate they choose, many times resulting in going off into very bad marriages and sin. Because of the great marital problems this has created, it has caused marriage to be viewed as a failing institution.
Thus, the devil has in many ways been successful in presenting God's institution of marriage to be a failure. Not only is it a failure but the devil makes it into a prison where a person is united in an unconditional, indissolvable covenant relationship with another person who can abuse them at will and they have no way out while the church leadership is ignorantly poised as the devils prison wardens. Because marriage is being now presented more like a prison than as a loving relationship, many have disregarded the original marriage structure, not because they wanted to, but because they were forced to safeguard their hearts in case of relationship violations. In other words, they have enacted their own covenant-relationship safeguards because the church has taken theirs away through ignorance and deception. The church can recapture the institution of marriage and again elevate it to its proper place and thereby pulling many from the fire; however, the restoration of these lost truths by God's leadership must come first. The church must acknowledge its failure in the teaching the errors regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. In behalf of God's leadership, I ask you for forgiveness. Please pray for us! Stephen Gola.
See also What Does "For Better or for Worse" Mean in a Marriage? All Rights Reserved, © Copyright 2006 by Stephen Gola (All Scriptures taken from the King James Version Bible or the New King James version.) ******ALL TEACHINGS MAY BE USED WITHOUT PERMISSION TO TEACH AND TRAIN GOD'S PEOPLE. PLEASE KEEP THE COPYRIGHT INTACT.******
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________ Melody
|
| 2007/5/28 9:03 | Profile | crsschk Member
Joined: 2003/6/11 Posts: 9192 Santa Clara, CA
| Re: Marriage | | Forrest, sister ...
Would much rather just let Robert do his own clarifying, but seeing that he has not been back for a spell I think you still are misunderstanding his words here:
Quote:
As a word of encouragement let me offer a little advice. There are those among us who are radically unconditional earthly matrimony. They believe that a man and woman who have married are bound until death no matter what the circumstances. They disregard all of the exception clauses. In short, to them, there is no such thing as a divorce (putting away)...If a person will lightly break their covenant with their spouse they will likely break it with Christ. Forgive me for saying, but I believe this is true. We are in covenant with Christ and we need to be in reputation for keeping covenant.
In actuality he is in agreement with you and was positing "they", "there are those among us who..." The point being not the subject but the [i]initiator[/i] "[i]If a person will lightly break their covenant with their spouse they will likely break it with Christ.[/i]" The initiator taking or making things light ... Hardly would he be making the issue of adultery a "light" matter.
Quote:
You consider putting away even an admittedly adulterous spouse 'a light matter', as if there was no breaking of the covenent already! The marriage covenent has already been broken by the guilty party, and there is no sin in being a victim of betrayal.
That is not what is being stated at all ... it is the very opposite. Sister, to be honest you are taking him out of context, unintentional as it may be. Have every confidence in knowing Robert from his long tenure here that in no way would he make such an inference. Perhaps it was a sideways comment to that which you would have preferred addressed specifically, but this is quite normal in these discussions that they turn in variations following different lines.
_________________ Mike Balog
|
| 2007/5/28 9:38 | Profile | sermonindex Moderator
Joined: 2002/12/11 Posts: 39795 Canada
Online! | Re: | | Quote:
How the Devil Used the Errors of the Marriage Covenant Being "Unconditional"
The devil was able to spin a web of lies and deceit which drove couples away from the original marriage covenant because of the errors taught by God's church. Of course the church did not decide to teach error; rather, the truth has been lost through time.
Let me explain. I believe that because the truths of marriage, divorce, remarriage, submission and covenant have been lost through time, it gave the devil a powerful opportunity to actually use the errors that are being taught as truth within the church to enslave many of God's people in bad marriages. His church, the very people of God, who have been given the awesome responsibility to uphold these truths have become the very taskmasters enslaving God's people by ignorantly upholding the devil's agenda.
Somewhere down through history well-intended translators of the Bible have adopted these errors as truth. I believe some were done purposely to fit their desires, but most were probably through ignorance. Because the famous Scripture of Malachi 2:16 has been translated and taught as "God hates divorce" instead of its real meaning of "God hates a separation (to marry another person without getting divorced first)," the devil was able to convince us that marriage covenants are unconditional. If he could get the church to believe that marriage covenants are unconditional, he could use the church itself as a prison camp to enslave God's people thereby disabling them from fulfilling the calling of God on their lives because of fear, guilt and shame. Sadly, He has accomplished his mission, to a great extent.
The devil was also able to tie together the wrong translation and teachings of "God hates divorce" to the church teaching that there are no valid claims in which one can divorce (because marriage is taught to be an unconditional covenant). This has propagated the message that the marriage vows (the conditions of the marriage covenant), are useless and invalid, thus binding the victim of the violation into an indissolvable relationship. (See For Better or For Worse.) As sin and lukewarmness have been escalating within society and particularly the church, more and more people have been making wrong decisions regarding which mate they choose, many times resulting in going off into very bad marriages and sin. Because of the great marital problems this has created, it has caused marriage to be viewed as a failing institution.
Teachings like this are the reason why there is failure in the Western Church. There can possibly be grounds for divorce and re-marriage, but to teach and speak of it in this way will allow sin to rot the church from within which is happening. God does hate divorce, and it is not a light thing.
This is a article on the arly churche's belief on the subject by in large:
[b]The early church's view on divorce and remarriage[/b] [i]by Myron Horst[/i]
The writings of the early Christians are significant to help us to understand what God says in the Bible about divorce and remarriage for several reasons: These men lived very shortly after the writing of the New Testament. The apostles had only passed away a short while before their time. They were not separated from the writing of the New Testament by almost two thousand years like we are. They also understood the cultural setting in which the New Testament was written. What the early Christians wrote is also significant because the society in which they lived was so similar to ours today -- divorce and remarriage was very common. Many of these writings were widely circulated among the churches which adds to the credibility of what they say. The early Christians knew Greek. The New Testament Greek was not a foreign language to them as it is for us or even a "dead" language as it is today. These men were fluent in Greek. For many it was their native tongue.
What is significant is that in all of the writings of the early Christians, I did not find any teaching that the early Church believed that Jesus' words in Matthew 19:9, " Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery," permitted remarriage. I was not able to find remarriage allowed in any of the writings of the early Christians They all speak the same thing that remarriage after divorce is sin.
The early Christians spoke clearly on divorce and remarriage. What they wrote is significant for our understanding of God's judgment of divorce and remarriage.
Justin Martyr around A.D. 150 writes: "And 'Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery.' and, 'There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying.' So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her." 2
Athenagoras the Athenian in A.D. 177 wrote A plea for the Christians. In it he writes: "For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of action, - that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. 'For whosoever puts away his wife,' says He, 'and marries another, commits adultery'; not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again." 3
Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194 on the exception clause states that the only exception for divorce is for remarried couples to end their sinful marriage: "Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, 'Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;' and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive."4
Tertullian writing around A.D. 200 says: "I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. His words are: 'Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery,' - 'put away,' that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who isunlawfully pu t away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is undivorced. Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery."... "For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.' He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence to a damsel, shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: 'Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth.'" 5
Tertullian also states, "The fact that [he] who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the ground of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have married a [woman] dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery. A divorced woman cannot even marry legitimately; and if she commit any such act without the name of marriage does it not fall under the category of adultery, in that adultery is a crime in the way of marriage? Such is God's verdict, within straighter limits than men's, that universally, whether through marriage or promiscuously, the admission of a second man (to intercourse) is pronounced adultery by Him. For let us see what marriage is in the eye of God; and thus we shall learn what adultery equally is. Marriage is (this): when God joins "two into one flesh;" or else, finding (them already) joined in the same flesh, has given His seal to the conjunction. Adultery is (this): when the two having been - in whatsoever way - disjoined, other - nay, rather alien - flesh is mingled (with either): flesh concerning which it cannot be affirmed, 'This is flesh out of my flesh, and this bone out of my bones.'" A little later he states, "But they (the Romans) indulge in promiscuous adulteries, even without divorcing (their partners): to us, even if we do divorce them, even marriage will not be lawful" 6 _________________ SI Moderator - Greg Gordon
|
| 2007/5/28 14:34 | Profile | 1956Ford Member
Joined: 2005/9/4 Posts: 18 NC
| Re: | | Quote:
Robert is in a second marriage, so he wasn't saying to you what you think he was. I, and some others who post here, are who he was speaking of as the "radical" ones. I must tell you that more and more I am finding out that other Christian Cultures around the world hold the same exact view that I have come to. In a culture that has growingly accepted divorce and remarriage as "normal", one has to wonder if the PRACTICES have effected HOW they are now viewing/interpreting scripture.
You are right Cindy, When Jesus speaks or remarital adultery, adultery means you have a spouse that does not belong to you. How can one repent of adultery and keep one that does not belong to them? If you repent of extra marital adultery you can't keep the one you are committing adultery with. Why is it different for remarital adultery?
Cheryl Why I repented of an adulterous Remarriage http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html Frequently Asked Questions on Divorce & Remarriage http://www.cadz.net/faq.html
_________________ Cheryl
|
| 2007/5/28 15:40 | Profile | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Quote:
Sermonindex: Teachings like this are the reason why there is failure in the Western Church. There can possibly be grounds for divorce and re-marriage, but to teach and speak of it in this way will allow sin to rot the church from within which is happening.
I think this is very true. This is what creates the crisis we now are seeing.
Having given this subject much consideration over the years I am increasingly concluding that what we really need is to return to the biblical basis of marriage and the plan as God intended it. One man and one woman for life with [u]no[/u] premarital fornication whatsoever.
I heard once that the true definition of whoredom is to take the love that belongs to the one and give it to another. I heard a brother ask some teens once; "So who's wife is it that you are kissing anyway?" It was a good question- because likely none of them were married- but surely they were someones [i]future[/i] wife or husband.
The reality is- premarital relations take something that belongs to one and gives it to another. This is also true of adultery. Let me explain:
Prov 6:29-35
29: So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
31 But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts. KJV
For those who have never suffered a spouse having had adultery committed against them this passage in Proverbs paints you a perfect picture. The young men to which it was taught knew no such experience- but they could understand perfectly the analogy.
There are many things that you don't have to teach children. One of them is the concept of 'propitiation'. Kids know that if they do something bad and can bring mom a flower- it will make it better (usually). This is a 'propitiation' or a price paid to remove the offense. There is another they don't need to be taught and it is the concept of [i]defilement[/i]. Perhaps we have all seen a child that wants the last cookie or donut. There is one left and they want it. As several hands take to the bowl a little hand reaches in and takes the last one and [u]immediately[/u] puts it to his mouth to lick it or may even 'spit' on it. Why? Because the child knows that if he/she spits on it or puts it to their mouth then no one else will want it. Why? They defiled it.
So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever [u]toucheth her[/u] shall not be innocent. Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to [u]satisfy his soul when he is hungry[/u]; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
The English word for 'toucheth' is the Hebrew word [i]hanogeea[/i] and is a euphemism for lying carnally with a woman. Follow the reasoning. If a man is caught stealing food (food filching) he can never give that food back. Even if he only took one bite- once it has made contact with his saliva the item is defiled. The Hebrew for defile means to contaminate. The food is 'contaminated'. No one would want to eat that defiled item under normal conditions. If someone takes your bottle of coke and then puts it to their mouth and 'backwashes' it- would you want it back? Not likely at all.
Now if the 'thief' be found they can still restore what was stolen. In fact, under the law they were to return 7X what was taken. This would be 7 bottles of coke or 7 cookies. They won't get back the cookie that was defiled or their [i]original[/i] coke- but they will get restitution. What was taken (the original cookie and coke) was ruined [i]to the original owner[/i].
We follow on with the writers argument:
[u]But[/u] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
35 [u]He will not regard any ransom[/u]; neither will he rest content, though thou givest [u]many gifts[/u].
The Hebrew for 'many' carries the meaning of multiplication as when a man sows a seed and reaps a harvest (i.e. 'increaseth'). In the case of taking a man's wife- you have done far more than defiling some food or a bottle of coke. You have 'touched' a man's wife. And like the food, she cannot be returned in the condition she was in before you defiled her. You have tipped the coke- you have put the cookie to your mouth. What is the recourse for this person? Shall he give the man 7 wives to replace the one he has defiled or ruined for its intended use? If he 'multiplied' wives unto the man it would not compensate for the loss of his wife. Why? Because [i]she[/i] will never be the same as far as he is concerned.
If a man steal my cookie and eat it he can never give it back in a way that I would eat whats left under normal conditions. Now, what shall we say then? Can I forgive the thief? Yes. Does that forgiveness obligate me to eat the other half of the cookie? Am I somehow in hardness because I would not finish the coke that he backwashed? Not at all. Can I eat the cookie? Yes. I may brush off the part where he ate off it and eat the rest. I may pour out some of my pop and keep drinking. This is what grace [u]can[/u] do. But under no circumstances is any person obligated to do what only grace can do. We are obligated to forgive. What happens from there depends a lot on what happens.
No doubt the Holy Spirit gave us Proverbs 6 as a radical picture of what it is to take another man's wife. I have taught it thoroughly to my sons. It is the perfect picture that uses an natural concept that we have known since we were old enough to lick off the last sucker in the candy dish before our brother or sister could eat it. Everyone knows how that feels. Everyone knows how 'turned off' one gets to the sucker once your brother puts it in his own mouth. Carry this picture in your mind and ponder it deeply as you counsel folk in this matter. At least give them the honesty of truly reflecting on this perfect picture of Proverbs 6 of what the faithful party is going through. Selah.
_________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2007/5/28 15:48 | Profile | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Quote:
Forrest's: Considering that in Christ's time a woman's father or brother had to seek a divorce for her, and the man had to do the divorcing even if he was at fault, if she were not permitted to remarry, her father or brother would be permitted to stone the adulturer, so that she would be a widow. I know that my father, were he allowed to, would have made sure I was a widow. He isn't allowed to, according to our law, and so my ex-husband is still alive.
Hi Forrest,
Sorry to not have been more clear. I do not type well enough to say all I would and sometimes leave gaps hoping to have been clear enough. My apology.
I personally don't know what the pastoral epistles truly intended to mean with the qualifications. But lest I cause offense, I have chosen to steer clear from official positions though I have been asked to step up many times. Maybe it's a cop-out? There is a great need for ordained ministers today and I really don't want the headaches to be honest. I have chosen this line for some 15+ years now. God still uses me in various capacities, but I never really known what certain folk believe so I try to stay out of the limelight. There are some very conservative groups in Missouri and I would be looked down on- even though they don't really know what happened. God forbid that my life would ever be a source of controversy in the church. I'm better off with teaching Sunday school, working with youth, visiting shut-ins and other like things. No need for banners, chief seats or name tags. ;-)
_________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2007/5/28 16:06 | Profile | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Quote:
You are right Cindy, When Jesus speaks or remarital adultery, adultery means you have a spouse that does not belong to you. How can one repent of adultery and keep one that does not belong to them? If you repent of extra marital adultery you can't keep the one you are committing adultery with. Why is it different for remarital adultery?
The language I hear here reminds me of the situation of John Baptist and Herod. Herod had taken his brothers wife to be his own as a clear act of high fornication and adultery. This situation was similar to the young man in I Cor. 5:
1 Cor 5:1
It is reported commonly that there is [u]fornication[/u] among you, and such [u]fornication[/u] as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have [u]his father's wife[/u].
This is a violation of two laws:
1) It is a clear case of adultery 2) It is incest
Lev 18:8
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
The case in Mark 6 deals with Herod:
Mark 6:17-18
For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
18 For John had said unto Herod, [i]It is not lawful for thee to have [u]thy brother's[/u] wife.[/i]
Regardless of why this came about it was not lawful for a man to take his brother's wife while he was alive. If his brother were dead and she had no children he was commanded to raise up seed to his brother if he be a full brother (Maimonides).
Lev 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Both cases are virtually the same. The emphasis in Paul's writing that distinguished the act from the behavior of the Gentiles was that it was "his father's wife" or his close kinsman. He took his [u]father's[/u] wife and the man at Corinth took his [u]brother's[/u] wife. Clearly this is abnormal for even pagan's to perform. But Herod Antipas was notorious for putting away wives (Josephus See. Ant. 17, 1, 3; War, 1, 28, 4). It had been incest to Herod to have his brother's wife unless his brother was dead.
_________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2007/5/28 16:38 | Profile | 1956Ford Member
Joined: 2005/9/4 Posts: 18 NC
| Re: | | Quote:
The language I hear here reminds me of the situation of John Baptist and Herod. Herod had taken his brothers wife to be his own as a clear act of high fornication and adultery. This situation was similar to the young man in I Cor. 5:
Very True, and you cannot keep anyone's wife that does not belong to you. If Jesus labeled it adultery then you cannot keep a spouse that does not belong to you. Adultery like any other sin must be repented of.
See my FAQ for more info http://www.cadz.net/faq.html
Cheryl Why I repented of an Adulterous Remarriage. http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html _________________ Cheryl
|
| 2007/5/28 16:50 | Profile |
|