|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/24/2010 10:29:51 PM
|
|
|
Robert_G
Posts: 213
Joined: 1/8/2006
From: British Columbia, Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
First, the death sentence for adultery was rarely (if ever) practiced within first century Judaism. If a woman cheated, she was divorced and her dowry was kept, if she did not cheat, she could be divorced but her husband had to return her dowry as part of the divorce settlement.
The only reason the death penalty was rarely used in 1st century is because the Roman's forbid the Jews to execute their own without the permisson of the Roman governor (Pilate)
Before the Roman occupation, the woman and man would have been put to death. I believe that Jesus would have related to the Jews as pertaining to the Laws of Moses and NOT what they were dealing with in regards to the Roman occupation since the Roman empire laws for the Jews were contradictory to what God instilled through Moses. However Jesus would NOT have urged them to disregard Roman law (except the Roman's worship of their gods)....so I can't say for 100% sure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Second, divorced women (both those accused of adultery, and those who were not) were remarried quite often within the first century Jewish culture.
Jewish culture? Yes. Mosiac Law? No. Much of the Mosiac Law was disregarded by this time for many reasons....a large part due to the Roman occupation of Israel.
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
_____________________________
..............
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/24/2010 11:07:48 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
First, the death sentence for adultery was rarely (if ever) practiced within first century Judaism. If a woman cheated, she was divorced and her dowry was kept, if she did not cheat, she could be divorced but her husband had to return her dowry as part of the divorce settlement.
The only reason the death penalty was rarely used in 1st century is because the Roman's forbid the Jews to execute their own without the permisson of the Roman governor (Pilate)
Before the Roman occupation, the woman and man would have been put to death. I believe that Jesus would have related to the Jews as pertaining to the Laws of Moses and NOT what they were dealing with in regards to the Roman occupation since the Roman empire laws for the Jews were contradictory to what God instilled through Moses. However Jesus would NOT have urged them to disregard Roman law (except the Roman's worship of their gods)....so I can't say for 100% sure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Second, divorced women (both those accused of adultery, and those who were not) were remarried quite often within the first century Jewish culture.
Jewish culture? Yes. Mosiac Law? No. Much of the Mosiac Law was disregarded by this time for many reasons....a large part due to the Roman occupation of Israel.
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
While I agree with your statement that "Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God," it is important to recognize that the practices of the first century framed much of the debate. Jesus response brought them back to the original intention of the Law.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/24/2010 11:15:04 PM
|
|
|
Robert_G
Posts: 213
Joined: 1/8/2006
From: British Columbia, Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
First, the death sentence for adultery was rarely (if ever) practiced within first century Judaism. If a woman cheated, she was divorced and her dowry was kept, if she did not cheat, she could be divorced but her husband had to return her dowry as part of the divorce settlement.
The only reason the death penalty was rarely used in 1st century is because the Roman's forbid the Jews to execute their own without the permisson of the Roman governor (Pilate)
Before the Roman occupation, the woman and man would have been put to death. I believe that Jesus would have related to the Jews as pertaining to the Laws of Moses and NOT what they were dealing with in regards to the Roman occupation since the Roman empire laws for the Jews were contradictory to what God instilled through Moses. However Jesus would NOT have urged them to disregard Roman law (except the Roman's worship of their gods)....so I can't say for 100% sure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Second, divorced women (both those accused of adultery, and those who were not) were remarried quite often within the first century Jewish culture.
Jewish culture? Yes. Mosiac Law? No. Much of the Mosiac Law was disregarded by this time for many reasons....a large part due to the Roman occupation of Israel.
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
While I agree with your statement that "Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God," it is important to recognize that the practices of the first century framed much of the debate. Jesus response brought them back to the original intention of the Law.
I'm thinking you and I agree...maybe just from a slightly different angle
_____________________________
..............
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/24/2010 11:19:39 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
First, the death sentence for adultery was rarely (if ever) practiced within first century Judaism. If a woman cheated, she was divorced and her dowry was kept, if she did not cheat, she could be divorced but her husband had to return her dowry as part of the divorce settlement.
The only reason the death penalty was rarely used in 1st century is because the Roman's forbid the Jews to execute their own without the permisson of the Roman governor (Pilate)
Before the Roman occupation, the woman and man would have been put to death. I believe that Jesus would have related to the Jews as pertaining to the Laws of Moses and NOT what they were dealing with in regards to the Roman occupation since the Roman empire laws for the Jews were contradictory to what God instilled through Moses. However Jesus would NOT have urged them to disregard Roman law (except the Roman's worship of their gods)....so I can't say for 100% sure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Second, divorced women (both those accused of adultery, and those who were not) were remarried quite often within the first century Jewish culture.
Jewish culture? Yes. Mosiac Law? No. Much of the Mosiac Law was disregarded by this time for many reasons....a large part due to the Roman occupation of Israel.
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
While I agree with your statement that "Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God," it is important to recognize that the practices of the first century framed much of the debate. Jesus response brought them back to the original intention of the Law.
I'm thinking you and I agree...maybe just from a slightly different angle
I agree! 
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 8:24:10 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2408
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
First, the death sentence for adultery was rarely (if ever) practiced within first century Judaism. If a woman cheated, she was divorced and her dowry was kept, if she did not cheat, she could be divorced but her husband had to return her dowry as part of the divorce settlement.
The only reason the death penalty was rarely used in 1st century is because the Romans forbid the Jews to execute their own without the permission of the Roman governor (Pilate)
Before the Roman occupation, the woman and man would have been put to death. I believe that Jesus would have related to the Jews as pertaining to the Laws of Moses and NOT what they were dealing with in regards to the Roman occupation since the Roman empire laws for the Jews were contradictory to what God instilled through Moses. However Jesus would NOT have urged them to disregard Roman law (except the Romans worship of their gods)....so I can't say for 100% sure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Second, divorced women (both those accused of adultery, and those who were not) were remarried quite often within the first century Jewish culture.
Jewish culture? Yes. Mosaic Law? No. Much of the Mosaic Law was disregarded by this time for many reasons....a large part due to the Roman occupation of Israel.
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
Greetings
quote:
Jewish culture? Yes. Mosaic Law? No. Much of the Mosaic Law was disregarded by this time for many reasons....a large part due to the Roman occupation of Israel.
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
I believe we can weigh that on what we see today when Christ is presented,
the Jews disregarded the Mosaic Law until it was convenient, whereby every test they gave Him failed.
Not only did they not read their own scriptures but when confronted with the one who they were written of, they all stumbled and fell...
As could also be seen in the example with the women caught in the act of adultery,
It seemed it was their first "taste of conviction" in many years... that the purpose of the law "should have" made them aware of
quote:
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
Exactly, plus the fact the OT provides both the good and the bad examples and ways of doing things, but some undiscerning seem to take those ones that were bad as their example and make them the doctrines of God
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed "obey My voice"
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 8:57:27 AM
|
|
|
Showmethetruth
Posts: 240
Joined: 4/7/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gmspice
If God forgets our sins then he surely forgets that you divorced your former spouse
Do you think He forgets that you married your first spouse?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
The same can be said about the extremely common practice of divorces and subsequent marriages occurring in our churches today.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
Exactly, plus the fact the OT provides both the good and the bad examples and ways of doing things, but some undiscerning seem to take those ones that were bad as their example and make them the doctrines of God
This has been pointed out as the case of Deut. 24.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 9:01:27 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2408
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: pd57
Man you guys still don't get it! all this arguing & contention. Just read below and use your mind!
Words Mean Things
For the sake of discussion let us suppose the following.
What if a concerned friend of yours came up to you and told you that a couple down the street had separated. Would you need clarification as to what separated meant? Would you ask your friend if the couple separated from your street to go on a romantic holiday or if they were now divorced or would you just understand that they had stopped living together?
How about when someone comes up to you and starts speaking. Do you normally need to hear 3 or 4 sentences or more before you can assemble enough context to understand what they are saying? That would be the exception not the rule.
There are some who suggest that the scripture is written in just such a way. I heard such nonsense about ten years ago and have recently heard it again. The next quote is just such nonsense.
"The root fallacy explains that you can gain no special truth behind the text by looking at the greek word behind it, because the word's english equivalent is not solely dependent on the definition of the greek word.
Greek words do not have specific meanings, they have what is called a semantic range, narrowed by the rest of the words in the sentence until a specific decision is made about the translation of the word."
I believe the above is utter nonsense! Is it partly an apology for poor translations? Perhaps it was an attempt at justification for the King James Version? It may also be a way of neutralizing one's responsibility to scripture? According to this many Bible software companies have wasted their time as their software is specifically designed to let one dig deeper into the language behind the English translation. Let us look at one Greek word specifically.
G630
apoluō
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce:- (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
I included the entire entry from Strong's. Remember that anything after the :- is not a part of the definition, but is merely a listing of ways the word was translated in the KJV. Also remember that Mr Strong stated that the first word is the most reliable word, in this case free fully, while the most radical understanding is the last word, in this case (specifically) divorce. I would add here that it sounds like Mr Strong, while acknowledging how the KJV translated words, would disagree with the nonsense statement I quoted above. Based on my understanding the radical definition in this case should not be included.
Next let us show with the use of Englishman's that in fact the KJV is relatively consistent with the translation of apoluo except in one specific location and not in all context that is similar. Perhaps they were trying to protect church doctrine and hide the truth? Take a look at the list. The words translated from apoluo will be in bold print.
Matt 1:19 minded to put her away privily.
Matt 5:31 Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement
Matt 5:32 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. (This is the only occurrence of the word divorce and should have been rendered put away.)
Matt 14:15 send the multitude away
Matt 14:22 while he sent the multitudes away.
Matt 14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes away
Matt 15:23 Send her away
Matt 15:32 I will not send them away fasting
Matt 15:39 And he sent away the multitude
Matt 18:27 loosed him, and forgave him the debt
Matt 19:3 Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Matt 19:7 Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Matt 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Matt 19:9 And I say unto you, 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.
Matt 27:15 the governor was wont to release unto the people
Matt 27:17 Whom will ye that I release unto you?
Matt 27:21 that I release unto you?
Matt 27:26 Then released he Barabbas unto them
Mark 6:36 Send them away, that they may go
Mark 6:45 while he sent away the people.
Mark 8:3 And if I send them away fasting
Mark 8:9 and he sent them away.
Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Mark 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Mark 15:6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner
Mark 15:9 Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Mark 15:11 that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
Mark 15:15 willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them
Luke 2:29 lettest thou thy servant depart in peace
Luke 6:37 forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Luke 8:38 but Jesus sent him away
Luke 9:12 Send the multitude away
Luke 13:12 Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
Luke 14:4 and healed him, and let him go;
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Luke 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
Luke 23:18 Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
Luke 23:20 willing to release Jesus
Luke 23:22 I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
Luke 23:25 And he released unto them him
John 18:39 that I should release unto you ... that I release unto you
John 19:10 and have power to release thee?
John 19:12 Pilate sought to release him
Acts 3:13 when he was determined to let him go.
Acts 4:21 they let them go
Acts 4:23 And being let go
Acts 5:40 and let them go.
Acts 13:3 they sent them away.
Acts 15:30 So when they were dismissed
Acts 15:33 they were let go in peace
Acts 16:35 saying, Let those men go.
Acts 16:36 sent to let you go
Acts 17:9 they let them go.
Acts 19:41 he dismissed the assembly.
Acts 23:22 then let the young man depart
Acts 26:32 This man might have been set at liberty
Acts 28:18 would have let me go
Acts 28:25 they departed, after that
Heb 13:23 Timothy is set at liberty
Hopefully you noted that only one time in all of these verses was the word apoluo translated divorce. Some translations, such as the NIV, are much worse on this. The way I see it if divorce is an accurate translation in Matthew 5:32 then it is also valid in any of the other verses. The word divorce is a legal term. So if it is valid to translate apoluo as such then one must admit that in Acts 19:41, for example, that the entire assembly was married to the town clerk of Ephesis and then divorced by him.
My point is that those who would support the idea that divorce is what is being discussed in Matthew 5:32 do not understand the difference between being separated without being divorced and being divorced. Did you notice Matthew 19:7? How much sense would it make to say "to give a writing of divorcement, and to divorce her"?
Well there are a couple articles at this web site on the particulars of divorce and adulteration. I hope you will find them useful and just how simple the scriptures are to understand if you have the right meanings of the words.
This is an excellent example of why it can be dangerous to consult a lexicon when one has not studied the language. These tools can be helpful when someone wants to understand the entire semantic range of a particular root, but it is useless for trying to narrow the meaning to only one choice from the many given; these tools were NEVER designed to be used this way. And the definitions given in a Strong's lexicon do not contain enough information for even someone skilled in the biblical languages to use in this way. A complete Hebrew or Greek lexicon will include many of the grammar notes in the definition that are critical to understanding the meaning of a particular usage; the Strong's lexicon simply does not have enough room to include this information. The "rules" given in this prior post for determining the best meaning of a word from the definitions given in a lexicon are simply ludicrous! The reality is that Greek and Hebrew words are listed in the lexicon by only their lexical form, but in the text they have case endings, conjugations, etc... that all affect the meaning of the word. For example, the Hebrew root אכל can mean to eat, to be eaten, to feed, to be fed, to burn, to be burned, etc.., etc..., etc... many of these meanings are dependent on the auxiliary letters that are added to the root as either prefixes, infixes, or suffixes. Here are some examples of how this root may be found as it would be used in the text:
אכל
אוכלת
יאכל
נאכל
איאכל
האכלתי
מאכיל
Each of these conjugations limit the possible meanings of the root, and in the context a sentence the possible meanings will be even more limited. However, each of these will be tied to the exact same Strong's reference because they all share the exact same root (i.e. lexical form); Strong's will list all of the definitions I gave (and more), but the particular use in a sentence will limit the possibility to only a subset of the definitions that Strong's lists, and in MANY of the cases I listed above, the first, second, third, or even forth definition listed WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE!!! Additionally, there are contextual issues, idioms, etc... that are important to understand before the meaning can be understood in a particular passage. For example, if I say in Hebrew "He did it standing on one leg", I actually mean, "he did it in an impossibly short period of time."
In short, choosing the first word in a list given in a lexicon is an extremely poor way of understanding the meaning of the text. There are very good reasons why the translators of your English bible spent years learning the language before attempting to translate the text into English and anyone who believes that they can do a better job using a Strong's concordance and lexicon without learning the langauge has simply deceived themselves.
Greetings
quote:
The "rules" given in this prior post for determining the best meaning of a word from the definitions given in a lexicon are simply ludicrous! The reality is that Greek and Hebrew words are listed in the lexicon by only their lexical form, but in the text they have case endings, conjugations, etc... that all affect the meaning of the word. For example, the Hebrew root אכל can mean to eat, to be eaten, to feed, to be fed, to burn, to be burned, etc.., etc..., etc... many of these meanings are dependent on the auxiliary letters that are added to the root as either prefixes, infixes, or suffixes. Here are some examples of how this root may be found as it would be used in the text:
אכל
אוכלת
יאכל
נאכל
איאכל
האכלתי
מאכיל
quote:
The "rules" given in this prior post for determining the best meaning of a word from the definitions given in a lexicon are simply ludicrous!
Exactly, because there is no solid rule because determining the best meaning is always based on the situation ... or the (entire context, which not be in the same group or passage) where that addition to or subtraction of a letter or symbol in the word ....could lead one into a ditch... so to speak!
No different than programming a computer, and is why they call it a computer language....
1 dot in the wrong place spoils the entire LUMP 
quote:
For example, if I say in Hebrew "He did it standing on one leg", I actually mean, "he did it in an impossibly short period of time."
If some are keeping up with the news (FOX NEWS) that same type of reasoning... or Semitic reason is being debated as we speak concerning the mosque at ground zero.... debated as to what this Imam’s meaning is or was.... by the words he used, like you offered in example above
And as we see ....if one cannot speak the language of another to get their point across in the others language without causing debate, then they should simply ....remain SLIENT = shut-up and listen!!!
The same applies to defining the word.
2Pe 3:16 Speaking of Paul’s ministry to the Gentile
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
LG
< Message edited by LoyalGypsy -- 8/25/2010 2:57:55 PM >
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed "obey My voice"
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 10:37:21 AM
|
|
|
pd57
Posts: 166
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline
|
Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage
by Scott Diffenderfer
Reprinted by permission of Messianic Home Magazine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last several months we have been approached concerning our "position" on the subject of divorce and remarriage. The following is the result of much study, prayer, counsel, and discussion. Some have told me not to attempt to deal with this issue, as it is too personal, yet we at Messianic Home have never been concerned with building subscription numbers but rather have attempted to offer up solid Biblical positions on "home" related topics. With that in mind we simply cannot back off this potentially divisive topic.
As a point of reference for the reader, I have been married to the same woman for almost 19 years. I, unfortunately was not a pure bridegroom. I have no ax to grind on this issue and only seek the truth. I have heard or read most of the arguments on all sides of this issue attempting to understand the position of each one. In the end the only opinion that counts is the one of YHVH. I humbly submit to you the best presentation on this topic that I can put forth at this point in my journey with Messiah.
When we study any topic in Scripture we need to consider a few concepts very carefully. First of all, we must use the whole counsel of the Word from Genesis through Revelation. Secondly, we must consider the audience of the writer and/or speaker. Third, please realize that the Son cannot contradict the Father. Last but not least, we need to acknowledge that there are some points in Scripture that are a mystery and we are to be faithful to study thereby unlocking the mystery as we grow into the image of Messiah.
We see the first marriage in Scripture early on as YHVH realized that Adam needed a helpmeet. At this time, obviously the newly created world was in the perfection state. The fruit was still on the tree. This is a very important distinction to make when looking at the first union of a man and a woman. In YHVH's perfect order, the union of a man and woman is one of becoming "one flesh". Through the physical act of becoming "one flesh" YHVH has given us a beautiful picture of His design for our union with our heavenly bridegroom.
There are some clear distinctions between this garden union and our worldly unions of today. Besides the perfection of the garden, we see that Eve was created from the very rib of her husband. While at this point in my marriage I consider my wife to be part of my own flesh, I have had to grow into this belief. Adam did not even ask for this helpmeet - YHVH saw that he needed help and companionship. Most men today search and search for the perfect bride. Despite our failings some of us even are fortunate enough to find her. Adam just had to take a little nap. In the perfect garden setting things were a little different than they are today. Until Messiah returns to clean up this mess in which we live we will continue to stumble our way towards His perfect will.
Moving forward in Torah, we see many marriages, some good and others with problems. The wisdom of the patriarchs was not always perfect concerning their personal lives. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4 we encounter the topic of divorcement. This is the only time that divorce is mentioned in Torah. When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before YHVH: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the YHVH thy Elohim giveth thee for an inheritance. Moshe in this section of Torah is laying out the various decrees of the Father to Israel. Considering the context again we see that Moshe is talking to a separated people who are about to enter into a special piece of geography which we today call Israel. In verse 4 we see how YHVH feels about the return of a wife to her former husband. Again, we must realize that the Son did not contradict His Father. Messiah explains to us in Matthew 19:8 why divorce was permitted, because of the hardness of your hearts. The rebellious Israelites demonstrated their hardness of heart many times throughout their wanderings in the wilderness. Some would say that the Israelites of today are still wandering in the wilderness and still possess a hardness of heart. Only through the redemptive work of Messiah dwelling within us is our heart softened.
This hard heart syndrome which leads to rebellion was prevalent throughout the wilderness wanderings. Ultimately, it led to YHVH using a bill of divorcement on His chosen people. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also (Jer. 3:8). The Father establishes His ways for specific purposes. In the case of divorce, it seems that YHVH has it in place to deal with the issue of hard heartedness. However, in Jeremiah 3 we see a possible argument for a wife's return to her husband after divorce. This is just not so! Notice that the wife, hast played the harlot, (Jer. 3:1) not entered onto a marriage covenant with another. Furthermore, YHVH has never married another - Israel (native born and sojourners) is and always will be the only people who have a covenantal relationship with YHVH. Is it His perfect will for couples to be divorced? Is it His will for His people to have hard hearts? Absolutely not! There are different eras throughout Scripture and YHVH establishes specific instruction for specific eras. For instance, today we cannot keep the sacrificial instructions because the Temple is not yet reestablished. That however does not nullify the sacrificial system but only suspends it until YHVH causes His house on earth to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 42). In the Adamic era we had perfection on earth and during the Messianic era we will once again. So, what do we do in the meantime? Is divorce one of those instructions that is for a specific era? Again, let us consider the work of Messiah in our lives.
We know that if Messiah truly dwells within us then He causes our heart to be renewed. Through His sacrifice we are redeemed. The curse of Adam's disobedience is cleansed from us and we can enter into a personal relationship with YHVH through our faith in Messiah Yeshua. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:19). While the world around us still operates under the hard heart syndrome, we have been given soft hearts that are willing to obey and find joy in following His commands. So when our hard heart is removed so is our need for divorce. We learn how to love our spouse through His instruction as we grow in the knowledge of His ways. As we are transformed into the image of Messiah we learn how to sacrifice our personal desires for the desires of our mate and family. Our selfish, lustful flesh is no longer our driving force as our desire to serve is increased. Of course we are still, "works in process," but we are being transformed into a beautiful form. No longer bound by our sinful desires, we are free to follow His commandments and experience the blessings therein. Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of YHVH your Elohim, which I command you this day... (Dt.11:26 & 27). The need for divorce is nullified because we have been redeemed and are to be separate and peculiar people from the world. Our lives are to cause the world to be jealous as they witness the difference in our actions and responses to the actions of those around us. Once redeemed, divorce is no longer an option. Divorce is not applicable to redeemed Israelites. The very cause of adultery (a hard heart) has been eliminated. HalleluYAH!
But as we look around us we find "Believers" getting divorced. We see pastors, teachers, and elders getting divorced or turning their head to those who are. The world's imperfections have seeped into the body of Believers. As our leaders have turned a hard heart to Torah, they have turned away from accountability and responsibility. Marriage is looked upon as a contract rather than a covenant. Faithfulness is replaced by feelings, commitment is overshadowed by our perverted concept of "love". How are we to respond? What should our stance be when dealing with those who have been divorced? Real life issues need real life solutions. Fortunately, we have the example and teachings of Messiah to follow when dealing with these issues.
In the gospels we have several instances of Messiah dealing with "sinners". If we define sin as anything that YHVH hates then divorce certainly falls into that category. Divorce is the result of sin. Some would teach that those who are remarried are in a constant state of adultery due to Messiah's teaching in Matthew 5:32. Adultery is sin. But, if we are going to use Yeshua's teaching we have to use His definition, ...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Mt. 5:28). More importantly, we must attempt to deal with these issues as Yeshua would have. Some treat divorced and remarried people as lepers, especially if the action took place after they were "saved". Which sin is too big for Messiah's bloodshed to cover? Are there any sins that are unforgiven if one truly repents? Do we not nullify the very essence of Messiah if we choose to have a hard heart toward repentant sinners? While the Israelites were given the ability to divorce due to their hard hearts, we see today similar hard hearts taking harsh stances on this issue. Many are throwing "spiritual stones" at those who have erred concerning the past choices they made for partners. Messiah came to teach His lost sheep a better way of life. A life of forgiveness, redemption from our mistakes, and access to the Holy of Holies through His blood. When looking at this topic we cannot forget this important tenant.
Some congregations will not allow divorced and remarried couples to join their assembly. If we choose to hold fast to one commandment and hold people accountable to lifestyle choices then we should be willing to hold equally fast to all the commandments. What about those who continually break the 1st commandment through violating or being ignorant of Torah? Many "Believers" still celebrate the pagan holidays of christmas, halloween, and easter thereby violating the second commandment. Often, we consider those who curse the Father's name as breaking the third commandment, but what about those who do not even use the name of YHVH or Yeshua? What about all of the sabbath breakers; are they doomed...? The list goes on and on as we consider our shortcomings in light of His instructions (Torah). We simply cannot treat the Scriptures as a buffet, taking what tastes good and leaving the rest. This is not an excuse to throw the whole thing out and run rampant in sin. Rather, it is a warning to those who would hold to one command more strictly than the others.
Let us take a closer look at the concept of adultery through the light of the whole counsel of His Word. Messiah Yeshua gave an expanded definition of adultery when asked in Matthew 5:28. It is important to note here that He was using a specific teaching method, using hyperbole to drive home the point that divorce is wrong. Messiah used this type of teaching many times, especially when attempting to define the difference between the two major schools of rabbinic teaching at the time (Hillel and Shammai). We must consider the context and audience when looking at Messiah's words or we will misinterpret the intended message. There are many examples of adultery throughout Scripture. One could argue that anyone who strays from the pure Truth of YHVH's Word commits adultery against the Father. Then, of course, we have Yeshua's expanded definition of which most "Believers" would be guilty of at some point. Fortunately, in both these cases we can repent and return to a right relationship with YHVH. We have an example of His forgiveness in King David. Here is a man who had many wives yet will still be prince of Jerusalem under Messiah's reign. Here was, "a man after YHVH's own heart", yet he obviously violated the concept of "one flesh" continually.
Let us take an abbreviated look at some of the teachings on this divorce/remarriage issue that are floating around today. First there seems to be a belief that divorce is a necessary tool in today's adulterous world. It goes that it is impractical to expect couples to actually stay together. As long as you attempt to seek "religious" counsel and then things do not work out, at least you have tried. Of course when many pastors, elders, and other leaders have been divorced, it is hard for them to take too hard a stance against divorce and remarriage. Or when many in their congregation are divorced it creates a financial burden if they take too hard a stance on this issue. They tend to treat divorce as if someone just broke a contract. Contracts themselves are established in the belief that one of the parties will eventually break the agreement. They are there to protect the one who upholds the agreement through outlining certain punitive damages for those who break the deal. However, we know that marriage is not a contract but rather a blood covenant.
Which brings us to another teaching. This teaching hinges on the concept that it is not the state who has the authority to unite a couple. Only YHVH has that ability. According to this teaching a person is "married" to whomever they first were intimate with. In Bible times, when a marriage was consummated the bridegroom presents the stained bed garment to witnesses indicating that his bride was pure and that the couple was united as "one flesh". This blood covenant is unbreakable as long as both parties are alive. If this is a correct interpretation of YHVH's will for a marriage then many reading this article are married to the wrong person. Very few of us today have married our first bed chamber partner. In the perfect world, this teaching would be applicable and certainly is a goal towards which we should train our children. I was not trained up this way, quite the contrary, I was encouraged to pursue young women in a very unscriptural manner. We see here the attempt to apply a "perfect world" teaching to an imperfect environment.
Then we have the teaching that espouses the belief that you are married to the first person you married until one spouse dies. Divorce is not allowed except for cases of fornication. If marital unfaithfulness is found, you may separate but still you may not re-marry until the other spouse dies. What about Ezra's instruction to Israel, Now therefore let us make a covenant with our Elohim [God] to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our Elohim [God]; and let it be done according to the law (Ezra 10:3). There are times when it seems it is Scripturally correct to divorce. Notice that this verse states that it be done "according to the law (Torah)". Let us train up our children not to be lured by "foreign wives" but rather to remain faithful to those their parents choose for them to marry. Once again, this would not be applicable if we lived in "the garden". This teaching could certainly lead someone to wish for the death of their former spouse thereby committing "murder of the heart". Were the Israelites of Ezra's time still married to their former wives? Or were there marriages nullified in the eyes of YHVH due to the mistakes of their training? Were they held guiltless due to being led astray by their parents?
Some would take the above teaching a step farther and promote the concept that if you are divorced and remarried, you should divorce your current spouse and return to the first. Again, we see that this is a violation of Torah. In Deuteronomy 24:4 YHVH calls such an act an "abomination". If YHVH truly hates divorce, how can one wrong make right another wrong? Remarriage to a former spouse, after marrying another, is obviously not approved of by YHVH.
To truly understand this subject we must consider what is a Biblical marriage. If we only deal with the divorce issue, then we are picking out one point in a continuum in the marriage issue. YHVH likes marriage. While some are to remain single, He gave us the marriage covenant as a blessing through which we could effectively serve Him. An effective marriage begins early in life as children are trained up to be good husbands and wives. This starts (hopefully) at a young age, as girls and boys are taught how to fulfill their rightful roles by their parents. Concepts such as discipline, faithfulness, stewardship, hard work, and patience should be a part of every home training environment. Later in life these well trained young men and women are betrothed to their intended spouse. This betrothal period is a time of great anticipation and preparation, usually lasting about one year. The bridegroom is to prepare a place for his bride under the auspices of his father. The marriage is then performed by the elders with the consummation taking place thereafter. This is only the beginning as now the real training begins. For the first few years of marriage it is critical that the couple receive good counsel from the elders and their parents concerning home based issues. As the years progress and children are brought up in the home, the couple will then enter into the fullness of the blessing of marriage truly understanding what a Scriptural marriage is all about.
We should not just focus on the issue of divorce without considering the entire marriage continuum. When a marriage fails there is typically a problem with the training of the individual involved. A lack of patience or faithfulness are common causes of divorce. Let us deal correctly with those involved in the training, counseling and teaching of the divorced couple as well. To do less would allow the errors to multiply into the future.
Most of the confusion concerning this issue comes from those who just look at the New Testament's teachings on this subject. Let us look at a few verses remembering that the renewed testament does not contradict the first (Old) Testament. In Matthew 5:31-32 (KJV) we read: It hath been said, 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. Now this obviously makes things pretty clear; until we remember that scripture cannot violate scripture. If Moshe allowed for divorce then we must be missing a piece of the puzzle here. Just perhaps, it is due to the translation. We see this in many instances throughout Scripture, where one or two verses seemingly contradict the rest on a particular topic (look at the dietary laws for instance). Using George M. Lamsa's translation of the Aramaic Peshita (an ancient eastern text) this passage reads like this: It has been said that whoever divorces his wife, must give her the divorce papers. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is separated but not divorced, commits adultery. We see here the distinction between being separated but not divorced. In Biblical times (and in some congregations today) the elders would meet to consider the grounds for divorcement. If they felt that there were Scriptural grounds (i.e. fornication, adultery, or abandonment) then a "get" (bill of divorcement) would be written. This paper would state the findings of the Elders and would serve as legal paper for the act of divorce. Obviously, in the Peshita, we see the distinction between a separation and a legal divorce. Could Yeshua be stating that a man who marries a woman without the bill of divorcement causes her to commit adultery?
Furthermore, according to George Howard's study in The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, the translation of Matthew 5:31 from the original Hebrew would read, ...And I say to you that everyone who leaves his wife is to give her a bill of divorce. But concerning adultery, he is the one who commits adultery and he who takes her commits adultery. Again, we see that the issue here is the act of legally divorcing rather than just "putting out" a wife. Howard writes, "Here Y'shua supports the requirement that a man must give his wife a divorce certificate (sefer keritut or get), otherwise if he sends her out still legally married, then he makes both her and her new husband commit adultery. Therefore, if the man truly wants a divorce he must pay the ketubah settlement (a kind of lump sum maintenance) and do a proper separation."
Later in Matthew 19:3-9 we see Yeshua addressing this topic again. Notice the audiences, first we have His response to a cunning group of Pharisees and later to His disciples. These Pharisees were obviously attempting to trip up our Messiah through asking Him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Again, we must be careful to consider the whole Scripture for in his passage we see Messiah delineating between the school of Hillel and Shammai concerning the meaning of the Torah phrase of Dt. 24:1, "indecency of thing" (i.e. uncleanness). Yeshua here sided with the stricter Shammai stating that divorce could not be for any "thing" but only for the "thing" of immorality.
Messiah further blasted back at the Pharisees saying it was due to their hardness of hearts that Moshe gave the bill of divorcement. Compare this last passage with Mark 10:2-12. We can see a big difference in Mark 10:10-11 vs. Matthew 19:9. Notice who He is addressing in Mark - His disciples. Could it be that again our interpretation is a bit off? Let us consider that Messiah was taking a hard stance against divorce for His disciples. This would be appropriate in light of the Scriptural qualifications for eldership. Obviously these men were to be held to a higher standing for their personal conduct. Messiah was making it clear to that specific audience (as Torah does for the Levites) that divorce and remarriage would be a grievous error.
But what about Romans 7:1-3? Once again we need to consider the context and read carefully. First of all the topic here that Paul is addressing is not divorce, but rather obedience to Torah. Furthermore, we see in verse 2 that the woman is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. But if a legal "get" was given the man in question would no longer be her husband! Obviously the husband's death would end the marriage as we see in the next verse upon which she is free to remarry. In any case, the context in this passage is one of Torah obedience not divorce and remarriage.
In 1 Corinthians 7, we see this subject being addressed by Paul (Shaul). We again must consider the context. Paul here is, of course, lining up his words with YHVH's Torah and Yeshua's explanation thereof in the Gospels. The major issue he is addressing is the forgiveness of your spouse. In, Messiah - Understanding His Life and Teachings in Hebraic Context (Vol. 1), Avi Ben Mordechai writes, "To say, 'God has called us to peace' means God has called us to repair broken relationships, a concept that comes from the word shalom, whose Hebrew root is shalem meaning to make payment in full; to fully reconcile an account. ...If the marriage is irreconcilable due to marital infidelity, and the unfaithful spouse wants to leave, you must let him or her leave and you will incur no guilt, as long as you were willing to forgive."
So where does this leave us? How do we reconcile the issue of divorce and remarriage in today's society? We can see that through the counsel of the whole Word we may have a different conclusion than if we just consider the Tanakh (O.T.) or the Brit Hadasha (N.T.). Obviously, we also must be careful to consider the context, translation, and audience when interpreting Scripture. After all these considerations, we can form a more accurate conclusion on any Scriptural matter. Let me be crystal clear in stating that YHVH hates divorce. He no doubt hates it for several reasons perhaps paramount of which is the fact that He desires His people to be blessed. Divorce carries curses along with it, especially if children are involved. There are always questions to be answered, faithfulness to be questioned, and a stigma attached that just will not go away. YHVH seeks the best for His people and divorce hinders His will. We must train up our children properly thereby causing them to have the heart of YHVH and hate divorce also. Furthermore, we must offer wise counsel to marriages that are in trouble, divorce is simply not the will of the Father for any marriage. However, there are specific acceptable reasons for divorce. This is not a long list! Let me be specific in stating that they are dealing with the immorality within the marriage that Yeshua spoke of, fornication, adultery, and (in the case of the unbeliever) abandonment. In no way do I offer up these reasons as an "out" for anyone who is married. Please remember that YHVH HATES divorce! Anyone who takes part in any act that YHVH hates will have to answer to the Almighty one day. Let us not forsake the eternal reward due to some temporal difficulties. Just because the Father gives us reasons for divorce does not mean that we should get divorced. Remember, you will have to answer for your actions. YHVH is still in the miracle business. So, if you are in one of these situations keep praying, not looking for the easy way out, but rather praying for YHVH's miracle that may be closer than you think. Different congregations may define these reasons for divorce differently but I will stick my neck out and offer up a suggested definition of each considering their original definition in the Greek and Hebrew language and Yeshua's words. I will also put these definitions in light of the imperfect world we live in today:
Fornication - adultery and any act of a sexual nature that is committed out of the marriage relationship, homosexuality and the use of pornography.
Adultery - the physical or mental act of physical intimacy with anyone other than one's spouse.
Abandonment - the act of leaving, not providing for, or physically abusing one's spouse.
If one is in such a state there are specific steps they should take. First of all pray; because YHVH is indeed capable of working miracles. Secondly, look at your action (or lack of action) that could have caused this situation to occur, repent, and fix it. Third, seek counsel from the wise. Fourth, if all else fails and you must go through with a divorce, bring the request in front of a group of true Elders and submit to their authority. Request that they hear your plea and grant you a written get with the Scriptural cause of divorce clearly stated. If that is accomplished then today you must receive a bill of divorce from the state as well. Finally you must repent. Repent! True repentance will bring about a change, a new heart, and put you back under the covering of YHVH.
It is interesting to note that Scripture only gives the ability to obtain a get to the husband. This is perhaps due to the patriarchal society of the time. Women were dependent on their husband for provision and protection. This, in part, is the reason that women did not abandon their husbands. Therefore, if a man divorced his wife it would be speculated that she had played the harlot. What a disgrace that would be. However, Jewish law gave the wife the ability to approach the elders of the synagogue in an attempt to force the husband to divorce her for specific causes such as her husband having leprosy, he was engaged in a dirty trade, physical abuse, or his becoming a heretic.
Let us also remember that the punishment for adultery in Torah was stoning. Of course this seems barbaric to most today, however, if all proven adulterers were stoned to death things would be much neater. The issue of remarriage of the adulterer would be eliminated and most would think twice before committing such a violation. With each stone, the guilty party would have the opportunity to repent and thereby enter the Kingdom of YHVH. But who would cast the first stone? Spiritual "stones" are being cast today by many who do not understand the whole counsel of YHVH's Word and by others who are filled with pride and unforgiveness.
Remarriage may indeed take place if a Scripturally legal divorce has been accomplished. This is Scriptural, not the Father's best, but allowable under the whole counsel of His Word. If you seek to be divorced to pursue another pre-identified spouse then you certainly have committed adultery under Yeshua's definition and teachings. Therefore, any remarriage should not take place for a number of years. Remember that the divorced individual has some baggage that needs to be cleaned up before any remarriage should be considered. Perhaps there is a problem with faithfulness, obedience, patience, or other such issues. These must be cleaned up if the next marriage is to be successful. Typically, these are not quick fix areas of opportunity but rather life long issues. Give them time to be eradicated through good counsel and prayer. During this period the woman should be provided for by her father or the congregation. Let us not forsake our responsibility to those in need. Waiting on YHVH before rushing into a remarriage leaves room for repentance on the part of the adulterous spouse. YHVH divorced Israel and sent her away but still awaits for her repentant return to His covenant. We too should be careful not to close the door too soon. Some individuals are better off to remain single, For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Mt. 19:12). We should not force the issue, but truly be led by the Ruach HaKodesh which will never violate Scripture. Those who do choose to remarry need to do so with the utmost caution. The multiple divorce rates are enormous and YHVH hates divorce! Be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
In closing, let me note that none of us can undo the mistakes of the past. We have all fallen short of His mark. We all are in need of His abundant mercy. For those of you who have been divorced in the past please realize that we cannot unscramble eggs but we can make a beautiful soufflé out of them! True repentance for our grievous ways will bring about a change in the Believer. We should be able to physically recognize a repentant individual. There should be a change of attitude that will improve their countenance as well as change their deeds.
In addressing this topic we need to realize that there are many factors involved in any unsuccessful marriage. Therefore, it is impossible to make a blanket proclamation on specific marriages without taking into account the different aspects of each. That is why it is so important to receive Scriptural counsel if you are in a troubled marriage. This counsel must be of YHVH and therefore cannot be void of Torah. The counselors must consider the entire Scripture in it's original language, and not just a few passages.
Unfortunately, there are some Believers who judge others who have been divorced and remarried and refuse to fellowship with those who they feel are in a continual state of adultery. This teaching is based on an incomplete interpretation of the New Testament alone and ignores the instructions of Moshe because the teachers of this concept believe the Law of YHVH is done away with. When we point the finger at someone else there are three others pointing back at us. Let YHVH be the judge and jury. While we certainly should be careful with who we choose to fellowship, let us not be so unforgiving that we would have the "hard heart" of the Pharisees. If we choose to draw a hard line on this issue, we must draw an equally hard line on all sin or else we are hypocrites. This does not in any way make allowances for divorce and remarriage. It is not YHVH's will and certainly not His best. However, we too must realize that we live in an imperfect world. Holding our brothers and sisters up to a standard of perfection will heap coals upon our heads. Instead, let us cling to the hope that Messiah is still completing the work He began within us. We are being transformed into His very image. It is an image of obedience, faithfulness, love, service, and humility...let it be so. Shalom.
< Message edited by pd57 -- 8/26/2010 10:38:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 11:38:11 AM
|
|
|
Robert_G
Posts: 213
Joined: 1/8/2006
From: British Columbia, Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Showmethetruth
quote:
ORIGINAL: gmspice
If God forgets our sins then he surely forgets that you divorced your former spouse
Do you think He forgets that you married your first spouse?
God always forgives, but forgivesness and consequences should never be used in the same sentence. God will forgive you for murder(forgiveness), but you're still going to jail(consequences). So God will also forgive you for divorcing your spouse (forgiveness), but the (consequence) is that you are disobeying God if you remarry.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Showmethetruth
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
Just because it became culture...didn't make it approved by God.
The same can be said about the extremely common practice of divorces and subsequent marriages occurring in our churches today.
I agree. I have no idea how 2 people who love God can divorce each other knowing that God hates divorce and that it completely goes against His will.
_____________________________
..............
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 3:35:46 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2408
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
quote:
It would have been easier for you to just say our bibles are useless.
Not exactly useless, to lend definition to the ways of the spirit that is of men,
There is only 1 way to lend definition because there is only 1 spirit,
But many different versions fail as to how to arrive and in define the same things; some languages simply don't do the job.
The only way the Babel syndrome gets cleared up... is in the Spirit
Heb 3:7 as explained in context in verse 19, one has to believe that.
LG
I have no problem agreeing that the Spirit interprets scripture for us, but since God is unchanging there is no excuse for Christians to be arguing over the CORE issues of scripture.
The difference is that some people listen to the Spirit and let Him teach them, and others want to find gray areas to justify their sin...period.
When it comes to sin there is virtually no gray area in scripture.
Greettings
quote:
God is unchanging there is no excuse for Christians to be arguing over the CORE issues of scripture.
The arguing over the CORE issues is by reason IMHO , that there are not many these days teaching those things hard to understand IN THEM , =the flock..
...there is no food for the sheep, because they who teach do not seem to believe it exists themselves, and those who do.... well the food...it’s not good enough to eat.
I believe Paul mentioned that here in making reference to those and them who preach another Jesus
Let me use the NKJV for an easier read
2Cr 11:4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—.......you may well put up with it!
That’s why I brought up 2Pe 3:16 ... cause in there Peter in Speaking of Paul’s ministry to the Gentile, Peter there gives a good mention that Paul spoke IN THEM these things hard to understand (by the FLESH)
....or was teaching them of those things hard to understand into... their spirit,
We have to have that witness
quote:
When it comes to sin there is virtually no gray area in scripture.
And in like manner there is absolutely no grey areas in forgiveness... which seems to get twisted beyond recognition also
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed "obey My voice"
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 3:58:29 PM
|
|
|
Robert_G
Posts: 213
Joined: 1/8/2006
From: British Columbia, Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
quote:
God is unchanging there is no excuse for Christians to be arguing over the CORE issues of scripture.
The arguing over the CORE issues is by reason IMHO , that there are not many these days teaching those things hard to understand IN THEM , =the flock..
...there is no food for the sheep, because they who teach do not seem to believe it exists themselves, and those who do.... well the food...it’s not good enough to eat.
I believe Paul mentioned that here in making reference to those and them who preach another Jesus
Let me use the NKJV for an easier read
2Cr 11:4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—.......you may well put up with it!
That’s why I brought up 2Pe 3:16 ... cause in there Peter in Speaking of Paul’s ministry to the Gentile, Peter there gives a good mention that Paul spoke IN THEM these things hard to understand (by the FLESH)
....or was teaching them of those things hard to understand into... their spirit,
We have to have that witness
Some good stuff there, and I agree that many don't find the food good enough to eat. The reason? The food includes instruction to remove sin from our lives
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
quote:
When it comes to sin there is virtually no gray area in scripture.
And in like manner there is absolutely no grey areas in forgiveness... which seems to get twisted beyond recognition also
LG
No disagreement here. We are to forgive as God has forgiven us...period.
_____________________________
..............
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 4:21:35 PM
|
|
|
RYNODOG
Posts: 664
Joined: 3/15/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
gmcspice, please expand on this a bit. Here is a situation. Very easily could be a real life...
Let's say John and Carrol are married in 1995, in a church, both professing to be Christians. John enters the military and heads overseas. He returns in three years to find Carrol has been in a bike accident. John doesn't like how the new Carrol looks so he divorces her. John then marries Cindy, who he finds more attractive. John and Cindy celebrate their marriage at a church on 5/29/99. On 8/29/99 John asks God to forgive him for divorcing Carrol. On 11/29/99 John asks God to forgive him for committing adultery by marrying Cindy. He believes this is enough and continues to be married to Cindy, because she is still more attractive than Carrol, who is remaining faithful to her "until death do us part" and "as long as we both shall live" promises.
Was John and Cindy's relationship ever adultery?
If it was adultery, when did the adultery end?
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
Hello gmcspice,
You definitely acknowledge that John commits adultery and you answer here when you think the adultery ends.
quote:
The adultery ends when John asks God to forgive him and he decides that he will not sin again like he did with his first wife by divorcing her for no reason. At that time his heart was hard. He must NOT harden it against his new wife because he would be sinning again.
Ok. A couple of other scenarios. To establish consistency.
Scenario 1
Eric, who professes to be a Christian, locks his "emotionally challenged" 10 year old son in the basement with no food or water. Eric leaves and asks God to forgive him for locking his son in the basement. He believes he is forgiven so he leaves the boy in the basement. (The boy's mother had moved to Arizona because she was unhappy in the marriage and knew that she could divorce Eric and ask God to forgive her and then marry someone else and ask God to forgive her again.)
Is Eric forgiven of the sin because he asked God for forgiveness and never locked another child of his in a basement again?
Scenario 2
Bill begins a sexual relationship with call girl Heidi. Bill's wife does not know about the relationship. Bill, professing to be a Christian, asks God to forgive him for the relationship but continues in the relationship with Heidi. I
Is Bill forgiven because he asked for forgiveness and because he does not enter into any other relationship with any other call girl?
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 4:27:45 PM
|
|
|
pd57
Posts: 166
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline
|
My oh My,the church has twisted your brain!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 4:29:26 PM
|
|
|
Rooted
Posts: 24
Joined: 7/16/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
Jesus was pointing out that a divorce for any reason other than infidelity (fornication - which change the whole scheme of things) was invalid and a subsequent remarriage would have been an act of adultery. Because women in the first century could not easily support themselves, such a divorce would likely cause a woman to choose remarriage, causing her to commit an act of adultery.
Edited for clarification:
I do not believe that remarriage EVER constitutes an act of CONTINUOUS adultery (as some on this thread advocate - NO. JESUS). Marriages that begin under sinful circumstances (even as adulterous marriages) still begin a new marriage covenant and divorce is NEVER a means of repentance. Repentance may be necessary when a marriage was conceived in sin, but the covenant formed must still be honored.
Too bad that John the Baptist didn't know this. It could've saved his life. He could've just said to Herod and Herodias (Philip's wife) that they must just 'repent' of the adultery but don't sin again by getting another divorce.
Too bad Paul also didn't know what he was talking about (and I'm not saying this with disrespect to Paul) when he said that if a wife gets married again while her husband still lives she shall be called an adulteress. He obviously (measured against your reasoning) didn't know anything about covenants when he ventured to say that no can can disannul or add to a covenant (Gal.3:15 & 17).
Also the reasoning here seems to imply that the Lord Jesus (and I say this reverently) as well as Paul were fraudsters, blowing hot and cold, saying one thing but meaning something else. No matter that the Lord Jesus said when he spoke about what constitutes adultery in Luke 16 he first wanted us to know that we must take careful note of what He is saying by telling us that its easier for heaven and earth to dissappear than for one tittle of the law to fail. In other words, what I (God) said, I said.
He (Jesus) said they are no more twain (Mat. 19:6 & Luk. 16:8). He also at the same time tells us that God joins a oneflesh couple, not man. Can man undo this? Man, as human nature is, never likes to be told they can't do something and will try to prove the opposite. But God says: I will work and who shall let it? KJV. NIV says: When I act, who can reverse it? Isa. 43:13c. The Bible also says: Let God be true but every man a liar (in part) Rom. 3:4. Verse 3 says: For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
A judge did not join a oneflesh couple, neither a pastor so thes people cannot divide them.
And for going back to the Mosaic law: Didn't David know about Deut. 24? And him taking his first wife back? And her second husband very obviously loved her as we read that he walked behind her crying all the way. I'm not quoting this to make light of this man's pain. Pain is pain, its the same, whether its the pain from our own sins or the pain when someone sins against us. The reasoning here makes it also appear that apparently God (with reverence) didn't know about Deut.24 because He instructed Hosea to take his wife back. God said that He will cause Gomer to experience discomfort so that she will say to herself that she will go and return to her first husband, for then it was better with me than now. Hos. 2:7 & Hos. 3:1. Gomer obviously married at least one of her lovers.
Question for anyone who adheres to the tempory marriage philosophy which include consecutive polygamy:
True or false: A Christian man can have as many wives as he wants, or when things don't work out, provided he has them one at a time.
What is the maximum times a Christian man can get married again to someone else (other than their oneflesh spouse), and who sets this limit?
I really want to know.
Rooted... in Him.
He refuses to stop loving me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 4:33:53 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2408
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RYNODOG
quote:
gmcspice, please expand on this a bit. Here is a situation. Very easily could be a real life... quote:
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
Greetings
How about if you answer a definite real life question
Lets say Billyjo married Bob and both were divorced and married another for no good reason
Then all of a sudden they both found Christ and were born again
What would Jesus tell them to do?
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed "obey My voice"
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 6:08:54 PM
|
|
|
Showmethetruth
Posts: 240
Joined: 4/7/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
quote:
ORIGINAL: RYNODOG
quote:
gmcspice, please expand on this a bit. Here is a situation. Very easily could be a real life... quote:
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
Greetings
How about if you answer a definite real life question
Lets say Billyjo married Bob and both were divorced and married another for no good reason
Then all of a sudden they both found Christ and were born again
What would Jesus tell them to do?
LG
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2010 11:37:03 PM
|
|
|
RYNODOG
Posts: 664
Joined: 3/15/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
My oh My,the church has twisted your brain!
Hey pd57, hope you are well.
I wish the scenarios were made up. Sadly they were real life, real names. The Church, the Body of Christ, certainly hasn't twisted any brains.
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/26/2010 12:00:59 AM
|
|
|
RYNODOG
Posts: 664
Joined: 3/15/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RYNODOG
When does the adultery end? What event/change in heart/change in mind ends the adultery?
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
quote:
You keep asking and no one answers, so I'll try. The event/change in mind that must take place to end the adultery is when someone realizes that they have gone against the clear teaching of Jesus Christ, given to us through the Holy Bible. They understand that whether they were taught that it was OK, or they were ignorant of the scriptures, at some point they were disobedient to them. When this realization takes place, they understand that they still have an ongoing covenant with their original spouse and God is a witness and sealer of that covenant (Mal 2:14). They realize that by marrying another following a divorce, they are, in the words of Jesus, committing adultery by being in a relationship with someone other than their covenant spouse (Matthew 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:3). They realize that the Word says they are bound (joined, tied) to that person until death (Romans 7:2-3 , 1 Cor 7:39). They realize that if they initiated the divorce or not, obedience to the scriptures would have them remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouse (1 Cor 7:10-11). While it might be hard to remain single the rest of their life, if need be, loving Jesus and pursuing the Kingdom of Heaven is evidenced by obedience to Him (Matthew 19:12, John 14:15, 21, 23). They would realize that since they are bound to their covenant spouse as long as they are both living, and only death can free them, they cannot continue in their unlawful adulterous relationship (Matt 14:4, Mark 6:17-18). They would understand that as hard as it might be to grasp, their marriage was considered adultery, and God would not be a party in the commission of the sin of adultery. With that being the case, their marriage was not joined by God, but seen as by Him in the same light as any other sinful relationship, similar to the cohabitation of an unmarried couple. They would realize that true repentance from any sin includes choosing to end the practice of that sin, not celebrating and continuing in it (Romans 6:1,15). Due to the civil legality and other aspects of being "married", civil legalities would be involved in dissolving the relationship as they chose to part with each other in an effort to be obedient to God and turn from the sin of adultery. They would feel remorse for the sin and for the emotional pain that would be felt, but they would realize that obedience to Christ is their number one priority, and sometimes that involves forsaking some things and enduring trials and difficulties (Matthew 16:24-25). When one has realized the above and taken these steps, I believe God would be eagerly willing to forgive them and embrace them with open arms (Luke 15:17-24)
Showmethetruth, hope you are well.
This answer lines up very well with two examples we find from Jesus' teaching... Zacchaeus and the prodigal son. Also with Peter's preaching on pentecost...
Acts 2:36-39
36 “So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!”
37 Peter’s words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise is to you, and to your children, and even to the Gentiles[a]—all who have been called by the Lord our God.”
Notice the order of events
1) There hearts were pierced at the message that they crucified Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior.
2) Repent of sins
3) Turn to God
4) Be baptized
5) Holy Spirit is then gifted
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
< Message edited by RYNODOG -- 8/26/2010 12:09:20 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/26/2010 2:01:52 AM
|
|
|
cure4divorce
Posts: 571
Joined: 12/17/2008
Status: offline
|
1 Cor. 7:27-28
Why does Paul call the umarrieds “virgins”? Paul expected the highest sexual purity from Christians 1 Thess. 4:3-8 and 1 Cor. 6:9 upon coming to Christ. But Paul was aware of the sexual immorality of Christians in this Church 1 Cor. 5:1-3. Though the single man 1 Cor. 6:17 was not a virgin (did not commit adultery) he was told to 'flee' this sexual union with the harlot (unbelieving sexual practicing woman). Scripture suggests those Christians who have already become “one flesh” with another Christian, if they have permission from the parents (Gen. 34, Ex. 22:16-17), they should get married
Paul is specifically talking to the man in 1 Cor. 7:27-28a since in the Greek he uses the word “wife” in which he was loosed from. Though Paul is teaching the man this instruction in verses 27-28 it is possible that the “loosed” woman (she was previously divorced from her husband because she committed some sexual immorality in her marriage Deut. 24:1) may have the same freedom to marry again being a 'loosed woman', though not directly addressed here (but can be used by this example). But by known Scriptural reasons of the “law of the husband” and the woman being told not to “separate” from her husband (1 Cor. 7:10) we know the woman was not able to “seek” to “loose” herself from her husband.
The Greek word “loosed” in 1 Cor. 7:27-28 implies that the man was formerly 'tied' or formerly “bound” from a marriage and is now 'divorced'. This word “loose” does not mean just anyone who is not married (unmarrieds) but divorcees only.
1 Cor. 7:25-38 Paul then gives his general instruction for “mankind so to be” 1 Cor. 7:26b addressing the questions of “virgins” (therefore applying that the men were some of the “virgins”). Paul already gave the specifics of divorce for the man and woman in verse 10-11 (not to leave or separate). Now Paul is going to give a teaching about ‘marriage in general’. The reason Paul mentions the “men” in passage is in all the passages in this letter to the 1 Corinthians he always addresses the “brethren” verse 1 and verse 29 when speaking to the Church but not all passages that say “men” or “brethren” relate to both sexes (like the passage previously addresses to the men about “circumcision” verse 18). The rule of thumb for the passage addressed to men is, is it clear it is only talking to the men or does it give an immediate instruction to the women directly afterwords.
Now even though we know only the man was allowed to “seek” a divorce according to Scripture what if the woman is “loosed” from a husband (besides death, like a divorce in which she commits adultery in?). Well, it seems it did not even cross Paul's mind for when he says following this instruction that the “unmarried man” verse 32 seeks to please the Lord but it says (in Greek) what is the difference between an unmarried woman or a wife, “the virgin...” verse 34 calling all “unmarried” woman “virgins.” This is interesting to note and up for debate or further thought but the important thing to 'note' is that Paul is not teaching what “looses” a man or a woman from their spouse in 1 Cor. 7:27-28 (for they already knew in according to Jesus teaching on the mount to the “multitudes” Matt. 5:31-32). Paul is only teaching or giving instruction that if you are “loosed” according to scripture or a “virgin” it is not a sin to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/26/2010 8:45:57 AM
|
|
|
pd57
Posts: 166
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline
|
Many men in biblical times married more than one wife, and without bothering about divorce.
If he did not divorce her, what did a man in those days do with the first wife?
He put her away.
The word for that in Hebrew is “shalach.”
It is different from the Hebrew word for divorce, which is “keriythuwth.”
Keriythuwth literally means excision, a cutting of the marital bonds; legal divorce, as commanded in Deuteronomy 24, permitted subsequent marriage.
Shalach—“to put away”—described when wives were not divorced by their husbands, just abandoned emotionally and financially as they gave their hearts to another woman.
They were “put away,” available if needed or wanted again; “put away,” reduced to unwanted property. They were “put away” in favor of another, but not given a divorce and the right to marry again.
It was a cruel tradition, and it was contrary to Jewish law; but men did it … and they got away with it.
Then Jesus came, and he hated this tradition as much as God did.
In the New Testament the Greek word for “put away” is “apoluo.” The Greek word for divorce is “apostasion.” Apostasion is the technical term for a certificate of divorce.
Apoluo, “putting away,” was not technically a divorce, even though the words were often used synonymously.
In that age of total male domination, men often took additional wives, and did not provide written release, required by the Jewish law, when they abandoned their wives and married others.
If a man married another woman, so what?
If a man “put away” (apoluo) his wife without bothering with a written divorce, who was going to object?
The woman?
Well, Jesus had some objections!
Jesus loved mistreated women!
He told them that this earth would go up in smoke before the law requiring a written bill of divorce should fail.
And he said, when you put away a wife (without written divorce), and marry another (while still legally married), you are guilty of adultery.
Moreover, she who is put away is in real trouble. She has no divorce papers.
If she marries again she would, literally, commit adultery.
The distinction between “put away” and “divorce,” between apoluo and apostasion is critical.
Apoluo left women were enslaved, with no rights and no recourse.
They were abandoned emotionally and financially.
Apostasion ended marriage and permitted a legal subsequent marriage.
In the Sermon on the Mount, and Matthew 19, and Mark 10, and Luke 16, it is the word apoluo that Jesus uses—eleven times in these passages.
In every passage he forbade apoluo, putting away. He never forbade giving apostasion, written divorce.
In fact, he demanded obedience to the law.
What Jesus is objecting to is the dehumanization and abandonment of women.
In the first century human rights were for men only.
Jesus changed that! Grace does abound in Jesus Christ!
These are the traditions of men that Jesus was always correcting them on, over and over again.
Why is that? Because that had been going on for hundreds of years. Selfish, self-righteous MEN treating their wives like sacks of excrement and the wives/women powerless to anything about it. But on this forum that situation mentioned above isn't even acknowledged.
As stated before: only in marriage are a persons human rights completely given up?
Only in marriage/divorce is it that the innocent party is to pay for the sins of another? {condemned for life!}
Only in a marriage is a person to endure all sorts of evil at the hands of an unrepentant, unchanging, unwilling HARD HEARTED spouse?
Only in marriage, if the person is a total fraud & liar & you've been deceived from day 1, well, too bad, that's life,suck it up, sorry, whoa is you, NO Divorce! {Yeah, that never happens, especially today huh?}
Yet you at the same time say that if you fear for life/limb its ok to get out, separate, which I agree, but if that person DOES NOT change as many do NOT then you just have to endure it for life, because there is NO DIVORCE! and all other such things that are NOT fornication, adultery, cheating, sexual in nature as NO provision is cited as just cause in those instances.
How does any of that make 1 bit of sense? Because what I've read here is that is EXACTLY what most of you believe & has been stated & defended by a few to great lengths.
Is that grace? Is that true liberty in Christ?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/26/2010 8:59:20 AM
|
|
|
gmcspice
Posts: 1345
Joined: 12/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Showmethetruth
quote:
ORIGINAL: gmspice
If God forgets our sins then he surely forgets that you divorced your former spouse
Do you think He forgets that you married your first spouse?
Do you think God is lying when HE says he forgets? I sure don't. He says he forgets and we washed white as snow, under the blood. He says he will NOT hold our past sins against us ever again.
Yes, I do believe he forgets that you were married to your former spouse.
WHY? because I believe what God says is truth.
My question to you is ....
WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE?
_____________________________
To have friends, you have to be a friend!
gmcspice4GOD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/26/2010 9:12:50 AM
|
|
|
gmcspice
Posts: 1345
Joined: 12/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robert_G
quote:
ORIGINAL: gmcspice
quote:
As hard as it might sound, but the saying is true...a divorced woman is damaged goods. No Christian man can touch her unless she is also a widow.
You have got to be kidding me!
I can't believe this is coming from the mouth of a Christian.
According to Christ, when we come to him, we become NEW creatures. Where does it say a divorced Christian woman is damaged goods?
If she is a Christian woman, she will not commit adultery.
And what if her husband is the one who committed adultery and divorced her? Is she still damaged Goods?
I think not. That man is not a Christian if he committed adultery and divorced his wife there for that means #1 SHE IS NOT DAMAGED GOODS!
#2 It falls under what you stated from Paul.
Other than this particular statement, I liked your post.
Just saying whats clearly in scripture
Matthew 5:31-33 (New International Version)
Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Would you want to find a new man just to cause him to commit adultery?
It says if she is divorced for anything other than sexual immorality. So, if her husband commits adultery and he decides to divorce her, the woman IS free to marry again because it is NOT her who committed the adultery nor was it her who divorced.
I would also state that even a woman who is divorced before she comes to Christ is made CLEAN when she comes to Christ. Her past sins are washed away. She is forgiven, and God has forgotten her sins. She is FREE and CAN marry again.
Why some want to diminish the POWER of Christ is just unreal to me.
I have faith the faith that he has taken ALL sin away. That HE can and DOES clean these people up.
Why do so many doubt what Christ says he can and will do?
quote:
As for my comments on Pauls comments.....
A Christian should NEVER marry an unbeliever. God absolutely commands against it.
Paul's comments were for a certain time when so many people were coming to Christ. Paul would go to a new place and perhaps only one of the couple would become a Christian. That would leave the other spouse wondering if he or she should divorce the non-believer. Paul's comments are for these people....NOT for a Christian who disobeys God and deliberately marries an unbeliever....however....there is nothing you can do if the unbeliever walks out...
You misunderstood me. I didn't say what you are stating here. I said if a man is married and claims he is Christian yet commits adultery and divorces his wife to be with someone else, HE IS NOT ACTUALLY A CHRISTIAN. WHY? because we all know a Christian by the fruit they bare. His fruit in this case is NOT of the spirit but of the flesh. So, that means he is really an unbeliever and she should let him go because she can't save him and she is not responsible for the sin he has committed so she is free to marry again.
Basically the same thing you are saying.
I am just really appalled at the fact that you call women who are divorced "damaged goods". As I recall these are exactly the kind of women Christ shows his regenerating power through. Men too. Christ does not see them as you see them.
_____________________________
To have friends, you have to be a friend!
gmcspice4GOD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/26/2010 10:05:52 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2408
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikesayen
1 Cor. 7:27-28
Why does Paul call the umarrieds “virgins”? Paul expected the highest sexual purity from Christians 1 Thess. 4:3-8 and 1 Cor. 6:9 upon coming to Christ. But Paul was aware of the sexual immorality of Christians in this Church 1 Cor. 5:1-3. Though the single man 1 Cor. 6:17 was not a virgin (did not commit adultery) he was told to 'flee' this sexual union with the harlot (unbelieving sexual practicing woman). Scripture suggests those Christians who have already become “one flesh” with another Christian, if they have permission from the parents (Gen. 34, Ex. 22:16-17), they should get married
Paul is specifically talking to the man in 1 Cor. 7:27-28a since in the Greek he uses the word “wife” in which he was loosed from. Though Paul is teaching the man this instruction in verses 27-28 it is possible that the “loosed” woman (she was previously divorced from her husband because she committed some sexual immorality in her marriage Deut. 24:1) may have the same freedom to marry again being a 'loosed woman', though not directly addressed here (but can be used by this example). But by known Scriptural reasons of the “law of the husband” and the woman being told not to “separate” from her husband (1 Cor. 7:10) we know the woman was not able to “seek” to “loose” herself from her husband.
The Greek word “loosed” in 1 Cor. 7:27-28 implies that the man was formerly 'tied' or formerly “bound” from a marriage and is now 'divorced'. This word “loose” does not mean just anyone who is not married (unmarrieds) but divorcees only.
1 Cor. 7:25-38 Paul then gives his general instruction for “mankind so to be” 1 Cor. 7:26b addressing the questions of “virgins” (therefore applying that the men were some of the “virgins”). Paul already gave the specifics of divorce for the man and woman in verse 10-11 (not to leave or separate). Now Paul is going to give a teaching about ‘marriage in general’. The reason Paul mentions the “men” in passage is in all the passages in this letter to the 1 Corinthians he always addresses the “brethren” verse 1 and verse 29 when speaking to the Church but not all passages that say “men” or “brethren” relate to both sexes (like the passage previously addresses to the men about “circumcision” verse 18). The rule of thumb for the passage addressed to men is, is it clear it is only talking to the men or does it give an immediate instruction to the women directly afterwords.
Now even though we know only the man was allowed to “seek” a divorce according to Scripture what if the woman is “loosed” from a husband (besides death, like a divorce in which she commits adultery in?). Well, it seems it did not even cross Paul's mind for when he says following this instruction that the “unmarried man” verse 32 seeks to please the Lord but it says (in Greek) what is the difference between an unmarried woman or a wife, “the virgin...” verse 34 calling all “unmarried” woman “virgins.” This is interesting to note and up for debate or further thought but the important thing to 'note' is that Paul is not teaching what “looses” a man or a woman from their spouse in 1 Cor. 7:27-28 (for they already knew in according to Jesus teaching on the mount to the “multitudes” Matt. 5:31-32). Paul is only teaching or giving instruction that if you are “loosed” according to scripture or a “virgin” it is not a sin to marry.
Greetings
Paul coverd every base
Being loosed is not being divorced for SI, that person divorced for SI is bound for life; person loosed was the one who divorced the other for SI in whom the dicpiles inquired about in Matt 19.
Jesus in Matt 19 made that very clear to the disciples when they said "if THIS IS SO ...or... if this is the case of the MAN with/and his wife....is it good not to marry,
So.... it’s obvious the disciples were not inquiring or wondering about the woman who was divorced for SI..... Because Jesus already told them that
What they needed was verification concerning the exception, that’s why it was written,
The thing is Jesus does not make our choices for us, not does God, not only did Jesus relate the rest of the passage to conviction, BUT the rest of the saying by Jesus.... in Matt 19.... Is a directed reflection of that attribute?
There is no command there by Jesus in that context... and there is no endorsement,
And we can find the reason for that as defined here quite clearly by Paul’s very first words after the... BUT
And even more definition of Jesus saying in the context of 1 Cor 7
1Cr 7:28
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless “such =(loosed).... shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
And if one looks at what the other side offers, then it defines what Paul said... after the Nevertheless,
But gypsy has no problem with that ... (The flesh)... because he is strong in the faith, because he knows the truth
AND
If the other side is good, I will show them what the context between verse 29 and verse 31 in 1Cor 7... means
....In defining trouble in the flesh
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed "obey My voice"
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
