Accepted

[Tropicana]

Re: Accepted

Jesus specifically mentioned hardheartedness or stubbornness when he said that divorce is not necessary following adultery.

Sorry I am not seeing this. Chapter and verse please. There is NO way that I would stay with a man who screwed around on me.

[accepted77]

Re: Accepted

A much longer post.... Pauls letters to the church on divorce and remarriage.

Paul taught that marriage should be lifelong, though he recognised that divorce may happen.

He said that if Christians become the victims of the Roman divorce-by-desertion, they were free to remarry, but if they have initiated this form of divorce, they should seek to be reconciled.

Paul regarded desertion as a ground for divorce which can only be initiated by the innocent partner.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]
1Corinthians 7.10-14,15 (NIV)

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. . . .
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]
Paul recognised the possibility of divorce.

Divorce was commonplace in Jewish, Greek and Roman society.

There was a Roman saying that "Women count the years not by the consuls but by their husbands" (Seneca De Beneficiis 3.16.2) ie instead of saying 'in the 3rd year of Consul soandso....' they said 'in the 3rd year of my fourth marriage...'.

Roman divorce occurred simply by stating the fact that the marriage was over, without any need for legal proceedings.
Jewish and Greek divorces depended on certain 'grounds', but these were not difficult to comply with.

Paul uses two different words for divorce. Chorizo, , is usually translated "separate" or "depart", while aphiemi, µ , is "dismiss", "put away" or "send away".

There is one important difference between these terms - chorizo, 'separate', is something you do yourself, while aphiemi, 'dismiss', is something you do to someone else.

However, the differences between these two should not be exaggerated because they were both used to mean divorce.

Chorizo is not like the modern idea of 'separation' which precedes divorce - chorizo means 'divorce', as seen in several papyri written at about the same time as the NT (see G.A Deissmann "Bible Studies" (Edinburgh 1901) p247).

There is another word for divorce in the NT which is used whenever a Jewish divorce is referred to. This is apoluw, , which means "to release". This word is particularly apt for a Jewish divorce because a Jewish divorce certificate declared that "you are free to marry any man" (Mishnah Gittin 9.3).

Although Paul recognised the validity of the OT grounds for divorce, he was keen to tell the Corinthians that a Christian marriage should be lifelong.
Paul tells Christians that they may not end their marriages by simply throwing out or walking out on their partner: "The wife should not separate from her husband.... and the husband should not put away his wife (1Cor.7.10-11).

Paul assumes that the house belongs to the husband (which was true in most cases, unless the house was part of the dowry), so that the wife deserts by walking out and the husband deserts by sending his wife away.

In Roman law it didn't make much difference whether you walked out of a marriage or whether you were thrown out. Divorce was a matter of private arrangement and needed no grounds or legal formalities.

To those who had walked out on their partners, Paul said that they should remain unmarried and seek reconciliation (1Cor. 7:11).

In Roman law they were assumed to be divorced as soon as the separation occurred, but Paul says that a Christian who deserts their partner is different - they should seek to reestablish their marriage.

Paul says this is true both when the husband deserts or when the wife walks out. Paul applies this to both husband and wife in v10-11, but the husband is added simply for balance. He addresses his remarks first to the wife. This is remarkable because in Jewish society it would be almost unheard of (though not impossible) for a woman to separate from her husband rather than vice versa.

Although he is writing to a church which is largely Gentile, we would at least expect him to be a little more evenhanded. The most likely explanation is that the letter which he is replying to (see p. above) told him about a particular woman or women who were wishing to live apart for religious reasons, and that his reply is aimed mainly at her.

However, if someone has been deserted the situation is completely different.

Paul specifically recognises the validity of their divorce and their freedom to remarry, saying in v15 that "the brother or sister is not bound in such cases". He is thereby freeing the victims of all divorces, Jewish, Roman and Greek.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]
Paul recognises the possibility of remarriage.

Paul says in 1Cor.7.15 that a believer who is deserted by their marriage partner is free to remarry.
1Cor.7.15: But if the unbeliever separates, let him separate. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances.

It seems strange, at first glance, that Paul should say in v10-11 that a separated person should "remain unmarried or else be reconciled", and then say in v15 that they are free to remarry.
However, he is addressing two completely different situations.

In v10-11 he is speaking to a Christian who has deserted their Christian partner, and in v15 he is speaking to a Christian who has been deserted by their non-Christian partner.

In some translations the woman in v10-11 appears to be the victim of desertion. The verb chorizo, 'separate' in these two verses occurs in the passive, which could be (wrongly) translated as "if she suffers separation, let her remain unmarried". This would be in direct contradiction to v15 and would also be a bad translation. The verb chorizo is never used in a passive sense, and, like other Greek verbs, the passive mood is understood in a reflexive sense - ie "separate oneself". This reflexive sense of the passive of chorizo is found elsewhere in the NT and LXX (1Co.7.15, Act.1.4; 18.1,2; Phile.15; Heb.7.26; Jud.6.18). In some passages it could not possibly have a passive meaning, eg in Act.18.1 where Paul voluntarily separated himself from Athens, and in Philemon 15 where Onesimus voluntarily separated himself from his master.

The correct translation is therefore "if she separates herself, let her remain unmarried". At first glance, the main difference between these two cases appears to be that one involves desertion by a believer and the other by a non-believer.

However, the more profound difference between them is that v10-11 addresses the deserter and v15 addresses the victim of the desertion.

Paul says to the person who deserted their partner that he or she should attempt a reconciliation, but he says to the victim of the desertion that he or she is free to remarry.

Paul assumed in v15 that the believer has been deserted by a non-believer.

This is because Paul has commanded in v10-11 that no believer should use the Roman divorce-by-desertion, and if they have done so, they should seek reconciliation.

He assumed that the believers who had deserted their partners would obey this, and that they had not already remarried, because the problem was a very recent one.

Today, of course, there are many examples of believers who have got divorced on the basis of desertion or separation, and have remarried.

Paul does not specifically deal with this situation, and it will be dealt with in chapter 9 and 10.

In both cases, of course, Paul addresses a believer, because his letter is written to the believers in Corinth, but he only speaks about reconciliation to the deserter.

It would have been meaningless to tell the person who has been deserted to seek reconciliation, because there was nothing that a deserted marriage partner could do to effect a reconciliation in Roman law.

If their partner had walked out, or had asked them to leave the home, the divorce was already considered complete. The deserted or dismissed person had already lost all rights over their marriage partner.
So Paul says, in such a case, the former marriage is ended, and they are free to remarry.

Paul therefore tells the Christian that they should not separate from (ie desert) their partner, and if they have done so, they should attempt to reverse the situation. However, if they have been deserted they are no longer "enslaved" - ie they are free to remarry.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]

"No longer enslaved"

Paul did not explain what he meant by saying that the deserted partner is "no longer enslaved", but there was no need because there was no likelihood of misunderstanding.

To the Jews and Romans of his day it was a direct reference to the freedom which was stated in the divorce certificate: "you are free to marry any man".

This is also the interpretation established in the Catholic canons and reaffirmed for most Protestants by Luther, though some Protestants have questioned this interpretation.

The evidence of Jewish background supports the traditional interpretation. When a Jew divorced his wife he gave her a divorce certificate which declared that she was no longer married and that she was free to marry whoever she wished.

Paul compares this new freedom to someone who has been released from slavery saying (literally) "you are no longer enslaved".

This is exactly the same comparison made by very early rabbinic traditions dealing with the wording of divorce certificates. The rabbis pointed out that there were several similarities between a divorce certificate and the certificate given to a slave when they were freed.

It seems likely that Paul is alluding to this tradition.

Mishnah Gittin 9.3: "The essential formula in the bill of divorce is: 'Lo, you are free to marry any man'. . . .

The essential formula in a writ of emancipation [from slavery] is: 'Lo you are a freedwoman: Lo you belong to yourself'." Mishnah Gittin 1.46 and Mishnah Mama Metzia 1.7 also lists several ways in which a certificate of divorce is similar to a certificate of emancipation from slavery.

This comparison between divorce and emancipation did not imply that the rabbis thought marriage was like slavery. Of all the comparisons made between the divorce certificate and the emancipation certificate, this was not one of them. The comparisons are mostly centred around the principle of freedom which is conferred by both certificates. The reason they compared a divorce certificate with a certificate of emancipation was because both resulted in unprecedented freedom. A divorced woman was, for the first time in her life, free. Till her divorce she had always been under the authority of her father and then of her husband, but when she was divorced, she was free. She was now free to marry or refuse to marry whichever man made himself available to her. The first time she married she was told who to marry by her parents. Her parents paid a dowry, and her suitor paid a bride price, and when the money was exchanged, she belonged to her husband. But when she was divorced, she was free to please herself.

Other possible interpretations of "not enslaved" do not fit the facts: 1) Perhaps they were no longer "enslaved" to the Law of Christ, ie the law that they should not divorce. However, the word "enslaved" (from doulow, ) does not fit well into this context.
This word is used to condemn the laws of legalistic Judaisers who attempted to enslave again the Christians in Galatia and Corinth (Gal 2.4; 1~Cor.11.20). It cannot really be used to describe the Law of Christ which brings freedom. 2)
Perhaps Paul means they are free to separate from their partner, and are no longer "enslaved" in their marriage.
However, Paul appears to assume that the nonbelieving partner has already gone:
"If the unbeliever withdraw, let them withdraw".
This assumes not only that their partner has gone, but also that, under Roman law, they are divorced, and their partner considers themselves free to remarry.

There is nothing left to be enslaved to - their partner has gone, and the marriage is over. 3) Perhaps they were no longer "enslaved" to their husband.

However, the relationship of a wife to husband in the first century was not that of a slave. From our modern standpoint the restrictions of women in the first century may seem like slavery, but both Roman and Jewish law made clear distinctions between the status of wife and slave.
And in any case, Paul is speaking in v15 about both men and women who are freed from being "enslaved", and no-one could argue that a first century husband was "enslaved" to his wife.

Therefore, when Paul said that the divorced person was no longer "enslaved", his readers in Corinth would have immediately understood that he was referring to the words in their divorce certificate that they were "free to marry any man.... ".

This was the only phrase which had to occur in a divorce certificate, and it embodied the whole purpose of the certificate.

The certificate was necessary to prove to any future husband that she was legally entitled to remarry.
Greek and Roman divorce certificates also contained similar phrases (eg "hereafter it shall be lawful both for Zois to marry another man and for Antipater to marry another woman" - Loeb Select Papyri I trans A.S.Hunt & C.C.Edgar, London 1932, p23f), though written certificates were not normally given unless there was a great deal of money involved.

The shortest legal Jewish divorce certificate was "you are free to marry any man". In the Ashkenazi divorce certificate, which is based on this ancient model, these words are amplified and explained: ".....I do set free, release you, and put you aside, in order that you may have permission and the authority over yourself to go and marry any man you may desire. No person may hinder you from this day onward, and you are permitted to every man. This shall be for you from he a bill of dismissal, a letter of release, and a document of freedom." This is a clear exposition of the freedom conveyed by the ancient divorce certificate. There can be no doubt that any first century Jew reading the words "not enslaved" in the context of divorce context would assume that Paul meant they were free to remarry.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]

Remarriage after the death of a spouse

Marriage should end only at death, because marriage should be lifelong.

Paul says that those whose marriages have ended through death have the right to remarry. The two passages where Paul says this (Rom.7.2f1~and ICor.7.39) have been interpreted by some to say that remarriage can only take place after the death of a spouse.

This means that divorce does not confer the right to remarriage until one's marriage partner has died. However, neither of these passages can be made to support this view when they are read in context.

The context of Romans 7.2f concerns the enslavement of Jews to the Law.

Paul uses the picture of a marriage covenant and death to illustrate the Sinai covenant and death with Christ.

Romans 7.1b4: The Law controls a man as long as he lives. For example, a married woman is bound by Law to her living husband, but if her husband dies, she is freed from the Law of the husband. So then, if she becomes [the wife] of another man while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is freed from this Law, and she would not be an adulteress if she became [the wife] of another man.
Therefore my brothers, you also died to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you may become [a partner] of another, of him who was raised from the dead.

In this passage Paul pictures the Old Covenant of Sinai as an unhappy marriage. The picture is of a woman married to a harsh husband (the Old Covenant) who sees a loving and gentle man whom she would rather be married to (the New Covenant or Christ). She knows that if she simply goes to live with the nicer man, she will be an adulteress.
However, if the marriage were ended by her husband's death, she would be free to marry the nicer man.

This is the position which the Jewish Christians found themselves in. They had promised to obey the Old Covenant, but they would rather have the freedom of the New Covenant.

However, they found that the Old Covenant could not be easily disposed of. It was as if they were the wife of a harsh husband who is too healthy to die.

The rather drastic solution which Paul suggests is that the Christian could die instead, and then they would be free from their 'marriage' to the Old Covenant.

Paul then explains that this solution is not as silly as it sounds, because a Christian has died, by being united in Christ's death. The old man dies, and is thereby freed from the Old Covenant, and he rises in Christ with the freedom to follow Christ in the New Covenant.

By using this picture, Paul illustrates most graphically both the bondage of Jews to the Old Covenant, and the way in which Christ's death frees them from that bondage.

The fact that Paul speaks in this picture of a marriage ending by death does not mean that a marriage cannot end by divorce.

The woman pictured here has no grounds to demand a divorce from her harsh husband because in this analogy he is thoroughly law-abiding and keeps his marriage vows to the letter. She has no hope of a divorce, and her only hope lies in the marriage ending by death.

But in real life, husbands do not always keep their marriage vows, and marriage can end by divorce as well as by death.

In all this, there is no discussion of divorce.

Divorce is not considered or condemned.

Paul is concerned with illustrating the Christian's relationship with the Old and New Covenants.

He is not concerned with the rights or wrongs of divorce or remarriage.

The other passage which is sometimes regarded as teaching that marriage can only be ended by death is 1Cor.7.39.

Here again, Paul refers to the end of a marriage which comes when one partner dies.

But here too, he does not say that marriage can only end by the death of a partner.
He addresses those who are free to marry as a result of the death of their spouse, having already addressed those in every other marital situation previously in the chapter (ie those who are married, single and betrothed).
In fact, in this verse addressed to those who are widowed, Paul quotes the standard divorce certificate.
He quotes it in order to show that a widow has the freedom to remarry, by arguing that she has the same freedom as a divorced woman: 1Corinthians 7.39: A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

Paul quotes "she is free to marry anyone she wishes" from the standard Jewish divorce certificate (Mishnah Gittin 9.3) This is, of course, equally true if her husband dies - in either case she is "free to marry any man". The first time she married, the choice was made by her parents, but if a woman was divorced or widowed she was, for the first time, free of any such constraints. But Paul adds that a Christian widow should exercise this freedom by marrying a Christian.

Paul's purpose in quoting these words from the divorce certificate is to emphasise that a widow is free to marry whoever asks her, and that she should use this freedom to marry a fellow Christian.

If he had wanted to teach instead that remarriage can occur only after the death of a partner, it would be a very strange strategy to quote, with approval, the words of a standard divorce certificate!

Both these passages teach that death brings the end to a marriage, and that the bereaved partner is free to remarry.
Neither passage can be construed to teach that a marriage cannot be ended by divorce, or that remarriage cannot occur after a divorce. In fact Paul assumes that a divorced person is free to remarry when he says, in the second passage, that a widow has the same freedom to remarry as a divorced woman, and he quotes the standard divorce certificate to prove his point. Therefore Paul is teaching that both a valid divorce and the death of a marriage partner are ways in which a marriage can end and both confer the freedom to remarry.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]

Grounds for a valid divorce

Paul did not regard every divorce as valid.

The grounds for a valid divorce are dealt with in chapters 5-9, but this short section will show that Paul regarded some divorces as valid and some as invalid.

It has been seen above that Paul made a distinction between those who had deserted their partner and the partner who had been deserted. Paul said in v15 to the deserted partner that they were free to remarry, but he said to the deserter in v10-11 that they should seek reconciliation.

This distinction is not arbitrary, but is based on the way he regarded their marital status.

Paul speaks to the deserter as though they were still married, saying that they should be "reconciled". If he had regarded the deserter as divorced, he would have said that they should "remarry" their original partner.

The term katallassw "reconciled" (in v11) is a technical term for used in Greek marriage contracts to mean the reconciliation of separated couples who were still married (TDNT I 255).

Paul says "remain unmarried" because under Roman law they were regarded as divorced as soon as they walked out or threw their partner out. Paul says, in effect, 'You are unmarried in Roman law, but you are not divorced in biblical law'.
For the practical implications of this today, see Chap 9.

However, when Paul speaks to the deserted partner in v15 he assumes that they are divorced, because he tells them that they are free to remarry.

If they were not divorced, this would have been tantamount to telling them to commit adultery. This is not a double standard on Paul's part, but is based on his application of the Old Testament law to a situation thrown up by Roman law. According to divorce laws based on the Old Testament, there are various grounds for divorce, one of which is desertion. If either partner breaks their marriage vows, this becomes a ground for divorce, and the victim of the broken vows has the right to end the marriage contract if they wish. Paul applied this Old Testament divorce law to the situation of a Roman divorce-by-desertion.

The divorce law of the Old Testament is explored in chapters 5-8. In theory, the law of the rabbis conformed with the Old Testament, but in practice it was very difficult for women to get their rights. The victim of the desertion would, under Old Testament law, have the right to demand a divorce, so Paul treats the victim as though they had a valid divorce.

The person who deserts their partner, on the other hand, has no right to a divorce unless their partner wants it. Paul therefore tells them to seek reconciliation, so that it is the victim who decides whether to accept reconciliation or to confirm the divorce.

This way Paul succeeded in bringing the Roman law of divorce-by-desertion under the guidance of the law of God in the Old Testament. Strictly speaking, according to the letter of the OT law, a deserted person could not be regarded as divorced until a divorce certificate had been given by the man to the woman. However, it would have been impractical for Paul to make this stipulation, because the vast majority of Roman/Greek divorces occurred without any certificate.

If the unbelieving husband deserted, there would be no way his ex-wife could force him to provide a certificate of divorce. And if the unbelieving wife deserted, the believing husband may not know where she was, in order to give her a certificate.

At this point Paul left the letter of the Law and followed the spirit of the Law. The principles behind OT divorce law was to empower the victim of broken marriage vows.

So Paul tells the deserter to seek reconciliation, while he tells the deserted that they are free to remarry if they wish. Paul indicates that he is taking a pragmatic position rather than a legalistic one by using the technical Jewish legal phrase "God has called us to peace" (v15). This phrase "God has called us to peace" refers to the technical rabbinic legal phrase "in the interest of peace".

In cases where strict adherence to legal principles would create confusion, the rabbis proposed a different course "for the sake of peace". For example, if an imbecile was caught stealing, Jewish law recognised that an imbecile was not responsible for his actions, and yet the victim would feel that justice had not been done if he was not punished at all.

Therefore, "for the sake of peace", the imbecile received a limited punishment. This, and several other examples, occur in Mishnah Gittin 5.89. The phrase "for the sake of peace" indicates a legal ruling which does not strictly follow the letter of the law, when the letter of the law would not bring true justice. See my Techniques and Assumptions p21. Fee (Comm. p 304f) has recognised the source of this allusion, but he has misunderstood the general meaning of the phrase.

The importance of all this for us is to realise that Paul based his principles about divorce on the Old Testament law, without being legalistic in an impractical way. A

s seen in chapter 2, Jesus also based his teaching about divorce on the Old Testament and he did not contradict or replace any of it. He affirmed the law of Gen.2 and Deut.24, and he criticised the rabbis for their misinterpretation.

Both Jesus and Paul affirm the Old Testament as the basis for divorce law.

It is also important to realise that Paul did not automatically accept all Roman divorces as valid divorces.

In Roman law the person who deserted their partner was already considered to be divorced, and remarriage would not have been regarded as bigamy or adultery.
But Paul does not regard the deserter as divorced, as seen by the language he used - he tells them to be reconciled, not remarried. Therefore, in 1Cor.7.10-15, Paul does not regard the deserter as properly divorced until they have attempted a reconciliation.

If this fails, it is because the victim of the desertion has decided that they do not want reconciliation. If the victim decides that they want a divorce as a result of the desertion, Paul regards this as a valid divorce, and says that they have the right to be remarried.

Paul does not examine other valid Old Testament grounds for divorce, although (as seen in chapter 5) Paul does affirm the scriptures which specify these other grounds.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]
Divorce initiated by a Christian

[accepted77]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by Tropicana:
[qb]

Jesus specifically mentioned hardheartedness or stubbornness when he said that divorce is not necessary following adultery.

Sorry I am not seeing this. Chapter and verse please. There is NO way that I would stay with a man who screwed around on me. [/qb]

You are so right Tropi,
Thats why divorce is permitted even though God hates it.

Your feelings are very real, such were the feelings of Jesus disciples when he said this, they too were in shock, their response was "then it is better for a man not to marry at all".

Scripture and verse:
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

The Jews saw it as law to put away their wives, just as they would stone her for adultery they saw not putting her away as breaking the Law.

Mat 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.

Jesus says suffered they said commanded, the more correct word would be permitted. The permission was to appease the hardheartedness of the wronged party. Jesus was saying this was not the original intent. ..from the beginning it was not so.. they did not have to put away, they could forgive. This was original intent leave and cleave remember love suffers all things, bears all things.

But because God in his mercy sees us as fallen from the original pure state when he made marriage he permitted divorce for our hardheartedness.
Sin does not always allow us to forgive and forget, its the forgetting part that's hard it takes time, some can never forget.
Sin leaves wounds, sin bears malice.
God knows how deep the lost of trust hurts, he also understands that forgiveness for this deep hurt of betrayal is sometimes only possible by putting away the hurt as far as possible and oftimes this means divorce.
Thats why he permitted it.
The divorce is not the sin it is the consequence of the sin, the breaking of the oaths is the sin.

Mat 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.
Here Jesus answers the question put to him.
Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Mat 19:12 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. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The teaching that marriage is indissoluble (ie a couple remain married in God's eyes even if they are divorced, until one partner dies) suggests that divorce is impossible.
This teaching implies that even if the couple wanted to separate what God had joined, they would not succeed. Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated.
This makes nonsense of Jesus' teaching here.
If it was impossible to separate what God had joined, Jesus would be saying, in effect: "I forbid you to do what it is impossible to do".



The author seems to be using fancy footwork here and it amounts to nothing more than a dodge of the obvious. Or at least what should be obvious to any believer. Marriage of the believer is both spiritual as well as physical. It is a covenant relationship before God bound spiritually as well as physically. What has been bound on earth has been bound in heaven. The only thing that can sever this relationship is adultery, introduction of a third party or another spiritual influence into the relationship, or death. So therefore in essence what Jesus said interpreted to mean "Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated."
is not so far fetched at all. They can be separated in the physical realm yes. But the two spirits have been joined by an oath before God there is no way that they can be separated except as I said before in death or introduction of another spirit into the union which now becomes two again instead of one. Think about it. [/qb]

Jedi & Kumba
I would really like you all to read the book but seeing you are all busy people I will try to cut out the more relevant sections to your comments.

The research done by this authour on this topic is from that of the culture of the first century church. We have been biased by our romanised notion of almost every creed in the bible. Dr Brewer goes back to the roots so to speak and strips away the many years of cultural sensitization we in our modern culture believe obout marriage as it was when Jesus preached the streets of Nazareth.

This have been a major preoccupation of mine since I realised many truths we hold dear as christian are tainted by centuries of modifications to the original. Many of the schisms in christendom have been man made by this very roman way of thinking.

Here's a summary of his work.

Summary of this Book

Most Christians believe that Jesus taught divorce and remarriage to be wrong.
This means that many churches will not marry a divorcee, even if they had been the victim of abuse, and they would have more difficulty accepting a minister who was divorced than one who had repented of a murder. This teaching has often been regarded as undesirable but necessary, because it is based on the Bible.

New light on the Jewish background of the New Testament may now result in a completely different understanding of the biblical teaching on divorce. Some of these findings are startling:

Jesus did not condemn all divorce, but only one particular form of Jewish divorce.
{The any cause type}

Paul specifically allowed remarriage after divorce.

Marriage in the Bible is a contract. If one partner breaks their side of the contract, the other partner has the right to declare that the contract has ended and demand a divorce.

There are four biblical grounds for divorce, based on the four obligations of a biblical marriage contract: to share in the provision of food, the provision of clothing and provision of emotional support, and to be faithful.

Jesus affirmed one of these grounds for divorce, and Paul affirmed the other three.

The words used in modern Christian marriage vows is based on these four biblical grounds for divorce.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected] [/qb]

(((Accepted))) allow this you are trapped into taking someone elses truth and making it in to your truth. I believe that there is only one truth and that is God's truth and to fully understand God's truth one needs to understand God's nature, and in order to do so one must have read and seen how God has dealt not only on one occasion but in every occasion. God is a covenant keeper. Man breaks covenants God does not. God is immutable, He is Just, He is loving and forgiving, God has called all of us who names the name of Jesus Christ to be the same as He is.
Now once you understand what all that means then you start to take other things and hold it up to the light of who God is and though it might be hard to swallow, if we are to follow Him we must make up our minds to swallow.

Now I have up till now not found anything to counteract all that you have been writing at length here, but thanks be to God while sharing this thread with a friend she shared some material with me, as I was interested to know when the church departed from the teaching of Christ to a more sympathetic view of marriage and divorce as it pertains to Christians and thanks be to God I have just such a document of the history of the Church views on marriage and divorce and when exactly the word "covenant" as it pertains to marriage was changed to mean "contract".

Unfortunately I had a very tiresome night and I must get some sleep but I will be back later to post it along with some other key insights from a pastor who writes just the things that I have felt in my heart which comes from my knowledge of the word of God and who He is in character which is how I have gone about applying myself to the question of marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Later...by the way I thank you for your great patience and considerable time dedicated to the effort of presenting your views and to gain an understanding. Very decent.

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by kumba1:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The teaching that marriage is indissoluble (ie a couple remain married in God's eyes even if they are divorced, until one partner dies) suggests that divorce is impossible.
This teaching implies that even if the couple wanted to separate what God had joined, they would not succeed. Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated.
This makes nonsense of Jesus' teaching here.
If it was impossible to separate what God had joined, Jesus would be saying, in effect: "I forbid you to do what it is impossible to do".



The author seems to be using fancy footwork here and it amounts to nothing more than a dodge of the obvious. Or at least what should be obvious to any believer. Marriage of the believer is both spiritual as well as physical. It is a covenant relationship before God bound spiritually as well as physically. What has been bound on earth has been bound in heaven. The only thing that can sever this relationship is adultery, introduction of a third party or another spiritual influence into the relationship, or death. So therefore in essence what Jesus said interpreted to mean "Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated."
is not so far fetched at all. They can be separated in the physical realm yes. But the two spirits have been joined by an oath before God there is no way that they can be separated except as I said before in death or introduction of another spirit into the union which now becomes two again instead of one. Think about it. [/qb]

Have to agree with Jedi on this. The only Scriptural reason given for a divorce is if one of the parties in the marriage commits adultery. They have then become 'one flesh' so to speak with someone other than their marriage partner. However, Jesus does encourage forgiveness. But if that is impossible or the mate who committed adultery continues on that path, this is the only reason for divorce. Other than that reason, God will view divorced people as being still married to one another and any subsequent relationship, whether legalised in law or not, is not regarded by God as a marriage.

This is what I was trying to say to you Jedi regarding Holy and Un-Holy marriages. Providing a marriage fulfills the standard set down by God, it is acceptable in His eyes. We have to remember we are all sinners, the difference between Christians and non-Christians is the belief in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. That's what sets us apart. [/qb]

Thank you for mentioning the big word forgiveness Kumba 1. For in truth God Himself didnot break one covenant which He made to any of His people Israel but rather He stood ready to forgive them time and time again. What Jesus spoke of was totally radical in the light of those times. He introduced the idea of FORGIVENESS as opposed to divorce, in the Old Testament, God used Hosea and Gomer as a picture of God's willingness to reconcile to the adulterous wife, showing us that it is possible even in the case of infidelity of a spouse to forgive. However at no time did God ever encourage us to break the covenant for do so would be to tear the spirits joined as one assunder. A covenant made before God is first of all holy and secondly indissoluble till death. To say otherwise is to change the nature and very character of God.

Later.

[accepted77]

Re: Accepted

Thanks for your kind words as well.

In order to be objective you must read the book, its available unline and comes highly reccomended. Read also the credentials of the authour. Then form a viewpoint after examining his sources and comparing whats said to scripture. That is honest bible study.

No Jedi I am not taking someone's words and making them my own this author just puts togather what from my research I have come to understand is scriptural. He lays out his case from the Bible and does comparison to all other viewpoints and develops his based on the culture and the Bible at that time. Every authour is biased but I have found his research to be fair and thourough.

Since God is the same today, tommorrow and forever. He does not lie or change. If God permitted divorce under the Law and the Law was Holy, if God recognised marriages whether they be Esther married to a heathen King being used to save her people, or Joseph being married to an Egyptian as valid enough to produce the partriarchs of two tribes then these marriages are valid. God even recognised the wife of Ahab Jezebel as a legal marriage.

We as christians are called to place more on our vows, we cannot abrogaite these vows as the unbelivers do without spiritual consequences, but it matters not whether these vows are made in a chapel or in a feild. Vows are vows.

Divorce was always for remarriage. That was the purpose. God does not like divorce but he permits it on some grounds. He holds up the ideal as a lifelong commitment but realises that in cases where the ideal is abused there is need for redress of the covenant. God shows this in his divorcing Isreal. He never divorced Judah because she repented, Isreal did not.

You sources like mine will decide to accept or reject what suits them but the bible record shows divorce is permitted and Jesus and Paul both shows where this permission is given.

We may want to explain these away or wish them away to suit our particular viewpoints. I choose to investigate and accept whats written not to wish it away.

In the end "a man/woman convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I have put my case out there, it not to convince you, 'anywhichway', you can choose what to do with it.

[accepted77]

Re: Accepted

Jedi

When a christian backslides and goes to a reprobate state where Hebrews says there remains no more sacrifice for sin. Is that person still in the bride of christ?

God does not divorce us but cannot we turn away from him and put Jesus to death again so to speak?.

If we can break oneness (covenant)with God can't we break oneness with man?

Show me where you get one spirit from what Jesus said was one flesh, he sees you and your spouse as one flesh not one spirit.

If you are one spirit then should your spouse goes "back to the world" does he take your one spirit with him?

Why does scripture say two shall be in the bed the one taken the other left?

The marriage union is one flesh, the church union is one spirit. They are compared in purpose but nowhere in the bible does it say they are the same.

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

Five Historical Views of Marriage

By exchanging the biblical value of covenant in marriage for the cultural value of contract, we as the church have ceased to be salt and light and are participating aggressively in the wholesale destruction of our society and, more importantly, of the image of God in the sight of others.

When did this exchange first begin: It first occurred back in the sixteenth century through a humanist philosopher named Desiderius Erasmus, who had great influence on Martin Luther and other early reformers. Paul E. Steele and Charles C. Ryrie have written an excellent book entitled “Meant to Last” in which they discuss the five historical views of divorce and remarriage including that introduced by Erasmus.

In reviewing the five historical vies of biblical teaching on divorce, it is interesting to note that there is nothing new under the sun. Most of the so called new revelation and theories that we come up with in modern times w3ere thought of and wrestled with centuries ago. The five historically accepted views of divorce and remarriage are as follows.

1. The Patristic (or early Fathers) view
2. The Erasmian (or traditional Protestant) view
3. The preterative or (or Augustinian) view
4. The Betrothal (or engagement) view
5. The Consanguinity (or unlawful marriages) view.

Steele and Ryrie’s description of each view:

The Patristic View

Careful research through the hundreds of manuscripts written by leaders of the first five centuries has revealed that with only one exception (Ambrosiaster, a fourth-century Latin writer), the fathers were unanimous in their understanding that Christ and Paul taught that if one were to suffer the misfortune of divorce, remarriage was not permitted, regardless of the cause.

This remained the standard view of the church until the sixteenth century when Erasmus suggested a different idea that was taken over by Protestant theologians. In the Patristic view, the only reasonable explanation for the disciples’ reaction to Christ’s words in Matthew 19:10 was that Christ was not following the arguments of the rabbinical schools of either Hillel (divorce and remarriage allowed for any trivial reason) or Shammai (divorce and remarriage allowed in cases of adultery), but was presenting an entirely revolutionary concept –that divorce is sinful and not according to God’s plan; but if divorce were to take place, remarriage was forbidden. Great weight was given to the word order of Matthew 19:9 which, the fathers held, forbade remarriage even when immorality was involved.

The Erasmian View

This view of the divorce/remarriage issue is by far the most widely accepted today among Protestants. It holds that Christ’s words in Matthew 19:9, allowed divorce in the case of adultery and, since in Jewish marriage contracts the granting of divorce always implied the right to remarry, he also was permitting the innocent party to remarry. (Author’s note: Steele and Ryrie are not here asserting that the granting of divorce under Jewish law did indeed imply the right to remarry, but rather that Erasmus and those following his viewpoint have erroneously tried to make such a case, and thereby interpret the words of Christ.) Most of those who take this position also say that Paul further expanded this concept by allowing for divorce and remarriage in the case of willful desertion on the part of the person’s partner. Many even go further by allowing divorce and remarriage to take place for a variety of reasons---irreconcilable differences, mental promiscuity, mistreatment, etc.

At the beginning of the Reformation, the classical humanist Desiderus Erasmus suggested this interpretation and it is defend by the modern reformed scholar John Murray. Erasmus was a contemporary of Luther who influenced Luther’s thinking on a number of issues but eventually broke with the reformers.

It is curious that though his contemporaries essentially regarded Erasmus as heretic, the Reformation writers were greatly influenced by his doctrine of divorce and remarriage. Since the reformers and most evangelical literature have in turn influenced the Westminster Confession subsequently, his view is widely held among evangelicals today.

The Preterative View

This view is not given a great deal of consideration by other than serious scholars, due to its quite complicated exegesis, which makes it difficult to explain to the English reader. We are indebted to Bill Heth, who has done extensive research in the subject, for clarifying this view for us.

Simply stated, the preterative view, promoted by Augustine, holds that the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus into entering a debate between the liberal school of Hillel and the more conservative school of Shammai, but Christ did not take the bait. Instead He deftly avoided the issue until He was in private with His disciples, where He clarified His meaning (see Mark 10:L10-12).

The controversy was over the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1, “some indecency.” They asked Christ to comment. The Augustinian view holds that Christ’s words “except for immorality” were actually a preterition (a passing over) which bypassed their question altogether. Christ said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife [setting aside the issue of the meaning of ‘some indecency’] and marries another woman commits adultery.” Then when they were alone with Christ in the house, the disciples were pressing Him to settle the dispute, He said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her” (Mark 10:11)

This seems to cover the cultural possibility that in roman culture divorce was required in the case of adultery and Christ was in such a case forbidding remarriage. Because the evidence in support of Augustine’s opinion is stronger that generally recognized it is surprising it is so seldom discussed as a possibility in the plethora of popular books on the subject.

The Betrothal View

This view claims that Christ’s exception clause (Matthew 19:9) allowed for the breaking of an engagement in the case of a violation of an engagement in the case of a violation of the betrothal terms by the immorality of the party, previous to consummating the actual marriage.

The arguments in favor of this position have merit. When one understands the binding nature of betrothal in the time of Christ, and the clear recognition of the need for a “divorce” to break the engagement (as illustrated by Mary and Joseph in Matthew 1:18-20), one can readily see that such an interpretation is possible. Since engaged couples referred to their fiancées as “husband” and “wife,” it is said that for Christ to not address Himself to this possibility would have opened the way to misunderstanding that shut the door on even the breaking of an engagement. The point is made that Christ carefully chose the word “fornication” (porneia) to stand in contrast to “adultery” (moicheia). Both words speak of sexual unfaithfulness, the former to premarital unfaithfulness and the second to marital unfaithfulness.

The Consanguinity View

This view, defended admirably in Carl Laney’s book, the Divorce Myth, holds that Christ used the word porneia in the specialized sense of the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (Author’s note: This means: marriage between persons of the same blood) and affinity in Leviticus 18:6-18. Hence a divorce would be allowed in the extraordinary circumstance of being married to a near relative. Apart from this circumstance, neither divorce nor remarriage would be permitted. There is considerable support for this view in Acts 15:20, 29 and 1 Corinthians 5:1 and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The arguments in favor of the Consanguinity view are strong enough that those dealing with the divorce/remarriage problem feel some need to discuss them. But it is disappointing to see them cast the view off as untenable with only cursory comments since, in face, it has wide support in scholarly circles. While it is not without its difficulties (as is true of all five positions), it does have much to comment it.

The Question of Remarriage:

To summarize each of these views:

1. The Patristic view disallows remarriage even though a divorce has occurred. This was the Lord’s teaching as well as the Apostle Paul’s understanding of His teaching. Only two alternatives exist: be reconciled or remain unmarried (ll Corinthians 7:11).

2. The Erasmian view, which allows for divorce in cases of adultery or desertion (other reasons are also added today), permits the “innocent” party to remarry without any question. If the divorce is legitimate, this grants freedom to the offended party to remarry.

3. The preterative view, while recognizing that divorce may happen, does not permit remarriage.

4. The Betrothal view concerns giving a bill of divorce during the period of engagement before the marriage is consummated in case of premarital unchastity. Therefore, there never was a first marriage, only an engagement. Thus the offended party could enter into a second engagement which, when consummated, would be the first marriage.

5. The Consanguinity view, though recognizing that divorce may have to be instituted in cases of unlawful marriages, considers remarriage of such persons contrary to both Christ’s and Paul’s teachings. It also holds that in case of a lawful marriage, divorce is forbidden and the remarriage of a divorced person is never permitted.
Observe that only the Erasmian view permits remarriage. This may account for its popularity today! But it should be noted that even if immorality justifies divorce, the texts in question actually do not justify remarriage. The modernization of the Erasmian view seems to assume that remarriage is automatically permitted if divorce occurs for the permitted reason(s). But this is an exegetical leap of faith!

Today a strained exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is used to justify remarriage in cases of desertion of the believing partner by the unbelieving mate. Paul says that the believer “is not under bondage” in such cases. This is understood by modern Erasmians as meaning that the believer is free to remarry. Checking a number of commentaries on this verse, we found that the vast majority agreed that the meaning is that the believer is not bound to keep the marriage together and may have to accept separation if the unbeliever departs. As one suggested, the believing partner “was not bound to chase the unbeliever all over the Roman Empire if the unbeliever chose to leave!”

In Steele and Ryrie’s further probing of the Erasmian view they discuss the following:

The Erasmian View

This view, by far the most popular among evangelicals today, seem son the surface to be the simplest to understand and, because of its wide acceptance, to be the correct one. However, when it is examined thoroughly, it is not so clearly conclusive. And since this is the only view of the five that allows for remarriage after divorce, it is crucial that it be examined carefully.

The logic of the reformers that rose from Erasmus’s deep human concern for the individual was this. If one partner committed adultery, he would, according to Old Testament law, be stoned to death. Therefore, it was assumed that the adulterous partner was, “as dead in God’s sight,” thus freeing the “innocent” party to remarry. This, said the reformers, was behind Jesus’ exception clause, and thus the innocent party was free to divorce and remarry whenever immorality was involved.

This idea has been espoused from Luther to the present day. E.J. Ehrlich calls it “legal fiction,” since it assumes the adulterer should be treated “as if he were dead.” Because of the obvious absurdity of “legal fiction,” many evangelical writers today do not follow that idea, but it is still heard on occasion. The fact is, the person is still very much alive, and suppo9sed “death” does not negate marriage. Nevertheless, this is the kind of reasoning which popularized the Erasmian doctrine.

Erasmus, a contemporary of Martin Luther, was considered a friend of the Reformation because he spoke out against the abuses of power in the Catholic Church. Luther broke with him, however, because of Erasmus’s heretical ideas and his weak view of justification by faith. But for some reason Luther favored his ideas on divorce and remarriage, thus rejecting the teaching and practice of he early church.

Steele and Ryrie then bring the following comments in conclusion.

Summary
In summary, all five views presented here agree on some basic points.
* God’s best is monogamy and He hates divorce

* Divorce under the law was a concession to hard hearts.

* Christ taught and upheld God’s highest standard in His teaching.

The Patristic view and the Erasmian view agree the Porneia may mean adultery. But the Erasmian view is the only one to allow remarriage after divorce. The other views, while recognizing that divorce may sometime happen for various reasons, are unanimous in their conviction that remarriage is contrary to Scripture, and never permitted.

The eunuch saying in Matthew 19 indicates that Christ was not siding with either Hillel or Shammai, but was presenting a concept revolutionary to the minds of the disciples. The Erasmian view ignores this context as irrelevant to what Christ said in the preceding verses. It also fails to explain adequately the clear teaching of Mark 10 and Luke 16, while the other four views see those texts as supporting their thesis that no remarriage is allowed. That also seems the most consistent with Paul’s understanding of the meaning of Christ’s words as given in 1 Corinthians 7:10-13.

The believer who suffers the misfortune of a divorce has two clear options: remain unmarried or be reconciled to one’s mate. To teach anything else is inconsistent with God’s standard for marriage.

I believe that Satan is not only after marriages and families, but is ultimately after the image of God in the sigh of people. If he can distort the image of God in the sight of people of that a false image of who God is and how He relates to man is established in the hearts of people, then he can make it virtually impossible for them to truly trust God. I believe that in forsaking the covenant value of marriage and embracing that of contract, Desiderious Erasmus opened the door for the present wave of divorce, dysfunction, abuse, a nod family destruction which we are now experiencing in the church in the 1990’s.

When Christian pastors and leader authorize and condone the remarriage of divorced Christians, they are aiding Satan in misrepresenting the image and character of God. In our desire to extend short-term mercy and grace to individuals, we are releasing long-term wholesale destruction of our children and grandchildren. We have almost no earthly picture of one who would keep a covenant even in the face of betrayal. Thus Christian marriage, which should portray the covenant-keeping relationship of Christ and His church, instead often times portrays covenant breaking, selfishness, and impartation a deep fear that incorrect behavior will result in rejection and abandonment.

Marriage, Covenant or Contract --Craig Hill, (Published by Family Fuoundations Publishing. Fifth Printing 2002)

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[QB] Thanks for your kind words as well.

In order to be objective you must read the book, its available unline and comes highly reccomended. Read also the credentials of the authour. Then form a viewpoint after examining his sources and comparing whats said to scripture. That is honest bible study

You're kidding me right. I believe that in order to be objective (note "I believe" see how objective anyone can get with that) one must take all the information written and hold it up to the light of God's divine character, not what any human being believes as a result of his own logic.

No Jedi I am not taking someone's words and making them my own this author just puts togather what from my research I have come to understand is scriptural. He lays out his case from the Bible and does comparison to all other viewpoints and develops his based on the culture and the Bible at that time. Every authour is biased but I have found his research to be fair and thourough

At the bottom of or the heart of what we would choose to believe if anyone were to search carefully we would find that there is a driving force. True objectivity rises above our own circumstance and prejudices in order to make new discoveries, anything else is not new but simply a twisting of facts to satisfy the driving force within and call it new. That is we believe what satisfies our inner longings. That is basically a very human trait. God has called each Christian to look at things from HIS perspective and we can only do that when we are ready to accept all that He is and what His character stands for.

Since God is the same today, tommorrow and forever. He does not lie or change.

You mean "since God is the same yesterday, today and forever" don't you?

If God permitted divorce under the Law and the Law was Holy, if God recognised marriages whether they be Esther married to a heathen King being used to save her people, or Joseph being married to an Egyptian as valid enough to produce the partriarchs of two tribes then these marriages are valid. God even recognised the wife of Ahab Jezebel as a legal marriage.

Clearly God forbid the children of Israel to marry into other nations. Clearly Ahab's marriage to Jezebel was repugnant in God's sight. Clearly that same union was cited as causing God's children to stray from Him. He condemned the woman Jezebel. I get so annoyed when Jezebel is held up as any example for anyone to follow. God may have forgiven, them but His word stands and He on the other hand upholds His side of he covenant relationship even when men sin. Because God forgives is not an allowance to sin that in essence is what Paul later on sites as using your liberality in Christ (being forgiven that is) as an excuse to sin.

We as christians are called to place more on our vows, we cannot abrogaite these vows as the unbelivers do without spiritual consequences,

Now pay special attention to what you are saying here, your words not mine "we cannot abrogaie these vows as the unbelievers do without spiritual consequences."
Because I intend to point out to you in your next post how contradictory this is to what you are then saying. Is the marriage between two beleivers joined in the spiritual realm or not? Is the God before whom we take these vows a Spirit or not? What is bound on the earth is therefore bound in heaven. What does that mean but that what is joined in the physical realm is also joined in the spiritual?

but it matters not whether these vows are made in a chapel or in a feild. Vows are vows.

And clearly I have said before that the issue is not where a vow is taken but by who administers the rites and who is involved in the taking of the vows, Christian or unbeliever. Please let us read carefully what each other has written for writing these lengthy posts are time consuming and we could cut that time in half by not having to repeat ourselves over and over, which I find myself having to do constantly.

Divorce was always for remarriage. That was the purpose. God does not like divorce but he permits it on some grounds.

I strongly disagree with this premise as God is not the author of divorce.

He holds up the ideal as a lifelong commitment but realises that in cases where the ideal is abused there is need for redress of the covenant. God shows this in his divorcing Isreal. He never divorced Judah because she repented, Isreal did not.

And after He divorced Israel whom did He remarry?

You sources like mine will decide to accept or reject what suits them but the bible record shows divorce is permitted and Jesus and Paul both shows where this permission is given.

Divorce is permitted but FORGIVENESS is preferred. Remarriage is not permitted.

We may want to explain these away or wish them away to suit our particular viewpoints. I choose to investigate and accept whats written not to wish it away.

I choose to accept what is written only as it is in keeping with the true character of God nothing else.

In the end "a man/woman convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I have put my case out there, it not to convince you, 'anywhichway', you can choose what to do with it.

And again thank you very much for your time and patience. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[QB] Jedi

When a christian backslides and goes to a reprobate state where Hebrews says there remains no more sacrifice for sin. Is that person still in the bride of christ?

Okay so now you are taking a certain twist to this whole thing. Let me ask you this can one who was saved backslide? Answer that.

God does not divorce us but cannot we turn away from him and put Jesus to death again so to speak?.

This argument is rhetorical in nature and based on a certain school of thought which would says that salvation is conditional, it is not, once saved always saved. Salvation is by grace. If one would turn away from God then the question becomes "was that one saved in the first place?" God is a God of grace and forgiveness and the relationship between God and the Christian does not depend on us it depends on Him, in so far as we will submit to His leading for if we would accept that God is Soveriegn then we must also accept that in order to measure up to His standards of covenant keeping we can only do so while maintaining Him as soveriegn over our lives is complete submission in everything in order to become like Him. Hence it is said that, "it is Christ who is at work in us to wil and to do of His own pleasure." So what really does it mean if we would divorce one another but that we are not submitted to God nor to one another.

If we can break oneness (covenant)with God can't we break oneness with man?

We cannot break oneness (covenant) with God. Disobey yes but break with Him never. Nothing in creation can break away from God. Think more deeply on this. Also see above.

Show me where you get one spirit from what Jesus said was one flesh, he sees you and your spouse as one flesh not one spirit.

Okay...here your words

: We as christians are called to place more on our vows, we cannot abrogaite these vows as the unbelivers do without spiritual consequences

,
Is the marriage between two beleivers joined in the spiritual realm or not? Is the God before whom we take these vows a Spirit or not? What is bound on the earth is therefore bound in heaven. What does that mean but that what is joined in the physical realm is also joined in the spiritual? What is one flesh on earth is one spirit in heaven. Does the flesh exist in the spiritual realm where God exists, does God regard our flesh or our spirits?

If you are one spirit then should your spouse goes "back to the world" does he take your one spirit with him?

Quite literally yes! You have heard it said that after awhile two people who have been married for many years begin to look alike? Go figure. Also you have heard this term spoken by the cheated partner of the cheating partner- "there is someone else lying in my bed" spoken without any knowledge of whom the other partner is sleeping with or even that the adulterers have acutally slept in the marital bed. What do these things imply but that there is another spirit encroaching on the union? A union of heart is a union of the spirit as well. Many studies have shown the utter devatation experienced by both parties after divorce even when both were mutually agreeable to the divorce. You have also read I am sure about the high incidence of death within a short period after the one partner dies. I would say the evidence alone speaks for itself. Notwithstanding Jesus is Lord and when the first woman was formed out of the man he said "flesh of my flesh...etc." The spirit is first (God was before man,) the flesh is second. The utter submission of ones claim over onesself into the care and keeping of another in marriage is in everyway as picture of a joining of spirits.

Why does scripture say two shall be in the bed the one taken the other left?

This could mean any two nowhere does the scripture say that it is two in marriage. It could be two sisters for all we know. That has no bearing on this argument. Furthermore even if it was two then how do you explain one partner dying before the other? And isn't that the only time we are told that the two are no longer united.

The marriage union is one flesh, the church union is one spirit. They are compared in purpose but nowhere in the bible does it say they are the same.

Okaaaaaaaay! Accepted you are very emotional on this issue aren't you? Brother it is telling on you. For here is where you have made your grandest error. Think again! Marriage is an institution ordained by God Almighty. And is in the likeness of: a)God's marriage to Israel in the Old Testament and b)Christ's betrothal to His Bride the Chruch in the New Testament. Hence we see that God esteems very higly the marriage covenant. The union of a man and woman is in every way as spiritual as both God and Israel and Christ and the Church. Hence it is said "those who enter into this union must not do so lightly for it is a very grave matter."

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Think again! Marriage is an institution ordained by God Almighty.

Marriage is an institution that is ordained by the STATE. Atheists don't get married to please YOUR god! God comes into marriages in the U.S., when the betrothed couple get married by the preist or preacher or minister that they CHOOSE. Your church may forever refuse to marry gays, and the church down the street may be the first. What would be the problem with that? I'm sure your church members held that "church" in disrespect anyway.

_

[accepted77]

Re: Accepted

Jedi, who is the emotional one, you have had two posts on this topic closed.

I had hoped for a real bible exercise instead you critisize real bible scholarship and posit positions with no scriptural underpinnings to support your position.

We will not agree on much here for your position is written in stones of comentaries but I am yet to see you rightly devide the word or bring scripture to support your assertions.

Untill you are willing to use scripture to support your position I see no point in continuing on views.

Mine are as good as yours.

Chapter and verse please.

Thanks.

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] Jedi, who is the emotional one, you have had two posts on this topic closed.

I had hoped for a real bible exercise instead you critisize real bible scholarship and posit positions with no scriptural underpinnings to support your position.

We will not agree on much here for your position is written in stones of comentaries but I am yet to see you rightly devide the word or bring scripture to support your assertions.

Untill you are willing to use scripture to support your position I see no point in continuing on views.

Mine are as good as yours.

Chapter and verse please.

Thanks. [/qb]

Accepted did you read any of what I wrote? Did you see that piece which I posted above? See the thing is I don't think you have read anything I have posted, instead you go on at length posting what you believe to be true bible scholarship withoug looking at the basis for this mans ruminations. The man is obviously following the Erasmian teaching about marriage. The various gospels which you have posted only appear to be a twisting of words to suit a position. True objectivity in my mind always asks the question - where is this coming from. Is it seeking to find out God's heart on the matter or mans heart on the matter. Now I noticed another long post upward and I am going to respond to it later as again I really believe that it is twisted out of proportion to fit into a certain mindset.

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb]

Originally posted by Tropicana:
[qb]

Jesus specifically mentioned hardheartedness or stubbornness when he said that divorce is not necessary following adultery.

Sorry I am not seeing this. Chapter and verse please. There is NO way that I would stay with a man who screwed around on me. [/qb]

You are so right Tropi,
Thats why divorce is permitted even though God hates it.

Your feelings are very real, such were the feelings of Jesus disciples when he said this, they too were in shock, their response was "then it is better for a man not to marry at all".

Scripture and verse:
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

The Jews saw it as law to put away their wives, just as they would stone her for adultery they saw not putting her away as breaking the Law.

Mat 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.

Jesus says suffered they said commanded, the more correct word would be permitted. The permission was to appease the hardheartedness of the wronged party. Jesus was saying this was not the original intent. ..from the beginning it was not so.. they did not have to put away, they could forgive. This was original intent leave and cleave remember love suffers all things, bears all things.

But because God in his mercy sees us as fallen from the original pure state when he made marriage he permitted divorce for our hardheartedness.
Sin does not always allow us to forgive and forget, its the forgetting part that's hard it takes time, some can never forget.
Sin leaves wounds, sin bears malice.
God knows how deep the lost of trust hurts, he also understands that forgiveness for this deep hurt of betrayal is sometimes only possible by putting away the hurt as far as possible and oftimes this means divorce.
Thats why he permitted it.
The divorce is not the sin it is the consequence of the sin, the breaking of the oaths is the sin.

Mat 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.
Here Jesus answers the question put to him.
Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Mat 19:12 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. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. [/qb]

Here is an example of making a case for divorce. Should a Christian be happy and content to be unforgiving? See now where do I need to do a complete Bible exposition to respond to this type of theology. If a spouse cheated on his/her partner and the one was repentant of it should the Christian not forgive? If you were counseling a brother about his marriage about to go on the rocks is this what you would encourage him to do?

But because God in his mercy sees us as fallen from the original pure state when he made marriage he permitted divorce for our hardheartedness.

While this may be true it certainly is not a standard to be adopted by Christians and touted as the ideal way to go. You also made the case for remarriage saying as how divorce implies that remarriage is also acceptable see how one just naturally follows from the other when in fact God is not I repeat not the author of Divorce. He allowed Moses to give a decree of divorce to them for the stubborness of their hearts.

New light on the Jewish background of the New Testament may now result in a completely different understanding of the biblical teaching on divorce. Some of these findings are startling:

Jesus did not condemn all divorce, but only one particular form of Jewish divorce.
{The any cause type}

Paul specifically allowed remarriage after divorce.

Marriage in the Bible is a contract. If one partner breaks their side of the contract, the other partner has the right to declare that the contract has ended and demand a divorce.

There are four biblical grounds for divorce, based on the four obligations of a biblical marriage contract: to share in the provision of food, the provision of clothing and provision of emotional support, and to be faithful.

Jesus affirmed one of these grounds for divorce, and Paul affirmed the other three.

Speaking of "show me scripture and verse" have you seen the scripture and verses to support the above. Is not all that this author saying based on his screwed up interpretation of the word of God? This is what is cited above as a classic case of undermining the very nature of God and making the Gospel of non-effect. Is it any wonder that after adopting this type of belief system the church had to concede that all marriages are simply a contractual relationship and carried no spiritual import? Is it any wonder that they are now conceding to allow gays to marry for after all on what basis could anyone say for certain that marriage is binding only on men and women? None whatsoever because when the Word is altered one way it has to be altered all the way. As Jesus said "a little leaven, leaveneth the whole meal" similarly a little sin...
In no wise is the above statement to be adopted by Christians, hardheartedness is unheard of amongnst Christians let alone unforgiveness. This type of thing should only be in extreme cases where all other efforts to reconcile the differences have been thoroughly exhausted, and then some. Futhermore a covenant remains a covenant once made with God even when one party chooses to break away from the contract, it is binding till death. Do I need to show you scripture and verse on that? Look accepted my appeal to you is to look away from the hard hearted side of things and try to see how God looked at the matter all throughout history right down to the New Testament era. We are to model Christ not the wayward Israelites.

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: Accepted

omg! What a world.

_