Breaking Vows

[mkgal1]

What I was trying to say about the Pharisees was that they were more concerned about following the law...not the heart of the intent of the law.

They wrote laws to allow for their behavior...so they could say, "Well, but I didn't break that law."

I was then likening that to people of this time having a righteous attitude about their marriages. That as long as they haven't had an affair, they haven't broken their vows. I agree with the OP that ALL the vows are sacred, and that Christ meant for ALL of them to be upheld.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I think any broken vow is hurtful. If one makes a vow to always love and understand the other, we generally understand if they have bad days and aren't able to be as good of a listener that day, etc. But if the person expressed or repeatedly showed that they didn't care to understand the other person, or did this more than not, then that would be a very hurtful broken vow, that would definitely be considered by the other party. I believe the reason that sexual fidelity is so high, is because it is truly sacred. The oneness that is shared in holy matrimony is the closest thing we have on earth, to the intimacy that we have with Christ. The enemy has done, and will do all that he can to rip that away from a marriage, because it is so important. Consider this, we are commanded in Scripture to love even our enemies. We love our family, our friends, etc. We can be close companions to many people as well, but the one thing that seals the closeness in a very unique way, a way in fact that makes two become one, is the sexual intimacy. We must all guard our hearts in this because the enemy is traipsing around like a roaring lion seeking whom he can destroy.

 

[dmp]

Jesus was the one who cleared this up, and limited divorce to adultery alone. .

That's not exactly accurate to my understanding. Christ said if you divorce for reasons OTHER than fornication, you're committing adultery. That's very much NOT the same as "It's okay to divorce if one person has an affair."

 

[Romanseight2005]

That's not exactly accurate to my understanding. Christ said if you divorce for reasons OTHER than fornication, you're committing adultery. That's very much NOT the same as "It's okay to divorce if one person has an affair."

Matt 19:9

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 .
KJV


My question to you is what exactly does this mean? What is Jesus saying in practical terms?

 

[dmp]

Matt 19:9

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 .
KJV


My question to you is what exactly does this mean? What is Jesus saying in practical terms?

Jesus said (and some translation use 'unfaithfulness' instead of 'fornication') "If you divorce somebody you make them an adulterer. Except if you divorced them because they've already adultered themselves through fornication. In that case, THEY have made themselves an adulterer.

Also - there's some debate about 'being put away' and 'divorced'. Some state there are two levels of separation. One is when a man 'puts his wife away' - they are separated, but not legally divorced. Some of those 'put away' would re-marry w/o going through the steps to dissolve their marriage. Lots of debate about the words uses. Nevertheless, God is a LOT bigger than our marriages.

 

[hisbloodformysins]

Just reading through this forum and thinking on the subject -

Why do you suppose we (society?) tend to only seem to care about ONE of the many vows, during a marriage.

I've NEVER heard somebody say "My wife's been cheating on me. She's been breaking her vow to Love and Cherish me..."

I've never heard a gossip group whisper "There goes mike! He's been cheating on his poor wife. Yup. He's stopped honoring her."

The 'Forsaking all others' vow seems to be the only vow people care about.

Well, friends, if you're neglecting any of the vows you made that day, you're in essence cheating on your spouse - you are cheating them out of the promise you made to them.

When I read about a spouse committing adultery I instantly wonder "I wonder how many vows broken by that guy/gal's spouse influenced his/her decision to stop forsaking all others?"

Truth is - like it or not, if you've stopped Loving and Cherishing your spouse, it should come as no surprise if they admit breaking the vow of forsaking. In fact, not always of course, but I bet a large part of the time, NOT forsaking the vows to love, honor, and cherish would do a LOT to prevent the other spouse from 'not forsaking all others.'

Thoughts?

I agree. Yes, adultery is wrong.... but why aren't people preaching more on people living in such a way with their spouses that their spouses won't have a need to get their needs met else where?

HB

 

[Romanseight2005]

Jesus said (and some translation use 'unfaithfulness' instead of 'fornication') "If you divorce somebody you make them an adulterer. Except if you divorced them because they've already adultered themselves through fornication. In that case, THEY have made themselves an adulterer.

Also - there's some debate about 'being put away' and 'divorced'. Some state there are two levels of separation. One is when a man 'puts his wife away' - they are separated, but not legally divorced. Some of those 'put away' would re-marry w/o going through the steps to dissolve their marriage. Lots of debate about the words uses. Nevertheless, God is a LOT bigger than our marriages.

You are thinking of a different passage of scripture. Read this carefully.
Matt 19:10
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
NKJV

Well the funny thing is, when you break it down, it's still the same. If the wife committed adultery first, and the man divorces her and remarries, he is not being adulterous. That much is clearly stated. Therefore, if the sexual immorality was not an allowable offense to divorce, then why would he not also be committing adultery when he remarried? By what you are saying, the wife committed adultery first, but that would not be an allowable offense to divorce. Therefore if he divorced her, and remarried, he would indeed be committing adultery, but this passage says he wouldn't be.

 

[dmp]

You are thinking of a different passage of scripture. Read this carefully.
Matt 19:10
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
NKJV

Well the funny thing is, when you break it down, it's still the same. If the wife committed adultery first, and the man divorces her and remarries, he is not being adulterous. That much is clearly stated. Therefore, if the sexual immorality was not an allowable offense to divorce, then why would he not also be committing adultery when he remarried? By what you are saying, the wife committed adultery first, but that would not be an allowable offense to divorce. Therefore if he divorced her, and remarried, he would indeed be committing adultery, but this passage says he wouldn't be.

Some have 'sexual impurity' some have 'marital unfaithfulnes'. Both can be defined many ways.

I'm saying, the scripture is NOT giving 'excuses' for Divorce (saying "It's okay under these circumstances" - it's Christ saying, unless a person has defiled themselves with fornication already, divorcing them makes them a fornicator.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Some have 'sexual impurity' some have 'marital unfaithfulnes'. Both can be defined many ways.

I'm saying, the scripture is NOT giving 'excuses' for Divorce (saying "It's okay under these circumstances" - it's Christ saying, unless a person has defiled themselves with fornication already, divorcing them makes them a fornicator.

But you are completely ignoring the other half of what it says. It does not only speak to the unfaithfulness of the spouse who was unfaithful. It also speaks of the faithful spouse remarrying after a divorce in the case of the other one committing adultery. It is saying that if you divorce and remarry for any reason other than sexual immorality, or unfaithfulness, as your version may read, then you become an adulterer yourself. If the other committed adultery, it makes the exception that if you divorce and remarry, you are not committing adultery. See, if the other person's adultery was not a valid reason for divorce, then the other one who was faithful would also be committing adultery when they remarried. The fact that the exception is made for a remarriage in this case, clearly allows divorce in this case.

 

[nowhereville]

but why aren't people preaching more on people living in such a way with their spouses that their spouses won't have a need to get their needs met else where?

Wow you really said that.

have you ever had your spouse commit adultery?

I'm thinking no.

During the time that my spouse was unfaithful - I had been very supportive and what not. I bent over backwards for him in many way.

His choice to have an affair was exactly that - his choice and while he would LOVE to blame it all on me - I'm not that powerful.

Trust me, if I WERE that powerful - do you think I'd be the only one doing laundry in my house? Do you think he would run the bank account into hundreds of dollars in the negative? No, I do not have the magic wand that "makes" people do things.

It has recently come to my awareness via God that my spouse has violated his covenant with me many many many times over. He is abusive in most ways imaginable.

I am flat out not now, nor ever responsible for his choices.

 

[dmp]

but why aren't people preaching more on people living in such a way with their spouses that their spouses won't have a need to get their needs met else where?

Wow you really said that.

have you ever had your spouse commit adultery?

I'm thinking no.

During the time that my spouse was unfaithful - I had been very supportive and what not. I bent over backwards for him in many way.

His choice to have an affair was exactly that - his choice and while he would LOVE to blame it all on me - I'm not that powerful.

Trust me, if I WERE that powerful - do you think I'd be the only one doing laundry in my house? Do you think he would run the bank account into hundreds of dollars in the negative? No, I do not have the magic wand that "makes" people do things.

It has recently come to my awareness via God that my spouse has violated his covenant with me many many many times over. He is abusive in most ways imaginable.

I am flat out not now, nor ever responsible for his choices.

you are agreeing with me. (shrug).

Marriage vows are MORE than 'forsake all others'.

 

[Adamantium]

Whenever a marriage dies, both parties are guilty, though not necessarily to the same degree.

However I have a concern about this, from the OP:

Truth is - like it or not, if you've stopped Loving and Cherishing your spouse, it should come as no surprise if they admit breaking the vow of forsaking. In fact, not always of course, but I bet a large part of the time, NOT forsaking the vows to love, honor, and cherish would do a LOT to prevent the other spouse from 'not forsaking all others.'

There is no room for tit-for-tat thinking in a marriage. Two wrongs do not make a right. And while it is true that when one spouse fails to love and cherish the other, that in no way mitigates the sin of adultery.

We live in a fallen world. None of us do as we should all the time. None of us. Every single married person falls short of the goal of loving, honoring and cherishing their spouse sometimes. The proper response to that, for the one who fell short, is to pray and to resolve to try to do better. The proper response for the one who was trespassed against is to say "There, but for the grace of God, go I," and do their best to forgive, and to give back love and honor.

Sometimes that isn't enough. Sometimes one spouse seems determined to rip the covenant apart and stomp it into a bloody mess on the ground. In that case, divorce will surely happen, and I believe God understands, forgives and perhaps even supports a person who leaves under those circumstances. But in cases where we're only talking about natural human foibles instead of wanton disregard, then I think each spouse needs to focus on the log in their own eye rather than the mote in the other's.

 

[dmp]

Whenever a marriage dies, both parties are guilty, though not necessarily to the same degree.

Absolutely not true.

There is no room for tit-for-tat thinking in a marriage. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I stopped reading right there because it's clear you didn't understand what I wrote. I never mentioned Tit-for-tat. I never mentioned 'two wrongs', I spoke of action (or inaction) and consequence.

 

[HuntingMan]

That's not exactly accurate to my understanding. Christ said if you divorce for reasons OTHER than fornication, you're committing adultery. That's very much NOT the same as "It's okay to divorce if one person has an affair."

I agree.

Jesus is not putting His seal of approval on divorce if sexual sin occurs.
What He is showing is that their hardhearted frivolous divorce to remarry someone else IS adultery and only if there is a LEGITIMATE breach of covenant would they not be sinning themselves in putting her away.
His intent is not to give them permission to divorce for adultery, Hes exposing their sin for divorcing without any just cause.

Of course, the exception does mean that adultery is grounds for divorce, but I dont think that Jesus was meaning to say 'she cheated...go, get divorced"

Jesus words are sort of saying something like 'only if someone is trying to kill you are you justified in killing them"
Nothing there is telling you to kill someone if they are trying to kill you, only that you have no justification in doing so UNLESS something that extreme happens.
Jesus is showing these Pharisees that they have no justification in divorcing as they were (for every cause) and so they do commit adultery by casting away a wife unjustly to marry another even tho the law did not actually state that they were.

 

[HuntingMan]

I agree. Yes, adultery is wrong.... but why aren't people preaching more on people living in such a way with their spouses that their spouses won't have a need to get their needs met else where?

HB

Thats a very unfair assumption.
Some of us give everything we have to give to our spouse and they are just as selfish /self-centered as those pharisees were and will do what pleases them regardless.
With these types of people, there is no winning in marriage. They are entirely self serving and no amount of effort can coerce them to behave properly.
If this werent true, then the we should be able to apply this same concept to the whole of mankind and ALL men should do the right thing...not just married folk.

 

[Adamantium]

Absolutely not true.



I stopped reading right there because it's clear you didn't understand what I wrote. I never mentioned Tit-for-tat. I never mentioned 'two wrongs', I spoke of action (or inaction) and consequence.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Each of us is ultimately responsible for our own behavior and our own choices. Your bad behavior or bad choices do not ever excuse my bad behavior or choices, though they might help to explain them.

And I stand by my words that every time a marriage dies, both parties are to blame in some degree. It's possible that the blame with one party lies in having married a jerk in the first place, but that's fault nonetheless. There is no such thing (outside of the courts) as no fault divorce.

 

[dmp]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Each of us is ultimately responsible for our own behavior and our own choices. Your bad behavior or bad choices do not ever excuse my bad behavior or choices, though they might help to explain them.

Nobody is talking about excuses. I'm just telling you how life happens. (shrug). While I'm responsible for my behaviour, behaviour often follows the affects of OTHERS' behavior. You can get all pie-in-the-sky, fine. It does NOT change the fact If I'm constantly breaking my vows to love and cherish my wife, I should feel NO SURPRISE (and share the blame) if she breaks the vow to Honor me. Or Forsake All others.

And I stand by my words that every time a marriage dies, both parties are to blame in some degree. It's possible that the blame with one party lies in having married a jerk in the first place, but that's fault nonetheless. There is no such thing (outside of the courts) as no fault divorce.

I'm glad you stand by your words. That's your right. But you're absolutely wrong. There are people who divorce other people for NO reason. There ARE people who live up to every single vow, wish, demand, and dream of their spouse, only for their spouse to leave. That's NO fault of the supportive one. (shrug).

 

[crossinfocus]

It is hard to argue with that. Often we isolate what works for us and ignore the rest.