Can marriage ever be a sin if both are Christian

[Grafted In]

There is no reason for you to go to the fantasy land of speculations about me. Stick to the topic.

My point is that we are living in the world where divorce is easy and frequent. You can argue with Bible as much as you want, but it does not change the situation that you have no control over if you will be divorced by your spouse or not.

Also, my initial point was that marriage is not defined properly and so anybody in it can say "I do not feel it anymore" and come up with some reason why. If it was properly defined, together with duties each party must deliver for the contract to be still valid, the confusion would be reduced.

My opologies. I can see how you could easily have taken my words personally. I was speaking in terms of the church as a whole , not at you directly.

 

[trophy33]

My opologies. I can see how you could easily have taken my words personally. I was speaking in terms of the church as a whole , not at you directly.

OK, I understand. I misread "Suppose" as "I suppose".

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Ist Corinthians chapter 7

Verse10
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.

verse 11
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Verse27
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

This is pretty clear cut, in my opinion.
But Christians find a million and one reasons to ignore such Scriptures.

You forgot some verses in 1 Corinthians 7:

Verses 8 and 9
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Verse 28
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

You also forgot Deuteronomy 24:1-4. If anyone tells you that no longer applies, refer to Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

In the Eastern Orthodox Church there is an Ecclesiastical Court which handles divorce cases, deciding whether or not a divorce will be accepted by the church, and if so, who is at fault and what penances will be applied (these can include abstinence from foods, prostration, exclusion from the Eucharist, and can last for years, but in the Early Church adultery resulted in a 15 year excommunication, and Sodomy a 35 year excommunication, and also Orthodox canon laws can always be mitigated in their application where it is efficacious to the salvation of the soul (the principle of oikonomia, or economy, versus severity, or akrivia).

Those are man's rules. I don't really recognize the rules and traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church as possessing any special authority. None of the church assemblies I attended over the years did "penances".

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is pretty clear cut, in my opinion.
But Christians find a million and one reasons to ignore such Scriptures.

And it is simple, too. But Christians find "Biblical reasons" to ignore such Scriptures.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

And it is simple, too. But Christians find "Biblical reasons" to ignore such Scriptures.

I've heard legalists accuse others of ignoring certain scriptures and then blithely commit that very offense themselves. Since this thread is regarding marriage, I will say how I've seen this specifically with respect to that.

They claim you can never marry again if you are divorced, oftentimes citing Matthew 19:9, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and Romans 7:2-3 as if these verses present an ironclad proof of their position (they don't). But they conveniently forget Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:17-18, and 1 Corinthians 7, verses 9, 15, and 28 - or they fabricate some fanciful interpretation of these verses to sidestep the obvious implications.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Here's a thought to come back to the original question of this thread: Suppose that there are at least some cases where marriage is a sin. If so, I have these two questions:

(1) Would that marriage be sinful if one or both of the persons was not a Christian?
(2) What should be done about a "sinful" marriage? Repent? If so, how?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Grafted In: Seeing that you believe that God, in relation to divorce and remarriage, punishes the innocent with the guilty, if a woman is raped, then you believe that the woman victim should be punished, as she would be in Iran?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well God put it down on paper.
What does verse 11 say in your bible?
Are you looking to the world for Truth.
If a person divorces their husband or wife and marries another they commit adultery.
But if the one who is put away dies, then and only then are they free to remarry.
It isn't rocket science.

The 3 rules for exegesis of Scripture are:
1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

What we have to examine is why Paul gave his views on divorce and remarriage. It is clear that Paul was writing to deal with issues in the Corinthian church that were not present in the other churches, otherwise we would be seeing the same views given to the Romans, Thessalonians, Philippians, and Ephesians. But we don't see any repeat in those churches, and one would be living in Cuckoo Banana Town if divorce and remarriage was not occurring in those churches. This is because the issue was different in the Corinthian church. Men and women were divorcing their spouses because of the belief that celibacy brought one closer to God than marriage. So men and women were getting rid of their spouses to become closer to God and be more prepared to do His will. This false notion of celibacy reared its ugly head again when the Church became the RCC and it was imposed on their priests. This was the issue that Paul confronted and was the reason why he gave the teaching. Note that he made no mention of the innocent spouses who would not have chosen the divorce, nor did he mention desertion, or domestic violence because these were not the issues he was confronting with the Corinthians.

Therefore it is vitally important to do some research into the context and the reasons why Paul would have given the teaching, so that people didn't resort to unfair and inappropriate Bible bashing of divorced and remarried people.

 

[linux.poet]

If it was properly defined, together with duties each party must deliver for the contract to be still valid, the confusion would be reduced.

I'm pretty sure that the contract is pretty obvious:
1. Have sex with the person
2. Do not have sex with other people
3. Take care of the children that result from the sex. This includes financial support for said children. This includes staying together with the person that you are married to in order to provide a decent home environment for said children.

In terms of duties, that is what marriage includes. It does not include anything else, really. It does not contain an obligation to your comfort or to make you feel better. Breach of #1 should result in church discipline, egregious breach of #2 can result in divorce, and breach of #3 should result in counseling, therapy, and mentorship.

Ideally, a marriage relationship should model the relationship between Christ and the church, but one can't obligate that. One must allow room for human frailty and healing to occur.

 

[trophy33]

I'm pretty sure that the contract is pretty obvious:
1. Have sex with the person
2. Do not have sex with other people
3. Take care of the children that result from the sex. This includes financial support for said children. This includes staying together with the person that you are married to in order to provide a decent home environment for said children.

In terms of duties, that is what marriage includes. It does not include anything else, really. It does not contain an obligation to your comfort or to make you feel better. Breach of #1 should result in church discipline, egregious breach of #2 can result in divorce, and breach of #3 should result in counseling, therapy, and mentorship.

Ideally, a marriage relationship should model the relationship between Christ and the church, but one can't obligate that. One must allow room for human frailty and healing to occur.

When something seems obvious, it gets complicated quickly when people from different families, areas, cultures or religions meet. Or people with different needs and desires.

Also, we do not live in a church state, so no court will examine what is in the Bible. People are being divorced even though they were faithful etc. The satisfaction with marriage is considered purely subjectively by any individual. There are no contract rules one side can appeal to and insist on marriage to continue.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

I'm pretty sure that the contract is pretty obvious:
1. Have sex with the person
2. Do not have sex with other people
3. Take care of the children that result from the sex...

Not a bad start. But there's a lot more to being faithful than sex with your spouse, refraining from sex with people who are not your spouse, and providing basic support for children. What about love, honor, etc?

Are those who abuse their spouses being faithful? Or who squander the family resources on some vice?

Regarding the "don't divorce" provision: There is no practical way to list out the comprehensive list of specific sins that would be reasonable grounds for divorce. The short answer for a general rule is that any material breach of the terms of the marital vows would be just grounds for divorce.

 

[linux.poet]

Are those who abuse their spouses being faithful? Or who squander the family resources on some vice?

Usually those who abuse the family resources for some vice are in violation of #3, as they are hurting their children by not providing for them. Also, those who abuse their spouses are creating an unsafe home environment for their children to be, and are thus in violation of #3. Taking care of children involves a lot more than just providing for physical needs. It also includes providing for their psychological needs as well: attunement, containment (discipline), and rupture and repair.

I’m saying this having grown up in an abusive household. My mom is still married to her abusive spouse after over 30 years of marriage. Granted, she wasn’t the main target of the abuse - that was me - but still.

When something seems obvious, it gets complicated quickly when people from different families, areas, cultures or religions meet. Or people with different needs and desires.

We’re talking about what happens inside the church, not what happens out in the world. Functionally speaking, I’d be bold enough to say that marriage outside the church doesn’t exist anymore. If you think divorce is a reasonable option for any cause then you were never married in the first place and really are no better than a serial monogamist who doesn’t buy a marriage license to conceal his true intentions.

Marriage is about sticking with someone through thick and thin to provide a particular kind of love for a person’s body, and, again a safe home environment for children. Serial monogamist parents or serial divorcees make their children feel unsafe, like they have no home.

Also, we do not live in a church state, so no court will examine what is in the Bible. People are being divorced even though they were faithful etc. The satisfaction with marriage is considered purely subjectively by any individual. There are no contract rules one side can appeal to and insist on marriage to continue.

Basically, what I’m reading here is that “people are jerks so being married is pointless”. Matthew 5 is clear: if the person randomly decides to up and divorce you one day because of some pointless cause, that is adultery and the person will be subject to church discipline. The church doesn’t need the state to enforce its own rules.

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to form the smallest law courts? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you anyone wise who will be able to decide between his brothers and sisters, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

 

[GenemZ]

The bible says as it was in the days of Noah they were marrying and giving in marriage and did not know until the flood came and took them all away so it will be when the son of man returns


In the days of Noah marriage was a sin because sons of God married daughters of men that is the non spiritual people

'Beni ha Elohiym' literally means 'sons of Gods. Beni ha Elohiym' is used four times in the Old Testament and it always refers to angels - Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7 and Gen 6.

Sons of God in the OT only pertained to angels. The church is the first humans to be called sons of God because we have not been given the gift of the Holy Spirit to indwell and be one with us when we walk in the light!


Marriage was not a sin where you cited. It was angels that fell that did not "marry" those human women. That is what we read in tamed down - shy to speak the truth- translations. The Hebrew says that the angels took/seized passionately to themselves women of their own choosing.

The marriages spoke of the people who went about their business and paid no attention to the evils growing around them. They were "eating and drinking and given in marriage." Eating and drinking is also not a sin. Nor is marriage. The sin was not heeding the words of Noah and living their own lives as comfortably as they saw fit.

grace and peace ...........

 

[mikeforjesus]

Society seeks to justify its sins. Jesus taught whoever divorces for any reason except sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery and whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery. If person cheats person never to try to have children and abuses that is not a valid marriage. The only other case is abuse but other person is also abuser and can not remarry if they purposely test them not to seek to try to have children abuse is valid reason when not having children as that is acting like unbeliever who departs showing clearly one may not be trusted for marriage for valid marriage is between believers. For one can not be guaranteed to be trusted person departed though can claim to change but departed then to lose chance like unbeliever who departs and says he changes but he departed then with reason not to trust so not be trusted.

 

[mikeforjesus]

'Beni ha Elohiym' literally means 'sons of Gods. Beni ha Elohiym' is used four times in the Old Testament and it always refers to angels - Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7 and Gen 6.

Sons of God in the OT only pertained to angels. The church is the first humans to be called sons of God because we have not been given the gift of the Holy Spirit to indwell and be one with us when we walk in the light!


Marriage was not a sin where you cited. It was angels that fell that did not "marry" those human women. That is what we read in tamed down - shy to speak the truth- translations. The Hebrew says that the angels took/seized passionately to themselves women of their own choosing.

The marriages spoke of the people who went about their business and paid no attention to the evils growing around them. They were "eating and drinking and given in marriage." Eating and drinking is also not a sin. Nor is marriage. The sin was not heeding the words of Noah and living their own lives as comfortably as they saw fit.

grace and peace ...........

I know that interpretation but I just dont believe it for God says it will be as in days of Noah that men will be like that there will be Christian’s who forsake their faith to marry non believers and not care about their faith just as before sons of God forsook their faith. I don’t believe God would let an Angel marry for God could not let a child be born to a demon because there is no chance to raise them good. God would not let that and angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus says and good angels would not marry either they are already tested and overcame so can not fall again.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Marriage is about sticking with someone through thick and thin to provide a particular kind of love for a person’s body, and, again a safe home environment for children. Serial monogamist parents or serial divorcees make their children feel unsafe, like they have no home.

Basically, what I’m reading here is that “people are jerks so being married is pointless”. Matthew 5 is clear: if the person randomly decides to up and divorce you one day because of some pointless cause, that is adultery and the person will be subject to church discipline. The church doesn’t need the state to enforce its own rules.

For the most part, this is fair and reasonable. The overall tone in Scriptures is that divorce was intended as an out in the event of some serious marriage-destroying sin. While I generally would agree that people who cast aside a faithful spouse for selfish or trivial reasons ought to face some sort of disciplinary action against them by the Church, I'm going to say why I find that problematic.

Two years ago, I began divorce proceedings from my wife when she persistently refused to engage in marital intimacy with me (after much counseling). I let it be known both to her and my then-church assembly that this is unacceptable. The Church leadership told me that while refusing intimacy is a sin on her part, it would not constitute "biblical" grounds for divorce for me. Their reasoning is because it was not explicitly named as such in the NT. By that reasoning, domestic violence and gross financial recklessness would not be acceptable grounds for divorce either.

I told them their reasoning was brain-dead and that I would proceed with the divorce anyway. I was adamant that I would accept no teaching that says I am somehow obligated to put up with this kind of treatment from my wife. To no one's surprise, they gave me the boot.

 

[GenemZ]

I know that interpretation but I just dont believe it for God says it will be as in days of Noah that men will be like that there will be Christian’s who forsake their faith to marry non believers and not care about their faith just as before sons of God forsook their faith. I don’t believe God would let an Angel marry for God could not let a child be born to a demon because there is no chance to raise them good. God would not let that and angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus says and good angels would not marry either they are already tested and overcame so can not fall again.

That is not what it says. That is some interpretation by someone has not learned to properly translate the Bible, and to interpret it with accuracy.

The context reveals they (the people drinking and marrying) were ignoring the urgent message of Noah and were living as they well pleased.... That was cited as an example for the future. For in the Tribulation many will be living as they desire (eating, drinking and marrying). They will be ignoring all the truth being proclaimed around them by the 144,000 and the two witnesses just like Noah's preaching was ignored in his day. These people will be caught off guard just like in Noah's day they were caught by the flood.

 

[mikeforjesus]

I am not convinced but could check it out. I suppose it could be like the time of Noah but not exactly so to be angels. But it can not be that marrying in those times is wrong if you are marrying someone who is Christian not compromising your faith but I suppose it could be wrong then if it becomes wrong but Paul said in last days people will forbid marriage that it is God will it seems so Christians multiply unless there is proof that God does not want it for a purpose that He has a will but we know even if one did if it was sin and God does not come person can repent but if it was wrong one should not as one may not get chance to repent but bible says you only need to leave person you marry if you did wrong if they are not willing to accept you to follow your faith.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For the most part, this is fair and reasonable. The overall tone in Scriptures is that divorce was intended as an out in the event of some serious marriage-destroying sin. While I generally would agree that people who cast aside a faithful spouse for selfish or trivial reasons ought to face some sort of disciplinary action against them by the Church, I'm going to say why I find that problematic.

Two years ago, I began divorce proceedings from my wife when she persistently refused to engage in marital intimacy with me (after much counseling). I let it be known both to her and my then-church assembly that this is unacceptable. The Church leadership told me that while refusing intimacy is a sin on her part, it would not constitute "biblical" grounds for divorce for me. Their reasoning is because it was not explicitly named as such in the NT. By that reasoning, domestic violence and gross financial recklessness would not be acceptable grounds for divorce either.

I told them their reasoning was brain-dead and that I would proceed with the divorce anyway. I was adamant that I would accept no teaching that says I am somehow obligated to put up with this kind of treatment from my wife. To no one's surprise, they gave me the boot.

You are much better off being separated from those churchians who want their church to be a showcase for perfect people. That's what churchianity is all about.

It shows that they never cared for you as a person and fellow believer. You were just a b*m on a seat for them. The only thing that would have missed about you is your $20 in the offering plate each Sunday.

It also appears that none of them have any qualification or experience in professional counselling, otherwise they could have successfully counselled you to come to terms with your wife's conduct, and to get to the bottom of why your wife was refusing intimate relations with you. There would have been a reason for her conduct, but that church had no one capable of getting alongside her to find out in a non-judgmental way. There are churches that have the basis of their counselling as: "This is what the Bible says, now go and do it!" But the purpose of the Bible is to show us God's plans and purposes through Christ to give us the way of salvation. It takes wisdom and compassion to deal with the issues of live, and it appears that this church lacks both.