Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage

[fated]

In this case, yes, divorce would be fully understandable.
These 'marriage martyrs' who seem to worship marriage might have you stay and die, but they clearly have missed the entire point of what MOses and Christ were doing...

This is a ridiculous assertion against the Truth, and you must know that.

"'marriage martyrs' who seem to worship marriage," excuse me if I don't believe everything the church according to huntingman says.

I hardly believe that one necessarily must be killed by their spouse. Indeed, one could just as easily kill their spouse in self defense, or "put them away." The issue, in this case, is not a disagreement, so much, as to how the spouse murderous spouse should be handled, but whether the one that would be murdered should again be married.

This is a highly disrespectful assertion, I don't see how anyone could see your post as anything but unreasonable and unfounded accusation. Perhaps, however, it doesn't affect me, because I don't worship marriage. Perhaps it is the one that sees marriage as something that life cannot be lived without who is worshiping marriage.

 

[HuntingMan]

Case and point.

SealedEternal

The case and point, as usual, is you simply read what you want and ignore the rest

 

[HuntingMan]

This is a ridiculous assertion against the Truth, and you must know that.

"'marriage martyrs' who seem to worship marriage," excuse me if I don't believe everything the church according to huntingman says.

I dont remember making any connection between you and that post.
I apologize if you mistook it for something it wasnt.

I hardly believe that one necessarily must be killed by their spouse.

BUT...there ARE those who do believe just that.
if youre not one of those, why are you responding to something clearly not addressing you or your views?

 

[HuntingMan]

Heres an interesting one....



Moses
the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time !!
By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this article

To prove that this ‘law of the husband’ is a conditional law, lest Moses himself was profaning the will of his God.

Supporting Evidence

Moses was the biggest sinner and lawbreaker ever to grace this planet.

Think about it....read these passages...

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
(Rom 7:1-3 KJV)


The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
(1Co 7:39 KJV)

Firstly, bear in mind that this 'law of the husband ' is not Mosiac law as that would mean Eve was not bound to Adam...nor would ANY wife be before the Mosiac economy, but in Romans there is being compared to the Mosiac covenant, this new covenant and our relationship to both.
Nor is this “law anything that Jesus has JUST created in this covenant, as again, Eve would not have been bound to Adam.

This law was a law GOD HIMSELF laid out in the beginning for marriage starting with the first man and wife
So what does Moses do?
He ALLOWS men to put away their wives. AND to do it frivolously.

He didnt create laws forbidding it, he actually permitted divorce, and THEN ends up creating a law (Det 24:1-4) that even laid out the specifics for putting away a wife for no reason and also shows them to give it to her in writing !
AND...he tells them if she EVER remarries...she can NEVER come back to her first husband !

Moses, this supposed 'godly' prophet, KNOWING that God had created marriage for LIFE....that the wife is 'bound by the law of the husband' until his death, turns right around and not only PERMITS men to put their wives away as far back as Leviticus 21, but then ADDS HIS OWN instruction into GODS LAW telling a man precisely how to go about breaking this law created by God in the beginning.
Any objections?
There should be plenty....


Now, let me continue...

Moses did not add 'allowance' for divorce to Gods word as some try to teach. There is no 'immorality' clause.
Deut 24:1-4 isnt any allowance at all if you read it as it is written instead of inserting our own thoughts into it, understanding that putting away was already going on at this point, not being anything new (see Lev 21, the priests are forbidden to marry a woman 'put away' from her husband).

Deut 24 is Moses' attempt to put enough restriction on the husband so to discourage divorce. Frivolous divorce wasnt commanded in Gods law, nor was it given license therein. It was merely tolerated and regulated by Moses.
So the above is therefore modified (as it was meant to be from the start) in that we do believe that Moses, with Gods permission, allowed divorce for the safety of the wife whos hardhearted husband might even kill her to be rid of her. Frivolous divorce was tolerated because of sin and to prevent further and possibly more diabolical treachery from occuring.

So Jesus was right, Moses 'suffered' the act of putting away an innocent wife (ie. "for every cause") because of their hardheartedness...both towards her and towards God.
This 'law of the husband' presented in the passages above CANNOT be UNconditional or Moses himself is guilty of allowing men and women to break this law against Gods will. Do you believe that Moses would have sent these women to hell by allowing them to REmarrying after being put away by a hardhearted husband? Moses was no such monster.

Those passages above show the intent of God that marriage is for life. The marriage covenant itself is not, nor ever has been an UNconditional one.

 

[SealedEternal]

Perhaps it is the one that sees marriage as something that life cannot be lived without who is worshiping marriage.

Like someone who is so compelled to do so that they do it against the commandment of their Creator, and despite the fact that He says it will keep him or her out of His Kingdom:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery."

I Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now let the plethora of long prewritten articles to hide the truth resume.

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

Like someone who is so compelled to do so that they do it against the commandment of their Creator, and despite the fact that He says it will keep him or her out of His Kingdom:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery."

I Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now let the plethora of long prewritten articles to hide the truth resume.

SealedEternal

thats really nice David, but seeing that I dont believe probably 90% of what you teach, I personally believe you are applying these condemnations to those whom Jesus has made exception for

 

[HuntingMan]

Now let the plethora of long prewritten articles to hide the truth resume.

SealedEternal

And please.
I get around and I see a LOT of cut and paste from both your site and your posts.
You took one entire post not too long ago and posted on at least TWO entirely different forums.

What bothers you, I think, its having someone expose your error with likeminded legalism.
Most of those you debate argue from a grace standpoint, which is quite sufficient within itself, but your doctrine doenst allow for grace to cover sins, being legalistic in nature, so you usually dont have to deal with someone who is able to deal with the erroneous claims on the same level of legalism from which you preach.

Those articles were spawned from discussions with you personally when I saw that your MO is to bombard threads with the same incessant repetition that you accuse everyone else of.

Again, a thread at another forum that is in the thousands of posts at this point is clear evidence of your repetition.

Hypocracy is not a very becoming thing, David.

 

[HuntingMan]

Perhaps, however, it doesn't affect me, because I don't worship marriage. Perhaps it is the one that sees marriage as something that life cannot be lived without who is worshiping marriage.

Touching on this again, I dont know your views in their entirety, so I cant say if you would be included.

There are churches out there who say that a woman must stay and endure ANY amount of torment at the hands of her husband...including death if that is the case.."let not man put asunder', as it were.
If that doesnt include you, then it doesnt.

 

[fated]

Heres an interesting one....



Moses
the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time !!
By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this article

To prove that this ‘law of the husband’ is a conditional law, lest Moses himself was profaning the will of his God.

Supporting Evidence

Moses was the biggest sinner and lawbreaker ever to grace this planet.

Think about it....read these passages...

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
(Rom 7:1-3 KJV)


The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
(1Co 7:39 KJV)

Firstly, bear in mind that this 'law of the husband ' is not Mosiac law as that would mean Eve was not bound to Adam...nor would ANY wife be before the Mosiac economy, but in Romans there is being compared to the Mosiac covenant, this new covenant and our relationship to both.
Nor is this “law anything that Jesus has JUST created in this covenant, as again, Eve would not have been bound to Adam.

This law was a law GOD HIMSELF laid out in the beginning for marriage starting with the first man and wife
So what does Moses do?
He ALLOWS men to put away their wives. AND to do it frivolously.

He didnt create laws forbidding it, he actually permitted divorce, and THEN ends up creating a law (Det 24:1-4) that even laid out the specifics for putting away a wife for no reason and also shows them to give it to her in writing !
AND...he tells them if she EVER remarries...she can NEVER come back to her first husband !

Moses, this supposed 'godly' prophet, KNOWING that God had created marriage for LIFE....that the wife is 'bound by the law of the husband' until his death, turns right around and not only PERMITS men to put their wives away as far back as Leviticus 21, but then ADDS HIS OWN instruction into GODS LAW telling a man precisely how to go about breaking this law created by God in the beginning.
Any objections?
There should be plenty....


Now, let me continue...

Moses did not add 'allowance' for divorce to Gods word as some try to teach. There is no 'immorality' clause.
Deut 24:1-4 isnt any allowance at all if you read it as it is written instead of inserting our own thoughts into it, understanding that putting away was already going on at this point, not being anything new (see Lev 21, the priests are forbidden to marry a woman 'put away' from her husband).

Deut 24 is Moses' attempt to put enough restriction on the husband so to discourage divorce. Frivolous divorce wasnt commanded in Gods law, nor was it given license therein. It was merely tolerated and regulated by Moses.
So the above is therefore modified (as it was meant to be from the start) in that we do believe that Moses, with Gods permission, allowed divorce for the safety of the wife whos hardhearted husband might even kill her to be rid of her. Frivolous divorce was tolerated because of sin and to prevent further and possibly more diabolical treachery from occuring.

So Jesus was right, Moses 'suffered' the act of putting away an innocent wife (ie. "for every cause") because of their hardheartedness...both towards her and towards God.
This 'law of the husband' presented in the passages above CANNOT be UNconditional or Moses himself is guilty of allowing men and women to break this law against Gods will. Do you believe that Moses would have sent these women to hell by allowing them to REmarrying after being put away by a hardhearted husband? Moses was no such monster.

Those passages above show the intent of God that marriage is for life. The marriage covenant itself is not, nor ever has been an UNconditional one.

Let me continue...

In this way, we can see that Moses allowed divorce because of man's hardheartedness. Jesus calls Christians to a higher standard (it is very explicit):

Matthew 19:
7 6 They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"
8 He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
10 [His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
11 He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted.

Because of the harshness of this teaching, Paul did state that one who marries has committed no sin.

Clearly you can also put a woman away if your marriage is illicit.

 

[HuntingMan]

Let me continue...

In this way, we can see that Moses allowed divorce because of man's hardheartedness. Jesus calls Christians to a higher standard (it is very explicit):

Correct.
Because of their hard hearts Moses had permitted the Hebrews to put away, and then created the bill of divorce as a regulation, for some ambiguous 'uncleaness' ("for EVERY cause") that the man defined in her so he could take another wife.

Of course Jesus has called His followers to a higher standard.. ..I agree entirely

Clearly you can also put a woman away if your marriage is illicit.

that is your interpretation of it all to which I do not believe scripture is addressing at all.

His followers are not to put away their wives as Moses had tolerated and regulated in Deut 24 'for every cause' (some 'uncleaness'), but ONLY in a case of 'inappropriate contenteia' (immorality, sexual) can it be done without committing adultery against that spouse upon remarriage.

It really doesnt matter how you approach this poster, my views are firm and in perfect harmony with the whole, and I dont have to REdefine words to make it work ..

 

[fated]

Correct.
Because of their hard hearts Moses had permitted the Hebrews to put away, and then created the bill of divorce as a regulation, for some ambiguous 'uncleaness' ("for EVERY cause") that the man defined in her so he could take another wife.

Of course Jesus has called His followers to a higher standard.. ..I agree entirely
that is your interpretation of it all to which I do not believe scripture is addressing at all.

His followers are not to put away their wives as Moses had tolerated and regulated in Deut 24 'for every cause' (some 'uncleaness'), but ONLY in a case of 'inappropriate contenteia' (immorality, sexual) can it be done without committing adultery against that spouse upon remarriage.

It really doesnt matter how you approach this poster, my views are firm and in perfect harmony with the whole, and I dont have to REdefine words to make it work ..

Of course you don't have to redefine the translation of the Sacred Scriptures, it has already been done for you.

This sexual immorality being that which makes the union unlawfully celebrated.

 

[HuntingMan]

Of course you don't have to redefine the translation of the Sacred Scriptures, it has already been done for you.

Sorry chap, you are the one redefining inappropriate contenteia, not me. I accept the meaning of the word and its use in scripture.
See, Ive taken a few years of foreign languages, so I'm hardly completely deficient in understanding/comprehension where studying out the overall intent of any word is concerned, or in understanding rendering/translation.

'inappropriate contenteia', whether you personally like it or can deal with it or not, has a VERY clear intent of being all inclusive of sexual immorality.

In english it is perfectly rendered AS 'sexual immorality' (of ANY sort) altho it does also allude to a breach of covenant as well in the scriptures...so there is another facet to the word beyond mere sexual sin. Oddly enough Jesus exception FOR inappropriate contenteia is acovenant breach so it would seem that our Lord and the man who rendered His words into 'inappropriate contenteia' kept a very consistant theme in motion.

This sexual immorality being that which makes the union unlawfully celebrated.

Semantics.
Is it a breach of covenant or not.
If it is, then it is just cause for divorce...end of story.

 

[mpok1519]

sealedeternal>> you're not really helping anyone expand upon their faith though. You're taking Bible passages and turning them into literal assumptions.

The Bible DEMANDS you to be healthy. if your marriage is destroying you, then the Bible DEMANDS you get out of it.

is it possible the Bible has small flaws? well, in my eyes, perfection demands imperfection. nothing can be perfect without its own individual flaws.

So yes, the Bible demands one to be healthy, and to keep out of harm's way, and if your marriage is killing you, God WANTS you to get out of a destructive thing.
Why would God WANT you to be intimately involved with something ultimately destructive? Why would God want one to suffer within something bad?

 

[dayhiker]

Case and point.

SealedEternal

Sealed,
I understand your point. Just read what the Bible says and believe it. I did that for years.

But as I grew in my understanding of the times that Jesus lived, I started to have some problems. It became clear to me that we don't read some topic in the Bible the way they read them in Jesus' time. It became clear to me that my just read what the Bible says on some verses did give me the same view of things as the authors who wrote the Bible had.

That left me with a discission to make. Am I going to believe the way I read teh Bible with me mordern and post mordern way of thinking with all its science, tehcnologies and addition philosphies or am I going to understand what the orginal authors mean when they wrote the books of the Bible. It was clear to me that I had to understand as best I could what the orginal authors were saying.

That sometimes means the meaning is apparent for today. Sometimes because our culture is so differnt I have to figure out how to apply the word to our day and age and it isn't as striaght forward.

Sealed, I believe you will get to heaven using your approach, but I think its very nieve for us today to think all the history the world has experinced since Jesus time leaves us thinking the same way they did back then.

dayhiker

 

[HuntingMan]

sealedeternal>> you're not really helping anyone expand upon their faith though. You're taking Bible passages and turning them into literal assumptions.

The Bible DEMANDS you to be healthy. if your marriage is destroying you, then the Bible DEMANDS you get out of it.

is it possible the Bible has small flaws? well, in my eyes, perfection demands imperfection. nothing can be perfect without its own individual flaws.

So yes, the Bible demands one to be healthy, and to keep out of harm's way, and if your marriage is killing you, God WANTS you to get out of a destructive thing.
Why would God WANT you to be intimately involved with something ultimately destructive? Why would God want one to suffer within something bad?

Jesus also DEMANDS that we give to EVERYONE that asks of us, NO exceptions given, but SE and others of that group that Ive asked, reject that commandment as well. It seems to be selective obeying or something, honestly.

 

[ShermanN]

A favorite quote among biblical scholars is "A Text without a Context is a Pretext." A Pretext is an "assumed" meaning that actually misses what the author meant. This happens all the time today, even in our news papers, especially with public figures. Specific phrases or scentences are taken out of context, published as solitary statements, and thus misinterpreted by the reader. This happens just taking statements out of context and not even having to translate them from one language to another, much less one culture to another. "A Text without a Context is a Pretext." So what Context should one study to help one understands the Text?

1) The literary context, this includes the immediate context, the extended context, the complete book, other writings by that author, its placement within all of scripture, and even extra-biblical literature of that time.

2) The historical context - how was the subject understood and treated throughout recorded history?

3) The cultural context - what cultural factors bear upon the subject? What about culturally specific idiomatic phrases? What did the Text mean within that culture?

4) The authorial context - The author, what was his character, role, position, purpose, directive. Did he make any other statements that bear upon the subject? etc.

Sadly, on this topic and many others, people will often rip scripture Text out of it's Context and make it a Pretext - an assumed meaning that misses what the author really intended by what he said. And what's even worse is when people yank multiple individual scriptures from their given contexts and list them all together to prove a point, that is contrary to the contexts of the individual scriptures. Christians are terrible about this, especially the uneducated.

That's why I research the context as much as possible, so as to understand the text and not make errant assumed interpretations. But even then, I don't claim perfect understanding but am open to other information that I've previously not heard.

I realize that, on this subject especially, I understand scripture differently than what one would understand it without knowing the cultural and historical context of the passages in question. The information that I present is verifiable for anyone willing to do the research. I also present various nuances from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts that are often overlooked in the English translations. Again, these are verifiable and I also site other sources. If I notice something that is different than traditional translations, I will often contact scholars in that field to verify or correct my understanding of the given passage.

Why did I do such extensive research on this subject, especially considering I'm happily married to the wife of my youth and neither of us having ever been previously married? Why, because several years ago I came across some information that revolutionized my understanding of what Jesus said, a cultural problem unique to ancient Jewish culture, that is still happening today in a modified fashion.

That cultural problem was the problem of men expelling their wives without giving them a bill of divorce. This often relegated them to a life of adultery and even prostitution. If a man did marry a woman that was separated from her husband (but was not given a bill of divorce), she was committing adultery and the man that married her was committing adultery and living in a relationship that was not legal and was immoral.

There are two instances of this occuring in the Bible -- David and Michal, and Samson and his first wife.

As I further studied Jesus words I've come to believe that Jesus prophetically addressed to significant problems in 1st century Jewish culture. 1) The problem of men expelling their wives, not giving them the bill of divorce in order to not pay the dowry, and virtually forcing them to become adulterers. 2) Men divorcing their wives for immoral reasons, so that they could marry other women.

Remarriage of divorce's (legally divorced men or women) was not even an issue, regardless of the reason for the divorce. In fact, the reason Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce, was to stop the practice of men expelling their wives and yet retaining control over them. It did this by legally breaking the marriage covenant, the marriage bond, and freeing the ex-wife to marry another man and remain married, and not fear him reclaiming her years later like David did with Michal.

Another thing, Jesus did not intend to repudiate the bill of divorce as is traditionally believed, rather He was explaining why He inspired Moses to legislate the bill of divorce - to stop the oppression of women.

Anyone interested in verifying this can do so, just review my previous posts for the details, or ask and I'll gladly give it again. A good place to start is Dr. David Instone-Brewer's book.

A Text without a Context is a Pretext an Assumed Interpretation that often misses what the author intended - it's often called the "Plain Text"!

Blessings,
Sherman

P.S. I keep a list of my Topical Posts on the 1st post on this thread.

 

[HuntingMan]

Another thing, Jesus did not intend to repudiate the bill of divorce as is traditionally believed, rather He was explaining why He inspired Moses to legislate the bill of divorce - to stop the oppression of women.

Precisely what Ive concluded.

Its odd that Moses and Jesus both are having to defend the wife agaisnt the man, isnt it?

And even going back to Exod 21:10-11 there it is still the man who is doing wrong against the wife when she is being permitted to leave the marriage.

 

[TrueColors]

People who post long explanations about what scripture says rather than scripture itself, want you to be confused. If you want the truth you should look to God's Word rather than the opinions of men.

Reminds me of a subtitle I saw of another CF poster~ 'If you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em!

 

[HuntingMan]

Reminds me of a subtitle I saw of another CF poster~ 'If you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em!

What comes immediately to my mind is 'confusing' them by telling them that because Deut 22:13 SOUNDS like Deut 24:1, then Deut 24 MUST be replacing Deut 22:13 there.
(the two are entirely unrelated...one is for sexual sin, the other a regulation concerning this putting away for some ambiguous 'uncleaness)

Without that error, SEs doctrine falls apart....which is why he has to cling to it in spite of even those of his own viewpoints (alaska for one) showing him over and again that it simply is not the case.

THAT is confusing them when one cant 'beat them'...or at least, giving it ones best shot...few fall for it.

 

[mpok1519]

regardless, the Bible was written by many men, inspired by God. God pretty much says the same thing; keep yourself healthy.

If the marriage is killing someone, the Bible demands one to do what neccessary to keep from that hurt spreading further.

also, its not like Jesus doesn't forgive adulterers.