• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Today is a sad day

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How hypocritical! Obviously you don't know your Bible as well as you think you do, HuntingMan.

then how about you take some time and educate me ?
Or will this just be a hit and run thing to tell me Im wrong without PROVING your case ?
Or, you ignore what you choose to ignore. As long as a spouse remains alive one must not marry another.
I ignore nothing.
that passage does not represent the WHOLE truth as you seem to believe
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)

To do so is tantamount to adultery which, of course, is a no-no. Divorcing is ONE thing. REmarrying is another. If you didn't know this, then how much else don't you know?
What I know is that there is more to the story than you seem to think there is.

Im open for debate on the issue if youd care to give it a shot.
I'll keep my eye out in the P& E forum for your thread when youre ready :)


========================

The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article


In this article we will show that the two passages in question speak of the ‘law of the husband’ and that even though these verses say that this law is until death, that is is not an unconditional law that cannot be ended before the death of the spouse. The law of the husband is intended to be until the death of one of the spouses, as God created it from the very first marriage, Adam and Eve, but it has never been without condition.

Supporting Evidence
In Romans Paul was speaking to "those who know the law" (Romans 7:1)

The law reigned over a man all his days. Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.
What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )
This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The wife is bound to the husband until his death.
We must ask ourselves one question here. ‘What law’ bound this woman to her husband for life?
Was it the Mosaic law? How then could any wife have been bound at all to her husband from Eve until the Law ?
It is cemented that it is not the Mosiac law when we find no actual law making this commandment.

So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.
We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth.

Now, we ask ourselves, why, if this law is for life, did Moses ever permit it to end while the former spouse lived?
We ask ourselves about the wife in Exodus 21:7-11 who was permitted to walk out on her marriage if her husband denied her the basics of marriage, food, clothing and conjugal duty.
Why, if this law that existed from the beginning, was Moses so determined to undermine its supposed finality by ever allowing men or women to end it this side of death? Was Moses a rogue prophet who defied Gods will in the matter and even added divorce proceedings to His law? Not at all.

Moses understood Gods intent, that marriage is for life, but Moses also knew Gods heart and that God wanted mercy over sacrifice and he knew the hearts of evil, hardhearted men who would treat their wives horribly as they wished.
And so Moses understood that this ‘law’ was not unconditional.
If it were unconditional, then it was that way in the beginning and Moses would make himself a heretic by ever going against it.

So we see that when Paul gives his words in 1 Corinthians 7:39, that this is not the whole picture. This ‘law’ that Jesus presents as being ‘from the beginning’ was never meant to be unconditional. Jesus’ very words ‘except for’ in Matthew 19 show conclusively that even He does not see it as being without condition.

Paul was asked some questions by the Corinthians as is made apparent in the beginning of chapter 7;

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote”
These believers had asked him some weighty questions about marriage, fornication, virgins, etc, to which he responded with what is written in this chapter.
They clearly had pondered the right of the believer to put away an unbeliever, to which Paul said “no, if the unbeliever is pleased along with the believer, the do not put them away, you might be the catalyst in their salvation”.
Paul is showing these believers who think they can just walk away from marriage that no, they cannot because it is for life.
But Pauls words also show condition. What if this unbeliever isn’t ‘pleased’ along with the believer, but is abusive, hateful, adulterating...then what does Pauls condition show?

Please see this page for more on that issue
Aslo see THIS PAGE that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.

When you’ve finished there, I believe you will see that there is condition in Pauls words. A condition that is perfectly harmonized with the heart of other scriptures such as Exodus 21 where the wife can leave over nonsupport, Jeremiah 3:8 where even God the Father issued a bill of divorce for harlotry, and Matthew 19 where Jesus shows that the same harlotry is just cause for ending this marriage.

Another point with Romans 7:1-4 or so is that at no time does this passage show that there was ever any divorce as permitted by Mosaic law. If we take it 'as written' it shows that this woman has only left her husband and gone to join with another. Without a divorce as presented by the law Paul speaks of, without the breaking of that marriage covenant, then of course she would be called an adulteress by joining herself to some man not her husband.

Pauls words in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are true. They are just harmonized with the whole of Gods word. If we fail to harmonize correctly, then we end up with absurd teachings such as ones that say that we “cannot sin” because the literal reading of 1 John 3:9 would seem to show as much when taken alone and not properly harmonized with the whole.
Without ALL of the facts we can end up drawing very wrong conclusions from very CLEAR scripures, such as presented here:
The REST of the story...

We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Its a FABULOUS day!!

It made my day seeing the footage of all the happy couples getting their marriage licenses.

Things like this briefly restore my faith in humanity :p
Hopefully the whole thing gets reversed and those licenses mean nothing at some point.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
69
✟279,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thats a really nice try there tulc.
Too bad the NT shows that men abusing themselves with men will not inherit the kingdom of God. ;)

Ahhh! So the Scriptures on being gay negate the Scriptures on picking up sticks? :scratch:
tulc(now really is confused) :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
69
✟279,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hopefully the whole thing gets reversed and those licenses mean nothing at some point.

uhmmm actually they'll always mean something to the couples and their families and friends. :clap:
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out) :)
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My point, Huntingman, is that there are many churches in America that expressly condemn remarriage after divorce.

The Independent Fundamental Baptist churches are opposed to it and most IFB pastors will not perform a wedding ceremony for the previously divorced or allow divorced and remarried people to be members of the clergy.

Since there is much division even among Christian circles about marriage "laws" according to the Bible, whose interpretation should be used to implement state laws?
And just like those churches that DONT condemn men having sex with men, those churches are teaching erroneously.
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
KCKID.

Let me clarify for you that this isnt the forum or the thread to discuss divorce and/or remarriage.

If you want to discuss that topic with me, please go to the P&E forum and create a thread and Ill be more than happy to spar with you on the matter.

I just wanted to post this before you waste your time posting here again about divorce/remarriage because Im not going to take part in derailing this thread any further.
My original post was for a point and you seem to have decided to run off in another direction with that point.

Again, if you want to debate MDR, the P&E forum is the place.
Ill keep an eye open for your thread if you decide to accept the offer

:)
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
uhmmm actually they'll always mean something to the couples and their families and friends. :clap:
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out) :)
Thats pretty interesting.
So these family and friends dont see them as 'married' either without that license ?
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
69
✟279,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Tulc is confused because tulc is playing a game with Gods word trying to make something lawful that is not lawful.

uhmmm actually I was pointing out how we like to emphasize the Laws about things that don't affect us personally and ignore the ones that would. We tend to say the ones that would affect us no longer apply to us, "We've been set free from the Law and it's penalties!!" (tm) but somehow those ones that don't interfere with us? Man those Laws we grab and swing for the bleachers with! :eek:
tulc(just trying to clarify what I was thinking) :)
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well they are certainly married now. :)
According to godless Caesar it would appear to be the case.

tulc(do you see people as married without a license?) :confused:
I think its known well enough around here that I dont see licensing as 'marriage', no. Lets not pretend that Im the only one, chap. There is an ever growing part of the church that is beginning to reject Caesars 'permission' to marry which is a God given right of mans that NO man has a right to control.

Of course, these gay marriages are of great value to my view because more and more of the brethren who are disgusted with this abomination of two men having sex with each other being placed in the same category as Gods Marriage covenant will eventually start refusing to get this permission from Caesar altogether.

Tell me, do YOU see two people as UNmarried who have covenanted themselves before God who refuse to get that godless govts 'permission' ?
The answer will reveal a lot about your understanding of what 'marriage' is in scripture.
 
Upvote 0

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
KCKID said:
How hypocritical! Obviously you don't know your Bible as well as you think you do, HuntingMan.
then how about you take some time and educate me ?
Or will this just be a hit and run thing to tell me Im wrong without PROVING your case ?
KCKID said:
Or, you ignore what you choose to ignore. As long as a spouse remains alive one must not marry another.
I ignore nothing.
that passage does not represent the WHOLE truth as you seem to believe
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)
KCKID said:
To do so is tantamount to adultery which, of course, is a no-no. Divorcing is ONE thing. REmarrying is another. If you didn't know this, then how much else don't you know?

What I know is that there is more to the story than you seem to think there is.

No HuntingMan, this is NOT a hit and run thing. However, should anyone wish to check out both sides of the divorce/remarry issue there are enough scriptural articles re this matter on the net to sink a battleship. One will come away after reading some of them utterly convinced that divorce/remarriage is condemned by God/Jesus or they will come away scratching their heads. This is one of those issues that relies solely on one's interpretation/opinion of specific scriptures that might appear to be ambiguous and therefore capable of being 'twisted' for one's convenience. The facts are, however, that the Bible does NOT affirm in any way, shape, or form the divorce/remarriage of anyone unless either spouse dies thereby freeing up the remaining party from their life-long marriage commitment.

God appears to have favored 'the innocent party' of a divorce situation ...YES, one can scripturally DIVORCE under certain circumstances. I personally would be extremely hurt if the person that I had committed my life to, loved, and been intimate with, was now sharing that same intimate relationship with another person. I might even have good reason for being bitter toward both but especially my former wife. Just think about this and apply this to your own thoughts on the issue. Remarrying is NOT the ideal.

HOWEVER, having stated all of the above I have no specific issue GENERALLY with regard to divorce and remarriage. I believe that the Bible, for the most part, condemns it but I'm certainly not going to protest this by marching the streets with banners. Each individual can choose to do whatever they want with whomever they want without asking my permission to do so. So, as long as it doesn't happen to me it isn't my problem. And that, in a nutshell, is precisely the way I feel about homosexual marriage. It's a non-issue. And, as long as most Christians choose to ignore God's abhoring divorce and remarriage, then the same should be applied to those of the same gender who choose to marry. That's why this particular matter was brought up in the first place ...the almost militant focus on one 'issue' but the total ignoring of the other.

There, that wasn't so difficult to follow, was it? No need for lengthy lectures on the 'issue'. But, to those who DO want a lengthy lecture ...check out the Internet.
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
uhmmm actually I was pointing out how we like to emphasize the Laws about things that don't affect us personally and ignore the ones that would.
your argument is the same old nonsense about our not wearing mixed fabrics, nothing more.
Your understanding of the law and how it is applied to the New covenant believer seems to be somewhat lacking.

We tend to say the ones that would affect us no longer apply to us, "We've been set free from the Law and it's penalties!!" (tm) but somehow those ones that don't interfere with us? Man those Laws we grab and swing for the bleachers with! :eek:
tulc(just trying to clarify what I was thinking) :)
Sure they apply to me and affect me.
Im not to have sex with a family member or an animal.
Nor steal, murder or covet.

That you fail to understand how to apply the law where it is applicable doesnt change a thing.

And again, the NT condemns men lying sexual with men, so there is no excuse.
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, as long as it doesn't happen to me it isn't my problem. And that, in a nutshell, is precisely the way I feel about homosexual marriage. It's a non-issue. And, as long as most Christians choose to ignore God's abhoring divorce and remarriage, then the same should be applied to those of the same gender who choose to marry. That's why this particular matter was brought up in the first place ...the almost militant focus on one 'issue' but the total ignoring of the other.
I hardly think my posting a few times is a 'militant focus' and its fairly dishonest to make the claim, if that is your claim, that is.

And again GOD gave a writ of divorce, ended a covenant with an adulteress and created a NEW covenant, so whether you like it or agree with it, metaphorically God IS a divorcee who has taken a new bride.
But as I said, THIS thread or forum isnt the place for that discussion.

Remarriage IS shown as being permitted in scripture.
Men having sex with men is NEVER shown as being anything but sin and abomination, just as the article I presented before proves and you have not yet actually refuted or shown any real evidence against.

If you have something to refute the article, have at it..Ill read anything you have to offer in the matter.
However, after so much time in the matter, I doubt seriously youre going to have anything that Ive not seen and considered hundreds of times at this point.
Believe me, I scrutinize and test my own views far more than you folks might want to think or believe.

The facts are, however, that the Bible does NOT affirm in any way, shape, or form the divorce/remarriage of anyone unless either spouse dies thereby freeing up the remaining party from their life-long marriage commitment.
Im sorry, but those ARENT the facts, but simply is your misunderstanding of two little verses in Romans 7 and 1 cor 7.
Ill repeat again that if you think you have a case to come over to P&E and start a thread and present your case.
I find it convenient that you make the claims here where you know I wont argue with you to keep from derailing this thread ;)


.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
Hopefully the whole thing gets reversed and those licenses mean nothing at some point.

According to godless Caesar it would appear to be the case.


I think its known well enough around here that I dont see licensing as 'marriage', no. Lets not pretend that Im the only one, chap. There is an ever growing part of the church that is beginning to reject Caesars 'permission' to marry which is a God given right of mans that NO man has a right to control.

Of course, these gay marriages are of great value to my view because more and more of the brethren who are disgusted with this abomination of two men having sex with each other being placed in the same category as Gods Marriage covenant will eventually start refusing to get this permission from Caesar altogether.

Tell me, do YOU see two people as UNmarried who have covenanted themselves before God who refuse to get that godless govts 'permission' ?
The answer will reveal a lot about your understanding of what 'marriage' is in scripture.

So why would you care whether "godless caesar" revokes its permission?
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So why would you care whether "godless caesar" revokes its permission?
I personally dont really care one way or another when it comes down to it.
Either way things go is a win situation in my opinion.

Either all those 'marriages' will be annulled if its reversed.....or many in the church who understand the scriptures will start to see the light if its not.

I dont think you answered my question from before, Liz.
Are you for men 'marrying' men or not?
Do you approve or not?
Its not a hard question

.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,439
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟617,196.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Your understanding of the law and how it is applied to the New covenant believer seems to be somewhat lacking.

But of course your understanding of scripture is irrefutable.

And again, the NT condemns men lying sexual with men, so there is no excuse.

It also says that those who are without sin should cast the first stone.
 
Upvote 0

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
73
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Accept Jesus as Saviour and Lord today. He will take the homosexual addiction from you. Then all those who get giddy with their intellectual garbage won't know what to do with themselves...

God is not mocked and He is not impressed with the use of the intellect He has given some of you...He will have the final word, and it's coming very soon.
 
Upvote 0

Ohioprof

Contributor
Jun 27, 2007
988
219
70
✟28,933.00
Faith
Unitarian
I personally dont really care one way or another when it comes down to it.
Either way things go is a win situation in my opinion.

Either all those 'marriages' will be annulled if its reversed.....or many in the church who understand the scriptures will start to see the light if its not.

I dont think you answered my question from before, Liz.
Are you for men 'marrying' men or not?
Do you approve or not?
Its not a hard question

.

Yours is an interesting position to take, and one that I think makes sense. You make a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage, and you focus on religious marriage as the kind that matters to you. While I have a different view than you have of same-sex marriage, I am fine with folks not recognizing it within their faith, so long as same-sex couples have equal marriage rights in the civil arena. There are churches and faith traditions that do recognize and honor same-sex marriages, and it's fine that there are those that do not. My church does recognize and honor same-sex marriages. I think the goal of gay rights activism is not to force churches to recognize same-sex marriages, but to win equal marriage rights in the civil arena, under the law.

You did not direct your bolded question to me, but I'll answer it anyway. I am for two men marrying, if they are both consenting adults and if they love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment to each other.
 
Upvote 0