|
Post by Sharon on Apr 17, 2009 11:29:55 GMT -5
Kiwi wrote, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. If one takes this literally it clearly applies to the husband, gender-specific, so ladies you can freely divorce your husbands with no adverse effects. Am I reading this correctly? From a literalist point of view ManFred, you are reading it exactly right. The words apply only to men and the hard liners today have to change it to apply it to women today. The literalist/legalists have huge problems with the divorce issue. They, like kiwi, ignore what the bible actually says so that they can lay down a law for the people to follow and be judged by. Here's an example: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. and 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. You will never hear the literal legalists either quoting Jesus on the above or attempting to explain it because it contradicts their agenda. I disagree with DC about how hard it is for workers to enforce their current rules about D&R. Well, I agree that it is hard for some who still have some degree of compassion and sense of mercy for people. However, for those who form the core support for the current system, they do it with a kind of perverse pleasure because they know exactly what the scripture says about divorce and pursue a different law anyway. Take a look around and see who are the greatest supporters for the current D&R policy of kicking them out of "God's Way", then we will begin to understand what's behind it all. You know, I was just thinking about some of the hardlining workers in this regard and others as well....have been found out to be as guilty of some sin just as offensive to a brother or sister and I think this is the "whole of the matter" in God's eyes....Because all we have to do is remember the two commandments that Jesus emphasized upon.....Loving the Lord our God with all our hearts, with all our minds and with all our souls. And the second is like unto it, loving our brethren as ourselves. So if ANYONE, including workers are guilty of "fornication with another man's espoused" then that is not loving one's brethren...right....or if ANYONE, including workers are guilty of CSA, that surely is not loving one's brethren! Or if ANYONE, is guilty of variance, emulation, hatred, jealousy then that isn't loving one's brethren. Right? There is NO sin we do that doesn't hurt someone....I think we will find it in the Bible that every sin man commits is against another except for fornication. And that is against himself, herself! Sin is sin, and we all need forgiveness, love and mercy!
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Apr 17, 2009 14:04:09 GMT -5
I've been reading through all this and it boggles my mind.
Has anyone got it figured out yet?
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Apr 17, 2009 14:04:41 GMT -5
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Seems to me here that they would be committing a sin and would continue in that sin as long as they stayed married. I wonder if Jesus would have fellowship with those who continue in sin? There are many places that would suggest that He wouldn't. Kiwi, Do you not know that "putting away" and "divorce" are different things? The Old Testament Law makes it very clear what each means. If someone is "put away", the couple are only separated and not divorced. If one of them marries during this separation, the adultery issue is correct. HOWEVER, the Bible Law says that when a "proper bill of divorce is contracted", then the spouses are free to marry. This is God's Law, not something the modern "world" has thought up! Jesus did not change that Law on any level with the words recorded in the New Testament. (And, yes, as someone else said the KJV translation is also at issue here!) Read it. I think you'll find it interesting and enlightening. Best regards, Edy
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Apr 17, 2009 14:07:56 GMT -5
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Seems to me here that they would be committing a sin and would continue in that sin as long as they stayed married. I wonder if Jesus would have fellowship with those who continue in sin? There are many places that would suggest that He wouldn't. The problem to me, Kiwi, is that life is very messy. Suppose through a series of life-choices a person finds themselves divorced and remarried with their former spouse still living. After a while they realize that they want/need to "get right with God." Reading the bible they come to the conviction/conclusion that the remarriage was a bad idea. Now... they want to make it right but how? (1) Divorce present spouse problem: divorce is a "sin". God hates divorce. (2) Kill off ex-spouse problem: murder is also a "sin". I personally do not believe that someone can "sin" their way into being right with God. That doesn't make ANY sense to me. None. Zero. Zip. So... option (3) is to depend on the sacrifice and blood of Christ/do as David did and throw themselves onto the mercy of God. I'm NOT saying that divorce is okay. And I'm NOT advocating remarriage. food for thought, freespirit freespirit, I have to disagree with something here.....divorce is NOT a sin! The causes leading up to it likely are, however. E
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 17, 2009 16:26:10 GMT -5
freespirit, I have to disagree with something here.....divorce is NOT a sin! The causes leading up to it likely are, however. E I think Jesus tried to get this point across too. Adultery is not the issue so much as lust. Murder is not the issue so much as hatred. Marriage is to be respected and should be "until death us do part". I believe this is God's ideal and it should be ours too as Christians. However humans are not perfect and stuff happens. Divorce allowed abandoned women in bible days to remarry rather than being forced into adultery in order to survive. Legalists abused this provision to the extent they could divorce their wives for burning the dinner. The law that was designed to prevent adultery was abused to the extent that these legalists were causing adultery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 17:54:54 GMT -5
freespirit, I have to disagree with something here.....divorce is NOT a sin! The causes leading up to it likely are, however. E I think Jesus tried to get this point across too. Adultery is not the issue so much as lust. Murder is not the issue so much as hatred. Marriage is to be respected and should be "until death us do part". I believe this is God's ideal and it should be ours too as Christians. However humans are not perfect and stuff happens. Divorce allowed abandoned women in bible days to remarry rather than being forced into adultery in order to survive. Legalists abused this provision to the extent they could divorce their wives for burning the dinner. The law that was designed to prevent adultery was abused to the extent that these legalists were causing adultery. This post should be read and carefully considered by anyone wanting to understand the context of Jesus' teachings to the Jews on divorce and remarriage, particularly the last sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Apr 17, 2009 18:24:51 GMT -5
I have been married & divorced twice. Does this mean I couldn't take part in meetings if I were ever to profess (I never have professed)?
PS: It was my two exes who instigated the divorces. One x had left the truth shortly before the split, & the other x had never professed.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 17, 2009 18:28:27 GMT -5
So if a separated but not divorced woman had sex with a man not her legal husband, you're saying that is adultery?
So if a married woman, living with her legal spouse, has sex with a man that is not married to another woman and not to herself either, that is fornication.
And if two unmarried people have sex with one another, that is fornication?
Then in Jesus' instruction in this regard, how in the world can a woman committ fornication to be the cause for the divorce, if in truth she is guilty of adultery, that is having sex with a man not her legal spouse?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 18:59:35 GMT -5
So if a separated but not divorced woman had sex with a man not her legal husband, you're saying that is adultery? So if a married woman, living with her legal spouse, has sex with a man that is not married to another woman and not to herself either, that is fornication. And if two unmarried people have sex with one another, that is fornication? Then in Jesus' instruction in this regard, how in the world can a woman committ fornication to be the cause for the divorce, if in truth she is guilty of adultery, that is having sex with a man not her legal spouse? I'm not sure which post you are responding to, but I'll have a go at the issue. Fornication is any "illicit" sex, ie any sex with someone to whom you are not committed to in marriage. Adultery is simply a subset of fornication, ie all adultery is fornication but not all fornication is adultery. I don't know what Jesus had in mind for using that broad term "fornication"......perhaps to include married people participating in bestiality, homosexual sex or CSA....all forms of fornication but arguably not adultery for married people. It just looks to me that Jesus was trying to leave no stone unturned for marital unfaithfulness. How are we doing so far, ron'boggled'hall?
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Apr 17, 2009 19:33:39 GMT -5
So if a separated but not divorced woman had sex with a man not her legal husband, you're saying that is adultery? So if a married woman, living with her legal spouse, has sex with a man that is not married to another woman and not to herself either, that is fornication. And if two unmarried people have sex with one another, that is fornication? Then in Jesus' instruction in this regard, how in the world can a woman committ fornication to be the cause for the divorce, if in truth she is guilty of adultery, that is having sex with a man not her legal spouse? I'm not sure which post you are responding to, but I'll have a go at the issue. Fornication is any "illicit" sex, ie any sex with someone to whom you are not committed to in marriage. Adultery is simply a subset of fornication, ie all adultery is fornication but not all fornication is adultery. I don't know what Jesus had in mind for using that broad term "fornication"......perhaps to include married people participating in bestiality, homosexual sex or CSA....all forms of fornication but arguably not adultery for married people. It just looks to me that Jesus was trying to leave no stone unturned for marital unfaithfulness. How are we doing so far, ron'boggled'hall? Once again we're trying to find complex meanings of pharase, that may or may not have been correctly translated 3 or 4 hundred years ago into words which may have had an altogether different meaning. How many people today would give love and a definition of charity?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 17, 2009 20:13:52 GMT -5
God spoke about "fornication" in regards to the children of Israel taking on the religions of the Gentile nations round about them....that did not necessarily mean "sex" of any kind....it seems more to be having an "intimate" or workable knowledge of someone or something else besides the one or the thing you've said a vow to, IMO.
And that brings me to the sin of adultery....it isn't the "sex" so much as it is the breaking of the "vow to the spouse", again IMO. So it is also true what Jesus said if a man has looked upon a woman, that is not his wife, with lust in his heart...he is guilty of adultery already....because he has broken his vow of commitment.
I say this this way, because in Mediating in Divorce cases, this was the biggest issue we used was the "breaking or the lack of commitment" between the two parties involved. Say for example, a man and woman were married by the laws of the state and within less then 2 yrs. one of them just up and left the other one....we considered that as a token that there had NOT been any real commitment to start with and thus an annulment could be sought...which if there were no children would return properties to the ones who owned them before the marriage, there was no marriage properties....anything obtained during that brief marriage would be itemized and valued, then the "cost of daily living" would be valued and the cost of daily living would be taken away from that which had been obtained and then what was left was either divided equally between the two parties or one party could pay the other party their half.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Apr 17, 2009 22:10:05 GMT -5
So if a separated but not divorced woman had sex with a man not her legal husband, you're saying that is adultery? So if a married woman, living with her legal spouse, has sex with a man that is not married to another woman and not to herself either, that is fornication. And if two unmarried people have sex with one another, that is fornication? Then in Jesus' instruction in this regard, how in the world can a woman committ fornication to be the cause for the divorce, if in truth she is guilty of adultery, that is having sex with a man not her legal spouse? I'm not sure which post you are responding to, but I'll have a go at the issue. Fornication is any "illicit" sex, ie any sex with someone to whom you are not committed to in marriage. Adultery is simply a subset of fornication, ie all adultery is fornication but not all fornication is adultery. I don't know what Jesus had in mind for using that broad term "fornication"......perhaps to include married people participating in bestiality, homosexual sex or CSA....all forms of fornication but arguably not adultery for married people. It just looks to me that Jesus was trying to leave no stone unturned for marital unfaithfulness. How are we doing so far, ron'boggled'hall? I'm afraid I still haven't a clue! Think I'll just let you folks continue to figure it out, since it doesn't apply to m.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 18, 2009 1:33:01 GMT -5
I wonder why there is provision made through repentance Just for your sins, Kiwi? I thought Jesus paid the price for everyone. Are your sins cleaner than someone else's then? He did but you try not repenting of your sin and see what happens. I said nothing of my sins even though they are many
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 18, 2009 1:37:26 GMT -5
Kiwi wrote, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. If one takes this literally it clearly applies to the husband, gender-specific, so ladies you can freely divorce your husbands with no adverse effects. Am I reading this correctly? And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 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.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 18, 2009 1:45:11 GMT -5
Kiwi wrote, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. If one takes this literally it clearly applies to the husband, gender-specific, so ladies you can freely divorce your husbands with no adverse effects. Am I reading this correctly? From a literalist point of view ManFred, you are reading it exactly right. The words apply only to men and the hard liners today have to change it to apply it to women today. Here's an example: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. and 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. I disagree with DC about how hard it is for workers to enforce their current rules about D&R. Well, I agree that it is hard for some who still have some degree of compassion and sense of mercy for people. However, for those who form the core support for the current system, they do it with a kind of perverse pleasure because they know exactly what the scripture says about divorce and pursue a different law anyway. Take a look around and see who are the greatest supporters for the current D&R policy of kicking them out of "God's Way", then we will begin to understand what's behind it all. If she is put away/divorced and marries another and has relations with him, is she committing adultery? according to the words of Jesus which I have highlighted in the verse you quoted.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 18, 2009 1:57:16 GMT -5
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Seems to me here that they would be committing a sin and would continue in that sin as long as they stayed married. I wonder if Jesus would have fellowship with those who continue in sin? There are many places that would suggest that He wouldn't. The problem to me, Kiwi, is that life is very messy. Suppose through a series of life-choices a person finds themselves divorced and remarried with their former spouse still living. After a while they realize that they want/need to "get right with God." Reading the bible they come to the conviction/conclusion that the remarriage was a bad idea. Now... they want to make it right but how? (1) Divorce present spouse problem: divorce is a "sin". God hates divorce. (2) Kill off ex-spouse problem: murder is also a "sin". I personally do not believe that someone can "sin" their way into being right with God. That doesn't make ANY sense to me. None. Zero. Zip. So... option (3) is to depend on the sacrifice and blood of Christ/do as David did and throw themselves onto the mercy of God. I'm NOT saying that divorce is okay. And I'm NOT advocating remarriage. food for thought, freespirit Yes I agree it is very messy but we have to remember it is Gods choice that matters not mans. Yes God hates divorce but He allows allows divorce. A divorced person who doesn't marry another will their first husband is still alive is still fine and is only set free from that when their husband dies. And you know as well as me that killing would only compound the problem. Those things are forgivable as long as God's will is obeyed. In Davids situation there was no divorce, he was a murderer plain and simple by sending the man to his death and the Bible shows so, she was made free from the moment her husband died. She had no sin only David but their baby paid the price.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 18, 2009 2:03:18 GMT -5
The problem to me, Kiwi, is that life is very messy. Suppose through a series of life-choices a person finds themselves divorced and remarried with their former spouse still living. After a while they realize that they want/need to "get right with God." Reading the bible they come to the conviction/conclusion that the remarriage was a bad idea. Now... they want to make it right but how? (1) Divorce present spouse problem: divorce is a "sin". God hates divorce. (2) Kill off ex-spouse problem: murder is also a "sin". I personally do not believe that someone can "sin" their way into being right with God. That doesn't make ANY sense to me. None. Zero. Zip. So... option (3) is to depend on the sacrifice and blood of Christ/do as David did and throw themselves onto the mercy of God. I'm NOT saying that divorce is okay. And I'm NOT advocating remarriage. food for thought, freespirit ~~ I agree with your understanding 110% with the option 3! Asking the remarriage friends NOT to take parts haven't solved the problem.I would ask though Nathan, having them take part would that solve the problem? it may do as far as they are concerned or many others who have an agenda, but the question is and should be as far as we all are concerned who profess to be followers of Jesus, does it solve the problem as far as God is concerned? I have to say No.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 18, 2009 2:13:15 GMT -5
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Seems to me here that they would be committing a sin and would continue in that sin as long as they stayed married. I wonder if Jesus would have fellowship with those who continue in sin? There are many places that would suggest that He wouldn't. Kiwi, Sorry to disagree with you there Edy but according to an online Bible dictionary it means the same. Do you know of anywhere in this day and age that a separated person can remarry without a divorce? Could you please quote verse which states The Bible Law says that when a proper bill of divorce is contracted, then the spouses are free to marry. Gods word is unchangeable and I have a problem with when it is changed to suit our own purposes.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 18, 2009 2:17:01 GMT -5
I have been married & divorced twice. Does this mean I couldn't take part in meetings if I were ever to profess (I never have professed)? PS: It was my two exes who instigated the divorces. One x had left the truth shortly before the split, & the other x had never professed. You could profess and take part if you renounced your wrongdoings and asked for Gods forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 18, 2009 4:24:39 GMT -5
Yes I agree it is very messy but we have to remember it is Gods choice that matters not mans. Yes God hates divorce but He allows allows divorce. A divorced person who doesn't marry another will their first husband is still alive is still fine and is only set free from that when their husband dies. And you know as well as me that killing would only compound the problem. Those things are forgivable as long as God's will is obeyed. In Davids situation there was no divorce, he was a murderer plain and simple by sending the man to his death and the Bible shows so, she was made free from the moment her husband died. She had no sin only David but their baby paid the price. Why would killing compound the problem? Repentant D&R folks are still treated like lepers 30 years after the divorce. A repentant murderer can have full part in meetings after serving a few years in prison. If workers recommend praying for the death of a former spouse its clear that they care little about that person. Would they really care if he/she was murdered as opposed to dying of natural causes? The hard-line D&R stance causes ungodly attitudes and actions. Its common for parents to prefer their non-professing children to live together rather than marry. Scripture fortold there would be those who will forbid to marry.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 18, 2009 6:01:49 GMT -5
Yes I agree it is very messy but we have to remember it is Gods choice that matters not mans. Yes God hates divorce but He allows allows divorce. A divorced person who doesn't marry another will their first husband is still alive is still fine and is only set free from that when their husband dies. And you know as well as me that killing would only compound the problem. Those things are forgivable as long as God's will is obeyed. In Davids situation there was no divorce, he was a murderer plain and simple by sending the man to his death and the Bible shows so, she was made free from the moment her husband died. She had no sin only David but their baby paid the price. Killing a human being compounds any problem does it not? Because you wouldn't be just guilty of one but two or more due to. How have they repented? There is no problem with the divorced but the remarrying of the divorced, so what have the remarried done to show that they have repented? Never known a murderer to just spend a few years in prison. Would a repentant murderer murder again? would he continue in that sin? Never heard of such a thing, but if so I would find it disgusting. I think most people find murder abhorrent. How? Never heard of such twoddle How could they prefer something which is sinful? Would you like to furnish said portion of scripture, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 18, 2009 7:14:23 GMT -5
How have they repented? There is no problem with the divorced but the remarrying of the divorced, so what have the remarried done to show that they have repented? From what I can tell repentance isn't some outward "show." It is something that happens deep inside the heart and produces the fruit of the spirit. I know that when I look at my own sin, my own past--broken promises, bad decisions, stupid mistakes, unloving attitudes, hurtful words--there are some things that I can't "fix." I wish I could because some things I deeply, deeply regret. I'm ashamed of things I've done... but, the hard, cold reality is that nothing I do will make them right. Ever. I desperately need a redeemer. I am a beggar before God and I am very, very grateful for His mercy. That's He's able make us white as snow even though our sins have been like scarlet. None of us are worthy except through the precious blood of Christ. freespirit
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Apr 18, 2009 7:25:27 GMT -5
Why do certain workers allow it and others won't allow it? GVL (then overseer) even asked a man not to take part in MN based upon how the "friends in the area felt about it". This deal about "continuing in the sin" is pure BS plain and simple. Where is the love and compassion in this sect?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2009 7:58:36 GMT -5
From a literalist point of view ManFred, you are reading it exactly right. The words apply only to men and the hard liners today have to change it to apply it to women today. Here's an example: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. and 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. I disagree with DC about how hard it is for workers to enforce their current rules about D&R. Well, I agree that it is hard for some who still have some degree of compassion and sense of mercy for people. However, for those who form the core support for the current system, they do it with a kind of perverse pleasure because they know exactly what the scripture says about divorce and pursue a different law anyway. Take a look around and see who are the greatest supporters for the current D&R policy of kicking them out of "God's Way", then we will begin to understand what's behind it all. If she is put away/divorced and marries another and has relations with him, is she committing adultery? according to the words of Jesus which I have highlighted in the verse you quoted. Kiwi, read it more carefully. In your highlighted words, Jesus said it was the one who marries her who is committing adultery, not the woman herself. Have another close look: 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. It's reading comprehension errors like this (and I'm not singling you out kiwi, I make similar mistakes) that have resulted in laws and rules being created which were never intended by Christ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2009 8:18:48 GMT -5
This is a remarkable scripture kiwi:
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
It speaks of those who have departed from the faith who have given heed to the doctrine of devils and will forbid to marry. Today, we have workers who work against legitimate marriage, causing people to pray that their former spouses will die, causing people to live together in non-marital states, causing them to have relationships in which they have to sneak around and hide from others. Is this the "doctrine of devils"?
The church should encourage marriage, not deny it. Then the church should encourage healthy marriage, not treat it like it is merely a bondage for people to suffer through.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 18, 2009 9:53:00 GMT -5
The problem to me, Kiwi, is that life is very messy. Suppose through a series of life-choices a person finds themselves divorced and remarried with their former spouse still living. After a while they realize that they want/need to "get right with God." Reading the bible they come to the conviction/conclusion that the remarriage was a bad idea. Now... they want to make it right but how? (1) Divorce present spouse problem: divorce is a "sin". God hates divorce. (2) Kill off ex-spouse problem: murder is also a "sin". I personally do not believe that someone can "sin" their way into being right with God. That doesn't make ANY sense to me. None. Zero. Zip. So... option (3) is to depend on the sacrifice and blood of Christ/do as David did and throw themselves onto the mercy of God. I'm NOT saying that divorce is okay. And I'm NOT advocating remarriage. food for thought, freespirit Yes I agree it is very messy but we have to remember it is Gods choice that matters not mans. Yes God hates divorce but He allows allows divorce. A divorced person who doesn't marry another will their first husband is still alive is still fine and is only set free from that when their husband dies. And you know as well as me that killing would only compound the problem. Those things are forgivable as long as God's will is obeyed. In Davids situation there was no divorce, he was a murderer plain and simple by sending the man to his death and the Bible shows so, she was made free from the moment her husband died. She had no sin only David but their baby paid the price. You know, I completely disagree that Bathsheba and David's baby paid the price.....he was not of sinful nature yet, he wasn't the one bound for hell for the sins of his parent(s)....it was David that paid the price...in all reality....his grief consumed him, he took all the fault to himself, he knew that what he'd done was worthy of death by stoning....but he had enough sense to know that when the baby died that God had spoken in righteousness about the issue and he knew there was nothing he could do about it other then to repent and repent he did with bitter tears and prayer. This is what made him a man after God's own heart, because David owned up to his sins and he repented. Think about when he numbered the children of Israel and the plague fell upon them....David bought the threshingfloor and all and made the sacrifice, the repentence because he repented, he knew it was his mistake, others suffered. Tis not unlike Peter when he went out and wept bitterly after denying Christ.....Peter paid the price, he wept bitterly, he repented bitterly!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 18, 2009 10:03:31 GMT -5
How have they repented? There is no problem with the divorced but the remarrying of the divorced, so what have the remarried done to show that they have repented? I suppose the only "proof" of repentence would be they "divorce" the remarriage partner? What does that prove, other then a separation and often there are children involved....that doesn't really make good sense to separate another family....just keep separating people, disregard any children involved. Yes, there may have been children of the previous marriage, but generally they are beginning to accept the situation that they have 2 homes now though most children would love for their natural parents to stay together. I don't think you'll find the older children from the previous marriage so selfish as to wish their half brothers and sisters to face the same problems and emotions they've faced now do you. Repenting isn't always evident to a naked human eye.....I can vouch for that....sometimes the "price paid in private" is far more extenuous then a simple second divorce! We have NO way of knowing what lies in the heart and lives of people regardless of who and what they are or have done. It again is man judging to ask some D&R couple to "repent" and only thing to accept they've repented is another divorce. That isn't right either! It just perpuates the problem of human lust getting ahold again! There does seem to be a growing propensity among some workers to prohibit marrying....no marriage among their peers and no marriage among those who've had marital problems and divorced.......I'm not sure that is much an answer to the woes that assail human nature. Think about it....not everybody has the power in their body to make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom and God didn't intend it that way at all......I think He preferred that people married because of a respectful relationship and love between the 2 parties.....He really wants the natural union of man and woman to be a type and foreshadow of the marriage of Christ and His bride!
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 18, 2009 10:24:09 GMT -5
You know, I completely disagree that Bathsheba and David's baby paid the price.....he was not of sinful nature yet, he wasn't the one bound for hell for the sins of his parent(s)....it was David that paid the price...in all reality....his grief consumed him, he took all the fault to himself, he knew that what he'd done was worthy of death by stoning....but he had enough sense to know that when the baby died that God had spoken in righteousness about the issue and he knew there was nothing he could do about it other then to repent and repent he did with bitter tears and prayer. This is what made him a man after God's own heart, because David owned up to his sins and he repented. Think about when he numbered the children of Israel and the plague fell upon them....David bought the threshingfloor and all and made the sacrifice, the repentence because he repented, he knew it was his mistake, others suffered. Tis not unlike Peter when he went out and wept bitterly after denying Christ.....Peter paid the price, he wept bitterly, he repented bitterly! Probably there were some who felt that David...well... got away with murder--that he should have been stoned to death or put into prison or should never have sex with Bathsheba again or have his place taken away from him. Maybe there were some who were even angry that he got to keep the kingship and then go on to have Soloman with Bathsheba. I think sometimes people think that those who remarry are... I dunno... just "getting away with something" but... well... I'm not so sure... 80% divorce rate, a host of issues with ex's and ex-in-laws plus the new family issues, lots of past baggage to work through and on and on and on... it can be a very tangled web. IMO we bring a lot of heartache and pain in our life when we get outside of God's will. At the same time, the Christ story is about mercy and redemption... He can untangle our issues and we can be very, very grateful that He paid the price that we cannot pay. freespirit
|
|