Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2008 4:41:11 GMT -5
merci wrote:-
I totally agree with you, that I need to forgive people who ''trespass against me''! YES!
What do you think the woman from Samaria told her friends , after her encounter with Jesus? I rather doubt that she told them. "Jesus said it was OK to get a divorce, so you can too.'' I doubt that was the message that Jesus was saying, ....that is why I disagree with that message, it is not ok. It is forgivable, but not OK! IMHO.
I do not think you are understanding my position. You seem to think that I am trivializing marriage and divorce. Apart from the very few reasons given in scripture it is not okay to get a divorce !
We are not supposed to get a divorce. However if we do get divorced the marriage contract is still broken. There is MERCY for the repentant sinner. It MAY BE a sin to get divorced in circumstances not allowed for by God, but these circumstances as you appear to agree with, can be forgiven. Here we see mercy coming into play.
Let's convert divorce/re-marriage into the simplistic terms of the ten commandments to try and convey a better understanding.
1) God gives life. He alone has the right to take it away, okay ?
THOU SHALT NOT KILL ! The commandments state that man SHALT NOT ! This does not mean that man cannot kill/take life away. It means that he should not do it.
As previously discussed a repentant murderer (despite the just punishment for murder being the loss of one's own life) can obtain forgiveness (mercy) from God even though the slain life cannot be brought back.
Does this potential to obtain forgiveness "trivialize" murder ? Does it trivialize God's right over life or his commandment ? I think not !
It does however show that despite God's commandments a sinner can obtain God's mercy. This shows that mercy is on a level over and above God's laws, or rather is the fulfillment, or the ultimate level of God's laws !
2) THOU SHALT NOT DIVORCE. Man SHOULD NOT divorce, but man CAN divorce and bring about the end to a marriage contract against God's wishes. Thou Shalt Not Divorce is the same as "Let No Man put Asunder !" It does not mean the contract cannot be broken. The beauty of a contract is that it is Kept !
However, when a marriage contract is broken, it is nevertheless "void !" Whatever the circumstances, a marriage contract does not continue post divorce. If the divorce is granted because of cruely or adultery, or if one party is against a divorce but the divorce is forced upon them, the offended party is not committing a sin. There may be "sin" in other categories of divorce due to the breaking of a contract which is meant to last until death do us part.
Therefore although many divorces may be wrong in God's eyes they are the same as any other commandment. The same forgiveness and mercy is still available to those who repent.
This is not trivializing marriage, divorce, re-marriage etc. It works the same way as, killing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Because we all accept God can and does forgive these sins, do we all trivialize these commandments and run about killing people we dont like, stealing, lying and so on, safe in the knowledge that if we say sorry to God we will be forgiven ? Of course not.
Jesus DID NOT say that Man CANNOT get divorced but rather man SHOULD NOT divorce, except for fornication. The term "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" clearly shows this is a commandment of God which man SHOULD NOT break, but not one which he CANNOT break.
For simplicity's sake, we should regard divorce in the same way as the ten commandments. THOU SHALT NOT DIVORCE. That way it is consistent with God's other laws !
The mercy of God transcends his laws and the just punishments for breaking them for those who seek him in repentance. Mercy is not a licence to sin, but is the hope provided by God for his main creation which was created in purety and sinlessness, but due to falling away is now born in sin and shapen in iniquity.
We must not undervalue God's provision of mercy, because without it we have no hope.
|
|
alana
Senior Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by alana on May 4, 2008 11:11:39 GMT -5
Thank God for Mercy.
Great thinking in the previous post.
|
|
|
Post by agrees on May 4, 2008 12:27:55 GMT -5
Merci, my understanding and belief is that when we forgive another's sins against us, this is actually God doing the forgiving. I agree I need to forgive people who ''trespass against me''! YES! What do you think the woman from Samaria told her friends , after her encounter with Jesus? I rather doubt that she told them. "Jesus said it was OK to get a divorce, so you can too.'' I doubt that was the message that Jesus was saying, ....that is why I disagree with that message, it is not ok. It is forgivable, but not OK! IMHO. It is not Ok to get a divorce! Jesus told the woman to NOT do it anymore [sin], ''Go, and sin no more.''
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2008 13:40:36 GMT -5
Nobody is saying it is okay to get a divorce. Also the example you quote is not about divorce/re-marriage.
God’s standards in all things are extremely high and pure. Since man fell away from God through sin, it has been impossible for man to attain to God’s standards. God does not compromise his standards for anyone. Instead he shows understanding and mercy to those who cleave to him, thus making it possible for sinners to receive him and at the same time retaining the integrity and standing of his laws.
In Matt. Ch. 19 the Pharisees tried to tempt Jesus with the law by asking him if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. Jesus reminded them that in the beginning God made male and female and that a man shall leave his father and mother to cleave to his wife and they would become one flesh. They would no more be two fleshes but would become one. He also said that “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Shall not, NOT cannot, the same as any other commandment). In the beginning, under God’s pure laws, there was not such thing as divorce, but this was planned for man in a sinless state before he fell away.
Man changed. God didn’t.
The Pharisees then asked “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away ?” Jesus replied “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”
Notice Jesus did not say Moses was wrong, or made a mistake when he allowed divorce, rather he excused Moses by quoting Moses’ reason for allowing divorce. Moses was the civil authority at the time and had to cater for sinful man in these dealings in order to preserve the institution of marriage. If he had not done so, the institution of marriage would have fallen apart. Although divorce was out-with God’s standards, it is obvious at this point that God and Jesus accepted Moses’ necessary actions, for Jesus never condemned them. In fact he excused them. Clearly there is divine acceptance with “necessity” in this matter, even though it is below God’s standards. That doesn’t mean it is “right” but that it just has to be allowed.
Jesus then said “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
There are two schools of thought here. One which addresses the concepts of putting away (without a bill of divorce) and one which regards this statement as dealing with divorce itself. However we will go with the worst case scenario and accept Jesus was talking about divorce, in order to move on.
Then his disciples said unto him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”
For argument’s sake and to make a point, let us just assume they are talking about a divorce/re-marriage relationship, where the ex-partners of a couple are still surviving.
This would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to boldly agree with them and to say this is God’s standard, but what does he say to them ?
Up to now Jesus has been discussing the law of God which was from the beginning and the alteration made by Moses.
Instead Jesus begins with strong words of caution. He said “ALL MEN CANNOT RECEIVE THIS SAYING; SAVE THEY TO WHOM IT IS GIVEN.
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men, and there be eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
We have now progressed through the law of God to the point where mercy is being advocated.
God created man and woman to cleave together as one flesh in most circumstances, through feeling a mutual need for one another. That is an extremely strong, necessary and expected desire. However, some individuals are born without feeling this strong need for a partner and choose to remain single (eunuchs from their mother’s womb), others in history were castrated by men for certain purposes where it was deemed necessary to curb this desire, and some individuals like Jesus, Paul et al, made themselves eunuchs for the progressing of the kingdom of God.
However, the majority of mankind is unable to do these things because of the strong partnership and procreative desires. Consider Paul’s advise that “it is better to marry than to burn with desire !” No one should be “forced” to be a eunuch” even for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Also the scriptures tell us that it is a very serious thing to “forbid to marry !” Why is that ? Because marriage is a special relationship in God’s eyes and the forbidding to marry brings about all sorts of problems when it is forced upon those who are not able to receive it ! Forbidding to marry is worse than re-marriage after an unjustified divorce.
Jesus is clearly showing mercy to those who following divorce, have the strong inclination to re-marry. God’s standards have never changed, but his mercy which he will show to whom he will, is the ultimate expression of his laws.
Remember too, that Jesus said that if a man looks upon another woman with lust, then he has committed adultery in his heart. This is on a par with any perceived adultery in divorce/re-marriage relationships.
Hopefully anyone armed with stones will now drop them and walk away with a better understanding of the extent and importance of God’s mercy and not de-value it through claiming it is a licence to sin.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on May 4, 2008 16:23:00 GMT -5
Thank you, Ram; I've appreciated your posts. M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2008 17:38:35 GMT -5
Thanks Wannabe for being merciful to me. It's much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by ooT on May 4, 2008 18:47:14 GMT -5
Then his disciples said unto him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”
I would say that you took a wrong turn here, RAM. Why would the men be talking about the advisibility of a remarriage? I see it as saying that it would be good to never marry and Jesus response would fit with that. He said, some can do that (Paul agreed) so that would work for them, but if they can't... (Paul also taught similarly.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2008 4:13:19 GMT -5
Hi Oot, I agree that is how the disciples saw the matter, but I would disagree that Jesus's response would fit that. He said "All men cannot receive this saying (i.e. That it is better not to marry) and gives three categories of "minority" groups who can receive the saying. He does NOT mention divorced people. The categories of people he mentions are those not naturally inclined towards marriage, those who have been castrated and those who put aside marriage for spiritual reasons.
Jesus was never against marriage. Any flaw in a divorce-re-marriage situation lies in the divorce, not in any subsequent marriage which the laws of nature and God drive people into.
The advice Jesus gave was that a person should accept this "advice" if they could, but it was never a command. Jesus was including "mercy" to the majority of people in divorced circumstances who are not able to put marriage aside. He does not expect every divorced person to forego marriage.
As Paul said in other circumstances, "It is better to marry than to burn (with passion)." He also said marriage was honourable in all things.
Divorce is a failing or circumstance that requires God's forgiveness and mercy.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 5, 2008 4:32:35 GMT -5
Ram, I generally agree with the excellent thrust of your posts. My main point of difference is technical in that divorce itself is not (or not always) a failing requiring forgiveness or mercy. Divorce is a provision of last resort where the marriage has already failed due to the actions of one or both partners. The marriage failure is the sin, not the divorce (except in those cases where the divorce itself is not valid). Perhaps you mean this anyway. Apart from that, I'm in broad agreement....and your posts have spared me the need to go into detail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2008 4:59:20 GMT -5
Ram, I generally agree with the excellent thrust of your posts. My main point of difference is technical in that divorce itself is not (or not always) a failing requiring forgiveness or mercy. Divorce is a provision of last resort where the marriage has already failed due to the actions of one or both partners. The marriage failure is the sin, not the divorce (except in those cases where the divorce itself is not valid). Perhaps you mean this anyway. Apart from that, I'm in broad agreement....and your posts have spared me the need to go into detail. Hi Rob, Many thanks for the above. Perhaps I am trying to be too simplistic and not technical enough, as well as giving the benefit of the doubt to perceived opposing points of view (simply because I believe the mercy of God covers "all" circumstances). I appreciate there is much more to the divorce/re-marriage issue than what I have addressed, but there are some things I have not properly researched such as the difference between divorce and putting away, etc. However, I don't think all that is really necessary when we understand God's mercy. In Matthew 19 I see a really beautiful picture which covers the whole divorce/re-marriage issue. The Pharisees wanted a debate with Jesus to clarify Moses' rules on divorce. Jesus quite obviously accepted the need for divorce (on account of human failing) because he quite obviously supported Moses' implementation of it. He did not say Moses was wrong or had gone against God's will. He gave a reason to justify divorce ! I believe this was done to preserve the sanctity of marriage, but that's just my opinion. However, Jesus did not come to debate the law but to fulfill it. He reminded the Pharisees of what God's plan had been for human relationships in the beginning. This had never changed although allowances had been made via Moses for human failings. At the end of it I see how Jesus dealt mercifully with the matter when the disciples came to a legalistic understanding rather than a merciful one. I agree that the problem of divorce (i.e. valid ones) lies in the quality of the foregoing marriage and not the termination of it.
|
|
Legitimate question here
Guest
|
Post by Legitimate question here on May 5, 2008 5:48:04 GMT -5
So what is your idea about the "OK factor" in which one partner in the marriage is unwilling/unable/unwhatever to have a physical relationship with his/her partner, Rob? I agree that the failing would be in withholding one's body from the partner--our Bibles tell us that we should not do that. However, many marriages are "sexless," and for many partners, that's a one sided thing; in other words, one is willing and for whatever reason the other is not. After years of such behavior (or shall we say nonbehavior!) is this a "valid" (according to the Bible) reason for divorce in your opinion?
Opinions other than Rob's are welcome as well of course.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 5, 2008 6:46:32 GMT -5
Withholding physical intimacy is likely to be a symptom of deeper issues. If this is a genuine situation and not a hypothetical, the first port of call should be an appropriately qualified marriage counsellor.
|
|
|
Post by I agree on May 5, 2008 7:55:59 GMT -5
but that wasn't what I asked.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 5, 2008 8:05:24 GMT -5
I know it's not a direct answer but I am reluctant to provide a direct answer which could be misconstrued as advice for a specific situation to which I am not privy to all the details. It would be irresponsible. If the situation is purely hypothetical please make that clear.
|
|
|
Post by love honesty on May 5, 2008 10:15:11 GMT -5
Rob,
Out of the above "fray" thanks for your sincere intention to divide the word of God correctly. I think it a very telling thing to consider this: If we hate adultry we will not be committing it. If we have a compromised heart toward God and/or our spouse, we will be making all kinds of "provisions for the flesh." We always protect what we really love. If we love sin - we will protect our right to indulge in it. If we love our mate, it will be obvious to all where our devotion is. If we hate sin, our lives will also transparently reflect that. The rest of this arguing dribble is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Sorry love honesty on May 5, 2008 15:29:21 GMT -5
but I would have to strongly disagree with you. Things are not even close to always that cut and dried. For example, I do love my mate. I am contemplating divorce. In your example, those two things would be mutually exclusive; it's not so. Sometimes couples can try and try and try--but no matter how much they try, they just can't make it work. Perhaps we jumped in too quickly--whatever it was, it's not working. Please don't be so judgemental--it's not for you to judge, just as it's not for me. M.
|
|
|
Post by I guess I should on May 5, 2008 15:30:41 GMT -5
leave the M off I'm I'm posting as anon? ;D
|
|
|
Post by degem on May 5, 2008 15:59:06 GMT -5
I agree that things are not always so cut and dried. Just like the couple that I mentioned in my reply #28. We should be not judgemental towards others. We are just the ones who are looking from the outside of a marriage-not the ones who are IN the marriage. If, heaven forbid, divorce ever occurred between my husband and I, I would hope that people could look on with non-judgemental 'eyes" Gem
|
|
|
Post by ooT on May 5, 2008 17:42:39 GMT -5
Let me say first that I am not adamantly opposed to D&R. (Not opposed to divorce when necessary, at all) I do think that we have a precedent to look at, in society in general, for what is likely to happen if the remarriage aspect becomes widely tolerated and accepted. So I would like to revisit some of those verses in Matt. 19.
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Another version says: And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.”
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Seems reasonable that the disciples meant, "If we can't get divorces, we better not ever get married!"
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Another version says, "Let anyone accept this who can." Which I would take to mean such would be the ideal state, but not the common one. Therefore it would STILL be the ideal state AFTER divorce, especially since following divorce, committing adultery enters into the picture.
Just how I see it through my own study.
|
|
|
Post by jeremiah on May 5, 2008 19:31:40 GMT -5
I am reminded about Jesus' words about divorce in reviewing Mk 10:5-9, "....But Jesus responded, "He wrote those instructions only as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness. ....But God's plan was seen from teh beginning of creation, for 'He made them male and female,' .... This explains why a man leaves his fatehr and mother and is joined to his wife. .... and the two are united unto one. .... Since they are no longer two but one. .... let no man separate them, for God has joined them together."
Discussion: It seems that God allowed divorce as a concession to people's sinfulness. Divorce was not approved, but it was instituted to protect the injured party in a bad situation. Unfortunately, the Pharisees used Deuteronomy 24:1 as a proof text for divorce. Jesus explained that this was not God's intent. Instead, God wants married people to consider their marriage permanent. It seems that the implication here is don't enter marriage with the option of getting out. Your marriage is more likely to be happy if fro mthe outset you are committed to permanence. It seems like Jesus was telling us not to be hardhearted like the Pharisees, but to be hardheaded in your determination, with God's help, to stay together.
My own thinking: I just wonder if sometimes some people - certainly NOT all, are too quick to turn to divorce as a solution without trying others first - like some good old fashioned marriage counseling. It seems to me that our society has become too existentialistic - where "anything goes." By the same token, there are some couples who just seem to have made a huge huge mistake, and do not belong together. They just do not have a good fit, and get along like cats and dogs. I would want to read more about what to do when this is the case, according to scripture, and find myself wondering if any readers have insights on this.
|
|
|
Post by gratefulforgrace on May 5, 2008 22:05:02 GMT -5
Marriage is not all it is cracked up to be. Why do people make out it is so sublime? I don't think we will make it through this year. What to do? Plan A : Stay together hoping for salvation, until one of us cracks up first. Plan B: Agree to part, but lose salvation if we remarry. I am sorry to hear that things are going badly for you. Mostly I want to offer some advice, but first I want to offer my view on all the judgements that have been offered by others, because what I have to say below is based on these beliefs. I have to say that I believe in following the words of Jesus. The words of Jesus to the adulterous woman have already been cited "go, and sin no more". I would offer some more verses as well. Deuteronomy 6:16: "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah." Matthew 4:7: "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." I believe this refers to sinning knowingly, knowing that God is forgiving if we repent. A planned repentance doesn't seem very sincere, to me. Also, I believe that there are valid reasons for divorce, as Jesus said. Now to my real purpose in posting - Plan C: Fix your marriage, stay together, and neither one of you crack up. You say that marriage is not all it is cracked up to be, why do people make out it is so sublime? I would say that instead of not being all it is cracked up to be, it is more difficult and more challenging than most people expect. It is really not possible to have a truly happy, healthy marriage without God being involved. Humans are too selfish, and human love does not make enough allowances for the mistakes of the loved one. The love that God can give us, to have for our spouse, is much more powerful than human love. My advice is read the Bible together, pray together, talk together about what God has put on your hearts, and pray about it in your private prayers as well. Do all of these things A LOT. Also, talk to each other about the issues that are behind the problems when you can recognize them - and make sure that you are respectful in how you talk about them, or it will not help very much. A marriage that is blessed by God is much more than it is "cracked up to be." But God must be present. If you do agree to part, as you put it, don't do so with the idea that a life without a spouse is something to be avoided at all costs, and therefore fear that you will lose salvation because of remarriage. It is certainly an option not to re-marry. Although, if you are attempting that, it would be wise to guard your heart against romantic love - something I'm not at all sure how to do. The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. James 5:16 God can help you both through this better than any on earth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2008 4:39:33 GMT -5
Let me say first that I am not adamantly opposed to D&R. (Not opposed to divorce when necessary, at all) I do think that we have a precedent to look at, in society in general, for what is likely to happen if the remarriage aspect becomes widely tolerated and accepted. So I would like to revisit some of those verses in Matt. 19. 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Another version says: And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.” 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Seems reasonable that the disciples meant, "If we can't get divorces, we better not ever get married!" 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Another version says, "Let anyone accept this who can." Which I would take to mean such would be the ideal state, but not the common one. Therefore it would STILL be the ideal state AFTER divorce, especially since following divorce, committing adultery enters into the picture.Just how I see it through my own study. Hi Oot, I agree Moses PERMITTED divorce and it was due to THE HARDNESS OF THE HEARTS OF THOSE INVOLVED. It seems obvious that Jesus agreed the action of divorce was necessary although it still went against God's wiil. This shows an "understanding" God/Jesus despite his commandments. Hardness of hearts could cover just about any reason. A person with a soft approach towards divorce may indeed have a hard heart towards God's standards, even without realising it. The easy option approach can just as easily fit into this category. Even where divorce is justified, this normally only applies to one of the two parties involved, i.e. in cases of adultery and cruelty.The offending party is not justified by the divorce ! In my view, any offence resulting from a divorce/re-marriage situation is brought about by the preceding divorce , not a subsequent marriage. God expects people to want to get married again once a marriage has ended, which in his planning would occur after the death of one of the partners. Marriage isn't for the life of both partners, but until death of one partner they do part. It is only natural that post death of one partner that the surviving spouse may wish to marry another. This is honourable, because marriage is honourable in all things. Therefore, it is only natural that when a marriage is terminated by divorce (whether justified or otherwise) that the separated parties may wish to marry again. Any offence results from the divorce or divorce circumstances, not the marriage. However, most peoples' objections to divorce and re-marriage is that they percieve that those in these circumstances are continually living in sin/adultery. Again I see it in light of the ten commandments. E.g. 1) Thou Shalt Not Kill 2) Thou Shalt Not Divorce A kills B. A is a murderer and is a murderer for the remainder of his life. B cannot be brought back to life . A cannot enter the kingdom of heaven because it is said murderers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. However, he repents and despite the fact his crime cannot be undone he receives the mercy of God, who washes away his sin AND remembers it no more. He is forgiven and becomes part of God's fellowsip. C divorces D on unjustifiable grounds. The contract has nevertheless been broken. The marriage is annulled and cannot be repaired. C then meets and marries E who has always been single. Both are then guilty of committing adultery in God's eyes. However, both repent of their lives of sin and receive the mercy of God. Their sins are forgiven and they are remembered by God no more. It is as if they never happened. What remains is an honourable marriage because the sin attached to the unjustified divorce has been washed away. They are no longer living in adultery. In this light, any sinful aspects of divorce are dealt with in a way that is consistent with breaches of the ten commandments. Whilst I agree that Jesus' advice is that anyone who can remain single post divorce should do it, his statement should not be regarded as a command and should never portrayed as such, because he clearly recognised that due to human make up and needs "many" people would not be able to accept this advice. He was being merciful in not making it a commandment, in order to make allowances for human need. Wouldn't we all like to press the right buttons to be perfect in the sight of God, but unfortunately we have our human nature to live with.
|
|
|
Post by ooT on May 6, 2008 18:19:35 GMT -5
<< but unfortunately we have our human nature to live with. >>
Rom. 13:14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
Thank you for your replies, and can you also address the consequences of universal tolerance of divorce and divorce/remarriage in modern society, generally speaking? It seems like something that Christians would want to discourage.
|
|
|
Post by gratefulforgrace on May 6, 2008 20:28:03 GMT -5
I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning. They repent of their lives of sin after they are married, and thus God forgives their adultery in marrying each other. This does not mean it wasn't a sin to get married again.
Matthew 5:32: 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 adulterly.
That is pretty clear. But I believe you are right about the forgiveness after repentance, and that they would not be continually living in sin after that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2008 1:00:25 GMT -5
<< but unfortunately we have our human nature to live with. >> Rom. 13:14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. Thank you for your replies, and can you also address the consequences of universal tolerance of divorce and divorce/remarriage in modern society, generally speaking? It seems like something that Christians would want to discourage. Paul also said that marriage is homourable in all things and that we should marry, rather than burn with passion. Burning with passion may be sinful. There is no sin in marriage. Marriage is the answer for the desires.That's one reason why the two fleshes are made one and why adultery destroys that special union. God is not soft on divorce, but he has made provision for the fallen sinner through his mercy. Although he forgives our sins, most often we still have to deal with the consequences of our sins in this life. Divorce should always be a last resort. The main reason that I am debating these issues is to try and show that God's mercy applies in these circumstances as much as anywhere else, if not moreso. No person who really appreciates what God's mercy is, looks upon it as a licince to sin. Also, to those who seek to follow Jesus and are in a divorced/re-married situation, their past sins are forgiven and they should not be regarded as continually living in adultery, because the sin has been taken care of. Things will wax worse and worse until the end comes. The world's standards and views on divorce continually weaken, but God's standards and views don't. However, there is nothing stronger than his mercy, upon which we are all dependent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2008 14:11:18 GMT -5
I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning. They repent of their lives of sin after they are married, and thus God forgives their adultery in marrying each other. This does not mean it wasn't a sin to get married again. Matthew 5:32: 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 adulterly. That is pretty clear. But I believe you are right about the forgiveness after repentance, and that they would not be continually living in sin after that. I'm glad we agree on the conclusion, that's the main thing. Three plus one and two plus two are different characters but arrive at the same conclusion. Throughout Jesus' discussions concerning these matters he is focussing on the wrongs of divorce (and/or putting away, depending on your interpretation), not the wrongs of marriage. Marriage is spoken of very highly in the scriptures. It is an holy union. How can there be wrong in it ? When Jesus is pointing out any wrong in a divorce followed by marriage relationship, it is the divorce he is addressing. An unjustified divorce is not right in God's eyes. "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." Here we see the sanctity of marriage and the wrongs in divorce. It is the wrongs in divorce or putting away that Jesus is addressing in Matt. 5:32, not any perceived wrong in marriage. Divorce contravenes God's will for human relationships. It is NOT okay to get a divorce and remain single. The divorce issue, whether it is an unjustified divorce or the circumstances leading up to the divorce are still wrong and need God's mercy. Obviously a divorced person who remains single and contains themself, cannot commit adultery. However, they could by their actions leading up to the divorce, or forcing a divorce, cause their marriage partner to commit adultery. Sexual relationships are a necessary part of marriage. God expects that and Paul gave advice to married couples not to deny one another. This is all part of the sanctity of marriage. Jesus message is not that people shouldn't marry (even post divorce), because he knows most people are programmed towards marriage, but that they should not divorce (and/or put away). It's the divorce or putting away that is responsible for adultery in divorce/re-marriage situations.
|
|
|
Post by gratefulforgrace on May 7, 2008 18:55:08 GMT -5
Question:
Answer:
You are right that it's not OK to get divorced and remain single (except in the limited circumstances that Jesus explained). But it's not less wrong to get divorced and re-married. It is additional sin. Jesus said the man marryin the divorced woman would be commiting adultery. He wasn't involved in the divorce, so how can the divorce have been the part responsible for his sin?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 7, 2008 19:25:14 GMT -5
You are right that it's not OK to get divorced and remain single (except in the limited circumstances that Jesus explained). But it's not less wrong to get divorced and re-married. It is additional sin. Jesus said the man marryin the divorced woman would be commiting adultery. He wasn't involved in the divorce, so how can the divorce have been the part responsible for his sin? He is guilty of adultery where the woman was divorced via a specific rabbinic ruling. Jesus is rejecting a particular type of divorce, not divorce in general. If the woman was divorced under the Any Cause clause made common by the Hillelite school, then she was not validly divorced, hence is still married to her first husband. In Jesus' teaching, if she then remarries, both her and her new husband have committed adultery. An Any Cause divorce generally required no public trial, and no witnesses. They didn't have to prove that a legitimate ground for divorce had occurred. They didn't even need to go to court, although they would if a large amount of money was involved, or if a legitimate ground for divorce occurred, which if proven, meant they wouldn't have to pay anything to the offending partner. On the other hand, the Shammaite school did not accept the Any Cause divorce and promoted the use of the court. The Shammaite school required fault to be proven. So who do you think the majority of people would go to if they wanted their divorce ruled on? The no fuss, Any Cause school? Or the prove-real-grounds-in-court school? So what was the question asked of Jesus - "Is it acceptable to divorce for any cause?" This phrase, Any Cause, occurs in rabbinic literature, in historical writings and in divorce certificates from the period. Jesus' teaching on divorce cannot be exegeted outside of understanding what was a raging debate in law schools at the time. Further, in the context of the Any Cause debate, Jesus affirms the Shammaitic understanding of Dt.24:1 that marital unfaithfulness is a valid ground for divorce, and that remarriage after a valid divorce is acceptable. On the other hand, we do not have a record of Jesus' commenting on Ex.21:10-11 which was uniformly interpreted (though applied under different specifics) by the rabbinic schools and allowed valid divorce for either husband or wife in the case of emotional or material neglect. It will be a hard task for the strict traditionalist to prove that Jesus rejected those grounds.
|
|