Questions about divorce

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
It is hardly contemt [sic] when I desire others to obey the word of God. Stop using your sloppy emotionalism as the basis for your arguments. That reveals you have nothing but smoke.

Interesting that your followup was nothing more than the same simplistic contumely you spewed in your prior posts. Contumely is almost always indicative of the "sloppy emotionalism" to which you refer.

By the way, the word is contempt: defined as "open disrespect for a person or thing."

Stick with the word, it is more effective when you desire truth.

Okay, I will stick with the Word:
[note: Twice in your post you refer to the Word of God without capitalizing the "W" in Word.]

1. Several on this list have stated that "fornication" in this Verse does not refer to adultery. I do not see how they came to this conclusion, nor do I share it. Based on my research, the word used in this Scriptural Passage could be defined as sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage. This definition would include pre-marital sex as well as extra-marital sex. The last time I checked: sex with someone other than that person's spouse is extra-marital sex. Based on this, I do not see how anyone can say that the only reason someone can get divorced is pre-marital sex. Thank God in Heaven that He did not revoke my salvation for something I did prior to my conversion.

2. Jesus was not even talking about extra-marital sex in Matthew 5:31-32. Here is the Passage (from the 1599 Geneva Bible):

It hath bene sayd also, Whosoeuer shall put away his wife, let him giue her a bill of diuorcement. But I say vnto you, whosoeuer shall put away his wife (except it be for fornication) causeth her to commit adulterie: and whosoeuer shall marrie her that is diuorced, committeth adulterie.

Note in this Passage that Jesus makes a reference to Deuteronomy 24:1. Let's take a look at that Verse:

When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, if so be shee finde no fauour in his eyes, because hee hath espyed some filthinesse in her, then let him write her a bill of diuorcement, and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Jesus was referring to someone putting away their wife for any reason other than fornication. This Passage has nothing to do sexual intercourse, and in fact Jesus specifically excludes it from His Point. We need to be very careful about adding to the Message.

Another point worth noting is that Jesus did not address the topic of remarriage, even though Deuteronomy 24:2 and 24:5 clearly allow for remarriage after a divorce on the grounds of fornication.

3. It seems to me that you are forgetting one more point: the spouse of an adulterer didn't have to worry about divorcing on the grounds of adultery. Have you read the Law? How about Leviticus 20:10:
And the man that committeth adulterie with another mans wife, because he hath comitted adulterie with his neighbours wife, the adulterer and the adulteresse shall die the death.

According to the Law of Moses, someone committing adultery was put to death. Let's put that another way: the sin of adultery carried the death penalty. This was still the case when Jesus walked the earth:
John 8:3-11:
Then the Scribes, and the Pharises brought vnto him a woman, taken in adulterie, and set her in the middes, And said vnto him, Master, we foud this woman committing adulterie, euen in the very acte. Now Moses in our Law commanded, that such should be stoned: what sayest thou therefore? And this they saide to tempt him, that they might haue, whereof to accuse him. But Iesus stouped downe, and with his finger wrote on the groud. And while they continued asking him, hee lift himselfe vp, and sayde vnto them, Let him that is among you without sinne, cast the first stone at her. And againe hee stouped downe, and wrote on the ground. And when they heard it, being accused by their owne conscience, they went out one by one, beginning at ye eldest euen to the last: so Iesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the mids. When Iesus had lift vp himselfe againe, and sawe no man, but the woman, hee saide vnto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Iesus said, Neither do I condemne thee: go and sinne no more.

Obviously, there wasn't a need to state that adultery was grounds for divorce as the punishment would render a divorce irrelevant.

Now, let's look at more of your opprobrious comments:

Good thing your personal experience means nothing for the cause of truth.

Neither does your superciliousness.

When possible, I recommend using Scripture to make a point. Maybe that is just me.

Now you are being wildly pretentious.
Let's take a look at your posts:
You posted on the following dates/times:
March 11, 2004 10:50 AM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 11, 2004 12:09 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 11, 2004 12:38 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 11, 2004 02:10 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 11, 2004 05:49 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 11, 2004 06:05 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 12, 2004 06:32 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 12, 2004 06:34 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 12, 2004 10:16 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 12, 2004 11:54 PM (You didn't use Scripture.)
March 13, 2004 12:37 AM (You didn't use Scripture.)

Perhaps you should implement your own recommendation........

 

[Frogman]

Dear Brother in Richmond,
In John 8 the scribes and Pharisees broke the Law of God from Leviticus 20.10. The accusation is the woman was caught in the very act, she was brought before Jesus. Now, being caught in the very act, we have the adulteress, where is the adulterer?

The Law was not honored by these men. Jesus honored the Law, always and didn't break it, as you know.

This woman with no "man" to condemn her had no reason for condemnation. Note Jesus did not condone her sin, he told her to sin no more. But under the Law, the accusers were in error.

This must be so, or else failing to stone the woman in accordance to the law would have been breaking of it. But without the two of the adulterers being brought before Jesus there is no crime. The words 'caught in the very act' would seem to me to show how the other party is being ignored in this case of twisting the Law of God in hopes of entrapping Jesus.

Just thought I would add that ya'll are welcome to disagree. But then show me how Christ upheld the Law by failing to follow according to its command.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Helen]

Frogman, DD, Ruthie -- when human law changes, does God's law then change? God ordained that adulterers should be stoned. We don't stone people anymore for that (it would be a significant method of population control in some areas of the country, however!). Does that make the man or woman divorced by the unfaithful spouse any the less a widower or widow? Does God's law change?

Read Proverbs 2:16-19. The man who leaves his wife for another woman who has lured him, she being unfaithful to her own husband, will never return "or attain the paths of life." The verse before 19 explains why: "For her house leads down to death and her paths to the spirits of the dead."

Johnv and I both experienced the abandonment of an unfaithful mate. According to God's law, had it been upheld, we would have then been a widower and widow, and they are permitted to remarry.

 

[Daniel David]

Okay, I need to put this out as it seems because of my position that I am hateful or look down upon those who have been divorced.

In my understanding of the Scriptures:

Divorced men cannot:

1. Remarry
2. Be an elder
3. Be a deacon

Divorced men can:

1. Do everything else

It isn't about hate or any other smokescreen argument. It is about how I understand God's word. So far, no challenge has been made to that end.

Helen, God's law did indeed change. This is a very basis theological point. If you read Hebrews, you see that the entire law was either expanded, revoked, or modified.

We don't live under Moses.

 

[Elijah]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
No, you were talking to my wife. If you can't handle a debate...

Your wife? Well that explains a lot concerning your opinions. Not about being able to handle a debate at all. like I said, you guys are so far from me in belief, debate would be fruit less. Otherwise, not interested in arguing with you.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Okay, I need to put this out as it seems because of my position that I am hateful or look down upon those who have been divorced.

In my understanding of the Scriptures:

Divorced men cannot:

1. Remarry
2. Be an elder
3. Be a deacon

Divorced men can:

1. Do everything else

It isn't about hate or any other smokescreen argument. It is about how I understand God's word. So far, no challenge has been made to that end.

Helen, God's law did indeed change. This is a very basis theological point. If you read Hebrews, you see that the entire law was either expanded, revoked, or modified.

We don't live under Moses.

God's law was fulfilled, Daniel, so we are no longer judged under it. It never changed:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or th Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fufill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and dearth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished.

You wanted Bible, DD. There it is. Matthew 5. God's law does not change. What has changed is that we, as being in Christ, are not judged by it. But it remains.

 

[Daniel David]

Helen, this is a point that I fear you have missed big time. I honestly don't wish to fight about this, but you are very wrong. I could post text after text.

 

[Elijah]

Originally posted by Helen:
Frogman, DD, Ruthie -- when human law changes, does God's law then change? God ordained that adulterers should be stoned. We don't stone people anymore for that (it would be a significant method of population control in some areas of the country, however!). Does that make the man or woman divorced by the unfaithful spouse any the less a widower or widow? Does God's law change?

Read Proverbs 2:16-19. The man who leaves his wife for another woman who has lured him, she being unfaithful to her own husband, will never return "or attain the paths of life." The verse before 19 explains why: "For her house leads down to death and her paths to the spirits of the dead."

Johnv and I both experienced the abandonment of an unfaithful mate. According to God's law, had it been upheld, we would have then been a widower and widow, and they are permitted to remarry.

Helen, It is useless to try to reason with some people. What you say is true, and scriptural. God hates divorce, but does permit it under certain circumstances. We have given the scriptures before, so no use wasting time repeating them. By their reasoning you can be a child molester, murderer, or any kind of vile thing in the book, and still be forgiven and even be a minister, just as long as you were never divorced. That way of thinking is 100% self righteous, puffed up, and unscriptural. I like the way way one person even says that when the bible makes exception for divorce, its only because Erasmus added to scripture( that is rich )Otherwise ,what I am saying Helen ,is make peace with God about this matter and move forward, not relying on the private interpretation of man for advice. The scripture is clear, there are circumstances where divorce is allowed and even neccesary.
God bless

 

[Helen]

Thank you, Elijah. I am completely at peace with my marriage. As I just wrote on a PM to another person, sometimes I lie awake in the mornings looking at him and wondering why I, of all the women on earth, was blessed to be his wife. He is God's true gift to me, and one I cherish.

I post here on this subject to help others, not to reassure myself. God had to spend a long time getting me ready for a man like this, and I am no way going to waste this short time we have (I am 56 and he will be 62 this year) doubting the wonder of this marriage.

Actually, sometimes I wonder if I had not been the subject of all the emotional abuse that went along with the infidelity my ex practised, if I would simply have taken God's love poured through Barry to me for granted, instead of being amazed, appreciative, and a little more healed every day of my life now. Such riches take on incredible meaning and value after experiencing poverty.

 

[texmedic]

Ok folks...... how about we show a little of our Christian responsibility here. Col 3:12. Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
13. bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.
14. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection.

As I mentioned earlier in my reply, the literal translation from Greek is a 'one woman man'. Spiros Zodhiates says, "The expression mias gunaikos is known in Greek grammar as, 'a one-woman's husband," not a 'ladies' man, in other words. The total context speaks of the moral conduct of the bishop and the deacon. He should be totally dedicated to his wife and not be flirtatious." (HEBREW-GREEK KEY STUDY BIBLE in the footnotes on page 1497 under 1 Timothy 3:2).

Which of the atributes of a bishop or deacon are supposed to cover the person's entire life? Able to teach? Always able to teach? Didn't you have to learn before you could teach? Having been forever blameless? I believe Romans 3 would disagree with you.

"Paul is not referring to a leader's marital status, rather the issue is his moral, sexual behavior. Many men, married only once, are not one-woman men. Many with one wife are unfaithful to that wife. While remaining married to one woman is commendable, it is not indication or guarantee of moral purity. Some may wonder why Paul begins his list with this quality. He does so because it is in this area, above all others, where leaders seem most prone to fall. The failure to be a one-woman man has put more men out of the ministry than any other sin. It is thus a matter of grave concern. Others maintain that Paul here forbids remarriage after the death of a spouse. As already noted, however, this standard, like all the rest refers to moral character, not marital status. Further, the Scriptures permit and honor second marriages under the proper circumstances. Still others hold that this qualification excludes divorced men, from spiritual leadership. That again, ignores the fact that Paul is not referring to marital status. Nor does the Bible forbid all remarriage after a divorce. In Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9, our Lord permitted remarriage when a divorce was caused by adultery. Paul gave a second occasion when remarriage is permitted, when the unbelieving spouse initiates the divorce. (1 Cor. 7:15). While God hates all divorce (Mal. 2;16) He is gracious to the innocent party in those two situations. Since remarriage in itself is not a sin, it is not necessarily a blight on a man's character." (John McArthur’s NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY ON FIRST TIMOTHY page 104-105)

I guess you could say that I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of someone who has been there. I loved my wife. I was happily married. She cheated. I forgave her. Two years later she deserted myself and my son. I raised my son. I was remarried and have been happily married for 18 years. My wife and I have adopted our daughter. We sever the Lord as missionaries and as teachers. If the Lord calls me to ministry as a full time pastor or in any aspect of serving Him, I will be obedient to Him. I am a chaplain by the way.

I hope everyone will follow the example of Jesus in Matt. 4 when He was tempted by satan. Test scripture with scripture. Above all I hope you will put on tender mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. Grace and peace to you. Tex

 

[pinoybaptist]

Goodness gracious, my, oh, my !!

Things are really gittin' hottern' hell here, folks !

There's really only one correct side to this issue, folks, and that is God's side, point bein' that what we think the Scriptures say don't matter, what the Scriptures do say is what matters.

And if we're true children of God, havin' been born 'cordin' to His will and not ours, and divorce and remarriage after divorce is sin, and we didn't know it before bein' born 'gin, then that sin is covered by the precious blood of Christ, and if it is sumpin' we knew to be sin and we went right ahead and jumped in anyway 'cause we be victims like Johnv and Helen here, then there'll be consequences down that there road in this here life, and if it's sumpin' we didn't knowed to be sin, well, then, in His own good time, the Almighty God will reveal it to us.

Now, for us folks who say them acts are sin, and we ironically become victims the way a brother and a sister here became, then, we jist grit our teeth and not marry, cuz our consciences tell us it is sin.

Ain't really no need to be all het up and start throwin' knifey words at each other.

I luv y'all because my Lord loved y'all.

 

[Helen]

A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. The fruit of my marriage to Barry has been healing for myself and my children, a testimony of God's grace to others, joy, happiness, peace, and even some excellent results regarding Barry's work, including more time for him to do his work, more time to present to those who are asking, and more time for Bible study and prayer. Not to mention more appreciation of God's faithfulness and care, His love, the the truth of His Word.

Pinoy, yes, it is what the Bible says that matters. THAT is why I knew I was free to marry him.

 

[Daniel David]

The innocent party view is traced directly to Erasmus. If you aren't aware of this Elijah, get educated. You apparently don't know as much on this issue as you THINK you do.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
The innocent party view is traced directly to Erasmus.

OH NO, Don't bring Erasmus into this Forum! He is the patron saint of "onlies" and we have enough of him on the Versions Forum!

BTW, DD you said you could post a lot of scripture for Helen on the "error" of her view. Would you be willing to start a new thread?

Thanks!

 

[Daniel David]

Sure.

 

[Gwyneth]

Thank God in Heaven that He did not revoke my salvation for something I did prior to my conversion.

AMEN
would be my prayer....... In my case - for `some things` read `many things`.

I pray I would not be as the man in verse 11 of Luke 18

Gwyneth

[ March 13, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Gwyneth ]

 

[Frogman]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank God in Heaven that He did not revoke my salvation for something I did prior to my conversion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The problem is imho, making service equal to eternal life. No one on the opposite side of the divorce issue is claiming that divorced people cannot be eternally saved.

For a complete discussion of the irrelevance of sin to this eternal question visit Yelsew2 on the C/A forum

Seriously though, this is not an issue related to an eternal position; but one of position of service. To state otherwise will lead out to a salvation by works (being good works prior to salvation, or good works to keep that salvation).

Attempting to make the case that I or any other is denying eternal life to divorced people is an error.

Bro. Dallas

 

[jshurley04]

I should not be surprised to read about those who would argue a point from the Greek and when it does not support the straight jacket view of others, it is soundly rejected as not being what the Bible says.

To those of you who have been divorced my heart goes out to you. My family is currently under attack and my wife and I are fighting to keep ourselves right with God and right with each other so that we do not have to share in your pain. However, please remember that there are, amoung others, 3 major themes in scripture:
1. Forgiveness - God forgave you and will continue to forgive you. When we fall and fail Him, He will forgive you. Just because you are in a bad situation, does not mean that you have failed to seek forgiveness for a hidden sin. It may mean that someone you love has hidden sins and you are simply caught in the wake.

2. Grace - Grace says that God loves me no matter how patheticly sinful I am and that He will lift me up to a place that I do not deserve to be and make me into a person I do not merit to become because He loves me so much. Grace also says that when I make a mistake that I know about or unknowingly, that I can still have favor in His sight. Grace also means that God knows all about my flaws before, during and after my acceptence of His grace. Grace says that God will not hold my sin against me and that I can still be a faithful servant even though I have sinned. I can also continue to serve Him when the sins of other impact my life to such a way as to cause me to be in a shamble, even though it was not my fault. Grace seems to be left out of too many posts on this board and in this thread, there are many phariasees on this board and many that so narrowly interpret scripture, they interpret grace right out of scripture.

3. Freedom - We have freedom from the law and from the made up laws of men. We can serve God as HE directs us and not the way that others on this board would shackle us. When we live within the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our life, we will not go wrong. I applaud those of you who have found new life after such tragedy and encourage you to serve God to your fullest. You have that freedom.

In my study of scriptures here is what I believe. Divorce in the context of all other principles of scripture is not ever suggested, but acknowledged that it happens. If the person who seeks the divorce, after attempts to reconcile the marriage, is innocent (breaking with one who has sinned against them in adultry, "alternate lifestyles", or physical abuse) then that person is justified in seeking the divorce and if they later choose to remarry, then they are free to serve God as He leads them to serve including teaching, preaching, pastoring, or being a deacon.

If the person is given a divorce and they have been faithful to the marriage partner, and faithfully fulfilled the marriage vows and kept their end of the marriage agreement, and the other person will not reconcile or even attempt or quits attempting, then they are free to remarry and to serve God in complete functionality as listed above.

However, if the person divorced or is seeking divorce is the one who has been in adultry, choosen and "alternate lifestyle", or guilty of physical abuse and have refuse attempts at reconciliation and will not agree to keep the marriage agreement, then if they remarry it is adultry and they are prohibited from places of leadership within the church.

I am sick and tired of seeing the divorced being beaten up when the ones left holding the family, or what's left of it are not the one's to blame. It is a crying shame that we are more concerned for interpretational prejudices than we are the people we are ministering to. Why not attempt to love them instead of telling them they are not fit and worthy of this, that, or the other!?! I knew a man in the last church I ministered in that was divorced because his first wife left him and their baby children and ran away. When she did run away, she left early in the day, put the kids in the living room in a play pen, locked up the house, turned off the air in the middle of summer and left, since they were a farming family, he did not get home until late that night to find what had happened. And those of you wanting to impose a new LAW want this man disqualified from service or evern contend that he sinned by being remarried, shut your mouth and grow up in God. This was a very learned man that should have pastored the particular church, his heart was big enough for the job, but some good old saint locked him up in chains years ago, and he has only been a voice in the congregation, one that the people respected, rather than the leader God would have allowed him to be.

 

[Frogman]

First of all, God would have to call that man to a greater leadership role. If he was a voice and a respected voice, then he has no problem. You and I cannot call him.

next, The Word of God does not contradict itself so that these things happen and then these people are called of God to be in positions of leadership.

To say the Word contradicts itself, even by implication, is error.

To assume people on the opposite side of the issue as you and others have no compassion is error.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Frogman:
The problem is imho, making service equal to eternal life. No one on the opposite side of the divorce issue is claiming that divorced people cannot be eternally saved.

For a complete discussion of the irrelevance of sin to this eternal question visit Yelsew2 on the C/A forum

Seriously though, this is not an issue related to an eternal position; but one of position of service. To state otherwise will lead out to a salvation by works (being good works prior to salvation, or good works to keep that salvation).

Attempting to make the case that I or any other is denying eternal life to divorced people is an error.

Bro. Dallas

Brother Dallas:

With all due respect, you are the one in error, especially the last sentence. Please go back and re-read the post. It is quite obvious that I neither said this, nor implied this.

Hope this post finds you well.