1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Biblical marriage and divorce

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by SealedEternal, Jan 12, 2008.

  1. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SealedEternal;30621)
    Let's look at what God says in regard to divorce and remarriage:Genesis 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.SealedEternal
    Lets look at more than just what you seem to want to show here, shall we? [​IMG]What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together?By WmTiptonAssertions/Conclusions of this articleTo show that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman and not some 'bond' that cannot be broken as asserted by a few.Supporting EvidenceTo prove this we see that a husband and wife will become ''one flesh''..
    Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.Eph 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
    We see that a husband and wife will be ''one flesh''.to further understand what this ''one flesh'' is lets look to something outside the marriage union....
    Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her?For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh."(1Co 6:16-)
    Paul shows that even having sex with a harlot, one to whom we arent married, obviously, is the same as ''one flesh'' in marriage.Paul even quotes God/Jesus when he states..."For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh".A man is also 'one flesh' or 'one body' with a harlot he is with (1 Cor 6:16) showing that 'one flesh' is not exclusive to the marriage union. So we see that ''one flesh'' is merely the sexual union between a man and a woman, married or not. If anyone other than Jesus would understand what 'one flesh' was, it would be Moses. The man wrote the law, we can rest assured that he understood Gods intent from the beginning. That Moses were ever permitted to allow divorce/remarriage (as proven in Deut 24:1-4) shows absolutely that this perpetual 'one flesh' bond is nothing more than unscriptural nonsense. Moses had permitted a man to put away a wife just because she found no 'favor in his eyes''. She was permitted to REmarry. *IF* 'one flesh' from the beginning were UNbreakable, then so it would be in Moses day, Moses would have KNOWN that if it were the case, and ongoing adultery would have been the crime of this woman put away and REmarried, as she most likely would have been.Are we naive enough to think that Moses was sentencing an innocent woman to hell by permitting her to REmarry ?All he had to have done *IF* one flesh were perpetual was tell the INNOCENT they couldnt remarry so as to not be in 'adultery' as some suppose today.But he didnt.Because Moses understood that this one flesh is not continued perpetually when a divorce has happened.If the divorce is scriptural, then the bond is broken, ended....no adultery is committed when one REmarries.Just as in Jesus exception. He narrowed the allowance by showing that a legitimate breach of covenant must be present, but He did not change the definition of divorce, nor did HE disallow remarriage in the case where fornication has happened. Adultery is committed now when a spouse is put away for any reason short of legitimate breach of covenant, and we then remarry.Lets look at Joseph and Mary now.Firstly we know that Jesus was not illegitimate. He was born to two lawfully married people. The Jews accepted this and called Joseph Jesus' father (many not knowing any different).*IF* marriage was not valid without consummation....the two being ''one flesh'' as it were, then Joseph and Mary wouldnt be ''married'' and Jesus would have been illegitimate....without a lawful earthly father.Joseph had not yet been with Mary before Jesus was born, yet WAS said to be her ''husband'' and she his ''wife'' or espoused (betrothed) wife. He was going to put Mary away when he found her with child, showing that she was indeed his ''lawful'' wife....if she werent his wife he could have just left her obviously.What bound Joseph to Mary was not sex, as is blindingly apparent, since they had had no sexual union at that point, but what DID bind them was they were joined in matrimony, Gods holy marital covenant.So when we look at ''one flesh'', we can clearly see that because of 1 Cor. 6:16 that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman, married or not.And since we know that we arent married to the harlot just because we make ourselves ''one flesh'' with her, that this ''one flesh'' is NOT any tie that is unbreakable.There is no such thing as breaking the ''one flesh'' union, otherwise 1 Cor. 6:16 would show that every person who has had sex with someone they werent married to is permanently ''one flesh'' with them for life...and we know that isnt the case based on the context of 1 Cor. 6.Conclusions:''one flesh'' is sex, plain and simple.... as proven by 1 Corinthians 6:16Sex is not the tie that binds, the covenant is...as proven by Joseph and Mary.What binds a man and woman for life is the marriage covenant..... which we know is a conditional covenant, for Jesus has said ''except''.*IF* ‘’one flesh’’ is what makes a man and wife ‘’married’’ (as some see it), then Joseph and Mary were NOT married and our Lord was born illegitimate.Proof that is not the case is in Luke 3:23, Luke 4:24, John 1:45, John 6:42. Jesus WAS Josephs ‘’son’’ as far as being born into a LAWFUL, binding marriage covenant.Below is a quote from John Gill concerning his own views of 1 Corinthians 6:16. Commentators can help us shed light on a verse, but never take their words as gospel truth, they are fallible men like you and me.
    1Co 6:16 - What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot,.... Not in marriage, but in carnal copulation, and unclean embraces, is one body with her for two ("saith he", Adam, or Moses, or God, or the Scripture, or as R. Sol. Jarchi says, the Holy Spirit, Gen_2:24) shall be one flesh; what is originally said of copulation in lawful marriage, in which man and wife, legally coupled together, become one flesh, is applied to the unlawful copulation of a man with an harlot, by which act they also become one body, one flesh; and which is made use of by the apostle, to deter the members of Christ from the commission of this sin, which makes a member of Christ one body and flesh with an harlot, than which nothing is more monstrous and detestable. The apostle here directs to the true sense of the phrase in Genesis, "and they shall be one flesh"; that is, man and wife shall only have carnal knowledge of, and copulation with each other. -J. Gill
     
  2. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SealedEternal;30621)
    Let's look at what God says in regard to divorce and remarriage:Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."SealedEternal
    ...and some more [​IMG]"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"Jesus versus Paul ?By WmTiptonAssertions/Conclusions of this ArticleHere we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.Supporting Evidence1.0 There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.
    L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separate”
    What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?
    So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)." (Mat 19:6 EMTV)(Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)." (Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)
    Bear in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.
    G5563χωρίζωchōrizōThayer Definition:1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart1a) to leave a husband or wife1a) of divorce1b) to depart, go away
    That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11
    (1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
    ...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.2.0Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.
    1Co 7:15 KJV But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
    Remember “chorizo”G5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunder”) is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.Why?Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.3.0As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.
    (1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
    Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)
    (1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
    in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer."BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.4.0Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.
     
  3. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SealedEternal;30621)
    Let's look at what God says in regard to divorce and remarriage: Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.SealedEternal
    and lets harmonize that with the whole [​IMG]The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)By WmTiptonAssertions/Conclusions of this articleIn this article we will show that the two passages in question speak of the ‘law of the husband’ and that even though these verses say that this law is until death, that is is not an unconditional law that cannot be ended before the death of the spouse. The law of the husband is intended to be until the death of one of the spouses, as God created it from the very first marriage, Adam and Eve, but it has never been without condition. Supporting EvidenceIn Romans Paul was speaking to those who knew the law (Romans 7:1)The law reigned over a man all his days. Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The wife is bound to the husband until his death.We must ask ourselves one question here. ‘What law’ bound this woman to her husband for life?Was it the Mosaic law? How then could any wife have been bound at all to her husband from Eve until the Law ?It is cemented that it is not the Mosiac law when we find no actual law making this commandment.So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth. Now, we ask ourselves, why, if this law is for life, did Moses ever permit it to end while the former spouse lived?We ask ourselves about the wife in Exodus 21:7-11 who was permitted to walk out on her marriage if her husband denied her the basics of marriage, food, clothing and conjugal duty.Why, if this law that existed from the beginning, was Moses so determined to undermine its supposed finality by ever allowing men or women to end it this side of death? Was Moses a rogue prophet who defied Gods will in the matter and even added divorce proceedings to His law? Not at all.Moses understood Gods intent, that marriage is for life, but Moses also knew Gods heart and that God wanted mercy over sacrifice and he knew the hearts of evil, hardhearted men who would treat their wives horribly as they wished.And so Moses understood that this ‘law’ was not unconditional. If it were unconditional, then it was that way in the beginning and Moses would make himself a heretic by ever going against it.So we see that when Paul gives his words in 1 Corinthians 7:39, that this is not the whole picture. This ‘law’ that Jesus presents as being ‘from the beginning’ was never meant to be unconditional. Jesus’ very words ‘except for’ in Matthew 19 show conclusively that even He does not see it as being without condition. Paul was asked some questions by the Corinthians as is made apparent in the beginning of chapter 7;1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote”These believers had asked him some weighty questions about marriage, fornication, virgins, etc, to which he responded with what is written in this chapter.They clearly had pondered the right of the believer to put away an unbeliever, to which Paul said “no, if the unbeliever is pleased along with the believer, the do not put them away, you might be the catalyst in their salvation”.Paul is showing these believers who think they can just walk away from marriage that no, they cannot because it is for life.But Pauls words also show condition. What if this unbeliever isn’t ‘pleased’ along with the believer, but is abusive, hateful, adulterating...then what does Pauls condition show?[url="http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20]Please see this page for more on that issue[/url]Aslo see THIS PAGE that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.When you’ve finished there, I believe you will see that there is condition in Pauls words. A condition that is perfectly harmonized with the heart of other scriptures such as Exodus 21 where the wife can leave over nonsupport, Jeremiah 3:8 where even God the Father issued a bill of divorce for harlotry, and Matthew 19 where Jesus shows that the same harlotry is just cause for ending this marriage.Another point with Romans 7:1-4 or so is that at no time does this passage show that there was ever any divorce as permitted by Mosaic law. If we take it 'as written' it shows that this woman has only left her husband and gone to join with another. Without a divorce as presented by the law Paul speaks of, without the breaking of that marriage covenant, then of course she would be called an adulteress by joining herself to some man not her husband.Pauls words in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are true. They are just harmonized with the whole of Gods word. If we fail to harmonize correctly, then we end up with absurd teachings such as ones that say that we “cannot sin” because the literal reading of 1 John 3:9 would seem to show as much when taken alone and not properly harmonized with the whole.We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.
     
  4. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SealedEternal;30621)
    Let's look at what God says in regard to divorce and remarriage:1 Corinthians 7:10-13 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. SealedEternal
    "Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage" by Wm TiptonAssertions/Conclusions of this ArticleWe will show briefly that the commandment of the Lord to ‘remain unmarried or reconcile’ is NOT a blanket commandment in all marital situations where a breaking of the marriage is taking place, but is instead directed to two believers who have left their marriage without just cause, and that Paul also had no commandment for those marriages that weren’t equally yoked, didnt given the same instruction to these who were married to an unbeliever, not having any commandment from the Lord in the matter, and then also offered a concession not given to those who were equally yoked to another believer who had left their marriage for whatever frivolous reason.Supporting EvidenceFirstly lets look at the actual passages
    "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1Co 7:10-11 KJV)
    vs
    "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (1Co 7:12- * KJV)
    1.0"Remain Unmarried or reconcile” "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon or even a biblical scholar to look at that passage as a whole, instead of breaking it into minute pieces as our false ones do, and see that overall Paul is speaking to two groups there. The first being those where obviously both the husband and the wife are both listening since Paul addresses both of them therein.This idea is made absolute by Pauls making a clear distinction in his next words in saying “BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD” where he shows clearly that he is now speaking to ‘the rest’ of married couples who do not fall into whatever category as the first group fell. These are defined as being those who are married to someone who ‘believeth not’ which we understand as as ‘unequally yoked’ marriage.Notice that Paul makes it very clear that to these who ARENT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ that he isnt speaking, but the Lord is giving commandment to these.Easy enough concept to see, to understand and to accept for those reading and being honest enough to let the words say what they simply state. To these who arent married to someone who ‘believed not’, these are married to someone who instead is a believer. They cannot be anything else or otherwise Pauls words “BUT TO THE REST” when he speaks to the rest who are married make no logical sense whatsoever.These in verses 7:10-11 MUST be those who are NOT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ but MUST be to those marriages where the person being spoken to is married to a believer. Being honest with ourselves, we accept the targets of these words to be those marriages where both persons are a believer...ie ‘equally yoked’.To these, Paul shows that the Lord has given commandment if they depart to remain unmarried (ARAMOC/agamos/single/unwed) or reconcile with the man she left”This makes logical sense and harmonizes quite well with Gods whole word and is even completely logical even if we set scripture aside for a moment. These are two people who have compatible beliefs who, for whatever reason, have left their marriage who, as christians, should be quite interested in working together as ALL believers in Christ should be doing in order to be in harmony with one another. BOTH of these persons, as followers of Jesus Christ, having entered a marital covenant and having set it aside for whatever frivolous reasonings, should be willing to work together to reunite what they created together previously and set aside without just cause.The Lord has commanded these two believers to remain unmarried or reconcile this marriage cast away without just cause (as historical evidence of Corinth is quite capable of showing. That area was not exactly morally sound).2.0"not in bondage""But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,Now we move on ‘to the rest’....to those marriages where Paul is addressing the believer who is married to one who ‘believeth not’.This is the greek for the ‘rest’...
    G3062Thayer Definition:1) remaining, the rest1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number1c) the rest of the things that remain
    These ‘rest’ are those that remain of the groups under consideration, which are clearly those whoare ‘married’. This ‘rest’ are those who are married to unbelievers, clearly indicating that the groups being spoken to in verses 7:10-11 are those who are believers married to believers...in other words, equally yoked.Since the ‘rest’ are those who are Unequally yoked, logically there is no way that that Paul is speaking to ‘the rest’ in verses 7:10-11 then turning right around and addressing ‘the rest’ again starting in verse 7:12. To ‘the rest’ who are clearly believers unequally yoked to unbelievers Paul has no commandment of the Lord but is clearly speaking his own mind in the matter. Believing that Paul may not be speaking by direct commandment, we still accept that he is speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus his words are ‘law’ for these married to an unbelieving spouse.Firstly we notice that Pauls words offer a more conditional tone. “IF a brother has a wife who is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away”. If this brother is married to an unbelieving wife who wants to live in peace with him, then he should not put her away. This church had asked questions of Paul and based on Pauls response its easy to determine that they must have believed that if they became born again, that somehow they were defiled by being with an unbelieving husband.Paul lets them know in this passage that that isnt the case. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer (in a physical or spiritual ‘cleaness’ type of manner, not meaning a free ride to heaven without repentance or anything like that). These clearly were under the impression that it might be ok to just walk out of a marriage if they became saved, yet their spouse did not. Paul straightens out this erroneous viewpoint and lets them know that if the the unbeliever is mutually ‘pleased’ along with the believer and wants to remain in the marriage, then they arent to put them away, and may even be key to their spouses salvation.Paul then goes on to give concession not given to the two believers above. First there was no commandment at all from the Lord to these as with the equally yoked marriage, but Paul now tells these that if the unbeliever wishes to depart the marriage that the believer isnt in bondage to this marriage.Instead of repeating other studies here, please see this page for more on this point.Now, these folks will casually leave out that Paul gives instruction to TWO different married groups there and try to apply 1 Cor 7:10-11 to ALL marriages, but this makes Pauls statement of ‘BUT TO THE REST” and everything that follows completely illogical and unable to be harmonized with the whole properly.And the reason they need to pull this tactic is because they like what the Lord has commanded in verses 7:10-11, but they arent too happy with Pauls concession in 7:12 and after. It completely destroys these false teachings of theirs that Paul offers this idea that the believer might not be forced to remain bound in marriage to an unbeliever in whatever circumstance, and so they force the text to give instruction to a group of people, those unequally yoked, that Paul CLEARLY says he has no word from the Lord to.
     
  5. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for the long posts. [​IMG]Its important to understand the how these passages are harmonized with the whole of scripture.I mean, anyone can toss out a verse or two but understanding comes from finding out how they line up with the whole word of God [​IMG]
     
  6. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;30857)
    Then I suggest you get regenerated because you do not know God in his loving grace and forgiveness you only seem to understand it in the abstarct. You obviously have little life experience and have never been a parent So you have no concept of a fathers Love for his children this is Wisdomwithout it you can never but the words in proper context. All the book learning in the world will not give one what only comes from God that is All wisdomWisdom can not be taught to someone it must be experienced. So again no point going on you can not see what you do not understand
    AMEN !
     
  7. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SealedEternal;30743)
    As far as God divorcing, If you read Jeremiah 3 in total He was not "divorcing" Israel in the sense you're claiming because He say that she was a harlot treacherously departing from Him, and He was begging her to return. He never broke His covenant to Israel and it is blasphemy to falsely suggest that He was guilty of such when He was always faithful and always trying to reconcile, and Bible prophecy says that He is going to save the remanant of Israel, so He Has not forgotten her and is still awiting her repentance and return to Him.
    Im sorry, but this is entirely erroneous.Firstly while He was beckoning to her, Id suggest that you READ the whole book of Jeremiah all the way thru. Its a bit harsher than a loving husband calling gently to his wayward wife to return.Secondly, ANY Jews that do return to Him do not come thru that covenant that was ENDED at the cross when the new was ratified by the Lords death. EVERY man must come thru this new covenant as 'one new man' which is both Jews and Gentiles who believe.The Remnant in that day and forward are those who believed in their Messiah and came to Him thru HIS NEW covenant...not thru the one put away with an adulterous nation.finally, Gods word shows quite conclusively that He DID break His covenant made to them in Zechariah 11.
    And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. (Zec 11:10-11 )
    God gave a writ of divorce to Israel and then DID later break (make void) that covenant with her.Thats exactly what 'divorce' is defined as and as allegorically close as it gets to a real life human divorce.Gods word shows itself that He DID give a writ of divorcement to Israel...that is simply fact. There is no blasphemy in stating facts.Gods word shows itself that He DID finally end that covenant.Gods word shows that His allegorical marriage to the physical nation of Israel was ended by an allegorical divorce.The whole thing is allegory and cannot ever be made to be parallel human marriages or divorces....nor was it meant to do so.For one, my 'wife' is not literally made up of millions of individuals of whom some can be a remnant while some are not. Nor can *I* physically die to put into motion a new covenant to 'one new man' this is both the remnant of the old who believed and also new ones who also believe.Marriage is a very weak allegory for Gods multifaceted covenants with man.
     
  8. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SealedEternal;30852)
    Yes but you have a false definition of repentance which apparently allows someone to live in the sin they are supposedly repenting of. You cannot by definition repent of adultery and live in adultery simultaneously. Repentance by definition means to turn from the sin you are repenting of.SealedEternal[/SIZE]
    And you have not shown that anyone is 'living IN' adultery in a remarriage.The greek would tend to show otherwise“Committeth adultery” The Present Indicative deceptionChrist spoke out against frivolous, for EVERY cause divorce to remarry and assigned a sin to it where Moses had not.He did this while still under the old covenant as Christ was a Jew born under law...this is not some new thing that took effect after His death.He defined this act as adultery while the law was still in force.Moses had not actually defined these divorces for some ambiguous 'uncleanness' ("ervah dabar")as sinful or unlawful, so the Jews believed themselves guiltless and even made Moses their scapegoat by claiming that he 'commanded' them to divorce.That is the point Jesus corrected by saying that Moses had suffered their divorcing in this manner because of their hard hearts.Jesus came on the scene He let the Jews know while they were yet under the law that they were not guiltless in this issue at all..even tho they did divorce and remarry as they were, that a crime WAS being committed when they cast out their wives to take another.We know that simply taking a second living wife in and of itself was not 'sin' or 'unlawful' in the least given that polygamy was never condemned and even practiced by at least two men who were shown as doing right in the eyes of the Lord (1Ki 15:5 + 2Ch 24:2-3)So it was not taking a second living wife that was 'adultery', but it was the casting out of a wife for no just cause to take another that Jesus was condemning.
     
Loading...