The following is a quote from a homosexual activist, Elroy McKinley: http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html from a excerpt of Sister Cheryl's testimony "Why I Repented Of A Marriage God Called Adulterous" found on her website - http://poovy.8m.com/remarriage.htmlThis Quote from homosexual activist Elroy McKinley is defiantly worth reading, contemplation and discussion.A divorced man who remarries is entering into an adulterous relationship. And it's not just a relationship; it's an adulterous lifestyle because the remarried man chooses to continue living in the adulterous relationship for the rest of his life (or until he divorces and remarries again). However, if you ask this adulterous man if he is still a Christian, he will say something like, “I believe God has forgiven me and I'm now living under his grace.” And ask him if he's willing to leave his current wife in order to “turn from his adulterous lifestyle,” and he will refuse because “God's grace has already saved him.” But this is the same man who earlier claimed that the homosexual must turn from his “sinful” lifestyle as a condition of receiving God's grace.. . . The Religious Right is nearly half-full with people living in continuous adulterous lifestyles, and those who are not remarried fully accept their remarried brothers and sisters without question. They even perform their adulterous marriage ceremonies in their churches. Yet they have the gall to preach from their pulpits or shout through the airwaves that God wants us to stop the world from accepting homosexuals the same way they have been accepted by God. Jesus warned us not to be like the servant who was forgiven his debt by the grace of his lord but then used the legal system to throw a fellow slave in jail. The Religious Right, however, claim God's grace for their own lifestyle sins but then turn around and give tremendous amounts of time and money to use the legal system against homosexuals. It is a double standard. It is a mockery. If Christ took their sins to the cross, and became an adulterer through propitiation before burying that sin in the ground, then Christ also took the gay person's sin to the cross and became a homosexual before burying that sin in the ground. The Religious Right, and everyone else, should either accept that God's grace covers all of us, including those living in sinful lifestyles, or that none of us are covered. They should either condemn their remarried members or shut up about those among us who are gay. But they don't. And we are left to wonder why. Why do they pick on one “sinful” lifestyle but not their own? Why homosexuality and not adultery? They say it's because homosexuality is damaging our families and hurting our children. But which is really worse? Over 50% of American parents get divorced. Most of those remarry. Over 50% of our children have their families torn apart and then merged with the families of strangers (causing a lot of sexual abuse on children by step-parents). But less than 5% of the population is homosexual. Even if they had twice as many relationships as heterosexuals do, they could not possibly cause the kind of damage that heterosexual divorce and remarriage does. The former vice-president of Focus on the Family, a leading Religious Right organization, stated in his book, “James Dobson's War on America” (Dobson is the founder and president) that when their donations went down, they could simply broadcast a scary special about the gay agenda (or the evil women's movement or the even more evil abortion rights groups – but never remarried people since that would drive away nearly half of their listeners) and their revenues would increase substantially. There are some very eye opening truths in Mr. McKinley’s article. Homosexuals understand what the Bible says about remarriage – but so few Christians know, or should I say “want to know.” It’s pretty sad when a homosexual can see the hypocrisy of the modern church and most Christians cannot. Mr. McKinley is not alone in this observation – other homosexuals as well have challenged us to prove that marriage is worth keeping. They are basically saying – and they are quite right, as shocking as it may be – that a homosexual “marriage” by two people who love each other and are committed to each other, is every bit as valid and every bit a biblical as remarriage while your first spouse is still living. Basically, these homosexuals are stuffing our feet in our own mouths as evangelical Christians, leaving us with no moral authority to make the argument against homosexual marriages. Few Christian leaders, pastors and preachers purporting to want to rebuild our families will even touch on this sin of divorce and remarital adultery lying under the skirts of the church. The homosexual activists are using this against us, and doing a very efficient job. This should shock the church back to it senses, to look at this subject in light of God’s word. But is this happening? On any given Sunday morning a large portion of the people sitting in the churches of America – including their pastors – are either adulterers or fornicators according to biblical standards. They are in violation of God’s holy Word, and are unwittingly taking the lead in tearing down and desecrating the American family. In fact, so bad is this situation, that the divorce rate in the church is 4% higher than the nation as a whole – and in the “Bible belt” with the greatest concentration of so-called evangelical churches, the divorce rate is 50% higher than in the nation as a whole! With such a situation, how can we ever be capable of winning any culture wars? This is basically the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know of a single prominent ministry in this country, especially those that purport to be rebuilding the family, which will focus on their own constituency and address them on the issue of divorce and remarriage. They will not do it. So now we the church have set ourselves up for absolute defeat. We have absolutely no moral authority to speak against the homosexuals who insist on their “right” to “marriage.” We don’t have righteousness in this nation, we don’t even have righteousness in the church. In our nation pastors have a divorce rate that is the second highest in this country! If this sounds unbelievable, check the statistics for yourself! Visit http://www.saveus.org for the statistics. George Barna, pollster to the church, has spent the last ten years gathering statistics on this and many other issues involving the church. Until the church from pulpit to pew repents of this matter, the church is and will continue to be powerless in winning the lost. Racked with its own adultery and fornication, it has the nerve to hypocritically point the finger at homosexuals and their lifestyle – while preachers and pastors remain silent on divorce and remarriage. Homosexuals make up about 5% of the population but have more of an impact on society than the church does. Christ is returning for a spotless bride. Will he find it in the American churches? Why would a homosexual want to enter our church gates if all he sees is hypocrisy on our part? I can’t blame the homosexuals; I no longer want to attend many of the so-called Christian churches of our day either. Since the religious leaders of our day remain silent, it is we the “rocks” who cry out against the unrighteousness within the church walls. If someone doesn’t speak against this, the church will spiral more toward the apostate church predicted by Christ in the end times. I cringe now when I hear a pastor speak of the sin of homosexuals, while not willing to speak of the sin of remarital adultery! Just because our denominations have changed their interpretations of the scriptures in the last 50 years does not mean that the word of God has changed.
Divorce and Remarriage
Hi ChristisKing,This is a difficult subject for me as i am on the hurting end. My ex-wife left (divorced) me 10 years ago because she said, God told her to.She said this to our pastor and to my mother both of which were her mentors. Since my ex divorced me and also, momma passing away 3 years ago, i am so alone, lonely and hurt ever day of my life. I hate not being married. I miss it. I've been single and not even dated since my ex left me.
Before we re-run the tapes on this, it might be a good thing to read Marriage/divorce - remarriage.
Tommy, my heart goes out to you, It may be little comfort but Jesus promises to look after the widows and orphans, I am sure He will comfort you too. I am one of the few people I know who believe remarriage is wrong, I know many Christians who are in their second marriage and I understand the excuises they use. But I believe God wants us to be faithful to our first Spouse until death and I thank you, Tommy that you have the strength to stick to what you believe. Remember that you are bringing Honour to Gods Name each day you continue to stand up for His word.A note on Homosexuality, what the guy said was true, but it only shows that there is hypocracy in the church, it is not a reason to stay in a gay lifestyle when you know it is wrong.I am neither Gay nor Divorced so I guess my opinion is only worth 2 cents.
Dear Allhavesinned and ChristisKing,I am encouraged that you both stood up and defended Biblical teaching on the sin of remarriage after divorce. It is rare indeed to find any in this generation that know the truth and have the courage to stand opposed to the fallen church on this subject, let alone finding two of you at once. How did you come to realize the truth when nearly all others are blind and falling in the ditch? I look forward to finding out what made the rare difference with you. May God bless you as you follow Him.Stephen Wilcox Http://www.marriagedivorce.com
Just because our denominations have changed their interpretations of the scriptures in the last 50 years does not mean that the word of God has changed. Before I go on, I want to state clearly that what follows is not an excuse, justification, or defense. It is my experience, and it may encourage some who read this. At the same time it may offend others. If I do offend, please forgive me, I write this because I too believe that I serve the Lord. Even though I agree with everything that brother Patrick writes, I have to go on the record, that I am married for the second time. My first wife was very discontented with me and to make a long story short, we divorced. The fact that I became a Christian was the “last nail in the coffin” of our marriage, as she stated. I did not want to divorce. After we divorced and she re-married. I always taught the young people and adult classes at our church that one should never marry again after a divorce.When I understood, after being single for over 10 years, the Lord to say to me that I should get married again, I questioned it seriously. I had no desire, but this is what I understood. I studied Scriptures and various interpretations about re-marriage. One Scripture in particular stood out: "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9). In my case I didn’t want the divorce; my wife had the affair and then married another man. I forgave her, but she wanted out.I did find a Christian lady who had been single and unattached for her entire life, and after continually seeking the Lord, we married. Prior to this, I did contact my first wife and asked if she was willing to reconsider the choices she had made, but she didn’t. Some or maybe many of you may find this hard to accept or understand, but my life as a Christian has grown exponentially. Since I am married with a Christian woman, we counsel Christian couples who have difficulties in their marriage. We also counsel women who are unequally yoked and disciple with respect to forgiveness and intercessory prayer for their partners and children. Since my youngest daughter was suicidal during the separation and my son struggled for many years after the divorce, I am convicted that if a marriage can be saved, even after adultery, it should be done. God can and will grant forgiveness and healing after repentance. Having said this, when I see a woman with bruises on her face and body from physical abuse and this continues after the husband has been counseled, I never recommend that women have to remain in this situation. Even though this is not adultery, I don’t believe for one moment that husbands are allowed to physically abuse their wives and they have to stay under the same roof with them.I unequivocally agree with brother Patrick that the Church has no business to tell the world how to live or how to behave, since She doesn’t know how to obey God’s Word. Jesus never told the world how to live neither did he lead a protest march to Rome to complaint to the Emperor. He only scolded the religious leaders, never the political ones according to my knowledge. Paul tells us to pray for our leaders, not to tell them how to run the country. The Lord gave me a message for the Church. She has to repent and return to His word and obey it. If the fact that I am married for the second time takes away from that warning, it is up to God to deal with that. Before the Church condemns the world She has to look within Herself first.In His Love,Hans Prangwww.thefinalcall.net
Thanks Patrick for posting some of my testimony.It is a very difficult thing to repent of an adulterous remarriage.But it's also a more difficult thing to kick against the pricks of the Holy Spirit's conviction. I remember distinctly the Lord trying to tell me not to marry a divorced man. I even went and cried telling my mom that I couldn't marry this man. But in time I listened to other christians and my selfish desires instead of God and went on into the adulterous marriage. As far as the Word of God goes there are many who say this verse doesn't mean this and that verse wasn't translated right and so on, but I have found that we are led by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit will convict and teach you the scripture. Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.The Holy Spirit and the Word of God convicted me of being in remarital adultery, and believe me I had enough people to try to explain it all away, inluding pastors. And I've read just about every viewpoint on Divorce and Remarriage, but I will not be swayed by men. So none of what folks bring up on these boards is new to me. I've read it all before. I am led by the Spirit and when the Spirit convicts of sin we must repent.Most of the time people who are under strong conviction of the Holy Spirit run to and fro trying to find some way to quench that conviction and explain it away. I'm a very private person and in some ways it is a difficult thing to have my testimony on the web for so many to see but I feel the need for people to see the truth on this issue. I don't debate this issue much. I know what the word of God has to say about it. My testimony is at http://poovy.8m.comCheryl
I've just gone to the link Ron posted, I didn't read all 13 pages! This is why I very seldom comment upon remarriage after devorce. The couple that took us through our Marriage Matters course were both remarried and so were the other 2 couples in our group. It's a sticky subject, some people believe God has told them to remarry, others say that even living with an abusive spouse does not mean you may leave ("for better or for worse"). I have my own opinion and it is very black and white. I may be wrong, in this case I am happy to be wrong, but until I see something to convince me that God alows someone to have sex with a person other than their first spouse, I will keep my beliefs (to myself if necessary) and pray that my wife doesn't leave me and make me put my money where my mouth is.;-)I think that it is possible for someone to live in 'sin' under grace and still be used by God, but how much more could He do with them if they were willing to die to self and live for Him alone?As the original post was relating to a homosexual comparing living with his partner 'in sin' with a couple living in adultary because one partner had a previous spouse, I guess I am saying that the gay person can still be used by God. Hmm do you see how compromise can lead to liberalism.Still confused as to how to deal with this one. I may even read those 13 pages to get some 'words from the wise' :-?
Thanks Cheryl for opening yourself up to us. I think many will read your testimony and save themselves from years of grief. God Bless you.
sir, you wrote: I have my own opinion and it is very black and white.I pray one day that God the Holy Ghost deliver you from that. We had a VERY long thread regarding this topic, wher in all transparency I provided my own testimony. https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6820&forum=35&130It's a very long thread, but then again everyone has a lot of "opinions".God bless you today is my prayer.Neil
I also wrote 'I am happy to be wrong...'I've just read Cheryl's testimony, very powerfulI am looking into this subject.have you ever heard the phrase; 'there is only Jesus or sin' Where does God draw the line? black and white?I'm still happy to be wrong cos it makes life easier. compromise vs fundamentalism?We all need to get closer to God, He alone will lead us into all TruthI'll read that long thread now...
When one CANNOT marry again ....1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. One can leave and not remarry, in the case above. Doesn't specify 'why' "she departs", but abuse or something must be a possibility here.An O.T. law says, that if your x-spouse remarries, you cannot remarry them if they divorse that 2nd spouse later. So there can be no "reconciliation" with them if that's the case, yet you must remain unmarried, if 'you' are the one who left (vs.11).~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~When one CAN marry again .....1Co 7:15 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. If an unbeliever departs and then remarries someone else, then the Christian is free to marry again. (Don't go beyond what is "written").~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~When one CAN marry again ....Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. In other words, if he puts away his wife for sexual immorality during the marriage, he CAN remarry. That word "Except" is in the text for a reason.The majority of scholars on this verse, say that the "sexual immorality" (fornication) happens "during" the marriage, and not prior.If the Lord had just said "adultery", then that would have limited any number of other ways in which a married person can "defile the marriage bed", (that we won't get into) ... that is why Jesus used the all encompassing word "porneia" meaning 1) illicit sexual intercourse1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 181c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:122) metaphorically the worship of idols2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols (Thayer's)How this verse being taking so far out from it's meaning, I don't know.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~All of the above is not from "modern" scholars, but our old trusted ones. We should not add to God's Word and thus condemn or hurt our brothers and sisters unwarrantedly.
This thread is like de ja vu all over again... de ja vu all over again... de ja vu all over again... Didnt we just have this discussion like 2 weeks ago?Krispy
Two threads on this same topic! The following words were meant to go on the very very long thread, but I am posting it here. You don't need to read that thread, this gives the drift: *** I just read through this long 14 page post, trying to imagine that I was one of the statistics. Would I find Christ amidst the conversation? I did PTL: in Neiglin1’s testimony. Thank you for sharing that! I'm just tired of the church treating divorced people like they are some kind of second rate Christian. Sadly this comment expresses the true feelings of many – those who find themselves among the statistics. Sadly, all too often when they are in their weakest condition, as a result of the emotional turmoil in their lives, they get hammered by the legalists – those who are straining the gnats, but missing the message of the Sprit. Note this message: The book of Hagar is an unbelievable story of a man taking back his promiscuous wife (against law but not against grace). That is the picture of Christ and the sinful human race – of which none of us are exempt. When we all see ourselves as the promiscuous wife, then we will see that none of us deserves any mercy anymore than the divorced person. Since the statistics are as they are, what are we to do? I have several piano students from broken homes. They hurt badly. So do their parents. They have all heard enough degrading, accusing, slamming words thrown at them. They have suffered already from the consequences of poor choices – whether their own, or someone else’s. (including the sins of society in general) In the past the "dysfunctional" person was the exception. Now it is the norm. People carry a lot of unhealthy emotinal baggage, and that makes it extremely difficult to maintain healthy reliationships - whether in marriage or otherwise. We need to take that into consideration when trying to understand the issue of divorce. Let's face it, any of us would find it difficult, even impossible, to have a trusting relationship with a person who harbors a lot of rage, shame, addiction, who lies a lot, who won't listen to anything you say, who perpetually makes wreckless choices etc. [edit added]We can add several more pages in this thread, but if we have nothing to say that would promote healing and forgiveness for these people, we are as sounding brass, and all our words will count for nothing. I’ve heard it said that when God sends revival, it will be the forgiven sinners – the divorces, the addicts, the prostitutes etc who will lead the way. I can easily believe this. These are the ones who will KNOW the mercy of God. They will be the ones who will give it to others. “Freely you have received, freely give.” They may not be allowed to hold offices in the church, but they will be God’s mighty servants among the sinners of the world – ministers of reconciliation. Who knows, some day you or I may be ministered to by one of those among the statistics. (Doesn’t that remind you of the Parable of the Good Samaritan? )Diane
Two threads on this same topic! The following words were meant to go on the very very long thread, but I am posting it here. You don't need to read that thread, this gives the drift: There have been 4 or 5 threads on this topic over the years. This is one which tried to find some definitions: Divorce and Remarriage a biblical perspective.My own view on this is that the narrow interpretation of Matthew's reference to fornication as meaning 'pre-marital sex' just cannot be sustained from the Bible data. Without joining a 'side' in this, I think Neilgin's 'born again virgin' concept is also mistaken. I am not trying to prove anything about divorce and remarriage in saying this, but that the concept does not work. New birth happens in the spirit, but sexual union happens in the body. The concept that 'new birth' resets all the dials is not true of the body. If this were so 'new birth' would instantly effect a cure of all hereditary or sexually transmitted diseases.Over many years I have discussed and re-discussed this question with many. There are two main settings for such discussions; a group of studious thinkers with highly tuned spiritual antennae AND broken hearted people whose lives have fallen to pieces around them. In the first scenario we have all the luxury of precise defintions and prescriptions; in the second we have a pastoral responsibility to wounded souls.As a younger man, I heard a wise old preacher say there are three things that Christians will never agree on; the reconciliation of apostates, divorce and remarriage, and the taking up of arms. I thought him somewhat defeatest, believing myself that there must always be a simple answer to such moral dilemmas.For myself one of the continuing problems in trying to 'hold the line' and at the same time not wanting to impose my own convictions upon another's life, is the whole definition of 'marriage'. Christians presume that we have one; I am not sure. I posted this in another thread about 18 months ago.Sometimes we have to broaden an issue before we can narrow it. There are at least three issues affecting fellowship which the Church has struggled with for hundreds of years; repentant apostates, the marriage of divorcees, and taking up arms in war. Opposing sides have been taken by Godly men in their different persuasions. Often, as the saying goes 'we generated more heat than light'. It is easier to come to decisions about these matters in our studies than in our pastoral care of the saints. It is relatively easy to come to fixed position theologically; if we were dealing with boxes and not people life would be uncomplicated.Before we can define 'remarriage' we have to define 'divorce', but before we define 'divorce' we have to define 'marriage'. For a couple of hundred years there has been a 'Christian consensus' for a definition; usually it would involve the notions of consent, covenant and consumation. It has been a bulwark for society and the family, but we are now living in a society which is much more like that of the first century and it would be good if we understood what that society was like.As far as I can ascertain there are no Hebrew words nor Greek words for 'husband' or 'wife'. :-o Both languages use the simple words for 'man' or 'woman' and they add a possessive pronoun. eg Jesus says to the Samaritan woman "thou hast had 5 men and he whom thou now hast is not thy man". The question then is what makes 'a man' hers or 'a woman' his. and we are back to our need for a definition of marriage!There are no marriage 'ceremonies' in the Old Testament. There is a wedding celebration in John 2 and we have a good idea of the pattern of betrothal and marriage in Jewish society. Some say that God authenticates the Jewish pattern, but do not usually say where or how.At this point in history Roman wedding patterns were in transition. Roman family life with its rights and responsibilities is very complicated for folks brought up in our cultures. The Romans had 5 recognized forms of marriage! In some of them 'ownership' of the woman changed. In some it did not. The one closest to our traditional 'Christian marriage' was called 'Confarreatio'.Confarreatio was an elaborate religious ceremony, * with ten witnesses, * the flamen dialis (himself married confarreatio) and * pontifex maximus in attendance. * Only the children of parents married confarreatio were eligible. * The grain far was baked into a special wedding cake (farreum) for the occasion; hence, the name confarreatio. It was only available for the patrician class. (the upper strata of Ronan society) Technically this made the bride her father-in-law's possession. Another familiar form of marriage was known an USUS and has similarities with what we would now call 'common law marriage'. This would have been the form of marriage for much of the lower 'strata' of Roman society. Under this form of marriage * After a year's cohabitation, the woman came under her husband's manum, (authority) * unless she stayed away for three nights (trinoctium abesse). * Since she wasn't living with her pater familias, and * since she wasn't under the hand of her husband, * she acquired some freedom.We have no records of Roman marriages being 'blessed' by Christians and it is most unlikely that early Christians were required to be formally married by 'Christian priests'.One of the things we 21st Century christians need to think through is the implications of all this. Is a common-law marriage between two faithful partners less 'valid' that a legal marriage in Las Vegas that lasts for an hour or two? Can someone live a life of promiscuity but still be regarded as 'unmarried' and therefore eligible for 'Christian Marriage'?The words of the Lord are very striking; They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mat 19:7-8 KJV)In particular we should notice 1. his change from 'command' to 'allow' in his statement regarding Moses,2. that the original design (from the beginning) had been allowed to be 'modified'. 3. the reason for the modification was 'hardness of heart'.The Moses commandment was part of a Law-Code which began at Sinai (and hence did not include Adam, Abraham, Jacog etc) and ended when the 'seed came to whom the promise was made'. (Gal 3:19). This means we must be very cautious about the way we use the Old Testament to understand the New Testament. The New Covenant contains a promise of a new-heart, so is there now any accommodation for 'hardness of heart' in the Church? are we back to 'as it was in the beginning?'.In all these considerations we need a spirit of patience love and, often, specific discernment. This is a plea from an old pastor who once had all this sorted out theoretically, but real people just kept getting in the way! :-) Just one more comment by way of loving provocation; one of the reasons we have such difficulties with this issue is because churches have taken on the role of 'marriage facilitators'. Why do we 'marry' people? If we left this in the hands of the civil authority we might be able to see some of the issues more clearly. Just my thoughts... we know in part...
I just read through this long 14 page post, trying to imagine that I was one of the statistics. Would I find Christ amidst the conversation? I did PTL: in Neiglin1’s testimony. Thank you for sharing that!Me too Diane, and on this one, I found it in Hans' testimony.I reckon as long as new folks come on, we'll see threads come up on old-already-hashed-out topics, but I'm sure the starter of this thread, had a reason to start it. I'm sort of glad he did, cuz the other one was getting old, stale and starchy in places.I think I'm getting old and tired and maybe (I don't know what) ... cuz I'm really "TIRING" of "OPINIONS".I even told my daughter, that I'm a sick ol' grumpy lady. Ha - :-? But I almost started a thread titled ... "Opinion is Sin". (dead serious here tho'.)I think when it comes to God's Word and the Events going on in the World, that "God's" people should have 'the mind of Christ' on these issues or be Biblically Based.(same thing)The world looks to 'us' for The Answers, and if all we have is differing "opinions" and not The Word of God, or intelligent research on political issues, then how can we be the LIGHT of the world ?Confusion is not from the Lord, and "opinions" are confusion. I think on Biblical discussions or on POLITICS, we should know from RESEARCH, and lots of it, what we are saying, for the sake of the World.They're lost, they need firm, truthful, From God, answers.Enough blah, blah from me, though this really HAS been heavy on my heart lately, more than ever.annie
from brother Hans:the Church has no business to tell the world how to live or how to behave, since She doesn’t know how to obey God’s Word. Jesus never told the world how to live neither did he lead a protest march to Rome to complaint to the Emperor. He only scolded the religious leaders, never the political ones according to my knowledge. Paul tells us to pray for our leaders, not to tell them how to run the country. this is well saidyour whole testimony Hans, how the Lord uses both you and your wife now to counsel others is a testimony to the power of grace and that mercy indeed does triumph over judgmentbut we don't want grace when we're confident of our abilities to live righteouslythose that spout self-righteously and finger-point constantly and continually on this message board will find that they themselves shall become ensnared in the same sins they try to focus upon in othersjust watch
"Opinion is Sin"that's an interesting opinion. ;-)
philologos,Your summary here was much appreciated. After one marriage partner has been born again, I have the impression that there must come some discussion about how the other wishes to proceed - staying or leaving - which naturally has consequences for the believer. Even if the unbeliever stays for a while, surely, something vital has changed their relationship?New birth happens in the spirit, but sexual union happens in the body.You have said what new birth does not do. Could you elaborate on what it does do, please? EDIT: I mean, do to present and past marriage relationships. EDIT end
I think when it comes to God's Word and the Events going on in the World, that "God's" people should have 'the mind of Christ' on these issues or be Biblically Based.(same thing)Annie, good point, It's not what we think the Bible says but what God says. Therefore let God deal with those people who are in the remarried position, it is not for us to judge them. If they are honest with God and desire His Lordship in their lives, they will search for His answer and live by it. This brings us back to Cheryl's testimony.
If an unbeliever departs and then remarries someone else, then the Christian is free to marry again. (Don't go beyond what is "written").But that is not what Paul stated. Counselling this to someone would be going beyond what is written.The majority of scholars on this verse, say that the "sexual immorality" (fornication) happens "during" the marriage, and not prior.The majority of the Christian Church in the 1st/2nd century believed and practiced the indissoluability of marriage (before the formation of the RC church, just to be clear). Even when a spouse was "put away" for adultery, the marriage was not considered dissolved. Only death dissolved marriage and freed one to remarry. and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. What do you make of this part(b) of Mt. 19:9? Most churches today tell the woman who has been put away that she may remarry (since she was wrongly divorced and her husband has remarried), yet it appears from the text that the woman is forbidden to remarry and whoever marries her is committing adultery.How this verse being taking so far out from it's meaning, I don't know.Mt. 1:18-24 probably contributes to how this passage gets interpreted, since it did happen that a woman could be 'put away' who hadn't even consummated a marriage yet. Another passage that contributes to a more narrower viewpoint would be Rom. 7:2-3. Paul shows a woman who is remarried/an adulteress, yet never mentions anything besides death which frees her from her marriage bond. The current popular interpretation of Mt. 19:9 is at odds with what Paul preached in Rom. 7 and I Cor. 7:39. Blessings in Him, Cindy
Back to GrannyAnnie who wrote: But I almost started a thread titled ... "Opinion is Sin".I dare you! Of course that no one believes that their convictions are opinions. (I don't)It's been said, If you want to know how to raise kids, ask someone who hasn't had any yet. They will have lots and lots and lots to say. It's like that with any life experience - including martital challenges. There is nothing like real life experience to silence us. Then we realize how much we don't have the answers, and how even the right answers don't help. That's when we are on our faces before God - pleading for his mercy and help. Very few get married with plans to unmarry. I can't tell you how many separated people tell me that they never wanted it to go that way. All too many find themselves in this unbearable turmoil of breaking relationships and no no way out of the stalemate, no way out of the pain other than to run. They feel stuck. It is real! And for many it is horrible! So they don't need a theological lecture. They need real human people to be as Christ to them, to show them what the Lord is like - He who said, "I am your husband. I will woe you." And that is exactly what happens to many. I love hearing them share their journey - of how Christ woed them to himself in the midst of their marriage troubles. Often separation is the only way that marriage partners can unravel their tangled-up, emmeshed relationship and start to see what has been happening, and then figure out how they need to change. It would be nice if they could all reunite, but let's face reality - it just can't always be so. We have to accept that and move on. And we can stop hanging the big letter D around their neck - and see other aspects of their lives, their character, their dreams, hopes, faith, etc. Diane
It would be nice if they could all reunite, but let's face reality - it just can't always be so. We have to accept that and move on. And we can stop hanging the big letter D around their neck - and see other aspects of their lives, their character, their dreams, hopes, faith, etc. DianeDiane, I am part of an online support group filled with [font=Verdana]D[/font]ivorced people. It is the most faith filled, forgiving, trusting in the Lord group of people I have ever met in my life............and they ALL believe in the permanency of marriage---til death. In any case, being divorced is not the issue of the opening post, though I do know many want to keep the focus there to avoid the bigger, more difficult issue of remarital adultery.
:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------But I almost started a thread titled ... "Opinion is Sin".--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I dare you!Glad you joined SI. In other words, glad you're here.And since you've been here a few months before me and probably don't have leprosy like I do (ha), maybe you should start the thread and I'll hop along besides ya. :-D Love,Annie
Oops, didn't mean for that big silly grin to show up on the homepage under such a serious subject. Reposting here to wipe it off.sorry.
You have said what new birth does not do. Could you elaborate on what it does do, please? EDIT: I mean, do to present and past marriage relationships.I don't believe it does anything directly to present or past 'marriage' relationships. Regeneration changes a person's nature; I am still my father's son, and my son's father, and my wife's husband. None of these relationships is altered directly by regeneration.Paul uses some very challenging language in the topic of marital relationships. ““For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.” (1Cor. 7:7, NKJV) The word gift here is 'charisma'. Apparently we are all charismatics, ;-) if we are male or female. Later Paul gives the general counsel:“But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.” (1Cor. 7:17-21, NKJV)This passage ends with a reference to slavery but began in the context of marital patterns. It seems to be that marital relations are unaltered by 'regeneration' in itself; obviously new birth changes people in every aspect but not in the formal relationships of marriage or family.If Neilgin's thesis were correct this would produce extraordinary complications. If regeneration creates physical virginity what does it do to the marriage that was consumated? does it have to be re-consumated and what does it do to the children who have been fathered/mothered?I do think it is important to remember that the early church did not 'do marriages'. As Christendom (not Christianity) became more controlling the visible church became involved in marriages, annulments and re-marriages, but we must not have the 17th century Anglican marriage ceremony in our minds when we read these passages.
you wrote: Without joining a 'side' in this, I think Neilgin's 'born again virgin' concept is also mistaken.really?what then does a being a "new man in Christ" mean?If all sin and immorality are washed away in the Blood of Christ, and one is born again, is not an infant a virgin?
If Neilgin's thesis were correct this would produce extraordinary complications. If regeneration creates physical virginity what does it do to the marriage that was consumated? does it have to be re-consumated and what does it do to the children who have been fathered/mothered?Ronnie old man, number one, it's Neil, neilgin1 is a standardized thingy I use for cyber stuff. My last name is Giuntoli, blah blah blah, bing bing bing.number two, you're thinking too much. I don't mean that in an anti-intellectual way, or an anti-theophilosophical way, but you're thinking too much.there are no extraordinary complications in my thesis, because there is no thesis, only a promise from God and that promise is that I'm born again, made NEW in Christ, its THAT simple.It doesn't need a lot of theological expositon, God's promises, His covenant promises are extremely simple.If I am made anew, born again....let me describe it, Paul references a physical circumsion, and a circumsion of the heart, so does Jeremiah. Implication being that when one is born again, justified, with their sins washed away in the Atoning Blood of the Messiah Jesus, they are a new being.On a personal level, since I was born again, I've been intimate with Jesus only. My most personal heart connecting with His heart, struggles, victories and burdens, being caught up in high places with God.Someday, I may meet a woman, who is walking in this most holy faith, equally yoked, and into that union, that marriage, I will bring myself, and she will know that I have not sullied (God willing) my body subsequent to rebirth.If you or anyone else think I'm mistaken in this conviction, so be it. A person can cut Scripture any way they want, its the dialogue that happens in the secret place between you and God that matters.Everything else is just white noise and palaber.I say all the above with respect and love.
I don't believe it does anything directly to present or past 'marriage' relationships. Regeneration changes a person's nature; I am still my father's son, and my son's father, and my wife's husband. None of these relationships is altered directly by regeneration.There can be no argument about one's physical parentage or children, but the previous accord in these relationship may be shattered, may it not? Or, lack of accord, restored - because of regeneration. The Spirit cannot be boxed off away from the flesh completely.I hope you're not going to say I've taken this verse out of context - but please tell me if I am. I have found it a great blessing to know that my body, my flesh, can be subject to the Spirit and can be quickened by the Spirit.Romans 811 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. Here are three relationships in the Old Testament, in which the status quo altered from what it had been, because in each relationship, one person obeyed/sought/worshipped God.Judges 6: 25, 26And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, [Gideon]'Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it: and build an altar unto the LORD thy God upon the top of this rock, in the ordered place, and take the second bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood of the grove which thou shalt cut down'.Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Genesis 33:3, 4And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother. And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept. 2 Samuel 616 And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart. 20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! 3 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. Further, if a person has been involved in wrong sexual relationships previously, they are expected to stop - because of regeneration. Marriage must be the only type of sexual relationship which can survive across the regeneration barrier - if the unbeliever wants it to.
philologos saidI do think it is important to remember that the early church did not 'do marriages'. As Christendom (not Christianity) became more controlling the visible church became involved in marriages, annulments and re-marriages, but we must not have the 17th century Anglican marriage ceremony in our minds when we read these passages.This is helpful. In an earlier post, you sought to define marriage without actually defining it. :-( In these discussions (other threads) I've wanted to define marriage too, but the public religious ceremony (registration) seems to interfere considerably with the meaning of marriage as a statement of physical relationship between two people, which has/had a serious component of unfulfilled sexual desire initiating and motivating it. This gets all the more complicated, if those participating are no longer virgins, because I've concluded (Ha! the obvious!) that sexual fulfilment is intended to be addictive. It's a tragedy when this addiction is sparked off inappropriately before marriage, as it can only lead to physical, emotional and psychological distress. If there is any kindness in God, either there has to be 'marriage' (to avoid fornication) or, healing, or, remarriage?.Are there conditions under which remarriage can be justified, or, would stating them be too delicate a matter?
Palaber. I like that word, even though I'll have to go now and look it up in Websters. HA !I told someone here about having all scientists for siblings, and how the Lord rebuked me severely about using my "head" so to speak, to speak for "HIM". Ooooo, bad no-no, He said, so He allowed me to develop a syndrome (M.E.) that made it hard to do so. (Ah-ha, I hear some say) ... but when you come from a family of 'egg-heads' (Mensa men) and then you get saved, if you don't learn to "walk in the spirit" and not in the flesh (brain power), you're gonna hurt someone, pretty badly or just plain add "mixed cloth" in with the HOLY.Anyhowz, when we were sent out to do Street witnessing as an Assignment, we were told, it was perfectly legit, to tell a Prostitute, that once she is saved, she, in God's eyes, would then be a virgin .............. As far as the East is from the West ........ Though your sins be as scarlet, to white as snow, old man dead, etc. etc..I don't think I could tell anyone any different, no matter what.Palaber. Now I've got to go pull out Websters.thanks !LOVE in Christ.
I found it. It's a mix between palaver and pabulum. Yuck :-P . Doesn't sound too nutritious to me.
Apologies in advance, for this very long post, which doesn't offer many answers, but lays out some of the problems which make this topic so hard to generalise about. philologos saidIf Neilgin's thesis were correct this would produce extraordinary complications. If regeneration creates physical virginity what does it do to the marriage that was consumated? does it have to be re-consumated and what does it do to the children who have been fathered/mothered?I believe it does change 'the marriage that was consumated' but not retrospectively .... now as it goes forward in God.... regeneration cannot have no effect.If the children are holy because of the believer, there are implications towards holiness for the unbelieving spouse, if they stay, because there is now some spiritual authority over sin within the relationship.This is completely in keeping with the truth that there are spiritual implications for those who fornicate or commit adultery, or commit homosexuality, all of which are relevant to 'but ye are washed, ye are sanctified' in 1 Cor 6:9 - 11. Do you see what I mean? Regeneration changes these 'relationships'....As I have experienced it, how clean one feels has a huge amount to do with virginity or the lack of it. There should be a natural cleanness which proceeds with the virgin into the marriage relationship, which (I believe) promotes their becoming one flesh, in such a way that this can be a completing of each other - CS Lewis suggests, a becoming 'fully human'. It is definitely possible to be technically married but not become 'one flesh' with a sense of belonging to the other - nurturing responsible mutual love. This was my experience, without doubt exascerbated by what I had begun to discover before I left it - my history of abuse in childhood. It's always difficult to introduce this subject, but, it is so relevant, I think I need to share, so as to show the grace of God to a broken person, who was first molested as a baby. I didn't begin to put together what I actually know about myself, until after the pressure of the most obvious violations (in childhood) had been dealt with. After that, just under the surface, memories of a much more malicious influence in my life, emerged. What a big relief to have that pointer to meaningful explanations! In this discussion, the relevance is that my virginity had been eroded by too many violations to count, and later with consent I gave up what was left-of-it-in-principle far too easily, to a smooth-talking adulterer (This is the easy-to-understand version of the story.) The spiritual implication(s) of the Idol Fornication, (and those of Sodom), ministered to a child, have taken years and years to unravel. Effectively preventing healing from my childhood, fornication (just once) was a severe blow to my by then, fragile mental health. Literally, only since I came to SI, has true repentance for that single event been able to assume long-awaited priority - praise the Lord. It should be noted that in the interim, I was married for 15 years (technically) and have two children. Only latterly (and I mean, in the last 10 years) through Bible study, much prayer, (much prayer, much more prayer, and much more prayer), did I begin to have some clarity about God's view of all these things, and begin to be able to put them in some kind of order, which has enabled me to heal from my childhood, and, from being in the cultish setting I have mentioned in other threads. (I should say I also read text books on recovery and had some excellent professional support (to make sure my children were being safely parented) but basically, this has been a journey taken with God, and alone.) Eventually, I wrote a poem, (about five years ago) which at the time seemed to be retrospective, but, in view of the many very deep healings I've had in the weeks since I came here, to some extent, was prophetic - maybe 'hopeful' would be a better word, for back then - I dare not say 'bringing to an end' a journey which began 20 years ago, but definitely closing a chapter on the last 50 years of my life. The eternal Spirit has met me and kept me, and finally, delivered me from spiritual strongholds which resisted and flourished, while there was such an inviting combination of invisible injuries to offer foothold, handhold and stranglehold to them.Most recently, I believe God healed me from the mourning I felt towards having had to be divorced - not for the loss of the (technical) marriage - but because I entered it with the belief there could only ever be one marriage in a lifetime. This is a separate subject (and I'm not going into details), but I was wrong to marry who and when I did and I found that a wrong 'marriage' (legal commitment to person one should not be in bed with) is a sin, (as much as fornication is a sin) which cannot lead to the desired end of something God can bless. That was my only marriage.... To be fair to God, and give Him all the glory due, He has held me together (seriously miraculously) through the raising of my offspring, and at last, I am just about fit for motherhood, somewhat late in the day.I share all this, because it's only now also, I am anywhere near fit to be married... and, I see that the interleaving and overlapping of the work of the Spirit, with spirit and body, cannot really be hurried in the generality, just because a person is approaching marriagable age. Maybe, I could have been 'healed' 'in church' but, if healing was preached, it certainly didn't meet my understanding in such a way as I could receive. (Actually, many survivors find church too much so I should not perpetuate the myth survivors could find God and healing there. Yes it is and was part of the tapestry, but it isn't 'the answer'. The answer is to discover what crsschk posted about Psalm 139 - that there is nothing which cannot be brought into the presence of God for His attention, nothing. He is pure Compassion, and waits to heal.)Here is the poem.... It attempts to convey the multi-dimensional damage which God is invited to restructure. (And which I testify to you, He can restructure.)Original SaviourA girlhood, robbed of innocence,Has little use for penitence.She rather questions her existenceSeeking damage-limitation fixes,Till a Saviour comes along,With tune Original and song -And gives her hope in great profusion,Stimulating rank confusion -Instantly creating turmoil,Redefining every normal,Lifelong referential grid,Of every twist and warp to rid;Each loss and defect to restoreExactly how it was before –Or should have been, in ideal world, Before her life was downward hurled.And now, with ever-upward trendsShe grows, and stuntedness unbends,Responding to the One whose Light Obscures the sun with glory bright -Trusting Him - with confidence -Relinquishing all diffidence, She branches out to fill her place,Still looking up into His face.Amazement dawns within her soulThe more she finds she’s been made whole,Crowned by the ingenuityWhich gives back her virginity.No earthling can her joy removeWhile growing perfect in His love;Her robe still keeping spotless white,Her head held high, she loves the Light.
Dorcas, I'm trying to type, but I can't barely see the monitor because my eyes are having a thunder storm right now.All I saw was you under the cross, with His Blood flowing all over you. Oh Lord, it was beautiful, if you know what I mean.And this song is going through my mind ...There is a fountain filled with blood,Drawn from Immanuel’s veins,And sinners plunged beneath that floodLose all their guilty stains.Refrain 1:Lose all their guilty stains,Lose all their guilty stains;And sinners plunged beneath that floodLose all their guilty stains.The dying thief rejoiced to seeThat fountain in His day;And there have I, though vile as he,Washed all my sins away.Refrain 2:Washed all my sins away,Washed all my sins away;And there have I, though vile as he,Washed all my sins away.Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious bloodShall never lose its pow’r,Till all the ransomed church of GodAre safe, to sin no more.Refrain 3:Are safe, to sin no more,Are safe, to sin no more;Till all the ransomed church of GodAre safe, to sin no more.E’er since by faith I saw the streamThy flowing wounds supply,Redeeming love has been my theme,And shall be till I die.Refrain 4:And shall be till I die,And shall be till I die;Redeeming love has been my theme,And shall be till I die.Then in a nobler, sweeter song,I’ll sing Thy pow’r to save,When this poor, lisping, stamm’ring tongueLies silent in the grave.Thank you for sharing this Glory to God post, from your heart about HIS.You're a beautiful lady indeed.God Bless you intensely.His Unending Love to you.Annie
Annie, take care now. I'm glad you're blessed. I'm blessed you're blessed and with this wonderful theme. Amen! :-)There is a fountain filled with blood,Drawn from Immanuel’s veins,And sinners plunged beneath that floodLose all their guilty stains.This is where the power lies, for cleansing from occult and spiritual uncleanness.EDIT: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/mid/c/l/e/cleansing_fountain.mid
He came to "Set the Captives Free".And this is Truth.And save a wretch like me.AnnieEdit to add:Isa 61:1-3 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that HE might be glorified.
what then does a being a "new man in Christ" mean?If all sin and immorality are washed away in the Blood of Christ, and one is born again, is not an infant a virgin?Hi NeilWell, it doesn't mean I get a new body here and now. If it does I have been short-changed! :-)
Ronnie old man, number one, it's Neil, neilgin1 is a standardized thingy I use for cyber stuff. My last name is Giuntoli, blah blah blah, bing bing bing.Yeh, I know who you are. (sshhhh. I've seen the pictures, remember?;-))there are no extraordinary complications in my thesis, because there is no thesis, only a promise from God and that promise is that I'm born again, made NEW in Christ, its THAT simple.What parts of you are 'made new in Christ'? Do you still have that old nose?I am not trying to direct your life; you know me better than that. I am examining your ideas and thinking through the implications. I have known of people who when they were 'born again' walked away from their spouses because they has been 'made new'. I have known of people who have taken new spouses because the old ones were not born again and God had made 'all things new'. The 'all things new' does not include body parts or relationships except and inasmuch as all attitudes come under God's transforming power.Regeneration does not alter our sexual relationships. I am not taking the side here of either in this discussion. I have been pastoring and counseling people with marital and sexual struggles for almost 50 years; I am bruised with the bruisings that people have suffered in this area. Bruises which are the result of absolute positions being taken. I could tell you stories that would make your hair curl. ;-) (that's a point 'if all things are made new' - the word means 'refreshed' - why don't I have any? Hair that is. :-) ) As I have said before in these posts these things are easy to pontificate about in theoretical discussion, it just that hurting people keep getting in the way!It doesn't need a lot of theological expositon, God's promises, His covenant promises are extremely simple.If I am made anew, born again....let me describe it, Paul references a physical circumsion, and a circumsion of the heart, so does Jeremiah. Implication being that when one is born again, justified, with their sins washed away in the Atoning Blood of the Messiah Jesus, they are a new being.I agree that it doesn't need a lot of theological exposition; I am not offering it. I am still amazed that you seem to think regeneration changes a person physically. Does a physically circumcised person become whole again in regeneration? of course not. The scriptures make it very plain that the 'bodily part of our beings' does not receive its full 'new' expression in this present life. “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:” (Rom. 3:24, KJVS) This is an accomplished fact; I am justified and redeemed, but there is more to consider...For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” (Rom. 8:21-23, KJVS) In this passage we are being told that we are still 'part' of the creation which is still groaning and travailing, and that we are 'waiting for' the redemption of our body. Your statements imply that the redemption of the body has already taken place. The seal of the Spirit is the guarantee that the body will be 'redeemed' but at this moment it remains part of a fallen physical world.If you or anyone else think I'm mistaken in this conviction, so be it. A person can cut Scripture any way they want, its the dialogue that happens in the secret place between you and God that matters. From our previous personal conversations and your posting here on SI I am surprised by this response too. Are you saying that there is no definitive meaning to scripture or are you saying that 'your opinion is as good as mine'? I don't set myself up as any oracle, I simply give my reasons for believing what I believe. It is not true that 'a person can cut scripture any way they want' but what matters is the personal dialogue between me and God; this is Jake territory.I say all the above with respect and love. and I pass these comments in the same spirit.
It is definitely possible to be technically married but not become 'one flesh' with a sense of belonging to the other - nurturing responsible mutual love. 1Cor. 6:16 (KJVS) What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. I think you are modifying 'one body/flesh'. Paul is talking about physical union here, not marital bliss.This is a separate subject (and I'm not going into details), but I was wrong to marry who and when I did and I found that a wrong 'marriage' (legal commitment to person one should not be in bed with) is a sin, (as much as fornication is a sin) which cannot lead to the desired end of something God can bless. I believe this is mistaken and dangerous. Again this kind of thinking, in the past, has resulted in gross immorality. I know of a pastor who held that his marriage to their wife was not in the will of God and that their affinity with a 'sister in the church' was what God had really planned. The journey between that theology and the consequent destruction of the man's marriage and life was a very short one. In fact, I have know of more that one pastor who has taken this short cut to disaster.What you are doing with these presumptions is to say that a marriage is a marriage only if it is a good marriage and a blessed marriage. I do not believe that is a scriptural position; it is never sin 'to be in bed' with a spouse. Your expression makes 'marriage' a wholly subjective feature.Amazement dawns within her soulThe more she finds she’s been made whole,Crowned by the ingenuityWhich gives back her virginityYou are confusing two things here. There was once a Catholic pig which was said to be saint. Some protested that the pig had had piglets. Ah, was the response, but it was emotionally a virgin, never having consented to the union. Virginity is not defined by motive or consent. There are different levels at which this issue needs to be addressed. If there has been guilt in regard to sexual activity (and there would be none in child abuse. I am using the word 'guilt' in its biblical connotation as 'blame-worthiness' and not in the modern connotation of 'feelings') we need to make it plain that there is perfect forgiveness and cleansing. And that God has carried all the guilt in the person of his son, so that the 'guilty' is now declared 'justified'. There is more, the spirit's union with the spirit of disobedience, otherwise known as 'original or congenital sin' is also remedied in genuine regeneration. The spirit is genuinely 'renewed' (Ezek 36:26) and consequently 'virgin' but the body has not yet been 'redeemed' (in its fullest sense) at which time we will all be 're-virginated' and even the physical elements of our beings will find their ultimate salvation; this is usually called resurrection.However, the 'scars' will remain, just as physical violence might leave scars. A simple but dreadful illustration may serve us. Suppose a young woman has been forcibly taken and violated and is pregnant as a result... If she is genuinely regenerated will the foetus cease to be? Sin has consequences as well as guilt. The classic illustration of this is the story of David...“And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.” (2Sam. 12:13-14, KJVS) The guilt of David's sin was put away in a moment, but the physical consequences rippled through his family. The word spoken to David before his repentance and forgiveness was 2Sam. 12:10 (KJVS) Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. David's sin was immediately 'passed over' as regards his own relationship with God, but the words spoken before his repentance would still stand.There is a wonderful song by Michael Card called 'Underneath the Door' or 'My father was a doctor'. It tells the story of a Michael Card in his 'diapers' who was frustrated in his attempts to reach his reclusive father. After spending long hours as a doctor his father would shut himself in his study avoiding his family and bringing a lifelong pain to his youngest son who pushed little paintings under the study door to try to contact his father. In this song there is a wonderful section which declaresBut our wounds are part of who we are?And there is nothing left to chance?And pain's the pen that writes the songs?That call us forth to dance. In that phrase he has caught part of the mystery of evil permitted by a good God. We need to tell the 'abused' that they have not been contaminated by what has happened, and that they are not quilty. But let's not tell them that we can re-write history. God will waste nothing, not even the abuses that we have suffered.Here's the full songMy father was a doctorWho would come home late at nightWith a soul so bruised and bleedingFrom his unending, faithful fightTo keep a hold of kindnessIn a world that isn't kindTo hold out the hope of healingTo his hurting humankind.Then he'd flee back to his studyTo his bookish, quiet placeWith notes and books and journalsTo wall in his special spaceAnd then he'd lock the doorFrom things that cannot be locked outAnd his youngest son would starve for what He'd always do without.But it was meant to make me who I amAnd for all these many yearsStill the little boy down on his kneesFull of hope and full of fearCalling underneath the dorr"This is me, it's who I am."Cause we love the best by listeningWhen we try to understand.Desperate stubby fingersPushing pictures 'neath the doorLonging to be listened toBy the man that I adoredInside someone who needed meAs much as I did himUnable to unlock the doorThat stayed close inside of him.It's strange the way we tend to fleeFrom what we need the mostThat a father would lock out a sonWhen his heart would hold him closeBut our wounds are part of who we areAnd there is nothing left to chanceAnd pain's the pen that writes the songsThat call us forth to dance.
're-virginated' I could only imagine if the man I was going to marry told me that he was a "virgin" and I found out that he had been married before and his spouse was still living...It would just be another adulterous remarriage that I would have to repent of.I guess virgin doesn't mean virgin anymore.When I was under conviciton of the Holy Spirit of being in an adulterous remarriage that scripture is the one a pastor used on me. "All things are new in Christ"Praise God I listened to the Spirit and God's word instead of men.CherylMy testimony is at http://www.poovy.8m.com
Dear Ronnie, thank you for the kind discrete response...lolMy main drift was towards an imparted virginity on much the same as the circumcision of the heart that is referenced in Jeremiah.me and the lads are headed for ball game at Dodgers stadium......brother, you simply must, must I say, take in a game of professional American baseball someday.baseball is what we once were, football is what we've become.May the Lord bless you as I remain your humble servant in Christ, Neil
My own view on this is that the narrow interpretation of Matthew's reference to fornication as meaning 'pre-marital sex' just cannot be sustained from the Bible data. ButOne of the things we 21st Century christians need to think through is the implications of all this. Is a common-law marriage between two faithful partners less 'valid' that a legal marriage in Las Vegas that lasts for an hour or two? Can someone live a life of promiscuity but still be regarded as 'unmarried' and therefore eligible for 'Christian Marriage'?Not wishing to make light of this, but, are you suggesting we are not taking premarital sex seriously enough, and perhaps there should be some responsibility on the promiscuous person, to make a commitment to his first sexual partner? If not the first, how would he choose? This means we must be very cautious about the way we use the Old Testament to understand the New Testament. The New Covenant contains a promise of a new-heart, so is there now any accommodation for 'hardness of heart' in the Church? are we back to 'as it was in the beginning?'.In the Matthew verses, the weight is on the man. He must not put his wife away for 'hardness of heart'. In the new (soft) heart scenario then, we are particularly talking about the saved partner being the male? Because if the wife has a new heart, she is entreated not to leave her husband - which can be a tricky one.... (1 Cor 7:13) while he still has a 'hard' heart.Also, is this a similar point to the suggestion that marriage is less dissovable than we might wish?
"A former pastor I know lost his position in a Christian organization when his wife left him and married another man. She admitted that he had been a good husband and father, but said his income level had been too low. He now is not permitted to serve as an elder because he is viewed as not meeting the "husband of one wife" requirement of 1 Timothy 3:2. This man, an innocent victim of his wife's greed, had been dealt with far more severely than many pastors who repented after immorality. This troubles me. A man thus divorced still meets the "husband of one wife" qualification, even after a new marriage. The Greek expression is literally "a one-woman man." This refers to a man whose life as a husband was marked by fidelity to his mate. A good husband who remarries after his wife dies is also a "one-woman man" in spite of having a second wife. http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q0806/q0806.htmlAm wondering whether the divorced partner (whose previous spouse has now remarried) does have a permission to marry again if he desires?dorcas saidthere are spiritual implications for those who fornicate or commit adultery, or commit homosexuality, all of which are relevant to 'but ye are washed, ye are sanctified' in 1 Cor 6:9 - 11. Do you see what I mean? Regeneration changes these 'relationships'.....Isn't it possible for the sexual behaviour in a marriage, also, to need to be brought under this 'washed' and 'sactified' influence? And isn't this one of the reasons some 'marriages' do not 'stand' the strain of one partner being born again?
Until the church from pulpit to pew repents of this matter, the church is and will continue to be powerless in winning the lost. Racked with its own adultery and fornication, it has the nerve to hypocritically point the finger at homosexuals and their lifestyle – while preachers and pastors remain silent on divorce and remarriage. Homosexuals make up about 5% of the population but have more of an impact on society than the church does. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. The Bible does not use the same harsh words against remarriage. What is the "percentage" of those remarried that did it as a result of infidelity on the part of thier spouse? The quote above is just a small portion of a post riddled with folly. The church will never be powerless to be a tool to win the lost. Also the use of the word hypocrite to describe the preaching of Gods men against homosexuality actually puts the poster in danger. There will always be sin. The presence of sin is not a reason to stop preaching on this subject or that.The Religious Right is nearly half-full with people living in continuous adulterous lifestyles, and those who are not remarried fully accept their remarried brothers and sisters without question. They even perform their adulterous marriage ceremonies in their churches. Yet they have the gall to preach from their pulpits or shout through the airwaves that God wants us to stop the world from accepting homosexuals the same way they have been accepted by God. Homosexuals have not been accepted by God. God accepts only spotless redeemed. You will see no homosexuals or adulterers in heaven.Why do they pick on one “sinful” lifestyle but not their own? Why homosexuality and not adultery? If your church doesnt preach against adultery you should change churches.Lets be careful not to condone or defend sinful lifestyle period. We are called to be perfect. Pitting one set of sins against another is not useful.I guess one thing that upsets me about the original post is that its filled with opinion. I know opinions are like armpits. Everyones got them and at one time or another they stink. There is an underlying defense of a homosexual in the original posters writing. Maybe a friend or relative that has recieved serious condemnation for homosexuality? I understand a sentiment to want love to be shown to all men regardless of thier sin. We just need to be careful not to cause confusion.
philologos saidRegeneration does not alter our sexual relationships. I am not taking the side here of either in this discussion. I have been pastoring and counseling people with marital and sexual struggles for almost 50 years; I am bruised with the bruisings that people have suffered in this area. Bruises which are the result of absolute positions being taken. I could tell you stories that would make your hair curl. Want to acknowledge this, and not wishing you should be any more bruised on my account, but am intending still to respond to the song you posted.
I guess all in all the thing I disagree with most about the original post is this statement.This Quote from homosexual activist Elroy McKinley is defiantly worth reading, contemplation and discussion.Where is the original poster anyway? :-o
me and the lads are headed for ball game at Dodgers stadium......brother, you simply must, must I say, take in a game of professional American baseball someday.Baseball? Did you never get to play cricket while you were over here? Some unbelievers have called in 'baseball on valium'! What does it tell you about a culture that can invent a game that goes on for 5 days and can still end in a draw?There is a theory that the English, being a godless race, invented cricket to give themselves some idea of eternity. (just joking)
Homosexuals have not been accepted by God. God accepts only spotless redeemed. You will see no homosexuals or adulterers in heaven.This statement contains the seeds of 'justification by sanctification' and as such needs to be addressed. I know what you are saying; that we cannot remain in our sins. But it is vital to understand that 'God justifies the ungodly' not the godly. He came to call 'sinners to repentance' not the righteous. We must not put any condition on God's 'acceptance' of men and women other than the death of his Son.After we have been accepted... well that is a different story but at the moment of acceptance the old gospel hymn got it right..."sing it o'er and o'er againChrist receiveth sinful men"“And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” (Luke 15:2, KJVS)
I do not retract my statement. It is 100% valid and backed by scripture.My statement must have been confused in the interpretation. I am sorry I was not more clear in my communication. I know that the Lord accepts all who come to him in true repentance. The statement maybe should read...Only those who are repenting of thier homosexuality (and other sin) will be recieved by God. God only accepts those who have been redeemed through His Sons blood. You will see no homosexuals or adulteres in heaven.You see we come to God as we are but not as we were. You cannot regard sin in your heart and recieve salvation. If you go to the alter knowing you are going to continue in sin, not willing to turn from it, and ask for God to forgive you and redeem you he will not.Psa 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear [me]: Christ accepts those who are willing to give thier sin and lives to Him, those who step out in faith turning from thier sin to Christs perfect path. People sin after salvation. But the Lord doesnt accept sin into heaven.Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Jah accepts those who have been purified by total repentance and acceptance of the Sacrifice of Christ. So really once you become a christian you are no longer an adulterer or a homosexual.
Hi philologos, This is long. It seems the only way to share what I believe is further relevant information. I've tried to focus on what I need to communicate clearly in this context, but, inevitably, other facts are excluded, for brevity and simplicity. (This is not an attempt to make me look better than I was. :-()In that phrase (v 5 But our wounds are part of who we are?And there is nothing left to chance?And pain's the pen that writes the songs?That call us forth to dance.)he has caught part of the mystery of evil permitted by a good God. We need to tell the 'abused' that they have not been contaminated by what has happened, and that they are not quilty. But let's not tell them that we can re-write history. God will waste nothing, not even the abuses that we have suffered. I now can agree the abused is not responsible, but whether a victim sinned or not, is on a sliding scale of what was involved in their abuse and whether they can live with what they did actually ‘do’, without feeling the need to repent. The over-simple premise of 'perpetrator responsibility' does not take into account the many ways an abuser can ‘dump’ guilt on a victim.I carried a heavy burden of false guilt from one abuser (later in my childhood), for 30 years, which had been obscuring the more important distortions set earlier. Not until the false guilt was removed, could anything else surface for attention. When a person as damaged as this, attempts to join in marriage union with another person who is equally damaged, I hope you can see disaster written in capital letters all over the venture.'But let's not tell them that we can re-write history.' Thank you for posting the beautiful song. Your thoughtfulness touched me deeply. v 1 My father was a doctorWho would come home late at nightWith a soul so bruised and bleedingFrom his unending, faithful fightMy father too, was a doctor, who held out hope of 'healing' to 'his hurting humankind'. But, he was the unsuspecting parent, whom I adored and on whom I tried to model myself. He had no idea about the abuse. The abuser was my mother mainly, (and she did not protect me from other abusers). She was a doctor too, and a ‘daughter of the manse’. These two last pieces of information seemed to make her calculated actions all the more a betrayal, when I remembered how they had been played on as regular substantiation of her [good] character. Still unconscious of all this, I did what the statistics tell - the majority of survivors of sexual abuse marry someone just like their most influential abuser. Hence the reference to Sodom. The amazingly similar details of her early life, to that of my ex husband, did not really dawn on me until I made this connection – that she had abused her daughter and he had abused his son. As it happens, I only had sisters, but, she also abused her nephew. Likewise, my ex also abused his daughter. I know some sex offenders have no problem being one flesh with their legal spouse, but, it would be an understatement to say anything but the opposite pertained in my experience. It really was a double-bind sort of situation in both directions because of the unscrupulousness of the cult leader who encouraged and facilitated the ‘marriage’. I was desperate to marry - because of my past. The person I married, was desperate not to marry - because of his past.I found out after I’d left the marriage, the ‘cult leader’ had known of my ex's sex offending history. (Just to add context to this, the same cult leader put a different sex offender in charge of children’s work for a while. Ten’s of children from non-Christian families were affected before the youth worker eventually served a prison sentence.) I take your point completely that ‘pain’ finds its way into our lives effortlessly. I left my marriage with far more wrong with me than I’d had when it began. Still, the way the Lord has revealed Himself to me because of ‘the pain’, has not included my having to keep the pain. In a way, I will never be able to compute the differences I still carry, but largely, I am not in pain any more.My first experience of dramatic healing was in a church service where healing was not being preached. The texts were Psalm 23 v 1 and Jeremiah 1. Verses 6 – 10 particularly spoke to me. 6 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. 7 But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. 8 Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD. 9 Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. 10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.In verse 10, there are 4 destroying verbs ‘root out’, ‘pull down’, ‘destroy’ and ‘throw down’ to be employed before ‘build’ and ‘plant’, which encouraged me to believe God really intended to undo what had been done to me. As I sat there simply responding in my spirit, He unexpectedly (by me) reached into my depths, and laid a hot poultice on a specific place within, where I was able to discern Him healing a very old putrefaction, indurated with a particular type of unhealed inflammation which had been there for ever, (it seemed). I almost gasped at the initial pain He revealed, but the healing quickly made it bearable and within a few (long) seconds, I was changed. That single event taught me something about what was possible, if I was willing to invite Him consciously to do something like it again. Later, I discovered I could ask Him to heal what He knew should be the next thing, and merely open myself to Him without fear of being hurt or hurried or losing control of the process. Slow as this might have been, in fact, it was comparatively painless. I found He could heal parts of me which were numb with bearing old injury, bringing them straight into life, without having to bear the agonising process of un-numbing. For a survivor, this can be fraught with flashbacks and emotional turmoil, nightmares and physical distress. The Lord preserved me from all but innuendos of this potential devastation – and that was quite enough to comprehend. Each traumatic event leaves a trace or wound. Sometimes, months can be spent bringing just one such to the Lord. Other times, if the pattern of abuse was consistent enough, whole years can be rolled into a single, effective prayer, which deals with a whole aspect of it forever, completely.Getting back to marriage… maybe I was married and just didn’t appreciate it but I certainly have to own up to bringing an intensely preoccupied mind and body to the attempt. Again, after leaving the ‘marriage’, I learned that my ‘spouse’ had returned to sex offending while I was expecting my first child. In fact, as soon as I left my ‘marriage’, he started owning up to an extensive history of untreated mental health issues, and it was not long before he was skilfully unpicked by an experienced social worker, who persuaded him to be formally assessed by a forensic department. My naivete combined with my dogmatism created unique problems as ‘the system’ desperately tried to protect the children, until, mainly to arrange child support and gain access to the marital home, I had no choice but to divorce. It was satisfying (though stressful) to manage to sort out ‘our’ debts during that period, while I still supported him from a distance. I don’t doubt, had there been no children, we could have gone on as we were, with my knowing nothing about his other life, (Actually, that’s not quite true. He tried to tell me latterly, but, I didn’t really understand – tho’ I did know I wasn’t prepared to co-operate.) but, I really hope you’re going to tell me it was ok to leave him. His denial of having abused our children, (while owning up to abusing outside the family), is really not sustainable in the face of evidence. I chose to protect my children from court. This protected my ex from embarrassment. In fact, I did not have the strength to face what would have been involved, largely because of my own survivor status. Also because of this, I was still trying to make sense of what I knew, as late as last year. And, one doesn't tell abused children what happened to them, as it interferes with their recovery.There is a sense in which history cannot be undone, but, I think that may be more of an outsider's objective view. From inside my head, history has been re-written. Nowadays, I'd include my marriage in that, too.
Since my last post it occurs to me to make clear these few things. There are a few extreme facts which I am unlikely to share at all, which do not contribute directly to a discussion about divorce and remarriage, thus making my previous post largely unanswerable.In sharing what I have, with a sensitive, Christian audience, I am overcoming a previous crippling inability to communicate any truths about my real inner life, openly. This inability spilled over into my thought life, which was at its clearest on vital issues, only when I was physically crying. Although I have cried and prayed as I've posted some of what precedes here, it has been a healthy experience fundamentally (for me) - and I hope, not an unhealthy one for you.The isolation which my situation produced, means this turns out to be real-life-processing, which is moving me forward for ever. I thank you all for your patience, and prayers if the Spirit so leads.
Dorcas, I speak simply and for critical reasons. I find no compulsion to change that now. At least not from the Lord.The word 'isolation' stuck out for me and may I just say, that in that you are working through such a tremendous degree of innocence foiled and inner pain, with it's false guilt, etc. ... by isolation, you have brought more Glory to God, then if you had been fortunate enough to sit under the greatest of 'human' councilors.No human is 100% inerrant, and I fear, trust in many of our "councilors", can add just a tinge more to the pain, that they cannot see, nor possibly ever feel.But the One Who Created you and saw it all, knows exactly how and where to pour the Balm.When our trust is 100% in The Lord, and He alone, He will never un-do the healing He's already accomplished and will never stop until His mission toward wholeness is complete... by His Love.I pray His perfect Will for you and your life, with no interference from any source on earth.I am confident, that sole confidence in HIM, will bring about what you seek and have desired.Lord watch over you and your family. In His Love.Annie
Points concerning divorce and remarriage.Rightly dividing the word of truth.These are some of the items that come up in discussions about divorce and remarriage.This article is not defending all divorce and remarriage, only those remarriages where one spouse engaged in unlawful sex with another person and, after given the chance to cease, refused to do so.Im not making any comments in this about divorce or remarriage for desertion, abuse, etc. Herod and Herodias The first thing to remember is that Jesus had not yet begun His ministry when John started accusing Herod and Herodias.(Luke 3:19-23) Johns ministy was the beginning of, the transition into, the gospel kingdomHerodias was the niece of Phillip and Herod, the daughter their own brother Aristobulus.Thus marrying her was unlawful for either Phillip or Herod as she was closely related.Another sin that was commited was that Herod and Herodias met and conspired to put away their spouses for no good reason, then marry each other. This is backed by Josephus in book 18, chapter 5. As is how Herodias had defied the laws of the land by divorcing Phillip ''while he still lived''. But on that point, who can divorce a dead man, she would have been freed of the law of Phillip with his death. Her divorce was invalid as the wife did not have this right. The old dispensation had passed with Johns preaching, but things didnt just change overnite. John condemned Herod and Herodias with the Mosiac Law. Those sexual laws are still intact in this covenant. We know sex with a sister or with a brothers wife is still effective.Herodias was still the wife of Phillip lawfully as Jewish custom, nor Mosiac law, permitted a woman to divorce.And most of all because Herodias hadnt put him away for a scriptural reason, she just wanted Herod, a new man.God doesnt have to recognize divorce under circumstances He doesnt permit. What were the pharisees asking Jesus and what was His response? The pharisees didnt ask Jesus ''can we divorce''. (Matt 19:3)This is a very key point to Jesus' response.What they asked Him is ''can we divorce for any reason'', then they proceeded to argue that Moses had permitted them to just hand the wife divorce papers and send them packing. They didnt have to have any good reason at all.So Jesus wasnt responding to ''can we divorce''He was answering ''can we divorce for any reason at all"Jesus returned things to their beginning state. A marriage was for life, thats how God created it.Jesus said ''only for whoredom'' (any unlawful sex) can we divorce Josephs putting Mary away Jesus had not been yet born to teach.Joseph and Mary were under Mosaic Law and thus Deut 24:1-4 was still in force.Joe could have put Mary away for any number of reasons and as such their example would be irrelevant to this topic regardless of the situation involved.We dont know if Joe would have put Mary away under the rule change that Jesus made.Everything about that situation is hypothetical and cannot be used as proof of anything.PorneiaWhoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.This included every sexual sin of every nature.Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.Did Jesus say ''wife'' or "espoused" wifeIf Jesus had been only refering to the betrothal period in the exception clause, He would have used the very term used for Mary at times...."espoused wife'' or ''espoused'' (see G3423).He didnt. He clearly used the word that means ''wife'' or woman. A mans woman was his wife.She was his lawful wife from the moment the marriage was contracted.Jesus knew this.When He said ''wife'' He was refering to whoredom of a wife, pre or post consumation.(compare Matt 19.9 and 5:32 with Luke 2:5)What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together? We cannot assert that ''one flesh'' is anything beyond mere sex.The reason is that Paul states in 1 Corinth. 6:16 that even having sex with a harlot makes us one body with her. Paul uses the example of ''one flesh'' as in marriage.If we assert that ''one flesh'' is anything beyond sex (consumation in marraige), then we must apply that to sex with the harlot as well, just as Paul presents.What God joins together is the man and woman in His marital covenant. This covenant is not unconditional. It never has been.(compare 1 Cor. 6:16 with Mark 10:8), Paul even quotes the phrase used to show its the same thing)A wife is a lawful wife even during the betrothal year and punishable as suchA woman was the covenant wife of her husband during the whole betrothal year.So Jesus isnt refering to premarital sex, the two were married lawfully.Jesus said 'wife''A wife was a "wife" lawfully as soon as she was betrothed/contracted in marriage.Jesus was not only refering to premarital sex, because in the custom Jesus lived in "betrothed" was not a PREmarital state, it was unconsumated marriage. It was Lawful, binding, permanent marriage.There is no distinction made between ''epoused wife'' and ''wife'' as far as the punishment for willful sexual sin in the OT.When Jesus says ''except for whoredom you cannot put your ''wife'' away'' He shows that that has not changed. What has changed, though is mercy to the sinner. By not issuing the death of the woman found in adultery, Jesus has shown that the adulteress isnt to be put to death because of mercys sake.Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matterSome state that because Matt. was written to Jews that the difference of the exception clause applies only to the Jews.The assertion that because the exception clause is present in Matthew, yet not in Mark that it is only for Jews is absurdity.Lets look at the example of the empty tomb and see the great differences there.Mat 28:2-6 And behold, a great earthquake occurred; for an angel of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. (3) And His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. (4) And the guards were shaken for fear of him, and became like dead men. (5) But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. (6) He is not here! For He is risen, just as He said. Come; see the place where the Lord was lying.Luk 24:2-9 But they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb. (3) And going in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. (4) And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. (5) Then, as they became afraid and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? (6) He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, (7) saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' " (8) And they remembered His words. (9) And returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.Mar 16:5-8 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right clothed with a white robe, and they were alarmed. (6) But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has arisen! He is not here! See the place where they put Him. (7) But go, say to His disciples, and Peter, that He is going before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him, just as He said to you." (8) And going out, they fled from the tomb, but trembling and amazement held them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.and in John, no one is mentioned at all.Joh 20:1-2 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. (2) Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."---Three different descriptions given of who was there, and Johns account makes no mention at all of anyone. Does that mean John taught there was no angel present at the tomb to his followers?We know this, God gives His law to humanity. He wants all people everywhere to obey Him.When God distinguishes that a rule is for one group and not the whole, He states it clearly (below about Levitical priests forbidden to take wives ''put away'').Since Jesus did not specify that this only applied to Jews, there is no reason to think that it did.Since Jesus also did not specify ''espoused wife'' but clearly the word for ''wife'' was used, He must have been upholding that, as it always has, the sexual sins of the guilty break the conditional covenant of marriage. Jesus states we can put away a wife for this reason alone.Are covenants breakableA covenant is made by one person to another. The two can make covenants together, like marriage vows being given by both the husband and the bride.There are unconditional covenants that can be carried out no matter what, such as the covenant that God made to Abraham concerning that He would preserve Israel, which He has through the remnant.Then there are conditional covenants, such as the one presented to Israel in the OT.Over and over again throughout the OT God says Israel is breaking His covenant.For them to break it, it must be conditional.The conditional covenant maker can also finally break it if it is persistantly disregarded by the person it is made to.(such as a whoring nation or a whoring spouse)Israel had continually broken Gods covenant He made to them.So fully and finally He broke it entirely, so as to end it.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 KJV)There is one more OT prophet, Malachi, which reads like a dear John letter from a departing spouse, then silence from God for 400+ years until John the baptist who was the promised ''Elijah'' that would come. (Malachi 4:5)Marriage is not an unconditional covenant.Jesus proves this with ''except for whoredom"Does sexual sin break the marriage covenantWillful sexual sin in the OT within marriage always was punishable by death.No distinction is made for the year long betrothal period.Jesus kept right in stride with this idea when He said only for whoredom can we divorce and remarry without commiting adultery.Mat 19:9 `And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'The marriage covenant is not unconditional.Gods original intent was that the only condition that would end a union was whoredom.This is represented in the law that makes this crime a death punishable offense.Did "putting away" and remarriage happen pre-Deuteronomy 24?Men were evil and put away thier wives for all sorts of things.That putting away was happening is proven in Leviticus.The priests alone are told not to marry a women who had been put away.Women who are put away unjustly still need food, water, a place to sleep and love.God did not forbid them from remarrying in general, only to those priests (who were a foreshadow of our Lord)Some will tell you that putting away and remarriage did not happen pre-Deut, but this a absolutely a lie.If it werent happening, then there would have been no need to prohibit the priests from doing so. The priests are the only ones with this prohibition.(Lev 21:7 and 21:14)Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the ChurchEvidences that there were divorcees who had remarried in the church are found in the list of widows and the requirements for bishops.>-1Tim 5:9 Do not let a widow be enrolled having become less than sixty years old, the wife of one man,>-Titus 1:6 if anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having believing children, not accused of loose behavior, or disobedient.>-1Tim 3:2 Then it behooves the overseer to be without reproach, husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, well-ordered, hospitable, apt at teaching,The remarried widow(er) was not prohibited or restricted in any manner I have seen, Paul even recommends that younger widows remarry.Paul would be purposefully making it impossible for a woman to later to be accepted to this list of widows for no good reason if he were speaking the remarried widow in 1 tim 5:9 above instead of a remarried divorcee.Of all the possibilities, ONLY divorce and remarriage is corrected clearly in scripture.We can assume that frivolous divorce and remarriage would immediately bar one from the prominent position of bishop.But Paul makes no distinction, so we must assume that he also means those who divorced an adulteress then remarried as well (just to be on the safe side).Showing that these, athough not the most prominent persons, were indeed still in fellowship with the rest of our brethren.Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''.The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it werent, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.The wife is bound by law until the husband is deadIn Romans Paul was speaking to those who knew the law.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 didnt 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. Deut 24:1-4.This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marrige 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.The only problem is that Paul isnt dealing with adultery from his words to the church there.Seemingly he is presenting his instruction to those in that were leaving and divorcing a spouse for no scriptural reason .In this chapter he starts off presenting that to avoid fornication seemingly by taking a spouse.Corinth was the sexual sin capitol of the area, so we can imagine many of the people were used to just having sex whenever it pleased them. Sex is only lawful within the confines of a marriage, Let each man and woman have their own spouse.verse 7:39 states that, again, the wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives.Again we have the issue that Paul isnt telling the whole story here as the very law he keeps speaking of, made provision for divorce (Deut24:1-4).Deut 24 had given a man the authority to divorce for just about any reason.Jesus, as seen above, did away with this idea and returned things to their original state.A wife must break the covenant with whoredom or she cannot just be cast away.To do so, then to remarry, would be to commit adultery against that union.
Nice to see you here FOC :-) Here's a great radio broadcast you may be interested in: http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=120&d=10-07-05Here's Charles Crismier's(Save America) website: http://www.saveus.org/c_crismier/Blessings as you seek HIS will. In Jesus, Cindy
FOC said'These are some of the items that come up in discussions about divorce and remarriage.This article is not defending all divorce and remarriage, only those remarriages where one spouse engaged in unlawful sex with another person and, after given the chance to cease, refused to do so.Im not making any comments in this about divorce or remarriage for desertion, abuse, etc.'I thought this article gives fair treatment to all the issues and makes a lot of sense, particularly the allusion to the provision for divorce under the Old Covenant, which renders Rom 7:1 - 3 an example rather then a 'law'.The other thing which it clarified was that marriage is a conditional covenant and it's this which makes the difference in God's eyes.Thanks. I enjoyed reading it. The matter of virginity seems to fall further from import, in the light of remarriages. This leads me to conclude it is spiritual virginity which comes to matter more under the New Covenant, much as faith overtakes works.