I misled us on the issue of divorce - wrong interpretation

[OzSpen]

OzSpen,
I like CF and plan to be here for a while.
If you feel I'm presenting you with a "red herring", I fail to understand why you would want to continue any conversation with me.
Even though this is not a debate forum, I'm willing to go through any scripture with you regarding divorce.
Like for instance Malachi 2:13-16. That would be a good starting point. Jesus' own words in Mathew 5 would be a good follow up.

Problem is: You don't seem to understand what a covenant is. Divorce and remarriage is not like any other sin. You are not committing a sin here - you are BREAKING A COVENANT. You mention 1 Peter 4:8 which has nothing to do with divorce. You did overlook 1 Peter 3:1-14. That's the part that is speaking to the covenant of marriage and how a marriage should be lived on a daily basis.

You bring up 1 Corinthians 13:5. Another interesting choice since it's the one chapter most quoted at weddings.
But it has to do with love and loving each other and does not speak of divorce - it's the opposite actually.

Hebrews 8:12 God will forgive our sins no more. Will He forget our breaking a covenant? I leave that up to God. I trust Him fully.

Now, if you want to use up some time, you could go ahead and try to relate your above scriptures to divorce. It would be an interesting feat.

Also, you DID NOT speak directly to my "issue" which was an explanation of why divorce and remarriage is a CONTINUING sin. How is it not continuing if I'm living in adultry?? At exactly what point of the day do you stop sinning if you're living with someone out of wedlock OR in a remarriage? Seems to me the sin is going on for 24 hours straight.

I could "debate" with you all day on this. But why would I want to? You could easily check out everything I've posted with your pastor or priest. I'm sure he would confirm. Or you could just read Mathew 19:1-11

Wondering

You are still giving me a red herring and not dealing with the verses on repentance and forgiveness that I gave you and how God cleanses people, even those who are divorced and remarried.

When you get back to dealing with these issues, we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, having a rational conversation about the matters I raised will prove impossible - as your response to me here demonstrates.

I know what a covenant is. I also am a marriage celebrant.

 

[OzSpen]

I left out of my post that the discarding of the victim that can't be controlled anymore is often not pretty, even violent. But the truth is, sooner or later, the abuser who can't control and abuse his victim anymore will seek to end the relationship altogether. I'm confident the wall that has to be erected between an abuser and his victim(s) that drives him to do that may have to include restraining orders, etc.

And what happens when maintenance payments for the children (after separation and divorce) do not keep coming and the abused has to meet the abuser in court? It can be ugly, but is often saved from facing the abused by a lawyer who does the representation and makes the case. Well, that's what can happen Down Under.

 

[JohnDB]

BBL? is that young speak for Be Back Later?

Close... Lol. Bubba be late. .

But what you said works too.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi my friend, as I said my post was aside of the discussion that is now 186 posts long and by the time I finish this post will probably have increased.

You mention JDB'S flawed doctrine, truth is to you it's flawed and probabley vice versa (but I can't speak for his thoughts) The truth is there is one church built on one foundation which is Christ. Sad fact is there are denominations that have different doctrines which I feel can detract from the doctrine of Jesus himself "whoever beleives in me shall be saved (please note I'm not advocating greasy grace here) it breaks my heart, it makes me cry, it makes me throw my hands up in despair, it makes me doubt.

I was once told because I don't speak in tongues regularly (I can count no more than 10 times I have prayed in tongues and when I was I did not know I was until I finished and I was on my own) then I was not saved as I did not have the Holy Spirit in me. That was the doctrine of the church I was in. Is that sound doctrine? I thought so at the time then I spent so many years beleiveing I wasn't saved. It detracted from the doctrine of Christ and at times when I dared to believe I considered myself useless/worthless and hoped I would scrape in by skin of my teeth. I envisaged the conversation with God. "Hi Bill, right you believed in Jesus, more importantly how many times did you pray in tongues? "No more then 10 God" "Oh dear is that all? "Hey Jesus shall we let him in?

Not being irreverent honestly I'm not.

What I'm trying to say is that even though we have doctrinal issues that arise from our interpretation of the bible whether it be through our Berean efforts or what we are told if it detracts from the doctrine of Christ then it can heap condemnation on those we speak to, it could stop people from coming to Christ, it could wound a fellow believer and make them ineffective.

But how does all this make it so we can divorce for other reasons besides what the Bible tells us we can divorce for--adultery and abandonment? What you say here would lead me to believe that you would defend adultery and abandonment being the only allowable reasons for divorce, not discard that belief.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And what happens when maintenance payments for the children (after separation and divorce) do not keep coming and the abused has to meet the abuser in court? It can be ugly, but is often saved from facing the abused by a lawyer who does the representation and makes the case. Well, that's what can happen Down Under.

Is your point that we should ignore Jesus and Paul's teaching and allow divorce for reasons other than adultery and abandonment?

 

[JohnDB]

Is your point that we should ignore Jesus and Paul's teaching and allow divorce for reasons other than adultery and abandonment?

It's not "allowing"... We are saying that it's about understanding and grace and forgiveness.
And that some people are impossible to live with despite their best intentions.

 

[Deborah13]

And I'm saying let the abuser do the deed, not the Christian. Unless the abuser commits adultery, which he probably will.

This is nothing but a cop out. What does the Lord look at?
So are you saying that it is scriptural to separate from the abuser hoping that they will commit adultery so you can be free? I say it isn't any different than denying them their spouses rights while still living together and hoping they will get the divorce. The one who left has already made the final move, they are Never going back. For all intents and purposes they have divorced that person in their heart and in their mind. That is what the Lord sees, not a piece of paper given by man's court system and it is scriptural, a divorce is final.

A legal separation removes the husbands marital rights.

What scripture are you basing this on? There was no such thing as a permanent legal separation in the Bible, that I know of. These are merely the laws created by man. Christians use man's legal separation in order to get around what the Bible says, because they know there are instances, such as sever abuse, where they don't know what to do about it. They don't have the answer.
In scripture a separation is not permanent, Paul makes that very clear in Corinthians. Even the church recognizes that separations are only temporary. They tell victims to separate while the abuser gets counseling but always with the intent of reconciliation.
I'm not saying that this is the wrong approach but when this has taken place and there isn't any change then there is a time for a permanent solution, divorce. Most pastors are not qualified to counsel a serious abuser. Their few psychology classes in Bible school are not sufficient and too many think the God is going to force the abuser to change. Many times God does not step in and woman and children suffer and some even die. We saw this a few years ago in Calf. where the couple separated and he was counseled. The church told her it was safe to reconcile. A couple of weeks later she and the children were dead and well as the abuser. This same behavior is common among terrorists and mass murderers.

My answer is that the victim has the right to defend their life and the lives of others from a violent abuser, just as one has the right to defend themselves against someone who is a stranger. And they don't have to ever allow that person to have access to their life again.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's not "allowing"... We are saying that it's about understanding and grace and forgiveness.
And that some people are impossible to live with despite their best intentions.

I know that very well. But what you have concluded is it's okay to sin to get out of an impossible situation. Is God's grace not sufficient so that we Christians can stay married except for adultery and abandonment? That's what I'm getting out of all the church's rationalizations and creative interpretation concerning divorce. God's grace is not strong enough. You can bail out when the going gets hot.

By the way, what you say above really has nothing to do with your explanation of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19. It's like you just jumped to another defense of divorce altogether.

 

[GodsGrace]

Law is not codified any longer... Except upon our hearts.
Which is part of what I was alluding to.

What I am speaking to is behavior and attitudes. Which is what God cares and knows all about.

And I, and others, have seen plenty of good men and women demonized for something beyond their control. Pastors leaving the pulpits because they put faith in a person who had no faithfulness or committed fraud. Husbands being held hostage by conniving wives...and the list of sinful abuse by the anti divorce and remarry crowd or others using their hard line stance is not what Jesus had in mind.

And careful Hermeneutics refutes all that abuse.

Could you explain what Jesus DID have in mind?

I'm just wondering if He didn't say what He meant because He knew we'd be having to use hermeneutics one day and so maybe He really meant something else since what He meant wouldn't have been clear, unless the hermeneutics we could wade through would bring us to some kind of understanding of what Jesus said which, maybe, was what He really meant, or maybe it wasn't. (just making a point, of course).

Let's see. People CANNOT get divorced except for...
Let me get that hermeneutics book out. The above is soooo difficult to understand.

I hate to ask this since I see your avatar and the "yes" - but are you Christian or Jewish??
I'm sincere. Not that it would make a difference since Hassidic and Conservative Jews believe in the same moral values as do Christians.

I mean, really, what does something so clearly stated any number of years ago, need a scientific method to decipher it? Sounds pretty clear - both for yesteryear and for nowadays.
What DID Jesus mean in both Mathew 5 and Mathew 19?

W

 

[GodsGrace]

I wonder if he realizes that his explanation only applies to Jews, not the gentile church? IOW, nothing he said applies to us gentile Christians anyway.

Amen.

 

[Wrg1405]

But how does all this make it so we can divorce for other reasons besides what the Bible tells us we can divorce for--adultery and abandonment? What you say here would lead me to believe that you would defend adultery and abandonment being the only allowable reasons for divorce, not discard that belief.

I do. I do not beleive that divorce is an option for a easy way out. Firstly I do not get the concept of someone who remarries of being in the continual state of sinning. It doesn't sit right with me. With regards to amandondment, what is your concept of that? My wife and I came alongside a couple in the church with marriage issues. It soon became apparent much to my shock the husband expressed the following "she must do what I tell her, she is under my authority, she is immature, she is a fool, she is a stupid cow, unless she does what I tell her to then she is sinning, she is an idiot, she is not my equal. I could go on and on. All through this time we talked he could not understand why God was not blessing his marriage. Even when I talked to him about the following 1 Peter 3:7 that was not his problem but hers.

They separated for a while. She used the joint account to buy stuff for their son. He accused her of stealing from him. They sort professional counselling. He gave up because she was wrong and so was the counsellor.

He even threatened to divorce her until he was pulled aside by the elders and was asked what are your biblical reasons? He replied I have none but will go through with it. When told he would face church discipline if he did, he retracted that threat to his wife but still acts the same way.

His wife is a desolated broken woman, full of fear, pain, hurt and rejection.

He has no interest or so it seems in loving his wife like Christ loves his church.

Has he abondened his wife? I would say so. Do I beleive that unless either are willing to change (she is as culpable as he is, basically due to the battering she has had for 12 years now) is this grounds for divorce? I would say so.

As for the next steps after divorce, not going there cause I think you know my thoughts on that.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes it did.

You have been raised in the Bible Belt.
Almost the buckle of it.
Culturally a Christian nation. (Despite what the ACLU claims)
Just like an Israeli citizen would in Jesus' day.

You have no excuse for behavior that would make a spouse question your relationship with God.

Boy JohnDB
There we go again with the culture thing.
Does Galatians 3:28 mean anything to you?

What about Mathew 15:6? Are we to keep the tradition (customs, culturally accepted but immoral qualities, etc) of man, or the Word of God?

W

 

[GodsGrace]

Surely we need to understand the culture at the time the bible both OT/NT was written and to whom it was written to. The bible we have today was written in the modern culture of the day. If we beleive as we do then the bible we have that has been written over a few thousand years is God based and God inspired at the time it was written.

Putting aside the discussion we are all having at the moment there are issues in the NT that were addressed that were culturally acceptable at the time but today they are not and vice versa, one example being the role of females in the church. Now I'm not looking for a theological debate here so please don't start one, which is why I won't give my thoughts on this but I encourage you to research yourself.

So what I'm trying to say is that we need to understand the culture of the day, what is relevant today and what is not.
We need to apply what is written in the bible to today's culture and not allow the culture of today to interpret and change what the blessed God breathed word of God is really getting at.

Wrg
Of course you're right. I think I know the above.

But what's not clear about this.

"And IT WAS SAID 'whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
That's Jesus speaking in Mathew 5:31-32. Does it seem like we need to understand the culture of His day to get what He's saying?? And He really explained it well in Mathew 19:1-11
And what about James 1:22-23
I don't see how there could be any question or need to rely on understanding the culture of that day to understand Jesus' instruction.

If the answer to my question is YES, then we need to look again at everything Jesus said. Maybe He didn't have enough authority after all? The gay lifestyle was not accepted back then, now it is. Maybe we could change how we feel about that too and just accept it since it's acceptable now.

If one of Jesus requirements changes, then maybe all of them could.

W

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So are you saying that it is scriptural to separate from the abuser hoping that they will commit adultery so you can be free?

No, but if it works out that way, good for the abused! What I'm saying is a separation is a way to stay married in obedience to God's command. It also has the power to remove the power from the abuser, and if the abuser is not really in it to be reconciled gives them the chance to leave safely. Staying and being their human punching bag gives them zero incentive to end anything.

I say it isn't any different than denying them their spouses rights while still living together and hoping they will get the divorce.

I don't think anyone including God thinks you owe a physically abusive spouse conjugal rights. That's just plain stupid. Conjugal rights have responsibilities attached and until the abusing spouse meets those responsibilities they have zero conjugal rights. It's as simple as, "look we can be together, but you have to stop punching me, that's the condition". That's totally rational.

The one who left has already made the final move, they are Never going back.

If you're talking about the abused spouse who takes cover from the physical abuse I'd say that is your opinion. A spouse who really, really is interested in serving God and wants to reconcile with her abuser if they stop abusing them will go back to the relationship. Them not going back in such circumstances will just show they don't really want to reconcile. Think about it.

For all intents and purposes they have divorced that person in their heart and in their mind.

Again, if you are talking about the abused spouse who separates in the hope of reconciling, that is hardly true. Think about it. If the abused spouse is separating in the hope of one day reconciling how is that divorcing them in their heart? If they divorce them in their heart that is when they have divorced them in their heart. The act of separating itself is not what determines if the separating spouse is divorcing them in their heart.

That is what the Lord sees, not a piece of paper given by man's court system and it is scriptural, a divorce is final.

If that is what the Lord sees in someone's heart then that is what they are guilty of. In the case of a separation instead of a divorce in the hope of one day being reconciled, or wishing to not violate God's command to not divorce, the person who does that is hardly guilty of having divorced that person.

What scripture are you basing this on?

I'm referring to common law. Thank God we have laws that help people keep God's command to not divorce and preserve their safety in the process.

There was no such thing as a permanent legal separation in the Bible, that I know of.

A 'legal' one? Not in the Bible that I know of. The point is, it's a practical way for the abused to stay married and not commit adultery (which is in the Bible) without foolishly enduring the unfair physical abuse of a spouse.

Christians use man's legal separation in order to get around what the Bible says, because they know there are instances, such as sever abuse, where they don't know what to do about it. They don't have the answer.

What do you mean 'don't have the answer'? Separation IS the answer. Either that or buy a gun and blow the loser's head off the next time he attacks you. I defend anyone who chooses the later, too, you know. But I think they should go the separation route instead.

In scripture a separation is not permanent, Paul makes that very clear in Corinthians. Even the church recognizes that separations are only temporary. They tell victims to separate while the abuser gets counseling but always with the intent of reconciliation.
I'm not saying that this is the wrong approach but when this has taken place and there isn't any change then there is a time for a permanent solution, divorce.

No! That's the very thing that requires the separation in the first place! Where is the scripture that says if you can't ever possibly have a good marriage that you are then entitled to divorce? That's what I'm getting at. The church has decided that God's prohibition against divorce except for adultery and abandonment is only for good marriages with potential for happiness. Thoughtfully consider what I'm saying.

Most pastors are not qualified to counsel a serious abuser.

I agree. Our society is profoundly ignorant about the psychology of abuse. It's summarized in one word--narcissism. Few understand the underlying truths about narcissism.

Their few psychology classes in Bible school are not sufficient and too many think the God is going to force the abuser to change.

It's not about God changing the abuser. It's about staying true to God's command to not divorce even when it means you can't have the joy of a romantic/emotional/sexual marriage. If in the process your spouse does see the light, good for you! That's a bonus.

Many times God does not step in and woman and children suffer and some even die. We saw this a few years ago in Calf. where the couple separated and he was counseled. The church told her it was safe to reconcile. A couple of weeks later she and the children were dead and well as the abuser. This same behavior is common among terrorists and mass murderers.

I'm confident it will take much wisdom and discernment to know if a spouse has truly repented. The bottom line of your argument is that we can ignore God's command to not divorce because that command only applies to good marriages that can be healed. This is what so many of you seem to not be able to see. It's just another version of 'I'll keep God's commands as long as doing that works out good for me'.

My answer is that the victim has the right to defend their life and the lives of others from a violent abuser, just as one has the right to defend themselves against someone who is a stranger.

I'm with you, sister. If every abuser knew they'd be looking down the barrel of a firearm every time they raised their hand against their spouse we would not be having this discussion. I'm saying legal separation is also something an abused spouse can do in order to protect themselves--something that does not cause them to go off into adultery/divorce against God's will for them. And, obviously, is the preferred thing to do of the two.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi my friend, as I said my post was aside of the discussion that is now 186 posts long and by the time I finish this post will probably have increased.

You mention JDB'S flawed doctrine, truth is to you it's flawed and probabley vice versa (but I can't speak for his thoughts) The truth is there is one church built on one foundation which is Christ. Sad fact is there are denominations that have different doctrines which I feel can detract from the doctrine of Jesus himself "whoever beleives in me shall be saved (please note I'm not advocating greasy grace here) it breaks my heart, it makes me cry, it makes me throw my hands up in despair, it makes me doubt.

I was once told because I don't speak in tongues regularly (I can count no more than 10 times I have prayed in tongues and when I was I did not know I was until I finished and I was on my own) then I was not saved as I did not have the Holy Spirit in me. That was the doctrine of the church I was in. Is that sound doctrine? I thought so at the time then I spent so many years beleiveing I wasn't saved. It detracted from the doctrine of Christ and at times when I dared to believe I considered myself useless/worthless and hoped I would scrape in by skin of my teeth. I envisaged the conversation with God. "Hi Bill, right you believed in Jesus, more importantly how many times did you pray in tongues? "No more then 10 God" "Oh dear is that all? "Hey Jesus shall we let him in?

Not being irreverent honestly I'm not.

What I'm trying to say is that even though we have doctrinal issues that arise from our interpretation of the bible whether it be through our Berean efforts or what we are told if it detracts from the doctrine of Christ then it can heap condemnation on those we speak to, it could stop people from coming to Christ, it could wound a fellow believer and make them ineffective.

Wrg
The only condition necessary for being saved is BELIEF IN JESUS and His sacrifice on your behalf. This is clear when reading the N.T. Any church that says anything else is necessary should be avoided, IMHO.

Regarding the harm done to a fellow believer because of differences in understanding scripture, I'd have to say that even though there are differences, the Word does have to be proclaimed and stated. We cannot just keep quiet because we're afraid to wound someone. As long as we're sincere and believe what we say. Maybe the hearer will rethink his position, maybe we'll rethink ours. How did YOU find out that how many times you speak in tongues, or if you don't speak in tongues at all, has nothing to do with your salvation? Maybe you read this in the N.T., maybe someone told you about it...

We're not belittling Jesus or the Cross by speaking of what Jesus said about divorce.
Following your train of thought, we would never speak about anything biblical --

W

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What DID Jesus mean in both Mathew 5 and Mathew 19?

That's where I was going next--visiting the other scriptures that don't have the potential for creative interpretation included in them that Matthew 19 has and which plainly spell out the grounds for divorce.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are still giving me a red herring and not dealing with the verses on repentance and forgiveness that I gave you and how God cleanses people, even those who are divorced and remarried.

When you get back to dealing with these issues, we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, having a rational conversation about the matters I raised will prove impossible - as your response to me here demonstrates.

I know what a covenant is. I also am a marriage celebrant.

OzSpen
Truly, there's nothing left for me to say.
I went through each scripture you posted.
I said it had nothing to do with the concept I was speaking of which is that divorce and remarriage is adulteress since GOD DOES NOT RECOGNIZE DIVORCE. Since you understand about covenants, It should not be necessary for me to explain any further.

If you go back and read my original posts, FORGIVENESS IS IN THERE. I never said this could not be forgiven. God can forgive ANYTHING.

I'm at a loss to understand what you're arguing about!

W

 

[GodsGrace]

I do. I do not beleive that divorce is an option for a easy way out. Firstly I do not get the concept of someone who remarries of being in the continual state of sinning. It doesn't sit right with me. With regards to amandondment, what is your concept of that? My wife and I came alongside a couple in the church with marriage issues. It soon became apparent much to my shock the husband expressed the following "she must do what I tell her, she is under my authority, she is immature, she is a fool, she is a stupid cow, unless she does what I tell her to then she is sinning, she is an idiot, she is not my equal. I could go on and on. All through this time we talked he could not understand why God was not blessing his marriage. Even when I talked to him about the following 1 Peter 3:7 that was not his problem but hers.

They separated for a while. She used the joint account to buy stuff for their son. He accused her of stealing from him. They sort professional counselling. He gave up because she was wrong and so was the counsellor.

He even threatened to divorce her until he was pulled aside by the elders and was asked what are your biblical reasons? He replied I have none but will go through with it. When told he would face church discipline if he did, he retracted that threat to his wife but still acts the same way.

His wife is a desolated broken woman, full of fear, pain, hurt and rejection.

He has no interest or so it seems in loving his wife like Christ loves his church.

Has he abondened his wife? I would say so. Do I beleive that unless either are willing to change (she is as culpable as he is, basically due to the battering she has had for 12 years now) is this grounds for divorce? I would say so.

As for the next steps after divorce, not going there cause I think you know my thoughts on that.

Re the highlighted above:
Getting divorced and getting remarried is living in a continual state of sin.
UNLESS sincere forgiveness is sought and asked.
I said this in my original post, way back when.
Please quote me correctly and add the second part of my post so I don't sound like a freaky Christian.

Wondering

 

[JohnDB]

What I've been repeatedly talking about is the "Put Away" wives that most modern translations ignore and obfuscate. Your KJV doesn't. (Not that I prefer that translation as a whole but in this instance it tends to be more accurate)

If you insert that situation into the mix it reads differently and more accurately.

And you keep ignoring it.

 

[Hospes]

BTW, did you ever consider this: God created marriage. Genesis. It is not good for man to be alone. He needs a helpmate. Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. For this shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. They shall become one flesh.

So if GOD CREATED marriage, how does the government get the idea it could change it? How does it have the authority to change something it didn't create??? It doesn't. They are usurping God's Law.

For the SCOTUS to declare marriage is not as God created it, makes me think of this verse:

But you, O LORD, laugh at them; you hold all the nations in derision. (Psalm 59:8 ESV)​

For a group of self-important creatures declaring anything contrary to the One who rules the universe and allows them their very existence has as much affect as them standing on the shore declaring the tide will no longer affect how far the waves will come.