The conditional marriage covenant.

[follower of Christ]

This is for the readers of this forum so that we get a little balance here.


The conditional marriage covenant.
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

In this writing we will show that the marriage covenant is conditional and that this conditional state precedes the tolerance of Moses concerning frivolous divorce, and that our Lord Jesus and also Paul conclusively show that marriage is still a conditional marriage covenant.
This study is for the sole purpose of answer one question.
Is the marriage covenant conditional or is it without condition and therefore no condition exists whereby it can be ended before death and no condition exists that is in breach of it ?

Supporting Evidence

Firstly, we will show a bit about Gods conditional covenant given thru Moses to Israel, His endurance towards them and their constantly breaking that covenant, and finally His ending of that covenant with them.
We then will list some of the precepts in the scriptures that show conclusively that a marriage covenant might be ended before the death of the spouse and also list some laws that show that there are punishable offenses where this marriage covenant is concerned.
I’ll include links to articles already written about these where applicable.

1.0

Elsewhere in many articles we state that the covenant given to Moses in the wilderness was a conditional one. Conditional means that there a re requirements placed upon the persons that the covenant is given to.
Lets look briefly at a conditional statement made by the Lord concerning His covenant with Israel.

â— Exo 19:5 - And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.

Now, there are no rocket scientists or scholars of ancient Hebrew living in my home, but even I can read and see that the Lord is showing clearly there the condition that *IF* they obey Him...*IF* they keep His covenant, then....He will do these things just as He has spoken.

For an example of an Uncondtional covenant, lets look at Gods words to Abraham...

â— Gen 12:1-3 - And Jehovah said to Abram, Go out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house into a land that I will show you. (2) And I will make you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great. And you shall be a blessing. (3) And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Notice there are no if’s or but’s there, only the promise to DO as He has spoken. God simply tells Abraham that He will do these things, He does not place condition upon them. The Jews have always been upon this earth and will until the final curtain closes. The Jews have existed literally in perils that have probably wiped out entire cultures over the millenia, by all logical rights the Hebrew people should probably not be in existance today. Not only do they, but they have reclaimed their promise land, just as His word foretold.
Even tho the Jews as a nation are hardened and disobedient, God has kept His Unconditional covenant with Abraham.

We can even see this same type of thing with Abrahams son Ishmael.
Notice here Gods words concerning Ishmael to Abe...

â— Gen 17:18-21 - And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before You! (19) And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation. (21) But I will establish My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time in the next year.

Abraham seems to be very concerned about his son Ishmael. The Lord God promises Abraham to bless Ishmael...to make him fruitful and make a mighty nation of him. Can anyone deny that this is not the case with the descendants of Ishmael today? Has God not made a mighty nation of him ?
This was an unconditional promise made to Abraham. God did not say *IF* you do this, I will do that. He promised it, and it came to pass...
Even though they (the descendants of Ishmael) are not obedient to God nor His word, God kept His UNconditional promise to Abraham.

Our God is not lax in in keeping His unconditional covenants/promises.

As presented earlier with this passage we see that God did, however, make a conditional covenant with Israel.

â— Exo 19:5 - And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.

There are conditions given in the Lords words there. *IF* you do this *THEN* this will happen. What happens if they do not ‘obey His voice’ and ‘keep His covenant’ ...what then ?

“What then†sets the tone for much of Israels history post Egyptian Slavery. These folks barely made it out of bondage before they started sinning in such a great manner that Ive always wondered why God didnt simply wipe man off the map entirely during that time. But we know that He knows the ending, so He knows that not all men are so willing to defile and disobey to the magnitude of seeing so many wonderful miracles as the Hebrews did in those days, only to turn around and create a golden calf to worship the moment Moses turned his back.

Can you, as a believer and follower of our Lord Jesus, imagine being alive when He walked the earth, being one of those He healed or seeing some other miracle done by Him...can you imagine being Peter and walking on the water even, then not simply staggering a bit in your walk, but literally sitting down and with your own hands making a false idol to worship in His place?

What a treachery that must have been in our Gods mind. I cannot fathom what pain He must have experienced in those days seeing these people that He called His own whom He had just delivered from centuries of slavery in Egypt, seeing these turn in such rebellion and not from ignorance...these had SEEN the Red Sea parted..had SEEN Pharaohs army destroyed.....and the plagues sent against Egypt.
No, these were more like Adam..having SEEN with their eyes the proof of Him who sits on the throne....proof of His existence and care for them by mighty, wondrous miracles performed at Moses hand. There was no excuse that could be given to relieve them from their apostasy.

Here is a little passage that shows us quite conclusively but very briefly that Israel did indeed break the conditional covenant He had made with their forefathers when He brought them out of bondage in Egypt.

â— Jer 31:32 - not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;

Here again it is shown that our Lord issued a bill of divorcement to Israel for this breach of His covenant;

â— Jer 3:8 - And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

And in these we see His finally ending that covenant with the peoples He had given it to:

â— Zec 11:10-12 - 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. (11) 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. (12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Oddly enough, knowing the scenario with the 30 pieces of silver, it can be deduced that it was actually our Lord Jesus who was mediator over even this old covenant, since He speaks in the first person as the One who ended that economy.


2.0

We move now to the conditional marriage covenant.
Let me apologize for trying to be so brief in areas that I know need more detail, but please understand that many readers come home after 10 hour days and have 5 children to attend to afterward. There is literally a 100 pages that could easily be added to this matter, but I fear that some of our readers simply will not have the time and/or energy to read that lengthy of a document, so I’m trying to lay out the foundational information and the relevant precepts in the shortest manner possible so that no one has to leave anything unread.

Lets do as Jesus did and go right back to the beginning...the very first couple in the garden. But lets go even further back to before Eve was even created and see what God was thinking when He had in mind to bring Eve into existance.

â— Gen 2:18-20 - And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. (19) And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. (20) And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam.

Lets firstly look at that word ‘helper’ there (rendered as ‘help meet’ in the KJV)

H5828
BDB Definition:
1) help, succour
1a) help, succour
1b) one who helps

Seems to mean precisely what it says in the translation. One who ‘helps’ the man.
This is a foundational point in understanding GODS intent for marriage. This theme remains the same throughout creation. At no point did God stop caring about His marriage covenant and His own intent for it.

Here we see the creation of this ‘helper’ for Adam and we see the creation of the very first marriage and what it was always meant to be.

â— Gen 2:21-25 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (25) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

This woman Eve is made directly from Adams own rib, his own flesh and being. While no woman after Eve is literally made from her own husbands actual flesh, we see in the sexual relationship shared between a man and his wife (as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 6:16) that this bond of closeness and unity also exists between every couple afterward....or at least it is supposed to exist. Through the consummation of their marriage, a man and woman today allegorically mimic what Eve shared with her husband Adam physically in that she was literally in being made from his own body.


So now we ask ourselves “Is this union between this man and woman conditional or unconditional ?†bearing in mind that we have understood the tone of conditional versus unconditional covenants above. Where no condition is set into place, there is no possible manner of breach.
In the case where conditions are given for that covenant, then a breach is quite possible and even as shown above, the subsequent ending of that covenant may come to pass because of that breach.

We offer these few as evidence to show that there are conditions to this covenant of marriage.

â— Lev 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

â— Deu 22:22 - If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

â— Deu 22:23-24 - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; (24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

â— Exo 21:10-11 - If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. (11) And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

â— Mat 5:31-32 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

â— 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.

â— 1 Co 7:12-13 - But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. (13) And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

â— 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.

Oddly enough, when this issue is followed to it logical conclusion we find that a breach of the marriage covenant is also a breach of Gods covenant. Under the law oneof the ways the Isrealites were finding themselves to be breaking His laws was by committing adulteries andfornications expressly against the covenant God had made with them.
In essence, when a man or woman is married and commits adultery/fornication, they are effectively in breach of His covenant itself that states not to commit these sins.
We see these moral laws are still in effect in the case of the corinthian man who had his fathers wife which is forbidden in Gods law.
Thus we conclude that Gods moral law is still effective which would cause us to believe that when a person commits adultery in their marriage, they not only are in breach of the conditions laid out for that marriage covevant by God Himself, but also finding themselves breaking His covenant with His Church.

It is no wonder our Lord Jesus has said ‘except for fornication’.

 

[follower of Christ]

Except for Fornication
The Conditional Marriage Covenant
The truth about Marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR)
By WmTipton

1.0
First and foremost, I am not trying to push divorce. God hates divorce, that is scriptural fact.
This site is mostly to refute and explain the many arguments that arise during debates about divorce and remarriage. This information is for everyone, but mostly those of you who are divorced and remarried for scriptural reasons. Or for those who divorced even for unscriptural reasons in the past who are now under a new marital covenant.

Our goal isnt to promote divorce, but to keep current second and third marriages from being destroyed by false teachings in the church. We show conclusive proof that while God does hate divorce, Jesus’ exception is just one piece of evidence that shows that God does permit divorce for justifiable causes and once divorced for those causes, remarriage is assumed.

Also, you will surely notice that my arguments seem 'legalist' in nature in the entire MDR study section. The reasoning for this is multifold.
Firstly we are arguing against those who are legalists to the core and only understand spiritless legalism themselves, and so any presentation of the concept of 'grace' to these folks has been continually rejected. These have no grasp of Jesus' words from OT scripture "I desired mercy and not sacrifice".
Secondly to remove any emotionalism from my own arguments. Over the course of the last few years Ive made the mistake of using my own lifes details just to show an example of what Im presenting and invariably those of these lying, homewrecking doctrines will pervert what is said into either my using my own situation to argue my case or that Im twisting scripture to suit my own needs.

As a result I no longer will use my own life, nor will I allow anyone else to use it in the discussion on any forum, including our own, during any MDR discussion/debate.
Like true legalists the issue will be presented from the cold, hard letter of the law as a whole, which during the last 2-3 years Ive found is quite effective entirely by itself in refuting this nonsense that remarriage is never permitted while the former spouse lives.

2.0
The divorce / remarriage issue is one of the most argued topics today among christians. Among the remarkably varied beliefs there are a great many variances even within a given doctrine. An example would be the "fornication" (greek "porneia" (strongs g4202) issue.

Here are a few of the differing ideas on what ''porneia/fornication'' is believed to be by those of the anti-remarriage camp(S)....

1) Some of the anti-remarriage doctrines teach that this ONLY applies to Jews, even today, and that divorce was never permitted among the gentiles.

2) Some state the same, that it was for the Jews alone, but now has evolved into a matter of unlawful PREmarital sex for all people, Jew or gentile.

3) Other believe it only applies to a person who is either divorced and remarried themselves or married to a divorced person, that they are in ''fornication'' by Jesus' words and putting away is permitted under these conditions.

4) Another group actually claims that ''fornication'' is ONLY incestuous marriages for which Jesus is giving permission to divorce. But that would mean that in Acts 15 that the Jerusalem council was ONLY prohibiting sex with ones blood relatives and omitting the multitude of other sexual sins possible (bestiality, prostitution, etc).

5) One of the newest additions to the list of ''fornicators'' is one I just found where ''fornication'' is said to be ''miscegenation", or the interbreeding of races (so now I guess God is sending folks to hell if one parent was Jewish and the other spanish (/sarcasm)

6) Even others admit that ''fornication'' in Matthew 5 an 19 is adultery, as we believe, but that Jesus isnt permitting remarriage under ANY circumstances.. I'm sure we can add to the list above, but you get my point.

They all agree that divorce and remarriage is ALWAYS sin, but they cant quite seem to agree on the details of the sin. Surely while they are bicker about the specifics, the rest of us have to just watch on in disbelief as they each struggle to prove exactly what is being said about what.

Among these folks, we get those who seem to just be unable to put all the details together to see the big picture, thus making sense that fornication or ''whoredom'' has always been a punishable breach of the marriage covenant, but we also get those who seem to be intentionally distorting or purposefully leaving out details hoping that no one bothers to check them on their folly.

In these and other cases we see a subtle twist on the details. Such as stating that John the Baptist was preaching this teaching against Herod and Herodias. But when we see that John was preaching against them before Jesus was even baptised and began to teach, we see that John was accusing them with Mosaic law that Herod was in direct defiance of on at least 2 blatant points (Lev 18:6 and Lev. 18:16). Jesus had not yet taught when John started to accuse Herod... John was not using any teaching of Christs to condemn him.

The bigger issue with Herod and Herodias is that they had also put away their spouses for no lawful reason (see Josephus chapter book 18 chapter 5-8)...aka frivolous divorce. These two conspired to put away thier current spouses and marry each other. Jesus and Moses both were dealing with this situation of frivolous divorce with the Jews.

Gods law in Exodus 21 gives a lawful reason that a wife might leave her marriage (being deprived of food, clothing or conjugal duty by her husband).
But Moses had also permitted divorce outside what scripture had called for by allowing men to put their wives away ‘for every cause’ (“some uncleanessâ€Â) and then later tried to get it under control by adding to Gods law a regulation to these frivolous divorces in Deut 24:1-4.

Yet others pull stunts like trying to equate our ''engagement'' to Jewish betrothal thereby making unlawful betrothal sex (punishable by death) into a unlawful PREmarital sex, then twisting it to say that Joseph was putting Mary away for PREmarital sex. The betrothal period was NOT a premarital engagement. Joseph and Mary never consummated before Jesus was born. If the case was that they werent ''married' then that means Jesus was not legitimately born within the confines of a "lawful'' marriage, doesnt it? Betrothal WAS lawful, binding marriage ... which is precisely why Joseph was going to put Mary away (divorce her) quietly before home-taking had even occured. There is no provision for putting away a woman who isnt a virgin by a husband, the punishment called for in the law was death, period. (Deut 22)

There are somewhere between 12-50 different errant doctrines all that should be in agreement on most of the details but arent (as I explained above). Im having a hard time pinning down an exact number because I dont want to exaggerate a difference between two teachings on the matter, but needless to say, the ONLY thing they will agree on is they dont believe in divorce and remarriage for any reason.

In the following Id like to present refutations to each of the absurdities given as reasons why there is never any permission for remarriage by the divorced person. Ive tried to cover most of the issues brought up repeatedly, and hopefully these will be self-explainitory.
What I am attempting to do is dispel the nonsense put forth that seems to be willing to attempt any distortion of the text possible to make the simple statement "except for fornication'' mean anything other than what it does.
As you read, try to work ALL that is presented here together. All the details need to be taken into account so that we understand completely what Jesus meant by ''except for fornication (harlotry, whoredom, sexual sin) and not get lost, as many do, in a partial verse here and there that dont include the whole teaching on this matter.
The fact is the text says what it does. Jesus made an exception to the rules when it comes to divorce and remarriage. Its as simple as that, no matter what crazy assertions you see presented by folks on the internet and abroad.

This site is dedicated to letting Jesus words mean just what they clearly state.


MDR Evidence
By WmTipton

The following pages in this section are not meant individually as 'proof' of what we believe concerning marriage/divorce/remarriage, but as smaller bits of evidence that fit like jigsaw pieces into the whole to make a visible picture. Meaning that in order to see the bigger picture, its necessary to fit them in altogether most of the time. There are a great many errant teachings within the Christian realm that many times are based on an errant understanding of a limited set of passages (sometime even one verse is used). We personally believe that true knowledge of God comes when a person has learned to harmonize the whole, instead of picking out a few passages to base doctrine on, then dismissing other passages that as a whole refute those few.

The fact is we have Jesus giving an exception twice in scripture when speaking about divorce/remarriage. It isnt a matter of proving what He has allowed, or His intent that remarriage IS also part of His statement, since that is clear to all but the blind and illiterate, but of what His intent is when He says ‘except for fornication’. Scripture as a whole backs the idea that He meant sexual immorality of the wife that is being discussed with, oddly enough, men by our Lord. Men who had a habit, such as Herod (with Herodias), of putting their wives away for no other purpose than to marry another. Jesus was dealing with this hardhearted and unjust putting away just as Moses had in his day with the Jewish men.

In that, we offer these articles as puzzle pieces for the reader to use as they will. These are refutations and responses to common arguments used by some to forbid all remarriage while the former spouse lives.

See the Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage studies we present on the forum.

 

[follower of Christ]

Now we see evidence that there WERE remarried divorcees IN the church and IN fellowship in Pauls lifetime...

Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:

This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.

Supporting evidence:

[quote:a84a7]1Ti 5:9-14
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old,
having been the wife of one man, (10)
Well reported of for good works;
if she have brought up children,
if she have lodged strangers,
if she have washed the saints' feet,
if she have relieved the afflicted,
if she have diligently followed every good work.

(11) But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; (12) Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (13) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (14) I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

"Having been the wife of one man"

This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem.
There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts.
This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee.
It cannot be a remarried widow as no law prohibited the widow from remarrying. Paul even tells widows;

"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)

Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry.
Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...

“But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)

He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.

The only possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the only possibility from scripture as it is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.

and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.

Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.

The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.

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 weren't, 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.

It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.

Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.[/quote:a84a7]

 

[tim-from-pa]

Nice theological discourse, especially when compared to God's divorce of His people Israel, yet it was erroneously stated that these are the Jews.

No, God never divorced the Jews, He divorced the Israelites. If that does not make any sense, then I suggest there is not really enough theological understanding to compare this to scripture regarding marriage and divorce.

Anyone else want to assuage their guilt by giving yet another biblical discourse as to why it's OK to divorce and join the great "marry-go-round" so prevalent these days?

 

[follower of Christ]

Nice theological discourse, especially when compared to God's divorce of His people Israel, yet it was erroneously stated that these are the Jews.

No, God never divorced the Jews, He divorced the Israelites. If that does not make any sense, then I suggest there is not really enough theological understanding to compare this to scripture regarding marriage and divorce.

If THAT is your best refutation, then clearly my position is firm enough to not have much in the way of any real worries here.

I understand 'who' it was that was involved in the old covenant being ended by God.
I use the term 'Jews' because that is understood by my gentile readers who are studying the matter themselves.

What I find peculiar, tho, is that you didnt actually refute or discuss ANY of the actual doctrinal material, but seemingly want to build some strawman or distract with technicalities.

Do you have anything of actual substance/relevance to offer or was this the only 'issue' you can find any problem with in the articles above ?

If you think my use of "Jews" in those articles is any sort of arguement on YOUR part, then I suggest that there isnt enough theoligical understanding on your own part to even begin to offer any real refutation and seemingly your post was just an attempt to take a 'jab' at my work....since clearly you have nothing else to offer.

Anyone else want to assuage their guilt by giving yet another biblical discourse as to why it's OK to divorce and join the great "marry-go-round" so prevalent these days?

If and when you think you can debate this topic with me in an HONEST manner (ie, not having to distract / deflect with petty issues such as my usage of 'Jews' so that our gentile readers can keep it all straight)...then you can feel free to offer a REAL argument either here on this forum, in this thread, or you can come over to my debate forum if you prefer (where the rules are far more relaxed) instead.

Either way, WHEN you are ready to actually present a REAL refutation/argument, you give me a ring ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

For you readers,

This poster isnt the first to try to dodge the facts with my use of "Jew' in my articles. They think that by presenting some 'flaw' in the terminology that they have refuted the entire argument...they havent.

When I use 'Jew' I am talking about the nation of physical Israelites and in my writings that is quite evident from the context I am writing in.

God gave a covenant thru Moses to the Nation of Israel who started their atrocious breaking of that covenant as before the ink had even dried (another technicality for you to 'get me' with, tim_from_pa, ;) ).

Their breaking of this covenant went on for some time and even as far back as Deut (Deu 32:21...before Israel had even entered the promise land) God told them quite clearly that the He would end up going to a 'foolish nation' (us gentiles).

Tim and those from that doctrine know full well that when we get into this discussion head on that the facts that I can present from Gods WHOLE word are going to basically bulldoze right over their half truths and outright misrepresentations of the intent of the scriptures and the other relevant facts.
So what they do is take pot shots at completely irrelevant points...because thats all they have left.

Let me ask you, dear reader, If I say to you "God made a covenant with the Jews" in the articles above, is it apparent that we are discussing the nation of Israel whom He gave the Mosaic covenant to thru Moses ?

If I say to you "God put away a covenant with the Jews"....do you understand that Im talking about the old covenant (given thru Moses to Israel) ?

My guess is that at least 9 out of 10 who have at least some understanding of the whole situation are going to know immediately what is being refered to....God gave a covenant to Israel (the Hebrews) and then later that covenant was ended....tims little semantics issue isnt going to alter those FACTS.

If I say to you that God brought the Jews out of bondage....do you know what Im refering to?
Im sure most of you will immediately understand that despite my terminology that whats being stated is concerning Moses bringing Israel out of bondage from Egypt.

So this tim_from_pa seemingly is only trying to dismiss the ENTIRETY of the work above based on some petty terminology issue that frankly, I dont care about in the least.

Just as I told the last chap that brought this nonsense up I will CONTINUE to use "Jew" and "Jews" in reference to the nation of Israel just as Paul and other NEW testament writers did in reference to the OLD testament Jew..

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(Rom 3:1-2)

Were not the 10 commandments the 'oracles' (words) of God?
To whom were these committed ?

*IF* this were the issue timfrompa is trying to make of it, then we had better see Paul making some distinction...possibly something saying that Moses wasnt a 'Jew' but WAS still entrusted with the oracles (words) of God.

God gave Moses the ten commandments in Exodus....(exodus from Egypt, btw).
The 10 commandments are CLEARLY the 'words' (oracles) of God....are they not?

So Paul would be a bit misleading in Romans 3 above for not clarifying that 'Moses WASNT a "Jew", but the oracles of God were still entrusted to him'....again, *IF* it were any actual issue as timfrompa needs to make of it.

In the NT one clear distinction is made....the 'Jew' who is a physical jew born of the nation of Israel....and the Gentiles who is pretty much everyone else.
THAT is MY distinction when I use the term. And Paul doesnt seem to show anything in his own writings that would condemn MY usage of the term either.

And since ALL of my arguments are from Moses (one 'entrusted' with the words of God) writings and forward... we see that tim_from_pa has valid point...and certainly no refutation....

 

[tim-from-pa]

So.... could you convey to me what you are trying to say in 25 words or less? My time's busy these days. :-D

 

[follower of Christ]

So.... could you convey to me what you are trying to say in 25 words or less? My time's busy these days. :-D

If you arent able to read and understand what has been presented, then you hardly should be attempting to pretend to understand my doctrinal position and absolutely need to refrain from trying to 'correct' that doctrinal stance.

When I saw that you had posted, I was expecting a 5000 word essay showing me why my views are supposedly erroneous.
Can I assume that you dont intend, or arent able, to offer any actual refutations to the assertions made in my longwinded posts above?

Short version....no, Ive no interest in condensing anything for your amusement.
This is a very serious matter to me and Im not about to play some semantics game with you.

So let me ask you one last time...do you have any VALID arguement to present concerning my MDR views ?

If so, please start a new thread and give your beginning statements.
If not, please stop derailing my thread.

thanks

 

[tim-from-pa]

That's fine by me as I find long posts tiring to read and the mods already cautioned about that. But I can summarize remarriage simply like this:

Luke 16:18.

 

[Drew]

That's fine by me as I find long posts tiring to read and the mods already cautioned about that. But I can summarize remarriage simply like this:

Luke 16:18.

I believe this kind of "hit 'em with one verse" argument can be used to do almost anything. Look, for example, at what Calvinists do with Romans 9:21-23:

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for gloryâ€â€

A holistic study of the Scriptures shows that the above has nothing at all to do with the pre-destination of individuals to salvation or damnation. Context and and an understanding of the Old Testament make it clear - this text is about national Israel.

I do not want to change the topic, just illustrate that things are often not as simple as they appear. Snippets of scripture do not make a very good argument one way or the other.

 

[follower of Christ]

That's fine by me as I find long posts tiring to read and the mods already cautioned about that. But I can summarize remarriage simply like this:

Luke 16:18.

Of course you think you can summarize with one verse. Youre no different than the hypercalvinist who can summarize that man has NO CHOICE but to sin because GOD has ordained it because of one small passage in Romans.

Your whole doctrine can be summarized by Luke 16:18.
To bad for you that Gods WHOLE truth isnt presented in that one verse

You find long posts 'tiring' and you expect me to believe that you dont take that same approach to bible study?
Honestly, how many REAL hours of study do you have on marriage and divorce?
Not what youve heard someone else say..but how many HOURS approximately have YOU YOURSELF dug into Gods word on the matter?

 

[follower of Christ]

:-D
Sorry, Drew, I should have read your post before I responded...I see we were definitely having the same thought about this 'one-versin' it that these folks try to pull.
Great post, btw..and fantastic point..

That's fine by me as I find long posts tiring to read and the mods already cautioned about that. But I can summarize remarriage simply like this:

Luke 16:18.

I believe this kind of "hit 'em with one verse" argument can be used to do almost anything. Look, for example, at what Calvinists do with Romans 9:21-23:

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for gloryâ€â€

A holistic study of the Scriptures shows that the above has nothing at all to do with the pre-destination of individuals to salvation or damnation. Context and and an understanding of the Old Testament make it clear - this text is about national Israel.

I do not want to change the topic, just illustrate that things are often not as simple as they appear. Snippets of scripture do not make a very good argument one way or the other.

Absolutely correct.
Romans there is little to do with individual predestination and a LOT to do with the condition of the Nation of Israel...but these who, like timfrompa, do the 'one versin' it thing can surely distort the true meaning of Romans there into a scenario where GOD is responsible for ALL of our sin having ordained it from the beginning, supposedly...'forcing' man to sin, as some say, then blaming man for sinning.
Quite a perversion of the intent, for sure, and must be one of the things Peter was talking about how some men twist Pauls words to their own destruction....

 

[tim-from-pa]

Of course you think you can summarize with one verse. Youre no different than the hypercalvinist who can summarize that man has NO CHOICE but to sin because GOD has ordained it because of one small passage in Romans.

Your whole doctrine can be summarized by Luke 16:18.
To bad for you that Gods WHOLE truth isnt presented in that one verse

You find long posts 'tiring' and you expect me to believe that you dont take that same approach to bible study?
Honestly, how many REAL hours of study do you have on marriage and divorce?
Not what youve heard someone else say..but how many HOURS approximately have YOU YOURSELF dug into Gods word on the matter?

Feel better now? That's good. Anyways, I studied enough of the marriage and divorce stuff to compare what happened to God's two nations, the Jews and the Israelites. The covenant of marriage is the analogy to God's covenant with His people, and I dive very deeply into Israel. I read thru the bible and even apocryphal books umpteen times, and have 6 thick notebooks of notes. And I have a web site with over 100 messages, so I guess I have a little bit of a right to feel like not reading or writing long posts. But the fact remains. Divorce and remarriage is wrong. If one is in that bad of a relationship, then get out, but stay that way without remarriage. The covenant otherwise is binding until death.

 

[follower of Christ]

EDIT- I had to finish this and make it make more sense. I wasnt watching the clock and had to run out very quickly to pick up my wife.

Anyways, I studied enough of the marriage and divorce stuff to compare what happened to God's two nations, the Jews and the Israelites.

thats a real nice perversion of what really happened, friend.

As far as the Mosaic covenant (what we are discussing here) is concerned there is ONE physical nation of Hebrews...ONE...not two, not three...ONE.

God made a covenant to that nation thru the man Moses and later ended that covenant with that one nation by the ratification of the new covenant with Jesus dying on the cross.
Yes, I understand about the separation of the Nation, but that is not relevant to the covenant made by God thru Moses to the Hebrews...to ALL Hebrew people in the desert.
Jeremiah specifically mentions both kingdoms, showing that BOTH were playing the harlot.

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
(Jer 3:8)

And in Zechariah 11:10- we see that the covenant made to ALL of the peoples is 'broken' by God Himself finally (a prophecy about what was to occur at the cross).

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)


And Zechariah there in 11:14 also deals with Judah AND "Israel"....

Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
(Zec 11:14)

The WHOLE of the Nation is being accounted for...not just one kingdom as you might be implying...Surely no one is naive enough to sit here and proclaim that God ended the covenant with an adulterous 'Israel' and then kept Judah.

The covenant made to 'all the people' was 'broken' (ended, cut asunder) by God (altho the allusion is to Christ Himself) as foretold there in Zechariah 11 at the cross when the Mosaic economy was made obsolete ("waxeth old" Heb 8:13 ) when He has said "a new covenant"
The ENTIRE scope of that covenant was ended with the physical nation (regardless of what you want to call them) of Gods 'people' when the New covenant was ratified with Jesus' death on the cross.

There was a remnant (a part of that nation), as there always has been, who is faithful to God.
These are those who accepted their messiah and were included in this new covenant from the start....the rest(of the Nation) were blinded.
Shall I continue ... ?

The New testament makes no special distinction for Israel and Judah like you are seemingly trying to make regarding the ending of the Mosaic Covenant.

*IF* this were of any sort of issue, the surely Paul would have mentioned it in the NT....he didnt.
Oddly, I cant even remember any stink being made of it in the one NT writing where it absolutely should have been presented *IF* it was of any consequence, and that is the letter to the Hebrews themselves.

Oddly, these views that seem to say that ANY part of the old covenant (Mosaic) is still in effect are in essence saying that Jesus had to have lied when He said HE is the ONLY way to the Father.
IF ANY man can still come to the Father by the Old Covenant and its requirements, then Christ was a liar.

The old covenant is passed, made obsolete by the New as proven in Hebrews (Heb 8:13). It is entirely obsolete..NO MAN, no Jew, no Hebrew, no one of Israel, no one of Judah...will come to the Father by ANY other means since the cross other than by the ONE door, Jesus Christ.

The covenant of marriage is the analogy to God's covenant with His people, and I dive very deeply into Israel.

And this means what, precisely?
I see no actual statement or assertion here at all other than marriage is allegorical.
Anything else because that doesnt really say much of anything on this matter.

I read thru the bible and even apocryphal books umpteen times, and have 6 thick notebooks of notes.

...and ?

with all of this reading you surely can rip my prior posts apart, I assume.
please do so

And I have a web site with over 100 messages, so I guess I have a little bit of a right to feel like not reading or writing long posts.

100 messages?
What does this mean ?
I have a ton of sites, forums, domains and subdomains...that doesnt have anything to do with this discussion.

But the fact remains. Divorce and remarriage is wrong.

Not where a legitimate breach of covenant is concerned.
Jesus made exception whereby adultery is not committed upon remarriage.
YOu simply fail to understand the point of Christs condemnation that was directed at the practice of throwing out a spouse for no just cause to marry someone else.
He did not end all divorce, nor condemn all remarriage.

If one is in that bad of a relationship, then get out, but stay that way without remarriage. The covenant otherwise is binding until death.

Im sorry, but you simply are in error.
If you care to actually make an assertion, Id be happy to discuss this with you but so far you havent actually presented much to work with

 

[follower of Christ]

And here in that same Zechariah passage we can see just who actually 'broke' (ended) that covenant with 'all the people'...

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
(Zec 11:12-13)

Now, I wonder WHO's price might have been 30 pieces of silver whom might also be called "Lord" ? ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

I do have to thank you, tim.
This particular study is one Ive been putting of for some time.
I see that Im finally going to have to get it put up on our study site so I dont have to type all of this out again

 

[follower of Christ]

Also Tim....lets stop beating around the bush, shall we?

What exactly is it you are asserting concerning the "Jews".
Please make a direct, clear statement assertion so we can examine it.

Are you claiming that some people are still under the Mosaic covenant ?
If so, who and then explain how this fits Jesus' word that HE is the ONLY way to the Father.

If not, what exactly are you even trying to say concerning the Jews ?

 

[tim-from-pa]

As far as the Mosaic covenant (what we are discussing here) is concerned there is ONE physical nation of Hebrews...ONE...not two, not three...ONE.

I'm of a British-Israelite slant, so we might as well end right here and now. While you give long responses as to where I err, I feel the same about your interpretation especially about the two nations, the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The Jews are not from 12 tribes, but basically two.

The covenant of marriage was a type regarding the marriage of them (yes, that's plural) and I figure that if one does not know the difference between these two peoples, then the marriage covenant would not be understood completely either.

 

[follower of Christ]

I'm of a British-Israelite slant, so we might as well end right here and now.

Not relevant to the topic.
But if you didnt want to present your case, why did you even bother to derail my thread with an off topic point to begin with ?

While you give long responses as to where I err, I feel the same about your interpretation especially about the two nations, the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The Jews are not from 12 tribes, but basically two.

Not relevant to THIS topic, firstly and I'd beg to differ on the matter of NEW testament use of 'Jews' and whom 'Jew' applies to when Paul and other NEW testament writers use the word.

Are you claiming that when Paul uses 'Jews' or "Jew' in the WHOLE NT that his is ONLY refering to those Hebrews of the house of Judah ?
If so, where does that leave the other kingdom today ? Are you saying they are still under the Mosaic economy ( the foundational issue here in this discussion) ?


Again, God made ONE covenant to HIS people (lets call them 'Hebrews' for crying out loud) and THAT is the the topic of MY end of the discussion as the ENTIRE point in comparing "divorce" to all of that is that God DID END that covenant with 'all the people' that He had given them.

As you say, marriage is compared to this covenant between God and man allegorically.
And an allegory is where it ends, because I cannot have millions of 'wives' and then end a covenat with that 'body' (beloved) by dying to create a new covenant with PART of that body that remained faithful, while blinding the rest...and THEN ADDING a whole new group of 'persons' to this new covenant....and so on.
The allegorical comparison of all of that to the marriage of ONE man to ONE wife only goes so far.

The covenant was ended with the WHOLE (all the people), not one tribe or another, not one kingdom or another. The Mosiac economy was made entirely obsolete at the cross of Christ. No one comes to the Father thru that system anymore.
Even these whom are sealed in Revelation know who their Messiah is. (I can break that out as well if necessary)

The covenant of marriage was a type regarding the marriage of them (yes, that's plural) and I figure that if one does not know the difference between these two peoples, then the marriage covenant would not be understood completely either.

Friend, Ive studied this matter for literally thousands of hours now...and believe me, that number is not an exageration or a boast...it simply is the hard fact.
Im telling you that what you are saying is entirely UNRELATED to anything presented in this thread.

ONE covenant given to ONE people (the Hebrews in the desert regardless of what tribe or kingdom) in the desert and later that ONE covenant given to ONE people ('all the people" which is ALL of the Hebrew nation regardess of what tribe or kingdom) was set aside at the cross of Christ.

We arent discussing anything but the Mosiac Covenant and the ending of that covenant by the ratification of the new. Other Covenants made to Abraham, etc, are not relevant to THIS discussion because at that point we are leaving the realm of comparison to 'marriage' in that I dont have multiple sub-covenants with PARTS of my wife.

Marriage is allegorical...it is not an exact duplicate of Gods covenant towards man.
One thing that is always consistant tho is that apostasy towards God leads to separation from God.
Adultery is to marriage what apostasy is to Gods covenant with man and thus why adultery is such a grievous act against the marriage.
I suggest that you study that point out. Start in Romans 7 with the word 'adulteress' there and its meaning as a whole.

I see many folks trying to say that God didnt really end that covenant as some sort of strawman against ALL divorce, even where it is permitted in scripture, and these arguments are simply irrelevant and a distraction from the real issue.

Not that that was your personal intent. I really believe you think that this is an actual issue in this matter, but I assure you that it isnt.

If you feel that it is, for pities sake man, PLEASE present an assertion and some scripture so that we can examine it :D
Sorry, I just woke up and need some coffee.

Have a great day Tim