quote:

ORIGINAL: fallcolors

I can not believe what I am reading here. Some here are adding to the word of God words that Jesus never said AT ALL nor will you find these words in the NT. prophet please show me where Jesus demands this formal divorce as you say from a remarriage? Jesus did say go and sin no more. He also said he did not condemn this woman. Yet you give her Instructions? So where are these added words that you added in here for Jesus saying He has said to formally divorce in a remarriage? One is to repent, repentance is enough when one does not continue in the same sin. The sexual relations must be abandon and that is it! That is what the sin was. Did it ever occur to you that every believer is this adulterous woman who also lived in sin? When you were forgiven Jesus told you and everyone of us to sin no more. Do you sin everyday? Do you have thoughts in your mind that are sin? Are you without sin? Are you perfect? Jesus fulfilled the law yet you lay the law down on people? God forbid! In your previous post prophet you sway in your doctrine all who read your post can see this you have been talking out two sides of your mouth saying one thing then saying another bringing much confusion to the people in the body of christ. Do you sway by the wind in every doctrine you preach? Just curious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: car2ner

The divorcing after a remarriage MIGHT be a resonable resolution only IF you agree that divorces are never a full sundering of a union.

quote:

So the real arguement is IF a first couple is a "covenant" never to be broken couple. Yes, I have read your scriptures. I still don't see that it is an all or nothing situation. Not all first marriages are put together by God anymore than some 2nd or 3rd marriages. Just because you recite some manmade vows does not make it a done deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: car2ner

The divorcing after a remarriage MIGHT be a resonable resolution only IF you agree that divorces are never a full sundering of a union.

So the real arguement is IF a first couple is a "covenant" never to be broken couple. Yes, I have read your scriptures. I still don't see that it is an all or nothing situation. Not all first marriages are put together by God anymore than some 2nd or 3rd marriages. Just because you recite some manmade vows does not make it a done deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Not that it hasn't already been said before in this forum, but the covenant becomes binding at the point when someone commits themselves to a marriage covenant with another (even when doing so is in sin), but it is only not sinful when their has been repentance.

In the passage in Mt. 19:3-12 Jesus references the the original plan for marriage given in Genesis that one man and one woman be married for life i.e. this is the biblical model for marriage in both the OT and the NT. In light of the original plan for marriage that can be no doubt that the polygamy practiced by Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.. was wrong i.e. sinful, and in each of these cases these men not only had multiple wives, but they also had concubines. The bible does not seem to question the validity of the covenant made with the multiple wives, but does make clear the distinction between the status of wives and concubines. Abraham even showed favor to the children from Jacobs two wives over that of his two concubines. The validity of the marriage covenant made with the second, third, etc.. wives never seems to be called into question anywhere in the bible, and seems to have been valid the moment the covenant was made, even though these vows were clearly made in sin. The absence of any scripture (OT or NT) that clearly shows that the covenant of a second is considered invalid because it was entered into in a sinful way makes it very difficult for me to make that assumption. Because there are clear references in the bible relating to the prohibition of divorce that appear to be unqualified in regards to whether the marriage is a first or second marriage, I personally could not ever recommend that someone get a divorce.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessednw

Are you saying that when two people sin by trying to marry (as in the case that one or both are the original spouses of other living persons). that somehow God will honor that sinful action and make it a binding covenant that is elevated above the original marriage?

quote:

Even when He has said so clearly that to marry a divorced woman/man is to commit adultery?

quote:

And secondly, are you saying that because Jacob had two wives, for example, it is a model for us to look at and say that polygamous practices recorded in the bible give us a pattern to justify/explain second or third or fourth remarriages?

quote:

While I see a definite link to multiple unions and polygamy, I cannot see how you would want followers of Christ to use polygamy as a model.

quote:

I would not want to go against Jesus description of what God wants from the beginning: a man shall leave his dad and mom and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. What God has joined together let no one put asunder.

quote:

I strongly agree with you here which is why I never counsel anyone to get a divorce. The question is how do we counsel those who, in sin, have already gone "against Jesus description of what God wants from the beginning". Do we ask them to get a second divorce, or do we ask them to repent and remain faithful to the marriage they are now in. How one answers this question will depend on how one views the validity of the covenant of a second marriage. Because I believe that a covenant can be valid even when it was conceived in sin, I believe very strongly that to ask someone to divorce again would be asking them to commit the original sin of divorce all over again.

On a different note, I don't believe that allowing the second marriage to continue is something that let's people of the hook when the repent. The reality is that second marriages fail at nearly twice the rate of first marriages, so those who, as part of repentance, are required to honor their covenant likely have a far more difficult task set before them. Also the fruits of true repentance are not usually seen in a second marriage until that marriage hits rocky waters, it is then we see if they are really willing to honor the covenant they made before God or just jump ship as they did before.

quote:

A covenant that is conceived in sin is not acceptable to God.

quote:

I differ with you only on this issue. A covenant that is conceived in sin is not acceptable to God.

quote:

Tell that to Joshua, Israel and the Gibeonites. Joshua 9 & 10

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessednw

Are you saying that when two people sin by trying to marry (as in the case that one or both are the original spouses of other living persons). that somehow God will honor that sinful action and make it a binding covenant that is elevated above the original marriage?

No, that is not exactly what I am saying. What I believe is that, despite their sinful actions, God chooses to honor the covenant they made, but not the sinful action that preceded it.

quote:

Even when He has said so clearly that to marry a divorced woman/man is to commit adultery?

In Mt. 19 Jesus said that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The texts indicates fairly strongly that in the case of marital infidelity that the person "innocent" of the infidelity is able to remarry without committing adultery.

quote:

And secondly, are you saying that because Jacob had two wives, for example, it is a model for us to look at and say that polygamous practices recorded in the bible give us a pattern to justify/explain second or third or fourth remarriages?

I did not give this example to justify a second marriage. I only used this example because it is one in which the bible does not seem to question the validity of the covenant, and one in which we know that was sinful in its inception.

quote:

While I see a definite link to multiple unions and polygamy, I cannot see how you would want followers of Christ to use polygamy as a model.

I would never want any believer to commit polygamy or to divorce. When either has happened, it indicates that something has gone terribly wrong because of the sinful actions of those involved.

quote:

I would not want to go against Jesus description of what God wants from the beginning: a man shall leave his dad and mom and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. What God has joined together let no one put asunder.

I strongly agree with you here which is why I never counsel anyone to get a divorce. The question is how do we counsel those who, in sin, have already gone "against Jesus description of what God wants from the beginning". Do we ask them to get a second divorce, or do we ask them to repent and remain faithful to the marriage they are now in. How one answers this question will depend on how one views the validity of the covenant of a second marriage. Because I believe that a covenant can be valid even when it was conceived in sin, I believe very strongly that to ask someone to divorce again would be asking them to commit the original sin of divorce all over again.

On a different note, I don't believe that allowing the second marriage to continue is something that let's people of the hook when the repent. The reality is that second marriages fail at nearly twice the rate of first marriages, so those who, as part of repentance, are required to honor their covenant likely have a far more difficult task set before them. Also the fruits of true repentance are not usually seen in a second marriage until that marriage hits rocky waters, it is then we see if they are really willing to honor the covenant they made before God or just jump ship as they did before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fallcolors

I can not believe what I am reading here. Some here are adding to the word of God words that Jesus never said AT ALL nor will you find these words in the NT. prophet please show me where Jesus demands this formal divorce as you say from a remarriage?


Response:

It is not a divorce in God's eyes if there was never a marriage in his eyes. It is repenting of sin- it is not a divorce (other than for legal purposes)

Are you saying if I rob a bank I don't have to give back what I stole, or if I get away with murder I don't have to turn myself in- to be right with God? So if I take another's spouse- I can keep them? Where is that in the Bible. Repentance is clearly defined in scripture. If it is a sinful relationship- that involved forsaking the sin. We can't love our sin and love God.

quote:

Are you saying if I rob a bank I don't have to give back what I stole

quote:

or if I get away with murder I don't have to turn myself in- to be right with God?

quote:

So if I take another's spouse- I can keep them? Where is that in the Bible.

quote:

I don't have to turn myself in- to be right with God?

quote:

Repentance is clearly defined in scripture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanieT

I need to see if I am understanding a point your making...

You said: In Mt. 19 Jesus said that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The texts indicates fairly strongly that in the case of marital infidelity that the person "innocent" of the infidelity is able to remarry without committing adultery.

quote:


So, say I have been married 3 xs...First husband passed away a few years ago, but while he was alive I had remarried and so did he to other people....But now he is dead so I am released from this marriage....
BUT like I stated I was married to a man...We divorced because he was UNFAITHFUL to me. I divorced him...ARE you saying that what Mt 19 says I am released to marry again without commmitting adultery?
Because I am married to a man of God and we are equally yoked. We both walk in the way of the Lord...

quote:

That is not at all what the text says. First of all "marital unfaithfulness" is not an accurate translation of the Greek word "porneia" which is more accurately translated as "fornication." Whatever translation that person was using had the biases of the translator in the text.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pickupyourmat

Hi prophet_india ,

quote:

quote:

A covenant that is conceived in sin is not acceptable to God.

You start off with the foundation which says one man for one woman for life. According to this teaching, that means anything other than this would not be God's original plan thus making it sin, correct?.

If the relationship is sinful then, it is not "acceptable" to God which means it would be invalid and not recognized although both entered into covenant with the other and the contract was legal.

I used the word "sinful" because of the specific message of Jesus Christ given to the Pharisees who wanted to divorce their wives. Any contract to be legal should conform to the moral standards of the society or the laws of the land. I cannot make a contrct with someone to loot the house of my neighbour. What becomes legal should have the sanction of the law of the land. What becomes scriptural should have the sanction of the Scriptures. A contract cannot become valid just because it is made between the two.

quote:

Going back to the point benelchi made

1. Would you agree that based on the understanding of marriage from creation presented in this thread, that a polygamous marriage would be sin since it is obviously outside of "one man one woman for life"?

I do not agree that a polygamous marriage under the Old Covenant was sinful. If so, God would have judged David, Abraham, etc. God did allow polygamy out of His great wisdom in due course.

The one man and one woman for life was originally intended by God in the garden of Eden. God did allow the polygamy in the latter period out of His great wisdom.

quote:

2. Isn't it true that although polygamous (second) marriages were done outside of the original marriage plan of God, they were recognized as valid and binding covenants in the OT?

Yes, the polygamous marriage covenants were recognized as valid and binding covenants in the OT.

quote:

3. Biblically speaking, do you agree that God recognized these second marriages (polygamous) as valid even though they were not in accordance to the original plan of God (OT)?

I cannot call a polygamous marriage as second marriage because the saints of the Old Covenant entered into multiple marriage covenants. Please note that the saints married only spinsters only according to the information available in the Old Testament books. I do not know whether they had married widows also. Of course, David married the widow of Uriah after the death of the latter. David did not marry her when Uriah was alive. You cannot compare the marriage institution of polygamy with the remarriage after divorce. Though the polygamous marriage was not in the original plan God, yet God did allow it later. But He did not allow the remarriage by a divorcee in the light of the words of Jesus Christ given to the Pharisees.

quote:

4. If so, then wouldn't it be true that a marriage, conceived in sin would have been recognized as valid by God (OT)?

The polygamous marriage covenant was not conceived in sin because God did allow it whereas the remarriage covenant by a divorcee is conceived in sin.

quote:

I bring this up not to highlight polygamy but to address the statement that any marriage conceived in sin is not acceptable and would be invalid in the eyes of God. From that place, a call to divorce is introduced. This relates to remarriage after divorce (no matter the cause) because this doctrine states that these marriages are also invalid and not acceptable in the eyes of God because they were conceived in sin. So the call for divorce.

NO, NOT AT ALL. I have already stated very clearly my views.

quote:

I do realize that when you made the statement, you had in mind only remarriages after divorce but do understand, this conclusion has serious implications. I know this is only meant to be applied in this case but just like in matters of case law, this would be applied to all cases that are similar in nature although not similar in specifics.

This thread is confined to remarriage after divorce and not on polygamy.
A case law i.e. a rule of law decided by a higher court is always applicable to all the lower courts. You cannot call this as a case law at all because God has not approved the remarriage after divorce. A case becomes a case law only after the judgment is given by the judge. The Son of God, the Judge, had not approved this practice of remarriage even during the days of the Pharisees.

quote:

One thing that has come up in this thread are marriages that have been conceived in sin. Rebellion towards God was mentioned. A person knows they should not have married that person but they did in direct rebellion. If we insist that a covenant conceived in sin is not acceptable to God and because of this a divorce would be the "fruit of repentance" then we can stretch this to cover other cases.

How can you call it a rebellion when a person marries a wrong mate out of the lack of knowledge concerning the other person to be married? Please be practical. How can you claim that "a person knows"? No person would generally enter into a marriage covenant with someone who is known to be bad. However, due to other circumstances, such a marriage may take place. You cannot call it as rebellion against God. A believer is supposed to marry another believer.

quote:

- green card marriages or any marriage contracted for purposes outside of it's creation purpose
- marriages based on deceit not found out until years later, etc.

It would appear that you are in agreement with what car2ner has mentioned several times in this thread.

If a marriage covenant is entered into by deceit or by fraud concerning the status of the person who claims to be so, then that marriage can be repudiated in a court of law. For example, I am now marrying another woman by falsely representing to the latter that I am not married. If I enter into such a marriage covenant, that marriage is not valid because I am committing a fraud in regard to my marital status. It concerns only the marital status and not on other things or on the tall promises one makes before entering into a marriage covenant just to get married at any cost. I know that there are some men in India who had married girls from affluent families by falsely representing to them that they had good jobs abroad i.e. Gulf countries. In fact, these men did not have good jobs there but they were doing some menial jobs there. But these men were not earlier married. Their marriages are valid in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God, notwithstanding their misrepresentations on job, education, etc.

< Message edited by prophet_india -- 9/25/2007 3:11:03 AM >

_____________________________

Wait on the Lord patiently for restoration of marriage. If you believe Him for restoration, God will make a way for you in the wilderness.


http://mychurch.org/gloryofhiscross

quote:

ORIGINAL: laura...

quote:

I differ with you only on this issue. A covenant that is conceived in sin is not acceptable to God.

Tell that to Joshua, Israel and the Gibeonites. Joshua 9 & 10

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: pickupyourmat

Hi Prophet_India ,

Matthew 1:18-21, 24

Setting the stage:
Joseph and Mary are betrothed. Mary turns up pregnant before she and Joseph consummate the marriage. Obviously adultery has been committed. Remember we agreed that biblically speaking, sex with another during betrothal or after consummation was considered adultery. Mary is now under the death penalty by word of God. However, we find that Joseph only has in mind to divorce her. By doing so, he is morally and legally on solid ground according to the Word.


Questions
1. Because we have this account of Joseph having in mind to divorce Mary because of sex during betrothal, should we then conclude this is the only biblical ground for divorce since we have already acknowledged the other grounds one could divorce on in the OT?

Yes, we agreed.

quote:

2. Can we agree that men are still, at this point, supposed to be living according to God's law even though we have entered into the NT in our Bibles? This means they would still look to the law to give them direction and guidance?

Yes, men of Israel were divorcing their wives on account of uncleanness or sexual sin of adultery.

quote:

Note - Luke 2:21-24
And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb. And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord. As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

3. Can we agree that up to this point there has been no change in the written law of Moses?

Yes, agreed.

quote:

4. Can we agree that this passage was not meant to teach on the validity of divorce or even to address the grounds of divorce allowed but rather was stating the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth that we may see in it the fulfillment of the prophet's word and believe on Him?

The focus is not on the thought of David to divorce Mary but on the miraculous conception of Mary. The Prophet prophesied on the birth of the Savior, and not on the thought of Joseph to divorce his betrothed wife. Why do you twist the Word of God bring in the subject of divorce here? Joseph only thought of divorcing her because he suspected adultery which was evidenced by the fact of his wife becoming pregnant.

quote:

5. Before knowing the true details surrounding Mary's pregnancy, looking at it through Joseph's eyes, who was the hard-hearted one, Mary for committing adultery or Joseph for having in mind to divorce her?

Joseph was not hard-heartened like the men of Israel who wanted to divorce their wives on mere presumption and not on evidence. Men of Israel wanted to divorce their wives due to the hardness of their hearts whereas Joseph's heart was not hardened. The gospel of Mathew says that he was a just man, not willing to make her a pulick example, and wanted to put her away privily, where as the men of Israel were not just and wanted to humiliate their wives publicly.

quote:

We see that the reason he didn't divorce her wasn't because of any issue concerning his own heart but rather he had been told the nature of her pregnancy and realized she had not committed adultery (been unfaithful). Agreed?

Yes, agreed.

quote:

Let's just say this was a true case of adultery and Joseph, according to the law, divorced Mary on the biblical ground of adultery, then remarried as the law allowed. I know this is hypothetical but there is a reason I'm putting this out there.

6. Would you say that Joseph divorced Mary in order to marry another (as we saw in Malachi, Nehemiah & Ezra) or did he divorce her because of the adultery?

In that hypothetical situation, Joseph could have been justified. Since his marriage with Mary was not consummated, he could have been justified in marrying another woman. But this is not the case with the men of Israel who approached Jesus to tempt Him. Why do you quote here Malachi, Nehamiah and Ezra?

quote:

7. Do you think, upon hearing Jesus' words, taking into account that Mary was the one who committed adultery, he would have fallen under conviction of being in an adulterous marriage and then believed he must seek to divorce his current spouse?

Jesus gave the words concerning divorce and remarriage to the Pharisees only and to his father Joseph. Joseph and the men of Israel were on the same footing. You should know this.

quote:

8. Had Joseph divorced would his divorce have severed the marriage covenant and freed him to remarry?

9. Had he remarried, would he have been charged with committing adultery?

I have already answered. Joseph could have been justified in divorce and then remarriage because the marriage was not consummated whereas the men of Israel were not justified in divorcing their wives and then remarrying them. Jesus gave that message only to the men of Israel who came there to tempt Jesus.

_____________________________

Wait on the Lord patiently for restoration of marriage. If you believe Him for restoration, God will make a way for you in the wilderness.


http://mychurch.org/gloryofhiscross

quote:

If you have stolen another's spouse and married them, then you turn yourself into the Lord and seek His forgiveness. If He has forgiven you and removed the penalty for your sin of adultery (death), then go on your way and don't do it again in your current marriage. If after you've received forgiveness for the sin and still feel the need to "make it right" it is not different than the above scenarios. You are declaring that God forgiving you is not enough to take away your sins. You are saying that Jesus' death is not enough to cover the penalty for the sin you've committed. You still feel you have to make up for the terrible wrong you've done.

quote:

Your mindset says alot. You seem to believe you have to make right every wrong you've done in order to be right with God and that's not Bible. That is what the Jews did. That is what Paul tried to do. They could never obtain that righteousness because we can only "be set right" with God through the atoning death of Christ. Him and nothing else. There are some things you can never make right and that is why God has given us the Savior.

You don't use this standard in all areas of your life because it's simply not possible. There are so many things you've done that you might not even be aware of. There are so many things done/said that you can't go back and change. All you can do is throw yourself on the mercy of Christ and accept His death in your stead for those offenses and receive forgiveness.