Pristine Grace
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 6
Results 101 to 111 of 111

Thread: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Hi Mike

    Paul, when referring to the fornicators as being one flesh, is talking of the physical act that was designated for marriage only.

    In the same way that the word "marry" can be used pertaining to an adulterous illegitimate union, (Mark 10:2-12 etc) so likewise the words "one flesh", (which, like the word married is normally associated with the legitimate act), can also be used pertaining to the illegitimate coming together.
    The fact that the words "one flesh" are used does not mean that that act is binding as if it constituted legitimate marriage. Paul's context makes it clear that he is using those words to describe the illegitimate act of fornication.

    I think most would agree that it is absurd to suppose that all fornicators are bound to the first person they fornicated with. What makes a binding-until-death union is a legitimate marriage covenant.
    The legitimate act is not sin. It is part of what makes the two one flesh and partakers of the mystery of marriage (Eph. 5), which can only be dissolved by death.

    Being one flesh by fornication is absolutely a sin. It has no spiritually binding power. The persons involved are not bound by God's word to have to get married. What God's word binds them to is the need of repenting of that sin.
    "Old things are passed away." This applies to sin. The past repented-of fornication is not there as if it had any power. It is passed away. It is gone.

    Fornication, which is sin, does not bind those involved in it so that they can not marry someone other than who they fornicated with.
    Everyone is entitled to a legitimate marriage. And if that spouse dies they are entitled to another etc.

    "Let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband". 1 Cor. 7 (Notice how well this seems to close the door to polygamists, and by this I mean not only those involved in polygamy but also those who favor it). Notice also that the context of this verse is concerning those who have not heretofore been married.

    If the woman you broke up with had been previously lawfully married and her husband was stiil alive, then if you had married her you would have gotten yourself into a lifestyle of adultery. You would be sleeping on an ongoing basis with another man's wife. And it would be sanctioned by the state as legal making it easier for both of you to continue in that bondage and state of condemnation. Adulterers or adulteresses shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
    If her first marriage was in itself illegitimate, then she would be eligible to marry you since that divorced-from marriage was in reality only adultery.
    She would be eligible for legitimate marriage having never been legitimately married.

  2. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Dear MP

    You wrote the following:

    On what basis is one worthy? On his own doings or on the righteousness of Christ? Your works or His? Are your actions worthy of attaining you righteousness before God?

    With all respect you don't seem to be able to grasp what I have written.
    Don't you believe that it is God that works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure? Is it right to refer to the working that "worked mightily" in Paul to do the things that he did, as filthy rags? Shouldn't we rather tag it as God's workmanship, which good works he has ordained that we should walk in? Eph. 2:10 Are you sure you want to continue calling God's workmanship "filthy rags"?
    Someone is worthy on the basis that Christ is in them and they are not doing that which they normally would. "So that ye cannot do the things that ye would". Gal. 5.
    The glory belongs to God. Please stop relegating that which comes from God to that which is of the flesh. I realise it is not intentional but consider; doesn't that fall into the category of a form of blasphemy?

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Missy P wrote the following:



    The righteous will ask Christ when it was that they fed Him, gave Him drink, took Him in, clothed Him, visited Him in prison .... for they seemed unaware of their 'good works' (or obedience, as you would say). Will you face the Lord on that Day and say, "Look at what I did for You, God?"




    No, I would not. The attitude we should have is seen in Paul’s attitude when he wrote:

    Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

    This goes nicely with what he writes in Eph. 2:9,10 how Christians cannot boast of the good works (Eph.2:1-3) which God manifests through them.

    Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

    Paul is referring to the Ephesians’ state of being saved, by the power of the Holy Spirit, from walking in the flesh when he writes the following:

    And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

    Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

    Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

    But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

    Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved Eph. 2:1-5

    Being quickened or saved out of that old behaviour is not something that they were able to do of themselves:

    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph. 2:8



    The fact remains that those accepted and those rejected, there in Matt. 25, found themselves in their respective places on account of their actions. Their actions determined their judgment. In the beginning of the same chapter we find the wise and unwise virgins. They are all in the same place and are all waiting for the same bridegroom. Some were worthy, some were not. Again it was determined by what they did. Some were ready, some were not.

    Isn’t that what it’s all about when we speak of God not being a respecter of persons? Peter writes the following:

    As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

    But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

    Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

    And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 1 Pet. 4:14-17

    It cannot be stressed enough that only by faith in Christ and yielding to His Spirit are we able to do what is right and thereby be worthy. Jesus said the following:

    For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

    And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

    Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

    And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5

    And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. Matt.10:38

    Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.Mt 22:8 This parable reveals that they were unworthy on account of their affections being set on the things of the earth (Col. 3)

    But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Lk 20:35. (Marriage pertains to this life, not to the next.) Obviously, there will be those who will be found unworthy and will therefore not obtain everlasting life.

    Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.Lk 21:36

    The reason for rejection? “depart from me, ye workers of iniquity”.

    Rejection will be on account of not having or not yielding to the grace given by the NT that leads us into righteous living:

    For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

    Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

    Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

    Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

    These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. Titus 2:11-15

    Peter made reference to Christ’s followers being partakers of the divine nature. (See for example the change of nature in the lives of the Ephesians; 2:1-3)

    The message I am receiving by some on this thread; that Christians are hopelessly bound to a state where they cannot be truly righteous, is obviously a different gospel to that which I believe.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Another little tweak

    My position has changed once again a bit. I no longer see Jesus describing remarriage as being a continual act of adultery. I believe this is reading far too much into the present tense. The fact of the matter is that in the Bible and in Matthew in particular the present tense is more often used not to denote a continous action. Matthew uses the present in his narrative to bring vividness to the situation. Nobody is going to debate that. However there is a use of the present tense called the "general" or gnomic present" in which the present indicative is used to discuss a general truth. For further explanation I recommend this article: http://www.restorationquarterly.org/...2404osburn.htm
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    14
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    I have read some of the article referred to by Wildboar.

    I find it difficult to go along with such an extremely complex explanation of something that obviously was not intended to be complicated. I think the question could be asked; "since Jesus came to preach the gospel to the poor, shouldn't the apparent implications of the words Christ used be taken at face value?" I'm apprehensive of such complexities because it brings to mind what Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 11 about being corrupted from the simplicity of Christ. The complexity of that explanation seems to imply that if the poor to whom Christ came to preach did not have that author to point out these complexities and corrections, then they would have been at the mercy of the apparent implications of Christ's words. I suppose that that author may feel sorry for those less fortunate than her who do not have such education and who therefore believe that the phrase "commits adultery" indicates a state of ongoing transgression.

    I mean really, consider the following statement: "He that cohabitates with a prostitute, deliberately intending thereby to enjoy sex with her, commits sexual immorality." Let's say I make a thousand copies of this and give them all out. I then ask the readers thereof the following question:

    Does not the phrase "commits sexual immorality" denote ongoing transgression for as long as he is with her?

    I suggest that this would be looked upon as a foolish question. I can imagine someone retorting with something like, "of course it denotes a state of ongoing transgression unless you know of a statute of limitations whereby at some point it is no longer sexual immorality even though they are continuing to enjoy sex with one another. At what point does their sexual relationship become sanctioned? After 1 year, 3? Can they say a prescribed prayer and afterward everything is alright and they can continue in that lifestyle?

    Now consider the following quotation from the article referred to by Wildboar:

    “In such a "gnomic present," or "present of general truth" (Smyth, pp. 42 if.), continuity is not under consideration.” If this can be applied to Matt.19:9 then it can also be applied to the above statement about cohabitating with a prostitute. If we are to accept that continuity has no consideration then why don’t we go ahead and also accept some of the eastern religions that claim that everything is a delusion; nothing is real?



    When someones opinion of Matt. 19:9 necessitates making an amendment thereto containing a statute of limitations on how long the adultery is adultery, or that the adultery is not adultery, then I reckon that person has been corrupted from the simplicity of Christ.

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    The example you have given is an improper analogy and there is no completely equal proper analogy. I could use the analogy of saying "Whosoever goes over the speed limit is guilty of breaking the law" and nobody would think that the act of breaking the breaking of the law is an ongoing action by the person who broke the speed limit once. Jesus does not say "Whoever continues in a marriage relationship with a divorced woman commits adultery" or even "Whosoever engages in sexual activity with a divorced woman commits adultery." He says that "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." You are reading something into the text which is not there. Marriage is a singular act. A person does not marry their wife every day. You have to be able to harmonize this teaching of Jesus with the other teachings in Scripture regarding divorce and remarriage. I have yet to hear anyone who advocates the continual adultery position give a plausible explanation of Deut. 24:1-4. I believe that both those who advocate a continual adultery position and those who teach that divorce dissolves the marriage bond have not taken the full weight of what Deut. 24:1-4 says into account. As I've already explained before the only legislation we find in Deut. 24:1-4 is in verse 4. Verse 4 states that it is an ABOMINATION for a woman who has been divorced by her first spouse and has then entered into a marriage relationship with a second spouse to then return to the first spouse even if the second spouse has died.

    This proves the position that divorce dissolves the marriage bond is wrong because if that were the case the woman would be free to return and marry the first husband once she had been divorced from her second husband or her second husband has died. This also disproves the continuous adultery position which states that the marriage bond only exists in first marriages because the woman is forbidden from returning to the first spouse once she has entered into a marriage relationship with someone else. The woman's second marriage has created an actual marriage bond. If this were not so she would not be forbidden from returning to the first spouse. Why is she forbidden from returning to the first spouse? Because this would be an act of incest.

    Through marriage the woman becomes bone of bone and flesh of flesh with the man.

    Genesis 2:23-24 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 a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

    The bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh formula are kinship references, we would probably use the term blood to describe the same thing.

    Genesis 29:13-14 Then it came to pass, when Laban heard the report about Jacob his sister's son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house. So he told Laban all these things. 14 And Laban said to him, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh." And he stayed with him for a month.

    Judges 9:2 "Please speak in the hearing of all the men of Shechem: 'Which is better for you, that all seventy of the sons of Jerubbaal reign over you, or that one reign over you?' Remember that I am your own flesh and bone."

    2 Samuel 5:1 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and spoke, saying, "Indeed we are your bone and your flesh.

    2 Samuel 19:12-13 'You are my brethren, you are my bone and my flesh. Why then are you the last to bring back the king?' 13 "And say to Amasa, 'Are you not my bone and my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if you are not commander of the army before me continually in place of Joab.' "

    Marriage establishes a kinship relationship not just between that person and his spouse but also with the spouses family. That is the reason for the incest laws found in Lev. 18 and 20.

    Leviticus 18:6-18 6 ' None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the LORD. 7 'The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 'The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness. 9 'The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover. 10 'The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness. 11 'The nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father -- she is your sister -- you shall not uncover her nakedness. 12 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is near of kin to your father. 13 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is near of kin to your mother. 14 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother. You shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law -- she is your son's wife -- you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 17 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near of kin to her. It is wickedness. 18 'Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.

    Notice in the above it is commanded that the person cannot uncover the nakedness (engage in sexual intercourse) with their father's wife. That is becasue although the father's wife in this instance is not the mother of the person they still have a kinship relationship to that person.

    When a person enters into a marriage a close kinship relationship is formed. This relationship is not dissolved by divorce, nor is this kinship relationship dissolved by remarriage. When a woman is divorced from a man it is still as if the man is her brother. If she enters into a second marriage the man in the second marriage not only establishes a close kinship with her but also a kinship relationship with her first husband making them like brothers. If the second spouse dies or divorces her and she seeks to go back to the first spouse it would be like she was engaging in sexual activity with her husband's brother which would make it incestuous.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    14
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    The example you have given is an improper analogy and there is no completely equal proper analogy. I could use the analogy of saying "Whosoever goes over the speed limit is guilty of breaking the law" and nobody would think that the act of breaking the breaking of the law is an ongoing action by the person who broke the speed limit once. Jesus does not say "Whoever continues in a marriage relationship with a divorced woman commits adultery" or even "Whosoever engages in sexual activity with a divorced woman commits adultery." He says that "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." You are reading something into the text which is not there. Marriage is a singular act. A person does not marry their wife every day. You have to be able to harmonize this teaching of Jesus with the other teachings in Scripture regarding divorce and remarriage. I have yet to hear anyone who advocates the continual adultery position give a plausible explanation of Deut. 24:1-4.
    Adultery is a sexual sin: someones marriage is being violated by sex with someone other than their marriage partner.
    Therefore when Jesus says he 'that marries a divorced woman commits adultery' it is understood that the adultery is ongoing because married people have sex on an ongoing basis. It's a regular part of their lives. Every time they have sex it is adultery because the divorced woman's husband is still alive.
    Therefore because the very definitions of both the words adultery and marriage involve sex, an adulterous marriage (where a man marries another man's wife), is understood to mean that the adultery is ongoing.
    The only way for their to be discontinuity in the sin of adultery is for the couple to stop having sex. For as long as they have sex, they commit adultery.

    Let's suppose there was a discussion in a newspaper concerning a village of poor people who swarmed a train wreck and took into their possession thousands of pounds of packaged food that was strewn on the ground at the scene of the accident.
    The newspaper makes the statement: "The people have stolen the food. "They are committing the sin of partaking of what does not belong to them."
    Common sense brings us to the conclusion that the poor people are eating the food. For as long as they are eating the food, they are guilty of the sin of partaking of that which does not belong to them.
    It would be foolish for me to dispute the use of the word 'committing" by saying that the act of steeling is a "singular act". It would also be foolish for me to say that the newspaper is reading into the situation by supposing that the food is being eaten. Yes, steeling is a singular act, but the sin of what they do with what they stole is ongoing for as long as it lasts.

    I believe your equating the analogy of the speeding ticket is absolutely innappropriate because it does not posses the inherit continuity that my analogy has and which Jesus' statements also possess. The man who marries the divorced woman commits adultery by virtue of the fact that sex is a part of their lives.

    I have yet to hear anyone who advocates the continual adultery position give a plausible explanation of Deut. 24:1-4.
    Jesus advocates the continual adultery position and with it he gives a plausible explanation of Deut. 24:1-4. It's just not what you would expect. He says it was written for the hardness of their hearts and was not so from the beginning implying that it is not so now. I fail to see the logic in your insistence that divorce should be so now when Jesus says it was not so from the beginning.
    My only conclusion is that you must feel that the gospel must cater to the hardness of hearts.
    Grace dictates, By Him who is full of grace, that divorce and remarriage is adultery. (Mark 10:11,12 Luke 16:18) Under the law (Deut. 24:1-4) we see that divorce and remarriage was not adultery. Paul speaks of Christians being "under grace" and not being "under the law". The NT is a new and better covenant.




    I

  8. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt419
    Therefore when Jesus says he 'that marries a divorced woman commits adultery' it is understood that the adultery is ongoing because married people have sex on an ongoing basis.
    You are assuming though that the text is saying that the adultery is because of the sex that is taking place between the couple. The text does not say that. The text says that the sin is the entering into the marriage, not the engaging in sexual intercourse. A person can sinfully enter into a loan which they cannot repay, but they do not repent by tearing up their loan agreement and pretending it never happend.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt419
    Jesus advocates the continual adultery position and with it he gives a plausible explanation of Deut. 24:1-4. It's just not what you would expect. He says it was written for the hardness of their hearts and was not so from the beginning implying that it is not so now. I fail to see the logic in your insistence that divorce should be so now when Jesus says it was not so from the beginning.
    My only conclusion is that you must feel that the gospel must cater to the hardness of hearts.
    Grace dictates, By Him who is full of grace, that divorce and remarriage is adultery. (Mark 10:11,12 Luke 16:18) Under the law (Deut. 24:1-4) we see that divorce and remarriage was not adultery. Paul speaks of Christians being "under grace" and not being "under the law". The NT is a new and better covenant.
    Deut. 24:1-4 does not say that divorce and remarriage was not adultery. Things which are morally wrong were always morally wrong. There were signs which we were to be performed which pointed to Christ which the Christian church should not be performing because Christ has come, but there is nothing in the Bible which carries such great moral weight that has changed.

    Contrary to the bad translation of the KJV, Deut. 24:1-3 does not legislate anything. It is not "the law." It is descibing what is taking place.

    Deuteronomy 24:1-3 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 "when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 "if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,

    Jesus did not say that Moses legislated divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, He said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. He did not tell anyone to get divorced or anyone to get remarried. He didn't tell anyone that these things were okay. He just didn't do anything about it. The only legislation we have in Deut. 24:1-4 is in vs. 4 where the person is prohibited from returning to the first spouse because it is an abomination before the Lord. There is nothing in the New Testament that negates this. Polygamy has always been sin, divorce and remarriage has always been sin. We never read "Whoever does not divorce and remarry is an abomination before the Lord" or any other situation in the Bible where the morality contradicts itself.

    When Paul spoke of being under the law he was speaking of fulfilling the law to attain our salvation and showing the folly of it. He did not say that morality had changed.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    14
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    You are assuming though that the text is saying that the adultery is because of the sex that is taking place between the couple. The text does not say that. The text says that the sin is the entering into the marriage, not the engaging in sexual intercourse. A person can sinfully enter into a loan which they cannot repay, but they do not repent by tearing up their loan agreement and pretending it never happend.
    I am saying that the text is in fact saying that the sex is in fact what constitutes adultery by virtue of the definition of both "adultery" and "married". As in my analogy of the train wreck, it would be foolish for us to not have enough faith to conclude that the food was in fact being eaten even though we are not there to witness it. Practical deduction is how God expects us to understand much of his word, otherwise it would have been necessary for him to write thousands of pages just to clarify. Your claim that it doesn't mean it because it didn't say it borders on doting about questions and strifes of words as refererred to by Paul.
    But then you expect me to accept that Moses didn't tell anyone that these things are OK by allowing divorce and remarriage! What were they to think? Moses allowed it but it's not OK? And this is based on your use of different words; 'allow' and 'legislate'. And you left out verse 4 apparently a continuation of the same long sentence from verses 1-3!.


    A person can sinfully enter into a loan which they cannot repay, but they do not repent by tearing up their loan agreement and pretending it never happend.
    I suppose you are using this to say that since the remarriage has taken place the person can not just abandon the second wife and pretend that it never happened.

    Well of course it happened and it was wrong that it happened. Your analogy suggests that he took the loan and has spent the money. So his obligation to repay seems to be parallelled with the man staying with his second wife. This is an innapropriate analogy because the wife is always there. He has not spent her. He can send her back to her lawful husband at anytime and thereby rid himself of committing adultery with her. (Remember, adultery is having sex with someone elses wife and Jesus says if a man marries a divorced woman he commits adultery; He has sex with another mans wife.)

    Your analogy uses something that in itself is lawful though entered into by unlawful means to be equated with something that in itself is unlawful.
    Marrying a divorced woman is in itself unlawful and must be gotten out of in the same way that if you take what does not belong to you, you must relinquish it. You do not have some responsibility to keep it by virtue of the fact that you took it into your possession.
    Marriage is lawful but unlawful marriage is ... well ... not lawful.
    He that marries a divorced woman commits adultery. That is an unlawful marriage and should be gotten out of the same way that a man who stole someone's car needs to get out of it and give it back to whom it belongs.
    And if the couple cannot reconcile? Well that's a problem between themselves and God. But the Word plainly says that if a man marries a divorced woman He commits adultery. So she is off limits to anyone other than her lawful husband.

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt419
    Moses allowed it but it's not OK? And this is based on your use of different words; 'allow' and 'legislate'. And you left out verse 4 apparently a continuation of the same long sentence from verses 1-3!.
    Verse 4 is part of the same sentence but it is the apodasis(the then statement) of the sentence and vs. 1-3 are all part of the prodasis (the if statement). If what happens in vs. 1-3 takes place then the man may not take her back. I could say "If a man murders a person and dismembers a person and buries that person under his house then he shall be executed." If I made such a statement nobody would think I was saying that murdering and dismembering and burying people under your house was lawful. Vs. 1-3 describe the situation that was happening without making any comment as to its rightfulness or wrongfulness. Vs. 4 states the consequence of those actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt419
    And this is based on your use of different words; 'allow' and 'legislate'.
    Jesus makes the distinction. Many of the Jews in Jesus day made the same mistake the KJV translators did and read vs. 1 as if it said:

    Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her:: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

    They read the divorcing in vs. 1 as a command which must be done if a person's spouse commits adultery.

    Matthew 19:7-8 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

    Jesus corrects them. Because the Pharisees misunderstood this passage and took it as a command they viewed Jesus' teaching on divorce to be a deviation from the law. Other Jewish writings like Ecclesiasticus written in 2 BC commanded a husband to divorce a wife if he detested her or if she was too outspoken. Jesus says that Moses did not command them to divorce but permitted or allowed the divorces to take place because of the hardness of their hearts. The fact that it was allowed because of the hardness of the people's hearts shows in itself that it was always sin. Jesus redefines what divorce means.

    The Pharisees were trying to get people angry at Jesus. There were two rabbinic schools at the time of Jesus and both appealed to Deut. 24:1-4 in support of their view. The school of Hillel took the indecency in vs. 1 to refer to just about anything including spoiling dinner and so they taught that a man could divorce his wife for just about anything. The stricter Shammai school took vs. 1 to be referring to adultery. But both parties misinterpreted Deut. 24:1-3 as being a command and not just an observation and both parties falsely assumed that divorce dissolved the marriage and that remarriage was okay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt419
    Well of course it happened and it was wrong that it happened. The person who sinfully entered into the loan entered into something that was lawful (a loan in itself is not sinful). What makes it sinful is the lying on the application and knowing full well that he cannot repay the loan.
    Your analogy uses something that in itself is lawful though entered into by unlawful means to be equated with something that in itself is unlawful.
    In both instances it is the circumstances surrounding the activity and not the activity itself which is sinful, to make a distinction is really just a matter of how you choose to label each. I could say that the person entering into the loan has entered into an agreement to steal from his family and so it is an unlawful stealing loan or that since he lied on the application it is a lying loan. A man marrying a woman in and of itself is not sinful just as entering into a loan is in and of itself not sinful.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  11. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    14
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Taking something is not necessarily a sin. When you take what is not yours it is in itself wrong. Taking a woman to be your wife who is divorced is in itself sin because it is adultery according to Jesus. That means she belongs to someone else. If she didn't belong to someone else, it wouldn't be adultery to have her.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 6

Similar Threads

  1. 2012 OLYMPICS
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-06-05, 12:02 PM
  2. I'll Go To Heaven When I am good an ready
    By Fledge in forum Old Miscellaneous Archive
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 01-21-02, 05:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •