Yet ANOTHER dead horse beating

[Sherry]

Thank you, (Thread-necromancer-KelleyD and)

This is too funny! I had a nice chuckle. Thanks.

a couple images for just such an occasion...

or
I like this one too

OK RP, those are great!!!!

[one love]

If one according to the bible not me marries one that is married commiteth adultery so long as the other companion liveth. If one needs to repent of a sin, it is still a sin after repentance like any other sin.
If you lie it is a sin, you repent you are forgiven but you do not remain lying. If one is a drunkard and is saved he cant remain a drunkard. If one is a homosexual and is saved he is forgiven but cant remain a homosexual. You ask who made it a perpetual sin, I ask who made it different then any other sin. Which sin can you do , repent then remain in that sin.

If you bear false witness, and it causes someone to lose their life, you can repent of the lie and they are still dead. Are you, then, guilty of sinning every day they remain dead?

Breaking a marriage covenant kills a marriage. You can repent of breaking that covenant, and even "reconcile" (as Rambo did with his ex) as far as possible (ask forgiveness) but you compound the initial sin by encouraging people in a second marriage to break yet another covenant, abandon their children, and climb into the casket of a dead marriage.

I know... I am trying to stay out of this one...

I dont really get what you are saying. The point is if you repent of a sin, it is still sin after repentance. If you are gay, you could say I am forgiven of that so me and my partner can stay together, not so. Sin is sin even after repenting, if we need to repent then we need to not be in that sin anylonger. I knwo of no sin that becomes not sin after repenting. None.

BTW the first covenant is intact so you are not destroying the second or the third.
You knwo all the jokes may be funny but poimen and myself are just giving verses to what the bible says all verses from christ to pauls teaches the same thing. What god hath joined together let no man put asunder.

Laugh , joke as if we are in the past times and not enlightened but the word is that , if one seperates the bible says let them remain unmarried or be reconciled to there own husband. Why not say if you divorce stay married or marry again and again.

PG this is not all to you sorry
I dont wish to upset anyone so I will not post on this thread again. I am not calling anyone a sinner. I d believe once one sees that it is wrong and they ignore it then that would be a problem but I dont say one is not saved because I see it this way and another really may not see it that way but God knows our heart. I hav studied this lenghty and could post very long in depth discussions that all line up together but the verses given are enough to make my point. May God bless you all.

Poimen is not being hateful or hurtful he is just stating the word according how he sees it.
Bowing out of the thread as to not drag PG back in and not togive yellow rose a head ache

[Poimen]

Poimen,

Entertaining this thought as the correct view, wouldn't this allow an unfaithful spouse to bring a faithful spouse into perpetual bondage? There are many examples that could be interjected here.

Thanks,
pa

Hi Brother,

I do not believe this view allows for bondage to be forced on the faithful spouse. Rather I believe it permits relief to the faithful spouse to separate, divorce, and/or live as though they were unmarried even though their spouse lives.

[pastorables]

Hi Brother,

I do not believe this view allows for bondage to be forced on the faithful spouse. Rather I believe it permits relief to the faithful spouse to separate, divorce, and/or live as though they were unmarried even though their spouse lives.

I think you missed my point all-together. The Bible instructs us that for a faithful spouse to remain with an unbelieving spouse is a good thing in as much as this relationship is possible, for the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer. However, in a situation where one spouse leaves another for whatever reason and the faithful spouse does not desire that outcome for their life, wouldn't it be bondage to allow the unbeliever to continue to hold control over the believer's body even though they have moved on with their life, other marriages, and/or children, etc....? The pat answer has always been things like, "they should have married a better person" or "that's still their spouse regardless of the situation", etc... If this is the case, would that not bring the body of the faithful spouse into bondage? The bible states that it's better to marry than to burn (with lust). How do you reconcile a believer being placed in this type of bondage with the freedom that Christ brings? I am just thinking out loud with all of this. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your convictions.

pa

[Shellie]

Poimen wrote:

I do not believe this view allows for bondage to be forced on the faithful spouse. Rather I believe it permits relief to the faithful spouse to separate, divorce, and/or live as though they were unmarried even though their spouse lives.

That doesn't make sense though. If one is free to separate and divorce but not allowed to remarry, they are still under the bondage of that marriage.

What "bondage" would they be released from?

[RamboPreacher]

I have posted this before, but unfortunately there is a challenge with the word "divorce" in nearly all English Bible translations. divorce doesn't always mean divorce.

Some interesting distinctions in the Old Testament and the New Testament that are not seen with the “English” translations, or at least not easily see. All too often there are assumptions made and words equated that really shouldn’t be.

Put away, vs. writing of divorcement:
The words/phraseology is different in the original language.
What did a man do in those days with a wife that “finds no favor in his eyes”? He put her away. He Hebrew word is shalach; It is different than the word for divorce (keriythuwth). This (shalach) is more than just a “separation”, but more like a half-divorce. And was sometimes referred to as and translated as “divorce”.

A tradition developed that a man merely said “I divorce you” and that divorce was not contestable at the time; but it was NOT a legal divorce for the woman/wife! This was the cruel and hard-hearted tradition that made Deuteronomy 24 a necessity (as Jesus mentions).

This (patriarchic) hardness of the heart/tradition happened in the time of Moses, happened in the time of Jesus (and Josephus) and even “today”. In American Orthodox Judaism, there is a situation where a man will “shalach” his (ex?)wife. But will not grant a religious bill or writing of divorcement (called a “get”).

The woman is in a state of limbo and neither married, nor unmarried. Since only the man can grant a get, the woman has/had no authority and is stuck. Since he refuses to grant the get, the marriage is ended civilly, but is still binding religiously.

These men (in America!) put away their wives, through misuse of civil law, and retain power over them by ignoring religious law provided to provide women freedom when put away by hard-hearted husmands/men.
Malachi says that God hated this putting away practice.

Malachi 2:6: “For I hate divorce,”(shalach, NOT keriythuwth) says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

For more complete context of how Malachi responds to the leaders that ask how they dealt treacherously – Malachi 2:14-16: 14 “Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 “But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16 “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

This tradition and practice was not only cruel, it was adulterous and was not true, full divorce for BOTH parties, the man and the woman.

In Josephus writings the Antiquities of the Jews writes that this practice was commonplace. Not necessarily considered polygamy, but the “next best thing” to it (Antiquities 12.187, 187, etc…) There is mention of putting away the wife by a man named Joseph, Ptolemy’s tax representative).

This shalach practice/tradition is one extreme is abandonment (put away and put out), and on the other side could be or lead into polygamy (put away, and kept).

[Dr. Ron]

Listen,
You all are wayyyyyyy tooooooo deeeeeeeppppp for me on this one@!!!

I am a grace guy.

I don't know who is going to hell and who ain't......but WE still can't be the Holy Spirit conviction.

Poiman.....you are such a great man....you seem to have MOST things in order. I know some of you are products of your training.....and I certainly believe you have some grasp of the scripture. But your exegesis of this is totally wrong.

I strongly advise all of you to be careful because when this comes to your family, and it will , you will have much crow to eat......and it ain't good food.

I will tell you as you have told Rambo....I love you all....but enough is enough. This condemnation needs to stop. Let people work out their own
SALVATION in fear and trembling.....let the Holy Spirit enlighten them ...and let them live at peace with all men...

And to quote that great theologian Forrest Gump..."life is like a box of chocolates" And that's all I got to say about that.

[Paully_44]

What "bondage" would they be released from?

Latex?

[Shellie]

Dr. Ron, I think there is only one or two that are holding to the "old path".

Wasn't sure who your "all those that are condemning" was addressed to.

[Poimen]

I think you missed my point all-together. The Bible instructs us that for a faithful spouse to remain with an unbelieving spouse is a good thing in as much as this relationship is possible, for the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer. However, in a situation where one spouse leaves another for whatever reason and the faithful spouse does not desire that outcome for their life, wouldn't it be bondage to allow the unbeliever to continue to hold control over the believer's body even though they have moved on with their life, other marriages, and/or children, etc....? The pat answer has always been things like, "they should have married a better person" or "that's still their spouse regardless of the situation", etc... If this is the case, would that not bring the body of the faithful spouse into bondage? The bible states that it's better to marry than to burn (with lust). How do you reconcile a believer being placed in this type of bondage with the freedom that Christ brings? I am just thinking out loud with all of this. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your convictions.

But that's just it, the unbelieving spouse does not hold control over the other spouse's body in such cases. That is the freedom that being permitted to divorce and live as single brings. You are not bound to continue to live in the relationship in such cases.

I do not see any permission to remarry granted in that exception that actually permits divorce. I do see great liberty being extended to say a wife who is bing abused, abandoned, dealing with infidelity, etc.

[Poimen]

That doesn't make sense though. If one is free to separate and divorce but not allowed to remarry, they are still under the bondage of that marriage.

What "bondage" would they be released from?

They are still bound to their spouse, yes.

They are not under bondage to be required to continue living in a marital relationship with the individual who threatens their well being, will not be faithful to the marriage, or it's bed.

The freedom granted is permission to live as single, even though one's spouse lives. There is no permission to remarry granted (that I can see).

The very fact that Paul recognizes the person so "freed" as both single and married (when he says "remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband) proves that he is not speaking of an actual dissolving of the marriage union.

Even if there was an actual dissolving of the union so that one could remarry that would only justify remarriage in cases of those specific exceptions. All other remarriages while one's spouse lives would still constitute adultery and such a marriage would in reality not be valid or binding biblically speaking.


I don't personally believe the NT does permit remarriage in such cases, but I accept that other have strong arguments based on the text itself that leads them to the conclusion that it does. Therefore, any in such a condition I am able to accept as fellow believers.

[Gerald Creasy]

They are still bound to their spouse, yes.

They are not under bondage to be required to continue living in a marital relationship with the individual who threatens their well being, will not be faithful to the marriage, or it's bed.

The freedom granted is permission to live as single, even though one's spouse lives. There is no permission to remarry granted (that I can see).

Man, with all respect....that dosent even make sense.

You are making the scripture say "If your wife leaves you You are not required to live with her."

Thats like saying "If you fall of the boat, you are not required to stay on the deck."

[Poimen]

Man, with all respect....that dosent even make sense.

You are making the scripture say "If your wife leaves you You are not required to live with her."

Thats like saying "If you fall of the boat, you are not required to stay on the deck."

In the larger scope, to me it does. The instruction is essentially "let them leave. A brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases, but are called to peace."

In other words do not worry and fret over how to keep the marriage from falling apart. Make peace with the fact that you can't control your spouses desire to depart. Let them. You are not required to fight with them to make them stay. You are not required to exist under their abuse, etc.

You are expected to be at peace, and if that means letting go of a spouse, then let go. It still does not change the fact that they are your spouse. After all the same passage instructs "remain unmarried or be reconciled."

But it sure does change the dynamics of your everyday life when your trying to ignore, cope, or change a spouse who is anything but what a spouse should be, and when you no longer have to worry about it, can accept that they are out of your life for all practical intents and purposes, and you can now do whatever you need to do to get on with life.


I would think having divine permission to escape an abusive marriage, to escape an unfaithful and non repentant spouse, or any other situation that falls within the exceptions stated by Paul and Christ, would indeed be liberating and supportive of the individual's welfare. And it does so without failing to support the divine standard of life long marriage.

[Shellie]

Poimen wrote:

But that's just it, the unbelieving spouse does not hold control over the other spouse's body in such cases. That is the freedom that being permitted to divorce and live as single brings. You are not bound to continue to live in the relationship in such cases.

That is simply not true. If they are not free to remarry then the spouse DOES hold control over the other's body.

There is no TRUE FREEDOM where such stipulations exist.

You are either free or you are bound.

[Pastor Gary]

I would think having divine permission to escape an abusive marriage, to escape an unfaithful and non repentant spouse, or any other situation that falls within the exceptions stated by Paul and Christ, would indeed be liberating and supportive of the individual's welfare. And it does so without failing to support the divine standard of life long marriage.

Except that it ignores the fact that an unmarried woman had no status in society at that time, and could be reduced to begging or prostitution to survive.