|
benelchi -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/17/2008 1:40:03 PM)
|
Here is one LONG winded explanation about why it is OK to advocate violating the scripture in Duet. 24:1-4, sorry I don't buy it!
And we are promised one more LONG winded post to come that advocates that abused spouses should remain in the home and take the abuse, sorry I don't by that one either.
Neither of the ideas you have presented are biblical, and both are dangerously destructive. There is no biblical reason that a couple should be told they MUST divorce, nor is there a biblical reason that an abused spouse should ever stay and take the abuse!
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
OMG here we go again. And here I go with another too long post for some:
PART OF MY ORIGINAL, WITH ADDED INSERTIONS: p.progress
Context...context...context. If you have divorced your lawful husband or wife; you are to try to return - this is repentance. IF he or she WONT accept you, thats on them - THEN you REMAIN UNMARRIED (single). It is FORBIDDEN to "marry another" - thats adultery...adultery in heart and body - from one thought and act to the next thought and act and to the next, so on and so on...continuously WHILE YOU CONTINUE IN THAT SIN. God does not want you to sin, so separate from your sin and OBVIOUSLY, the one you are SINNING WITH - whether you've entered into a legal contract with them or not! Divorce is the fruit of repentance in such cases not a violation of Malachi 2.
Note: Let me clarify what I meant by the last sentence: "I mean THIS KIND OF 'divorce'; the kind where you separate from the fornications and/or adulteries you are committing against your spouse with "ANOTHER"; THOUGH it be 'legally sanctioned' by current civil law (they sanction other kinds of things that violate the Law of God as well). THIS kind of 'divorce' is righteous, because it is an action, a 'deed', that repentance requires AS part of FRUITS of the true repentant. Repentance requires REAL SEPARATION FROM ONE'S SIN, & OBVIOUSLY this INCLUDES separating FROM the one or those you ARE, that is HAD been SINNING WITH. THIS KIND OF 'DIVORCE' is REQUIRED in the process of fully clearing oneself of the sin of adultery. THIS KIND of DIVORCE, IS NOT a violation of Malachi 2 AS MANY THINK AND TRY TO CLAIM IT IS!!!
Malachi is refering to and condemns the putting away of one's first lawful wife (for us today, that would certainly apply to the wife putting away her first and lawful husband)! IT IS NOT...I repeat, IT IS NOT applicable to the putting away of "another" woman or man - an alleged 'wife' or husband' one has obtained a civil sanction to receive legal benefits to cohabitate with; and that under the GUISE and ILLUSION of AUTOMATICALLY being seen in the eyes of God as man and wife. God does NOT sanction relationships of this nature, instead he calls their relationship adulterous - though everyone else may call it being 'married'.
The word 'marriage' means or is referring to the CELEBRATION and the FESTIVITIES that surround the CEREMONY that LATER evolved from the time, where men when they sought out a wife, approached a maidens father in order to find out if they would be willing to "give: their "daughter" to him "to wife", to her "take her to wife". If the father said NO, that was that; if YES, then she was given to him, and that was that. It was his right and prerogative as the father to either "give" or "keep his virgin" daughter to the one inquiring for her.
The celebration of this 'giving' a daughter and 'taking' a wife developed in bits and pieces. There was no eleborate 'wedding' (marriage / wedding / nuptials) in the garden with Adam and Eve; even at the time of Isaac, we see that his and Rebekah's union as man and wife was not preceded by any formal 'marriage' or 'wedding' ceremony or even celebration: Abraham sought out a wife for Isaac his son; the servant conveyed this to Rebekah's father, brother and family; Bethuel (and Laban and the family) gave Rebekah to Isaac (Rebekah agreeing to go to him even quicker than her brother and mother desired); the scripture then says that "And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife...". That simple...NO fanfare...NO priest, NO rabbai, NO pastor NOR a minister to 'officiate' over any ceremony...NO VOWS EITHER! Just he "brought her", he "took Rebelah" and "she became his wife".
Marriage, the marriage 'certificate', the marriage 'ritual', the pomp and ceremony - NONE OF IT is the criteria that God looks at, is moved into action by or BASES HIS SANCTIONING ACT upon. The marriage or wedding ritual (nuptials), is merely the 'dressing' men have conjured up . It evolved over time to merely celebrate the 'giving' of a daughter and the 'taking' of the same as a wife. It stands between the moment the father "gives" his daughter (when he wills to do so), and the moment that she becomes a wife, which occurs at the time of the physical union of her with the man that "took her to wife", her now husband: "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The marriage ceremony is not wrong, BUT it has been misconstrued to mean more, MUCH MORE than it does or should.
And I say that scriptures teaches that by the same token 'What therefore God hath NOT joined together, let NOT man put TOGETHER - BUT RATHER let man put asunder.' Other wise, the so-called 'marraige' is a shame, a cloak for sin.
To repent of such a shame requires severing from the one that you are violating God's decrees regarding adultery. Again, the Lord in Malachi 2 DOES NOT condemn the putting away of an adulterous relationship. He condemns and warns about putting away one's one-flesh wife of thy youth and wife of thy covenant - NOT the putting away of "another" woman you "married" after you abandoned and acted treacherously against your first wife - or husband, for that matter.
You: Are you advocating remarried couples divorce their spouses to return to those they have been divorced from?
Answer: 'Re-MARRIED? You're referring to those Christ and Paul said un-lawfully "marry another"? Remarry in my understanding can and only does refer to those who have left their lawful spouses and after "RE-penting, and RE-turning, if it be possible, hopefully will indeed RE-marry their FIRST husband of wife. But I know what you mean, so here's my too long of an answer to some or many (shorted to me).
Are you asking me if I am advocating those who Christ and Paul referred to as having 'married another' AFTER they put away their first lawful husband or wife to RETURN to those they have deserted? It depends. But my MAIN POINT WAS that it is clear that Christ and Paul called those who do "marry another" - both the husband who puts his wife away and the wife who is able to do the same under other forms of 'civil' courts; AND even the 'innocent' wife who was put away for 'unbiblical reasons'...ALL OF THESE WHO "MARRY ANOTHER" ARE ADULTERERS; and the ONLY scriptural and logical remedy for their sin, is to SEPARATE FROM THEIR SIN. That means separate from and dissolve their unlawful relationship with the one they have added sin to sin to, BY TRYING TO call their state of sin to sin, some kind of an honorable 'marriage'. Honorable it is not, neither could ever be WHILE THEIR FIRST SPOUSE IS ALIVE AND THEY HAVE NO REPENTED OF THEIR SIN AS YET. I add here, that even if their first spouse dies, IF THEY DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE their deeds up to that point as iniquity, can that be rightly construed as a lawful marriage? You may think so, not me. But such is the state of our present generation.
Now as for returning to their first wife or husband, the answer is different depending on who we are speaking about. You like to invoke Deut. 24:1-4 and/or Jer. 3:1 perhaps, please note that this passage if it were in effect today (since Christ) is specific. It was not a provision for divorce for the wife, but for the husband - the hardhearted husbands.
It was the husband who could not take back his wife if she married another after he put her away; it is not addressing the situation that we have occuring in our time, where wives put away and divorce their husbands. You might want and wish to apply this passage to all situations, but you can't do so with authority.
So in the case where a wife leaves her lawful husband and marrys another, IF SHE REPENTS, and separates from her sin of adultery (leaves and puts away her second so-called husband); she is NOT forbidden to GO BACK TO HER HUSBAND. I doubt that you are going to accept this, but that is your prerogative.
But the MAIN point is that the second marriage is called adulterous by Christ and Paul; and the only remedy for sin including an adulterous relationship - whether cloaked in the language of and called a 'marriage' or not, is to stop the sin. Christ and the grace of Christ does NOT TURN sinful deeds "the works of the flesh", into righteous deeds. Adultery like stealing, murder, lying, coveting, idolatry etc., etc., etc. is not magically transformed into purity and godliness. The lie is that it is. But claiming it is does not change the facts.
In all this error mislabeled as 'remarriage', it is always brought up that the wife or husband can't return to their first husband or wife. That is the straw man and/or red herring here. So to make this clear here: For sake of argument lets say that no one can return to their first spouse if and when THEY HAVE married another; or EVEN IF THEY NEVER REMARRIED. But the MAIN point is that this is not the issue in discussion here! The MAIN issue or point is that whether or not they can return to their first husband or wife, THEY NEED TO separate from their sin. That means sever and break off their adulterous relationship with whoever it is that they are committing adultery with - including severing the 'civil' [legal] entanglements via the 'marriage licence'. And if need be remain unmarried just as Christ through Paul has declared.
You believe otherwise, you like I will One Day stand and be instructed more perfectly at the Judgment. That is when the issue of shame will come into play.
You or someone else said:
You say: Your theory runs right into this Scripture:
"If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted?" from Jeremiah 3:1
Answer: Yes....???? How about the rest of even this one single passage?
"They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD."
Now if God says "return again to me", his wife Israel who left him and if effect married another apparently, I see the heart of God being displayed and I see this being the heart of Christ in Mat.19 in referring to the Deut passage. Out of time.
So then are you saying that when a remarriage has occurred that the remarried spouse must divorce, but they are NEVER permitted to remarry anyone again (not even their original spouse)?
No!!! Not at all!!! Not the 're-married', but the ADULTERER MUST divorce from the "another" that they 'married'. The legal decree that states that you're 'divorced', is merely the BYPRODUCT of a heart that has RE-PENTED of their ADULTEROUS - though 'LEGALIZED' SINFUL relationship. A manifest token of the quality and sincerity of their desire to clear themselves in this matter, EVEN AS Paul speaks of in 2Cor.7. Repentance requires separation from NOT ONLY the SIN; BUT logically from the PERSON(s) the sin of adultery was being committed with - UP & UNTIL they re-pented.
I cannot and do not define 'remarriage' as lovers of the so-called 'right to remarry' wish to define it. A true 'remarriage' is when a wayward lawful (say a 1st lawful) wife or husband has RE-pented of their sins of desertion of and defrauding against their first lawfully spouse and God; RE-turns to them in humility; and RE-CONCILES with them - and if they have not merely left them, but also went so far as to 'put them away' and 'divorced' them, then THEY clearly are not only permitted to, but are commanded to RE-MARRY THEM"! That COMMAND is clearly IMPLIED - SINCE it is clear that a lawfully wedded wife or husband is COMMANDED NOT TO PUT ASUNDER their husband or wife; and that is the essence of the gospel: REPENTANCE - RETURNING TO - RECONCILIATION - BEING AT ONE AGAIN!
Now and IF they have "married another" - a thing Christ calls adultery and a most abominable sin and transgression against God and their spouse: then Yes, I have a responsibility to 'teach' such that to be cleansed of their adulteries (each and every specific sin they've committed and continue to commit while both desiring and fulfilling the desires of their flesh with that individual they act treasurously against their first spouse with), THEY MUST separate from their sin - which means SEPARATING FROM whosoever it is that they are commiting both mental and physical adultery WITH.
As to the LAST part of your question: "...but they are NEVER permitted to remarry anyone again (not even their original spouse)?"
Whether or not RE-pented adulterers or adulteresses can RE-TURN & RE-MARRY their first wife or husband AFTER THEY HAVE SEPARATED FROM THEIR ADULTEROUS relationship with "another" (and showed their repentance with deeds, such as in 'legally' dissolving their sinful yoke together thru 'a divorce'), is something that requires some careful honest study and thinking.
But my present understanding and perspective is this: For one thing, I see that Deut.24:1-4 is not in force under the Law of Christ. It appears that Christ himself does not consider the provision in that text to originate from him; but was granted as a concession to the hard-hearted among the men of Israel under the temporary aspects of the Law (not to say that all things in the Law were temporary). Be that as it may, THAT law or precept, was not something a woman then and certainly not now can invoke for her folly.
So a wife who has divorced her husband and "married another" and who comes to her senses and repents of her sins; will for one not listen to those who claim all she needs to do is just say I'm sorry and continue in her sin of adultery; but will take the word repentance for what it means and is clearly defined in the contexts of scripture. She will clear herself of her wrong towards God and her first husband and say "I will go and return to my first husband" as the Prodical Son and the Prodical women in Hosea 2:7 says. I see this in the Jer.3:1, 2-8-14 as well. The will of God is for reconciliation - it is not always going to occur, but that is his command and will.
I think anyway - you have your ideas, I have mine; but I think perhaps that the prohibition in Deut.24 against a man taking his wife back when she has married another is to either/or protect her, or to punish the husband, or to show that he has in essence forced her to commit adultery.
Whatever be the real reasons for this prohibition in this precept of the law, I don't agree that it applies to the wife who puts her husband away, FOR THE TEXT did NOT provide her 'the right' to put away her husband, only he her. Since she had no right to do this, only the husband (man), she has no right to go off and marry another either without FIRST HAVING BEEN PUT AWAY and GIVEN a bill of DIVORCMENT FROM HER HUSBAND.
A narrative example close to this, is that of David taking Michal back and that from her alleged second 'husband' Phaltiel. David had not put her away, but you might agrue that he deserted her (not me); THE king, the SUPREME 'CIVIL' AUTHORITY & her OWN FATHER, even GAVE her to Phaltiel - but unlawfully so. For he gave her to David first. But there you go, an example of a husband taking back his wife who has been defiled through a second marriage to "another".
And if you or someone eolse wants to claim that David was violating Deut.24, you'll have your work cut out for you. And if so, do so clearly, I'll be willing to listen at least.
Now as for all the noise over my statements regarding a wife returning to or fleeing from her husband, who is abusive to her. What I have said before still stands - ONLY it has been twisted up a bit. I give my response to it in another post that will follow this one, when I can.
|
|
|
|