Featured Wives

I already gave a "brief" to Ann about it, and this isn't the thread for that discussion in full.

I will present these items

The fact is that Christ said, "Let no man put asunder" AFTER the marriage was consummated.

He made provision for divorce BEFORE the marriage was consummated.

That the typical teaching given to folks is that the marriage is a "contract" and that it can be broken when one fails in that contract, does not mean the Scriptures agree. As already shown the marriage is not contractual, but a point of taking a vow that is one sided and not conditional upon what the other person does or doesn't perform.

I would suggest that it would be appropriate for those who want to defend that divorce can occur at the point of unfaithfulness should look to the example of Christ to the believer. For the Scriptures state that the husband wife picture represents the relationship of Christ to the believer (church).

HE is faithful even when we are not.

Perhaps, you can give greater testimony from Scripture on the matter to support the view that a marriage after consummation can be Scripturally broken.

I have given you places to consider that show it cannot and should not.

 

But this is clearly breaking up the family unit.

I can hear the children say, "Why doesn't daddy like me anymore? He is living with ..." "Why can't he life here with us. He is my daddy, too."

No matter how the situation is "talked through" the dynamics to the children will have long term damaging impact when the family is separated into compartments.

The scenario purposely placed the family in a cultural context in which multiple partners were not only expected, but showed community standing.

The separation into compartments would impact the children in the community most negatively.

Hmmm, not in conflict with the Bible? I'll leave that alone for now.

Thisnumbersdisconnected posted that the Bible is cross cultural (my term).

So, apply the scenario this way, the "family" as a group has immigrated to your neighborhood. They have been gloriously saved, and now desire to come to church.

You are charged to meet the family and discover that they are as the scenario indicates.

How do you then recommend the folks proceed.

YES!!!

That would be God honoring, and provide the assembly, edification.

I do think the assembly needs to have a membership talk to inform them, lay out the rational, and bring understanding of the limitations, expectations, and applications that all are to expect, agree, and support.

 

And this does not support what I posted? Did I not clearly state that marriage is NOT contractual, but vows of what one will do regardless of and unconditional.

Such is covenantal and God does not expect such a vow to be broken. In fact, He is rather specific about how he holds humankind responsible for the vows they take.

The Scripture in which I referred is Matthew 19.

Your reference to Malachi just proves all the more that the post I made about the issue was factual.

Did God say divorce was righteous? Not!

Malachi says, "For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel"

When then is the ONLY time in which Christ states that divorce is actually approved?

When one has been unfaithful BEFORE consummation of the marriage.

Matthew 19:

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
​

Now some look at verse 9 and say, "Ah, ha! See he states they can divorce over adultery."

Taking that view would then make Christ statement in bold "let no man put asunder" of no importance.

Therefore there is only ONE time that Jesus could be referring.

In the Jewish custom, the man was married, but did not consummate the marriage until a place was prepared for the wife. When the husband's father (or authority figure) stated the place was good enough, the husband went to the home of the bride and took her unto himself.

Do you not remember the story of the ten virgins? This is an illustration of the practice.

Do you not remember what Joseph was willing to do to Mary and when? Again, that is an illustration.

I know this isn't acceptable teaching to much of the folks who desire to bust up a marriage over an unfaithful spouse, but frankly, it is really the only proper way to work through this issue and Christ's statements.

 

No, covenants are NOT synonymous with contracts.

In the Scriptures contracts can be covenantal agreements between nations and man to man, but they were not contracts as the modern sense of the word. Often sitting down to eat with another person in which meat and drink are divided is establishing the covenant.

Such is pictured in the last supper when Christ broke the bread and passed the cup. Do you see the covenant statement "Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Was it conditional as is a modern contract?

Modern day contracts are agreements in which both sides are liable, and can be broken by either side.

Example, I purchase a car. In the contract it specifies a certain warranty and the conditions the must be met for the warranty to remain affective. One side is obligated to the other side. I keep the conditions then the dealer is obligated to fix what breaks.

Consider that both sides have an obligation that if violated not only breaks the contract, but has legal resources available to redress the issues.

Covenants are not that way. The covenant is one sided and not dependent upon the other.

Example, I marry a harlot. I covenant and give vows. The harlot continues the harlotry. I am bound by the covenant - see Hosea.

The covenant is a vow, as such was not conditioned upon nor mitigated by the response of the other person. At times the covenant was given, and another covenant given by the other side - This is as is done in a wedding - one makes vows, the other makes vows. In the OT this was done to establish treaty alliances.

The Greek word in the NT is diaqeke. It is as one would consider the last will and testament. (Click the word to open a link to a study tools)

The Hebrew word in the OT is [FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF]berith. It is aligned with total devotion (see here) and with circumcision (see here). It may help to look (here) for how the word is used throughout the OT - in particular read the "[/FONT][FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF]Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon" section for how the word is used in each instance.

To read two articles that discuss this issue (one short) and one longer try these two:

Covenants and Contracts by Richard Anthony

Covenant Not Contract by Bible.org

As this applies to a marriage, the covenantal vow is far stronger and is actually a vow to God (not to each other) in which God holds the person responsible to fulfill.

Hence the use of the word "adultery" when Christ spoke in Matthew 19:
[/FONT]

[FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF] And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

[/FONT]​

[FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF]The only time Christ approved divorce as opposed to Moses was pre-consummation.

The timeline of the statements do not allow for any other factual interpretation.

The wording by Christ comparing what Moses allowed and God's way.

And the statement of "one flesh" is inseparable unity. One cannot divorce himself from himself. Only the Spirit using the Word of God is capable of dividing soul and Spirit (Hebrews 4)[/FONT].

I understand the desire of most believers and teachers to consider my statements as incorrect, but they were not made with a casual glance at the Scriptures.

I also realize that the world would mock and scorn the statements as far from "normal" teaching and preaching. I don't contend with the world view(s), though I continue to stand against them.

I seek only understanding (not agreement) with what I consider Scriptural in this matter. I figure the Holy Spirit will guide each person who actually investigates the matter into truth - agreement with me means very little in comparison. That some may never agree is between them and the leading of the Holy Spirit. That some may agree should also be between them and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

What I would never want is someone agreeing with me, because they relied upon me. That is most unScriptural. The believer is to sift everything through the Scriptures and cherish what is in agreement and toss into the garbage can what is not.

 

The above would sound all so "grown up talk" to a child and would be discarded as such.

To a child (as thisnumbersdisconnect) can attest (as a professional) they see love in the light of what is important to them.

For example: A child will cling to an abusive parent because they see in that parent what is important to them. It isn't love, it isn't devotion, but some unknown need that binds the child to that parent. It isn't until the child is well into maturation that adult thinking, reasoning, and comparing enables some beginning of understanding. Until then, not happening.

So all the "talk" may sound good, and may be agreeable and make sense to adults, but such means absolutely nothing to the child. The child WILL view it all as betrayal and picking favorites.

I have yet to see a child taken from even a very bad parent who does not long for that parent.

The talk will mean nothing but heartache and result in a life marred.

 

Would you show me Scriptures that state "the lifestyle must be abandoned" as it relates to the scenario?

Consider carefully how you will fit it into the examples given in the Scriptures of the actual living style as related to the public testimony.

Is there ever a time (other than Ezra) that separation of the family unit was clearly in the plan of God as you would desire?

Please, I am not trying to corner your view.

The purpose of the thread is attempting to seek Scriptural principle for the OP scenario in which the assembly and the members might be schooled and develop a systematic Biblically based scheme in which they may all look upon as a guide.

This is further important because I see the church already engaging in some aspects of the scenario through the typical divorced couples classes.

This is further important because new believers, who need discipline and discipleship, should have a consistent Scripture based guide they can look at and ponder.

So, I am not really in this for the debate over legalisms but for how the assembly is to respond to these believers.

The OP scenario folks are not second class citizens to the kingdom, and shouldn't be treated by the assembly as such.

 

Did you actually read through the links that I posted?

This supports what I stated as the ONLY time divorce is allowed by Christ.

Divorce can ONLY then occur BEFORE the one flesh.

It is the ONLY way that the Scriptures on this matter remain consistent. For again, "one flesh" cannot be divided by man - clear statement by Christ cannot be put in any other context than expressing divorce after consummation is not Scriptural.

Paul confirms the statements I have made on this issue:
1 Corinthians 7

10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.


​

There are NO conditions of if/then in the above passage, and it applies to both those who have a partner who is not a believer as well as two believers.

Divorce is NOT an option after consummation or Paul would have given that - especially considering the culture of which the Corinthian church resided. Promiscuity was not just occasional but regularly served up as actual temple "rights."

Had Paul considered "adultery" an issue that could warrant divorce, then he would have (especially in that church) made remarkable statements to that end. Paul spoke on the topic and gave no "out" but actually states the Lord's command and there is not "out" given - only a "time out."

Did you not see the links I provided? In what area did I "limit" the OT and NT covenants as by God, only.

Rather, I pointed out the very same items as your statement above.

That the "marriage contract" was actually a covenant in which the binds were far stronger and to be taken in the same light as any other vow.

Your own post does not refute the statements I have made, but further gives support to them.

What does the OT state about a vow?

Look at the place in which a husband overhears a vow the wife makes and she is unaware that he is around.

Better, go to here, type in the word vow, and then read through the actual use in Scriptures. For some reason, often the link doesn't accept single words, but if you reason with it, it should give you 70 some times the word "vow" occurs with all the various uses and other tools.

I enjoyed doing that with "covenant" some time back and was reminded again of how personal pronouns of ownership were often a part of the wording (me, mine, my, your, yours, ...)

Marriage vows are not made to each other on a contractual basis - you will do this and and I will do that.

Rather, they are made to God concerning what that person brings to the other.

It is an "unconditional" promise and as such cannot be broken by the actions of the person who makes the vow, nor the person to whom the vow is for or about without sever consequences.

Example - remember the Jephthah vow? Was Jephthah able to break the vow? Was his daughter able to break the vow? To whom was the vow made?

Example - Hannah made what some might consider a this as an if/then conditional promise - give me a child and I will give him to you, but in actuality, it is unconditional. Hannah got from God and gave it back. God didn't have to give the child, but Hannah was responsible that when she did get a child to give it to the Lord. It was unconditional.
To whom was the vow made? Could Hannah break the vow? Could Samuel break the vow?

I could go on, but from these examples and from the link there is ample Scriptural support.

 

Thank you for that admission.

Because it is not addressed in the Bible, why do you still want to assign "sin" to the scenario?

Saying it is sin, without Biblical proof, doesn't make it anything more than a person assigning sin to believers who live in grass huts.

I agree that God makes the marriage covenant between a man and woman - a sacredness not to be marred or interfered with by outsiders.

But on the other hand, you are stating that outsiders can interfere and dissolve the marriage - which Christ stated was NOT allowed. (Let no man put asunder)

I do question that a person who is found as the OP suggests, has the sacred right to leave the home, and/or disavow.

Can a vow be disavowed? Is there a time in Scripture (other than when a man overhears his wife) when by example this was done?

When the Scriptures state that a man has given a vow - I don't recall any condition in which that vow was not expected to be fulfilled - irregardless of the consequences.

All those items (according to Proverbs) are "without the body and taken in" but the intimacy and unity of a couple is not pictured in that light.

For sure and for certain. No argument at all.

You are assuming that it is necessary to "clean up ... wreck."

So far, you have shown that the Bible doesn't place the OP as folks in sin (your opening statement in the post), and yet you continue to assign it as sinful and needing correction.

I am uncertain on what grounds (other than God design one man one woman marriages) you proclaim the need for the family unit to be separated.

Separating and not fulfilling "duty" would place the people as no longer capable of fulfilling the vows they took, and that is highly condemned in Scriptures.

I am certainly not one to suggest in any way that anyone "continue in their sin."

I also agree that "people heal with the power of Christ."

What I am questioning is that there is "healing" needed as you are suggesting, and that imposing your suggestions would actually do harm by interfere with the basic family unity.

 

Again, you prove my view correct

Perhaps you missed this:

A ketubah (Hebrew: כְּתוּבָּה ; "written thing"; pl. ketubot) is a special type of Jewish prenuptial agreement. It is considered an integral part of a traditional Jewish marriage, and outlines the rights and responsibilities of the groom, in relation to the bride.
​

Would not unfaithfulness break the "ketubah?"

What is the only difference between "prenuptial" and nuptial?

Now apply all the above to the statement Christ made.

One can divorce for adultery.

What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

When is the ONLY time in which God has not made "one flesh" and divorce is an option? Keep in mind "what God has joined together let no man put asunder."

When is the ONLY time the two have NOT become one flesh and yet are married? Keep in mind "what God has joined together let no man put asunder."

Therefore divorce is approved (as shown both by the statement of Christ and restated by Paul to the Corinthians) ONLY prenuptial. Keep in mind "what God has joined together let no man put asunder."