quote: Another question that I think should be considered is Paul addressing a specific situation in the Corinthian church (which had a reputation for sexual promiscuity) or does it apply universally to all Christians.
I've heard this taught several places, that a specific church was/could have been the target for the *teaching*, rather than the over-all application.
Don't know the answer myself. And it coulda been a re-married preacher teaching that! ;)-->
The Word also says that Moses allowed a couple to divorce for the hardness of their hearts. Jesus said that from the beginning it was not so, but Moses still allowed them to divorce because of their hard hearts.
In your situation, it is a done deal.
Do the present circumstances allow the parties to honestly figure out whose heart was hardened toward the Lord and toward his/her mate?
If so, the Word is saying that you should either soften your heart(s) and get back together or stay single. Why bring a hard heart into another relationship?
But if the other won't engage in an open-hearted loving acceptance and relationship, then I Cor. 7:15 goes on to say "...let there be separation. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace."
I also have heard many different teachings on the topic.
The Lord certainly emphasized that the only reason for divorce was adultry. I beleive that to be the correct application.
The word does seem to give a tremendous amount of liberty in the context of seperation as a method of resolving conflict in a marriage, where , Paul said not to be under bondage for God has called us to peace. Peace from for example, abusive people.
I do think there are many looking for excuses to divorce and marry someone else. Scripture does not provide for this.
The irony of course is the law being more liberal and Jesus correcting that application as a hardness of heart condition. People who divorce that are Christians commonly cite abandonment, mental illness or other things as excuses. It is my view that is hardness on there part, and sometimes the abusive party is in fact that one citing the other party.
Lastly there is the unadressed issue of one person filing divorce without adultry happening. the marriage in my view would not be terminated until the aggreving party who filed the divorce remarried or committed fornication, for there still would be the outside chance of reconciliation. certainly the party filing divorce would be the party where guilt falls, and at some point ( when i do not know) the other party would be free to remarry. How this would fall togehter or should fall together I think would depend on what the agressive parties intentions are.
Lastly , I think the church and divorce courts have lost a real opportunity to utilize both legal seperation and/or permanent seperating as a method of resolving conflict. Perhaps this is because we are a permissive society always looking for the grand answer in someone else. I do think time away and pemanent seperation can provide healing and even the opportunity to have sexual relations with your spouse without necessarily always living together. Certainly looks like a way of grace here has been missed by the church and courts.
this is a topic that has many differing veiwpoints from people. The reasons I think sometimes are apparent from what people want to do, more than what they should be doing.
This subject raises questions in my mind as to the actual state of marriages in the time of Christ, in contrast to how marriages (at least in our country) are today.
Another thread is interestingly enough discussing "Arranged Marriages."
If anyone knows and can recommend any works which can raise our understanding about marriage in antiquity, that could certainly enrich our discussion.
If I understand correctly , marriage in antiquity in that culture was akin to ownership of another person - usually the man's ownership of a woman (a man could have a collection of wives - an entire harem) - marriage was exercised more as an ownership and less a mutual partnership.
I can see how Jesus' words pertaining to divorce must have done much to empower a woman - He was apparently familiar with a number of women who got ditched by their previous owner/husbands for no good reason. Discarded out of their homes where they had lived their entire lives since their youth, cast out of the only world they 'd ever known, and most likely with accompanying social disrepute.
And many former wives perhaps had little recourse but to turn to prostitution and other "disrespectful" professions in order to survive in the outside world. With all this going on around Him, maybe this led Jesus to arrive to the views that He did.
And I wonder what Jesus' views would be today if He lived in our society - where in large part, women have attained (and hopefully will continue to ) equality, and therefore more say and choices in determining their own lives and future, outside of the common practice of pre-arrangement and marriage-as-slavery.
Personally, as a creature of my time, I can see other possible, valid reasons besides "adultery" that might justify annulling a marriage. Spouse beaters and abusers. Or two people growing apart and sharing little in common anymore. I'm sure people here can think of other reasons. And perhaps even for reasons unrelated to "hard hearts".
Here's the thing - in days of old, being married for your entire life only meant being married for maybe 10 or 20 years tops. The woman was likely to die in childbirth, the men likely to get killed in war or injury.
Now being married for life means being married for 40 - 50 plus years. WOW!!
"So now I"m praying for the end of time"
-Meatloaf
I cannot see how God would want us to spend our lives in misery. For some - staying in a marriage would mean just that.
Having been in an abusive relationship - I have no doubts I tried to make things work, did counseling,the whole bit. When I saw a guitar flying at my head, I was done. I have no qualms or guilt about leaving that marriage and I don't see how a loving God would condemn me for it either. Nor do I see how a loving God would condemn me for entering into a loving relationship after divorcing my husband.
BUT, I have also taken the time to think through and understand my own role in the abusive relationship. I have learned what I needed to and done the work, so I don't repeat the mistakes and wind up in another abusive relationship.
I've heard it taught that the "adultery" mentioned here is spiritual adultery. Of course I've also heard it said that was an excuse by TWI to engage in sexual adultery.
I think both figure in. If gods other than the God Who is Love are allowed to dominate in the relationship, hearts are heardened and love can't flow between the couple.
As people have said here, God doesn't command that people have to stay in a relationship without love - regardless of the sexual morays of the time.
We're called to peace - how peaceful would that be?
I cannot see how God would want us to spend our lives in misery. For some - staying in a marriage would mean just that.
Well, that is the story of my parent's marriage. My parents fought tooth and nail to keep the marriage together, and for what? Because it was God's will as dictated by the (Catholic) Church? Our family was severely dysfunctional as a result of the forced bonding of such "marriage", and needless to say, it ended in a divorce in 1981, after almost 30 years. I was well into my adulthood by then, but I think back and think why the hell didn't they divorce then? I personally feel like a bastard as an end result. After all, it is said that God joins a man and woman in true marriage, and he is infallible. Therefore the marriage is perfect if it was made such. Sure, there will be disputes periodically between spouses, but I don't think it will end in a divorce.
Personally, as a creature of my time, I can see other possible, valid reasons besides "adultery" that might justify annulling a marriage. Spouse beaters and abusers. Or two people growing apart and sharing little in common anymore. I'm sure people here can think of other reasons. And perhaps even for reasons unrelated to "hard hearts".
Abby ur comment:
I cannot see how God would want us to spend our lives in misery. For some - staying in a marriage would mean just that.
I do not agree with u guys, and I shall try to elegantly state why. (I mentioned that seperation provides a valid path in such circumstances ,but i think the reasoning goes way beyond that)
It is my belief that the institution of marriage, (with all the flaws of both parties) was put in place for a valid reason, that being true spiritual holiness. If one is unwilling to endure for a person who (doesnt make them happy or has serious problems), how can one grow in a relationship with God and his ways which cannot be fathomed? It is therefore the ultimate test of love for any party. Furthermore it is my belief, (and I believe supported by paul's statements, that marriage is a difficult test regardless of the spouse. ) This is not the doctrine taught by some who believe there is some ultimate unquizzacle soul mate who they are able to drift off into peace, bliss and contentment. Paul does not teach this. Therefore I think people expecting that are deceiving themselves.
Lastly and most importantly is the issue of purity and holiness, which is the justifiable and exceeding joyful reason Paul wanted our focus on Christ. Those preoccupied with finding there true soul mate dont and miss the opportunity of what God wrought in Christ in difficult spaces. I truly believe this, having lived with a woman who once tried to divorce me and now as of today wants a seperation. why? In my view because she is overmedicated with prescription drugs, self indulgent beyond what looks to be hopeful repair and a mess. Abusive? Hell yes all the time. Yet i find in my solitude better joy and peace with God than looking for that in a person. Cause guess what guys? It dont exist.
This is not the doctrine taught by some who believe there is some ultimate unquizzacle soul mate who they are able to drift off into peace, bliss and contentment.
You don't mean to suggest that anyone here is under any such illusion? At least I hadn't picked this up from this thread so far.
quote:
Lastly and most importantly is the issue of purity and holiness, which is the justifiable and exceeding joyful reason Paul wanted our focus on Christ. Those preoccupied with finding there true soul mate dont and miss the opportunity of what God wrought in Christ in difficult spaces.
I'm far from perfect, and am even in less of a position to judge what life must be like - or what it was like - in someone elses marriage. My concern for such an approach you described - for all its merits, and there are indeed many -is that, of itself, I can see where such might also slip into some weird, machostic holier-than-thou brand of self-righteousness, - particularly if one regards others whose marriages didn't work -as somehow forever stained and less sacred, or possessing less "spiritual depth" and perception. Which is not to suggest that I think that's where you're coming from. Only that this position may not be without its shortcomings.
quote:
I truly believe this, having lived with a woman who once tried to divorce me and now as of today wants a seperation. why? In my view because she is overmedicated with prescription drugs, self indulgent beyond what looks to be hopeful repair and a mess. Abusive? Hell yes all the time. Yet i find in my solitude better joy and peace with God than looking for that in a person. Cause guess what guys? It dont exist.
I'm very sorry to hear about this situation with your wife. Addiction to prescription drugs seems increasingly commonplace. Especially with couples getting older. I saw such happening with my father through the remaining 20 years of his life. My mother hung in there with him, even as he was losing his memories. They were married for over 50 years. Indeed, marriage is no bed of roses.
I'm far from perfect, and am even in less of a position to judge what life must be like - or what it was like - in someone elses marriage. My concern for such an approach you described - for all its merits, and there are indeed many -is that, of itself, I can see where such might also slip into some weird, machostic holier-than-thou brand of self-righteousness, - particularly if one regards others whose marriages didn't work -as somehow forever stained and less sacred, or possessing less "spiritual depth" and perception. Which is not to suggest that I think that's where you're coming from. Only that this position may not be without its shortcomings.
Danny, I agree. I know that the approach that I asserted at once has what one might term a legalistic treatise, and that brings that holier than thou type atmospherics of those who have either lived like that or purport too. My believe in this is more based upon the aspect that for me, I find more liberating than anything else. The other thing is this Danny: the last verse of I cor 7 discusses remarriage for one whose spouse has ( I think ) passed on. Paul says he thinks one is happier if he abides single and he thinks he has the spirit on that one. This is a very perculiar scripture.Could it be that God was trying to give a nudge, knowing that he didnt want to make it a rule because some absolutely need marriage? I think so. The problem with "God adopted rules" is he knows they can be a huge bondage on us.
With respect to the permanent stained aspect of your comment Danny, I dont think any mistakes are made with permanent majic markers that cannot be cleaned up going forward. Therefore the stuff I said shouldn't bring guilt or difficulty, at least thats my view.
"This passage of scripture must be understood in several lights.
1. Paul says in this chapter that these are his words, not the Lord's."
Really?
"And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from herhusband: But if she she depart, let her remain unmarried,or be reconciled to her husband and let not the husband put away hiswife."
When the Bible says "not I but the Lord" it means that The Lord is not saying it?
"If one is unwilling to endure for a person who (doesnt make them happy or has serious problems), how can one grow in a relationship with God and his ways which cannot be fathomed? It is therefore the ultimate test of love for any party"
If one is dead because their spouse killed them, would that then be the ultimate growth in a relationship with God? One must love oneself before one has anything to offer another. Self love includes drawing boundaries with respect to how one will be treated - an obvious boundary is not tolerating physical abuse. A less obvious, but still necessary boundary is not tolerating emotional abuse.
" This is not the doctrine taught by some who believe there is some ultimate unquizzacle soul mate who they are able to drift off into peace, bliss and contentment. Paul does not teach this. Therefore I think people expecting that are deceiving themselves."
Agreed. But in between the happily ever after and the other extreme of death due to domestic violence - there is still plenty of room for reality and God.
"Lastly and most importantly is the issue of purity and holiness, which is the justifiable and exceeding joyful reason Paul wanted our focus on Christ. Those preoccupied with finding there true soul mate dont and miss the opportunity of what God wrought in Christ in difficult spaces"
One does not have to be married to avoid being preoccupied with finding their soul mate. Additionally, as the divorced mother of twi, I can guarantee you there are more than enough "difficult spaces".
"Yet i find in my solitude better joy and peace with God than looking for that in a person. Cause guess what guys? It dont exist."
Agreed. One will never find peace and solitude if they are looking for another person to supply it for them. It has to come from within and above. Then one may be fortunate enough to find someone else who also has these qualities within themselves to share it with.
The other thing is this Danny: the last verse of I cor 7 discusses remarriage for one whose spouse has ( I think ) passed on. Paul says he thinks one is happier if he abides single and he thinks he has the spirit on that one. This is a very perculiar scripture.Could it be that God was trying to give a nudge, knowing that he didnt want to make it a rule because some absolutely need marriage? I think so. The problem with "God adopted rules" is he knows they can be a huge bondage on us.
It is a peculiar passage, among many here.
I wonder if through this Paul also slipped to readers an indication of his own marital situation. What do we really know about Paul in this regard? Was he married (being a requirement for a pharisee - or so I've heard)? - divorced? - a widower? - or had he "separated" from his wife?
Perhaps when he became a Christian, he took the gospel literally and left behind his wife (and other members of his family). Not to overlook that they may not have responded favorably with what he had gotten into. But no matter, because he in turn accounted his former life with all its achievements and relations as "dung" for the glory of Christ (Philip.4).
Paul equates marriage with "the world" -(1 Cor. 7:32-33): "he that is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord...he that is married cares for the things of the world..." Not exactly a ringing endorsement for marriage.
To Paul, the Church was "the Bride" -a "Virgin" for which many Christians devoted their bodies and souls to the practice of celibacy to help guard Her as pure and spotless for the Groom.
I wanted to discuss one thing that I didnt do very well. It was the holier than thou attitude u brought up and it was not my intent. I think this Dan. Many Christians orgs. treat spiritual authority as tho it was the same iron fist of other authorities: the supreme on top must have the proper answers. I dont see that in Gods kingdom, rather; if the principles that we apply dont make us more joyful happy and full people, then perhaps weve missed the principle and its application. I guess what im trying to say Danny, is that if the existing principle is that good it will make us better people. I dont see God's principles moving beyond that, like making someone better and someone lessor; except to the extent that someone possessing the lessor is still looking for something good. To me it's not sledge hammer policies Danny; but I think many churches and (yes TWI) did this to us to make people loyal subjects.
Lastly, the issue of the married doing "well" and the unmarried doing "better" that Paul spoke about. better in the sense that its less complex, me thinks. but better in the sense that the married "cant be as holy" as someone else? Nope not a chance of it. Just less crap or flesh or what ever u wanna call it. At least thats my view. The uncanny truth is this statement really holds water. I certainly dont know of many people who can say there life is simpler as a result of marriage.
Also Danny, I never meant to imply that anyone here at GS was looking for the perfect soul mate. To the opposite i have never felt that from anyone here. I pointed this out because this is the attitude I have heard from some in churches who file for divorce.
The other thing Danny is I'm struggling with issues in this area myself right now. There was a time when i begged the Lord to finish a divorce my wife started. I do see for my self tho, perhaps a better path in legal seperation.
If one is dead because their spouse killed them, would that then be the ultimate growth in a relationship with God? One must love oneself before one has anything to offer another. Self love includes drawing boundaries with respect to how one will be treated - an obvious boundary is not tolerating physical abuse. A less obvious, but still necessary boundary is not tolerating emotional abuse.
you know Abby i agree with this. ie(Co-dependent no more) I do think legal seperation provides such boundaries and I think (and mentioned before) that the church and state have missed opportunities there.
I think also that one can make the agruement that even after divorce, the relationship may not be completely dead until fornication or adultry has occured by one of the parties.
enjoyed ur post, very much agree. A very interesting topic.
I am sorry this is such a struggle for you in your own life, with your wife. I know, unless things were to truly work out with your wife, there is heartache regardless of the path. The good news is, the heartache can heal in time.
I wanted to add a couple of comments:
"you know Abby i agree with this. ie(Co-dependent no more) I do think legal seperation provides such boundaries and I think (and mentioned before) that the church and state have missed opportunities there."
Ya know, I actually agree with you on this. While I certainly don't have quite the same view on divorce as you do, there are marriages which could actually be salvaged by a legal separation if the couple would take that time apart to work on themselves first and then the marriage. In my state, there is no such thing as a legal separation. The result is, if you want to separate and you need the state to intervene for issues such as child support, your only recourse is a divorce. This is a shame.
"I think also that one can make the agruement that even after divorce, the relationship may not be completely dead until fornication or adultry has occured by one of the parties."
If there are children involved, the relationship is NEVER dead. It is changed, but not dead. I am thankful my ex and I, though we have our differences, generally get along pretty well now and work together well for the benefit of the kids.
Additionally, I have known couples who divorced, moved on with their lives and into other relationships, and eventually ended up back together again. Rare, but it does happen.
"I certainly dont know of many people who can say there life is simpler as a result of marriage."
Well, I'm not married. However, 1000Names and I have been living together for three years now and I can definitely say my life is simpler as a result. He is an excellent partner and "step-parent".
I wanted to discuss one thing that I didnt do very well. It was the holier than thou attitude u brought up and it was not my intent.
I believe you, Sky. I didn't suppose that it was actually your intent - whereas my own thinking was to simply weigh and address the idea itself,- for its strengths and weaknesses -not the person who presented it.
quote:
Also Danny, I never meant to imply that anyone here at GS was looking for the perfect soul mate. To the opposite i have never felt that from anyone here. I pointed this out because this is the attitude I have heard from some in churches who file for divorce.
I hadn't realize this attitude was widepread in churches. Perhaps you have had more contact and experiences with churches than I have had in recent years, and you have witnessed a lot more in this regard. I haven't really been a steady church-goer for quite some time now.
quote:
The other thing Danny is I'm struggling with issues in this area myself right now. There was a time when i begged the Lord to finish a divorce my wife started. I do see for my self tho, perhaps a better path in legal seperation.
Sky, I'm really sorry to hear of the painful trials you and your wife are undergoing, and I bear to heart that things may work out to the most beneficial outcome for both you and your wife.
Please don't hesitate to email me if I can be of any help, even if only to lend an ear.
It seems that a lot of seeming contradictions would be reconciled if we were to look at the word "adultery" in its broader context of spiritual adultery.
Then things like abuse wouldn't require a new "modern" viewpoint of marriage.
Also God wouldn't appear to hold us in bondage until one or the other has sex outside the marriage relationship. Holding us in bondage to abusive situations hardly seems in line with the "God has called us to peace" of the same section of scripture.
Also one who files for the divorce wouldn't then of necessity be the "guilty" party, but simply perhaps the one who is honest about the hardness of heart of the other.
If, in the same context, Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of your hearts and the only reason for divorce is fornication, then fornication (like adultery) has to be taken in the light of its broader context of spiritual fornication because sexual fornication is not the only thing that can cause hardness of heart.
God is Love, and he wants love in marriage. Anything we put in front of God (spiritual adultery or fornication)causes hardness of heart and the love can't flow between the married couple - because one or both have put something else in the way as a priority.
That loveless situation is what God doesn't want us to be kept in bondage to - that's why Moses allowed divorce.
Perfection doesn't enter into the equation, just faithfulness to an honest and true relationship.
The problem comes in when we aren't honest about the allegiances of our hearts.
It seems that a lot of seeming contradictions would be reconciled if we were to look at the word "adultery" in its broader context of spiritual adultery.
Respectfully, and i dont want to be a stick in the mud; but there is no such thing as spiritual adultery. Adultery means having sex in marriage with someone who is not your spouse. The spirit of a man or woman can be convoluted because of the act and I suppose u might argue there spirit has been adultered, but it doesnt work the other way around.
your comment in your first post:
I've heard it taught that the "adultery" mentioned here is spiritual adultery. Of course I've also heard it said that was an excuse by TWI to engage in sexual adultery.
I think u hit the nail on the head the first time. Tough to figure out these means what it says theorists? they dont even follow there own rules.
"Respectfully, and i dont want to be a stick in the mud; but there is no such thing as spiritual adultery. Adultery means having sex in marriage with someone who is not your spouse."
Sky, you don't think someone can commit adultery without actually having sex with someone who is not their spouse? What then, do you call it when someone gives more of their heart and love to someone who is not their spouse?
Despite the fact that some in TWI abused the figurative use of adultery and fornication doesn't negate it's existance.
The term "spiritual adultery" refers to, usually in the old testament, Israel and Israelites chasing after other gods. It is described as adultery and fornication; using arguably the worst thing a man or a woman can do to their spouse to describe what could be the worst thing an Israelite could do against their god.
TWI, especially in it's later years tried to say that all uses of adultery were spiritual.
Recommended Posts
dmiller
I've heard this taught several places, that a specific church was/could have been the target for the *teaching*, rather than the over-all application.
Don't know the answer myself. And it coulda been a re-married preacher teaching that!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
The Word also says that Moses allowed a couple to divorce for the hardness of their hearts. Jesus said that from the beginning it was not so, but Moses still allowed them to divorce because of their hard hearts.
In your situation, it is a done deal.
Do the present circumstances allow the parties to honestly figure out whose heart was hardened toward the Lord and toward his/her mate?
If so, the Word is saying that you should either soften your heart(s) and get back together or stay single. Why bring a hard heart into another relationship?
But if the other won't engage in an open-hearted loving acceptance and relationship, then I Cor. 7:15 goes on to say "...let there be separation. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace."
You're not bound if that's the case.
Peace,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
oenophil:
see next post, somehow i double posted sorry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
This subject raises questions in my mind as to the actual state of marriages in the time of Christ, in contrast to how marriages (at least in our country) are today.
Another thread is interestingly enough discussing "Arranged Marriages."
If anyone knows and can recommend any works which can raise our understanding about marriage in antiquity, that could certainly enrich our discussion.
If I understand correctly , marriage in antiquity in that culture was akin to ownership of another person - usually the man's ownership of a woman (a man could have a collection of wives - an entire harem) - marriage was exercised more as an ownership and less a mutual partnership.
I can see how Jesus' words pertaining to divorce must have done much to empower a woman - He was apparently familiar with a number of women who got ditched by their previous owner/husbands for no good reason. Discarded out of their homes where they had lived their entire lives since their youth, cast out of the only world they 'd ever known, and most likely with accompanying social disrepute.
And many former wives perhaps had little recourse but to turn to prostitution and other "disrespectful" professions in order to survive in the outside world. With all this going on around Him, maybe this led Jesus to arrive to the views that He did.
And I wonder what Jesus' views would be today if He lived in our society - where in large part, women have attained (and hopefully will continue to ) equality, and therefore more say and choices in determining their own lives and future, outside of the common practice of pre-arrangement and marriage-as-slavery.
Personally, as a creature of my time, I can see other possible, valid reasons besides "adultery" that might justify annulling a marriage. Spouse beaters and abusers. Or two people growing apart and sharing little in common anymore. I'm sure people here can think of other reasons. And perhaps even for reasons unrelated to "hard hearts".
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Here's the thing - in days of old, being married for your entire life only meant being married for maybe 10 or 20 years tops. The woman was likely to die in childbirth, the men likely to get killed in war or injury.
Now being married for life means being married for 40 - 50 plus years. WOW!!
"So now I"m praying for the end of time"
-Meatloaf
I cannot see how God would want us to spend our lives in misery. For some - staying in a marriage would mean just that.
Having been in an abusive relationship - I have no doubts I tried to make things work, did counseling,the whole bit. When I saw a guitar flying at my head, I was done. I have no qualms or guilt about leaving that marriage and I don't see how a loving God would condemn me for it either. Nor do I see how a loving God would condemn me for entering into a loving relationship after divorcing my husband.
BUT, I have also taken the time to think through and understand my own role in the abusive relationship. I have learned what I needed to and done the work, so I don't repeat the mistakes and wind up in another abusive relationship.
Edited by abigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I've heard it taught that the "adultery" mentioned here is spiritual adultery. Of course I've also heard it said that was an excuse by TWI to engage in sexual adultery.
I think both figure in. If gods other than the God Who is Love are allowed to dominate in the relationship, hearts are heardened and love can't flow between the couple.
As people have said here, God doesn't command that people have to stay in a relationship without love - regardless of the sexual morays of the time.
We're called to peace - how peaceful would that be?
Not!
Peace.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Abigail said:
Well, that is the story of my parent's marriage. My parents fought tooth and nail to keep the marriage together, and for what? Because it was God's will as dictated by the (Catholic) Church? Our family was severely dysfunctional as a result of the forced bonding of such "marriage", and needless to say, it ended in a divorce in 1981, after almost 30 years. I was well into my adulthood by then, but I think back and think why the hell didn't they divorce then? I personally feel like a bastard as an end result. After all, it is said that God joins a man and woman in true marriage, and he is infallible. Therefore the marriage is perfect if it was made such. Sure, there will be disputes periodically between spouses, but I don't think it will end in a divorce.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Danny , Abigail and Cknapp:
Danny ur comment:
Personally, as a creature of my time, I can see other possible, valid reasons besides "adultery" that might justify annulling a marriage. Spouse beaters and abusers. Or two people growing apart and sharing little in common anymore. I'm sure people here can think of other reasons. And perhaps even for reasons unrelated to "hard hearts".
Abby ur comment:
I cannot see how God would want us to spend our lives in misery. For some - staying in a marriage would mean just that.
I do not agree with u guys, and I shall try to elegantly state why. (I mentioned that seperation provides a valid path in such circumstances ,but i think the reasoning goes way beyond that)
It is my belief that the institution of marriage, (with all the flaws of both parties) was put in place for a valid reason, that being true spiritual holiness. If one is unwilling to endure for a person who (doesnt make them happy or has serious problems), how can one grow in a relationship with God and his ways which cannot be fathomed? It is therefore the ultimate test of love for any party. Furthermore it is my belief, (and I believe supported by paul's statements, that marriage is a difficult test regardless of the spouse. ) This is not the doctrine taught by some who believe there is some ultimate unquizzacle soul mate who they are able to drift off into peace, bliss and contentment. Paul does not teach this. Therefore I think people expecting that are deceiving themselves.
Lastly and most importantly is the issue of purity and holiness, which is the justifiable and exceeding joyful reason Paul wanted our focus on Christ. Those preoccupied with finding there true soul mate dont and miss the opportunity of what God wrought in Christ in difficult spaces. I truly believe this, having lived with a woman who once tried to divorce me and now as of today wants a seperation. why? In my view because she is overmedicated with prescription drugs, self indulgent beyond what looks to be hopeful repair and a mess. Abusive? Hell yes all the time. Yet i find in my solitude better joy and peace with God than looking for that in a person. Cause guess what guys? It dont exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
You don't mean to suggest that anyone here is under any such illusion? At least I hadn't picked this up from this thread so far.
I'm far from perfect, and am even in less of a position to judge what life must be like - or what it was like - in someone elses marriage. My concern for such an approach you described - for all its merits, and there are indeed many -is that, of itself, I can see where such might also slip into some weird, machostic holier-than-thou brand of self-righteousness, - particularly if one regards others whose marriages didn't work -as somehow forever stained and less sacred, or possessing less "spiritual depth" and perception. Which is not to suggest that I think that's where you're coming from. Only that this position may not be without its shortcomings.
I'm very sorry to hear about this situation with your wife. Addiction to prescription drugs seems increasingly commonplace. Especially with couples getting older. I saw such happening with my father through the remaining 20 years of his life. My mother hung in there with him, even as he was losing his memories. They were married for over 50 years. Indeed, marriage is no bed of roses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
This passage of scripture must be understood in several lights.
1. Paul says in this chapter that these are his words, not the Lord's.
2. The church in Corinth was filled with sin and needed some sharp correction.
3. Not everything in the epistles is written to all, often we have to seek the principles in the passage and glean life application from there.
Hope this helps a little.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Danny:
Your comment:
I'm far from perfect, and am even in less of a position to judge what life must be like - or what it was like - in someone elses marriage. My concern for such an approach you described - for all its merits, and there are indeed many -is that, of itself, I can see where such might also slip into some weird, machostic holier-than-thou brand of self-righteousness, - particularly if one regards others whose marriages didn't work -as somehow forever stained and less sacred, or possessing less "spiritual depth" and perception. Which is not to suggest that I think that's where you're coming from. Only that this position may not be without its shortcomings.
Danny, I agree. I know that the approach that I asserted at once has what one might term a legalistic treatise, and that brings that holier than thou type atmospherics of those who have either lived like that or purport too. My believe in this is more based upon the aspect that for me, I find more liberating than anything else. The other thing is this Danny: the last verse of I cor 7 discusses remarriage for one whose spouse has ( I think ) passed on. Paul says he thinks one is happier if he abides single and he thinks he has the spirit on that one. This is a very perculiar scripture.Could it be that God was trying to give a nudge, knowing that he didnt want to make it a rule because some absolutely need marriage? I think so. The problem with "God adopted rules" is he knows they can be a huge bondage on us.
With respect to the permanent stained aspect of your comment Danny, I dont think any mistakes are made with permanent majic markers that cannot be cleaned up going forward. Therefore the stuff I said shouldn't bring guilt or difficulty, at least thats my view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
def59:
"This passage of scripture must be understood in several lights.
1. Paul says in this chapter that these are his words, not the Lord's."
Really?
"And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from herhusband: But if she she depart, let her remain unmarried,or be reconciled to her husband and let not the husband put away hiswife."
When the Bible says "not I but the Lord" it means that The Lord is not saying it?
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"If one is unwilling to endure for a person who (doesnt make them happy or has serious problems), how can one grow in a relationship with God and his ways which cannot be fathomed? It is therefore the ultimate test of love for any party"
If one is dead because their spouse killed them, would that then be the ultimate growth in a relationship with God? One must love oneself before one has anything to offer another. Self love includes drawing boundaries with respect to how one will be treated - an obvious boundary is not tolerating physical abuse. A less obvious, but still necessary boundary is not tolerating emotional abuse.
" This is not the doctrine taught by some who believe there is some ultimate unquizzacle soul mate who they are able to drift off into peace, bliss and contentment. Paul does not teach this. Therefore I think people expecting that are deceiving themselves."
Agreed. But in between the happily ever after and the other extreme of death due to domestic violence - there is still plenty of room for reality and God.
"Lastly and most importantly is the issue of purity and holiness, which is the justifiable and exceeding joyful reason Paul wanted our focus on Christ. Those preoccupied with finding there true soul mate dont and miss the opportunity of what God wrought in Christ in difficult spaces"
One does not have to be married to avoid being preoccupied with finding their soul mate. Additionally, as the divorced mother of twi, I can guarantee you there are more than enough "difficult spaces".
"Yet i find in my solitude better joy and peace with God than looking for that in a person. Cause guess what guys? It dont exist."
Agreed. One will never find peace and solitude if they are looking for another person to supply it for them. It has to come from within and above. Then one may be fortunate enough to find someone else who also has these qualities within themselves to share it with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It is a peculiar passage, among many here.
I wonder if through this Paul also slipped to readers an indication of his own marital situation. What do we really know about Paul in this regard? Was he married (being a requirement for a pharisee - or so I've heard)? - divorced? - a widower? - or had he "separated" from his wife?
Perhaps when he became a Christian, he took the gospel literally and left behind his wife (and other members of his family). Not to overlook that they may not have responded favorably with what he had gotten into. But no matter, because he in turn accounted his former life with all its achievements and relations as "dung" for the glory of Christ (Philip.4).
Paul equates marriage with "the world" -(1 Cor. 7:32-33): "he that is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord...he that is married cares for the things of the world..." Not exactly a ringing endorsement for marriage.
To Paul, the Church was "the Bride" -a "Virgin" for which many Christians devoted their bodies and souls to the practice of celibacy to help guard Her as pure and spotless for the Groom.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
 Ok Galen, you got me on those verses.
I guess I was recalling 7:1-9 and 12-ff where it is Paul talking and not God.
Malachi does say that God hates divorce.
Â
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Danny:
I wanted to discuss one thing that I didnt do very well. It was the holier than thou attitude u brought up and it was not my intent. I think this Dan. Many Christians orgs. treat spiritual authority as tho it was the same iron fist of other authorities: the supreme on top must have the proper answers. I dont see that in Gods kingdom, rather; if the principles that we apply dont make us more joyful happy and full people, then perhaps weve missed the principle and its application. I guess what im trying to say Danny, is that if the existing principle is that good it will make us better people. I dont see God's principles moving beyond that, like making someone better and someone lessor; except to the extent that someone possessing the lessor is still looking for something good. To me it's not sledge hammer policies Danny; but I think many churches and (yes TWI) did this to us to make people loyal subjects.
Lastly, the issue of the married doing "well" and the unmarried doing "better" that Paul spoke about. better in the sense that its less complex, me thinks. but better in the sense that the married "cant be as holy" as someone else? Nope not a chance of it. Just less crap or flesh or what ever u wanna call it. At least thats my view. The uncanny truth is this statement really holds water. I certainly dont know of many people who can say there life is simpler as a result of marriage.
Also Danny, I never meant to imply that anyone here at GS was looking for the perfect soul mate. To the opposite i have never felt that from anyone here. I pointed this out because this is the attitude I have heard from some in churches who file for divorce.
The other thing Danny is I'm struggling with issues in this area myself right now. There was a time when i begged the Lord to finish a divorce my wife started. I do see for my self tho, perhaps a better path in legal seperation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abbigail:
ur comment:
If one is dead because their spouse killed them, would that then be the ultimate growth in a relationship with God? One must love oneself before one has anything to offer another. Self love includes drawing boundaries with respect to how one will be treated - an obvious boundary is not tolerating physical abuse. A less obvious, but still necessary boundary is not tolerating emotional abuse.
you know Abby i agree with this. ie(Co-dependent no more) I do think legal seperation provides such boundaries and I think (and mentioned before) that the church and state have missed opportunities there.
I think also that one can make the agruement that even after divorce, the relationship may not be completely dead until fornication or adultry has occured by one of the parties.
enjoyed ur post, very much agree. A very interesting topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sky,
I am sorry this is such a struggle for you in your own life, with your wife. I know, unless things were to truly work out with your wife, there is heartache regardless of the path. The good news is, the heartache can heal in time.
I wanted to add a couple of comments:
"you know Abby i agree with this. ie(Co-dependent no more) I do think legal seperation provides such boundaries and I think (and mentioned before) that the church and state have missed opportunities there."
Ya know, I actually agree with you on this. While I certainly don't have quite the same view on divorce as you do, there are marriages which could actually be salvaged by a legal separation if the couple would take that time apart to work on themselves first and then the marriage. In my state, there is no such thing as a legal separation. The result is, if you want to separate and you need the state to intervene for issues such as child support, your only recourse is a divorce. This is a shame.
"I think also that one can make the agruement that even after divorce, the relationship may not be completely dead until fornication or adultry has occured by one of the parties."
If there are children involved, the relationship is NEVER dead. It is changed, but not dead. I am thankful my ex and I, though we have our differences, generally get along pretty well now and work together well for the benefit of the kids.
Additionally, I have known couples who divorced, moved on with their lives and into other relationships, and eventually ended up back together again. Rare, but it does happen.
"I certainly dont know of many people who can say there life is simpler as a result of marriage."
Well, I'm not married. However, 1000Names and I have been living together for three years now and I can definitely say my life is simpler as a result. He is an excellent partner and "step-parent".
Edited by abigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Sky -
I believe you, Sky. I didn't suppose that it was actually your intent - whereas my own thinking was to simply weigh and address the idea itself,- for its strengths and weaknesses -not the person who presented it.
I hadn't realize this attitude was widepread in churches. Perhaps you have had more contact and experiences with churches than I have had in recent years, and you have witnessed a lot more in this regard. I haven't really been a steady church-goer for quite some time now.
Sky, I'm really sorry to hear of the painful trials you and your wife are undergoing, and I bear to heart that things may work out to the most beneficial outcome for both you and your wife.
Please don't hesitate to email me if I can be of any help, even if only to lend an ear.
with warmest regards,
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
It seems that a lot of seeming contradictions would be reconciled if we were to look at the word "adultery" in its broader context of spiritual adultery.
Then things like abuse wouldn't require a new "modern" viewpoint of marriage.
Also God wouldn't appear to hold us in bondage until one or the other has sex outside the marriage relationship. Holding us in bondage to abusive situations hardly seems in line with the "God has called us to peace" of the same section of scripture.
Also one who files for the divorce wouldn't then of necessity be the "guilty" party, but simply perhaps the one who is honest about the hardness of heart of the other.
If, in the same context, Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of your hearts and the only reason for divorce is fornication, then fornication (like adultery) has to be taken in the light of its broader context of spiritual fornication because sexual fornication is not the only thing that can cause hardness of heart.
God is Love, and he wants love in marriage. Anything we put in front of God (spiritual adultery or fornication)causes hardness of heart and the love can't flow between the married couple - because one or both have put something else in the way as a priority.
That loveless situation is what God doesn't want us to be kept in bondage to - that's why Moses allowed divorce.
Perfection doesn't enter into the equation, just faithfulness to an honest and true relationship.
The problem comes in when we aren't honest about the allegiances of our hearts.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Thomas:
your comment:
It seems that a lot of seeming contradictions would be reconciled if we were to look at the word "adultery" in its broader context of spiritual adultery.
Respectfully, and i dont want to be a stick in the mud; but there is no such thing as spiritual adultery. Adultery means having sex in marriage with someone who is not your spouse. The spirit of a man or woman can be convoluted because of the act and I suppose u might argue there spirit has been adultered, but it doesnt work the other way around.
your comment in your first post:
I've heard it taught that the "adultery" mentioned here is spiritual adultery. Of course I've also heard it said that was an excuse by TWI to engage in sexual adultery.
I think u hit the nail on the head the first time. Tough to figure out these means what it says theorists? they dont even follow there own rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Respectfully, and i dont want to be a stick in the mud; but there is no such thing as spiritual adultery. Adultery means having sex in marriage with someone who is not your spouse."
Sky, you don't think someone can commit adultery without actually having sex with someone who is not their spouse? What then, do you call it when someone gives more of their heart and love to someone who is not their spouse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Despite the fact that some in TWI abused the figurative use of adultery and fornication doesn't negate it's existance.
The term "spiritual adultery" refers to, usually in the old testament, Israel and Israelites chasing after other gods. It is described as adultery and fornication; using arguably the worst thing a man or a woman can do to their spouse to describe what could be the worst thing an Israelite could do against their god.
TWI, especially in it's later years tried to say that all uses of adultery were spiritual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.