Conference yukon::christian_v7

    First, it is important to recognize the fact:  God hates divorce.  "For
    the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away
    [=divorce]: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD
    of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not
    treacherously." (Mal. 2:16)  Thus, we are never encouraged to pursue
    it.  Yes, the only scriptural grounds for divorce that I can see is for
    adultery.  Even then, many believe that the "divorce" spoken of by the
    Lord Jesus in that "allowance" could well refer to the breaking of a
    Jewish engagement, which was a commitment almost as binding as marriage
    is to us.  In other passages, there is no allowance even referred to.
    
    The general scriptural principal would preclude taking action based
    solely on suspicion.  We are often encouraged by the Bible to be
    certain of a matter before taking action -- "but by the mouth of two or
    three witnesses" encourages us to not act on rumor or just a single
    report in certain matters.
    
    I can't recall the Bible making any reference to the matter of custody.
    
    Mark L.

    I know God hates divorce but, Read Human Relations file #60.  I am the 
    author.  Do I have biblicle grounds for divorce?
    

I read your note in HR.  I would say that pubic lice are a pretty good
indication of pubic-to-pubic contact.

    What's HR?
    
    Nancy

The conference mentioned in .2

    .0
    
    I just finished reading 60.0 and want to encourage you to seek help.
    I do not know the circumstances that brought you together, but
    obviously this man is committed to himself only, should your story be
    accurate.  Is he a Christian?  Do you have a Pastor?
    
    Nancy [hugs, I know the turmoil one goes through]
    

    Hello .
    
    I think I can add some value here from experience .
    
    Before I became a Christian I went through an agonising divorce . My ex
    wife left me and took our two kids . 
    
    Since then I have remarried and both my second wife and I are now
    Christians. 
    
    I am reminded constantly of my past mistakes , and my conscience still
    pricks me ... even though my ex-wife divorced me. If I am honest with
    myself I wanted out of a hopeless relationship ...so I didn't fight the
    divorce. 
    
    As a Christian now , I would see grounds for divorce as a personal
    thing . I don't feel God will make it easy for us to give up on a
    partner by laying out conditions x,y,z in the bible as grounds for
    giving in .
    
    As regards children I believe the Lord would ask us to follow the laws
    as laid down locally in that country and pertaining to the provisions
    for divorce settlement.
    
    That's what I did anyhow . Now things have started to fall into place
    for me ... nearly as though they were meant to .
    
    hope this helps !
    
    Colin 

	It has been several good discussions in this and previous versions of
the CHRISTIAN conferences. You just need to do a little search for them if you
have not done it already.  I have a audio tape, it is a special presentation
by a sister from our church on the subject of divorce. She summarized four most
common views of divorce ranging from conservative to  liberal, all according to
the interpetations of Bible verses.  If you are  interested, send me mail and I
will send a copy to you.  I think Colin is right on the previous note that it
will come down to between you and God.  And divorce may not be the only problem,
remarriage is another serious issue that you need to consider.  I will pray for
you.

Wally

    Have you ever read Dr. Dobson's book "Love Must Be Tough" (I think
    that's the name)?  It contains some very good suggestions on what steps
    might be taken in a "problem" relationship.  And, as suggested earlier,
    I would consider speaking with your pastor, if you have one.
    
    Mark L.

    
    	As a divorced Catholic who stayed married to an abusive spouse
    	for almost 25 years I can testify that in my heart I do not
    	beleive our divorce was wrong.  My exspouse has always been
    	abusive in both physical and oral ways.  This abuse left my
    	children growing up with very little self worth.  She got
    	so bad once that she was breaking crosses and throwing them
    	across the room.  We went to conselling but she would fall 
    	back into the nasty behavior in a very short time afterwood.  I can 
    	not list the things she has done.  Besides, people often have trouble
    	beleiving that this 110 LB Chinese Woman could act like that.
    	Towards the end I beleive she would of killed me if things 
    	were just a little different.
                                        
    	She wanted to go back to conselling while we was seperated.  In
    	my heart I new she was playing on my heart to forgive her and
    	to trust her again.  This is what she would always do.  Finally
    	after forgiving her not just 7 time 70 times but thosands of
    	times my own natural instinks for self preservation came into
    	the equation and I stoped putting my hand out to receive the
    	hurt she was going to hand me.  
    
    	The point here is that some marraiges just can not last.  When
    	one party is consistently voilent and abusive and nothing can
    	change that behavior then the marraige must end.
    
        My ex-wife only Prayed to God when she wanted something.  She would
        undermine my efforts to teach my children about God and scripture.  
    	The list of negatives could in its self be a book.
    
        I am not saying I have been perfect, I am far from that.  I did
    	try my best though.  Perhaps the answer is that some marraiges
    	were never real marraiges to start with.
    
    
    
    					Keep and Spread the Faith
    
                                        Dave 
    					

.10 Dave

You are correct in many ways.  Jesus spoke to the issue of divorce
by speaking about the ideal of marriage.  If people didn't marry 
lightly, taking marriage lightly or even for granted, they wouldn't
find themselves (often) in the trouble they do, staring down the
barrel of possible divorce.  And divorce shouldn't be taken lightly
either, which is why Jesus outlines spiritual grounds for divorce.

Israel committed adultery against God many times.  God, because of
his character, sought to reconcile, even though it was Israel who
committed the adultery.  I am not saying that all divorced people should
seek to reconcile with those to whom they were once married.  There
are some scriptures that prohibit this in some cases - almost always
dealing with the light-handed and selfish way that people have treated their 
relationships.

In addition to this, God calls us at the point we're at, now.  Forgiveness
is complete.  The church doesn't deal well with divorced people because it
doesn't know how to define to the letter what the conditions are for
a proper or permissible divorce.  Secondly, the church falls short in 
dealing with those who, in ignorance or rebellion, had a divorce that 
was not within the spiritual right of either party; these people want 
forgiveness knowing they have sinned, and the church has difficulty
in dealing with such people, even though God sees the heart.  That's
because this is in the gray area of presumption (going ahead and sinning
with the thought that I'll ask for forgiveness about it later - it is a
having cake and eat it too attitude).  Divorced people need to also understand
the struggle the church has in responding to the struggle of divorced people,
both sides remembering that God calls us all to repentance, and promises
forgiveness.  And that our part of repentance is with a sincere attitude.

Again, remember that Jesus addresses the question of divorce by telling
us how it was intended to be, in marriage.

Peace,

Mark

    
    	I do not beleive getting divorsed was wrong.  In fact, I beleive 
    	it was inspired by God to protect all of us from this nasty
    	behavior and violence.
    
    					Regards
    
    					Dave

>    	I do not beleive getting divorsed was wrong.  In fact, I beleive 
>    	it was inspired by God to protect all of us from this nasty
>    	behavior and violence.
    
        Whatever you believe will either align or contrast with what
        God says.  Your belief doesn't make it so.  Only the Absolute
        Authority actually defines what is right and what is wrong;
        we only agree or disagree with it.

MM

        I have done quite a bit of soul searching on this,  Especially in the
    abusive issues in which my sister was involved in.

    The Bible (NT) states that divorce can only happen as a result of adultery. 
    Even if your spouse is not a Christian, if they stay, you are to stay
    with them.  The OT had a much more liberal view of divorce.

    The tough part is the same reason my kids go to a public school, this
    may be kind of hard to follow though.

    The tough part to swallow is God never promised you would be happy all
    the time.  God never promised to protect Christians from harm, or
    death.  The school my kids go to is not too bad, an occasional weapon
    confiscated at school, a few fights.  I and my kids agree, it is tough,
    but this is the largest mission field in the United States.  They are
    well grounded in their faith and are good witnesses bringing several of
    their friends to church, and eventually to the Lord.  How would I feel
    if one of them were injured or killed, terrible I'm sure, but I also am
    at peace that this is part of Gods plan for their lives.  This is easy
    to say now, since they have both been protected and return safe every
    day.  I stress that the best thing they can do is use lots of common
    sense, and be in good terms with the Lord.  
    
    I feel much the same about marriage, but again it easy for me to say, I
    have a great wife, I have been divorced, and went through some very
    difficult times when I did stay and continually tried to walk with the
    Lord, actually at that time was when I grew the most in the Lord. 
    Eventually my wife moved in with her boyfriend and I filed for divorce. 
    I was in that relationship for several years, not much of it good,
    except for the closeness I developed with the Lord the last 2 years.  I
    find it difficult to say that a person should stay with an abusive
    spouse, but I have a real problem with a person getting a divorce
    because their spouse no longer makes them happy or fill their needs. 
    Again it is a tough pill to swallow but we are not guaranteed
    happiness; peace, gentleness and the other fruits of the spirit yes,
    happiness no.

    Maybe this is one of the reasons Paul spoke against marriage if you
    have the gift of celibacy.

    I hope I haven't stepped on anyones toes, just a conviction I have. 
    And to think I teach a Singles Parents SS class.
    
    Sparky who_wife_is_taking_her_night_out_with_friends

    Sparky,
    
    I have done a lot of thinking on the scripture in Corinthians regarding
    marriage which states you should stay in the marriage and, if your spouse 
    decides to leave only then will the marriage be termininated (sorry I
    don't have my Bible with me).  What about marriages where the spouse has 
    not left physically, but emotionally.  I believe this happen a lot in 
    abusive relationships including physical, verbal, and passive abuse. 
    There are many marriages out there that are merely roomate situations, 
    and I believe in some cases it is harmful to the abused spouse and 
    the children.
    
    I by any means do not beleave in getting a divorce becase I'm not happy
    anymore or my husband doesn't meet my needs, but I don't think God
    intends for us to spend our lives being beaten, verbally abused, or
    ignored by our spouse.  
    
    Just a different view on this scripture to think about.
    
    Sasha  

    Sasha,

    This is the exact area I am struggling with.  My sister, Cheryl, has
    been married 3 times, and all have been abusive relationships.  She
    professes to be a Christian, but has a hard time with relationships. 

    Our home we grew up in was a very stable low income farm life.  There
    was never any abuse verbal or physical.  Cheryl has always picked men
    that were abusive though.  If you lined up 100 men, 99 decent, with
    jobs, she would fight anyone for the other guy, I guarantee it.  She
    marries, then divorces because of the abuse.  She will get counseling
    when she is in the marriage, but not before when in the relationship.

    It's easy to be judgmental while at home with your family that cares,
    but a bit different when you have to help a sister get out of the house
    before her husband gets home and beats her again.  

    On the other side, I teach a single parents class, and the damage done
    to the children is incredible, no matter what the circumstances were. 
    I think I still tend to lean on the stay side.  

    Remember, a person cannot "Save" their spouse, only Jesus can do that, I
    have known several people who felt there job was to Save their spouse. 
    In a way it is, but they must take it to the Altar and turn it over to
    the Lord, they cannot do it themselves.

    A tough call when it gets close to home.

    Sparky

    Abuse is not acceptable in any form towards any human being, whether it
    be husband, wife or child!  And while divorce may not be the answer,
    separation with accountability from the ABUSER certainly is... 
    
    If more Pastors used church discipline in their churches [at least the
    Christian homes], you'd see things begin to change in the home.  Just
    think of the impact when a man/woman or child is held accountable for
    their behavior towards each other in public, before God.  Disfellowship
    that abuser until he repents [TURNS AWAY] from the sin.  I don't mean
    shed a few tears and show remorse, remorse and repent are two different
    things... 
    
    And then as a church body RESTORE that one into the fold with genuine
    love from our God....  What a difference our lives would have if we
    just became accountable for our actions.
    
    

 I was watching NBC news last night and they had a report about a program
 in Florida that mandates that children of divorcing couples attend a counseling
 program prior to a judge granting the divorce.  I guess its not a bad idea,
 but the report was heartbreaking.



Jim

    I was 17 when my parents divorced and it was heartbreaking for me. 
    Parents don't seem to realize how much it affects the children (of all
    ages).  
    
    Mike

    I was 2 when my parents divorced... don't remember it, but as I grew up
    it was painful.

	I think that is a GREAT idea. It brings the kids into the whole
picture. 


Glen

 What broke my heart was the fact that marriage has become a throw away 
 item and such a program had to be put together to begin with.  The kids
 (who appeared to be about 6-7 and under) had horrible stories to relate
 and I couldn't help but wonder what brought their parents together to
 begin with and what is tearing them apart.



 Jim

    
    What brings most together is their dysfunctional beliefs
    regarding their "Wants and Needs" and what tears them apart is their
    dysfunctional beliefs regarding thier "Self-centeredness and
    Self-righteousness".

	I think what brings a lot of "bad marriages" together is when people
believe they MUST get married, get pressure from home to do so, and end up
making the wrong choice. Instead of marrying for LOVE, they marry for more of
the superficial, person pleasing reasons. It falls apart because without love,
there really is no real relationship. If you don't have the ability to work out
your problems during the relationship, you shouldn't marry that person. Just a
thought...


Glen

That's true, Glen...  External pressures, and even physical desires, etc are 
superficial compared to a caring empathy.  Love isn't just - or even 
primarily - a physical relationship.  It's got to be rooted in a meeting of
mind and spirit, and a willingness to bend oneself to where the other is. 
Obviously the deepest unity in that 'meeting of mind and spirit' is going 
to be in the LORD, but even non-Christians can have some pretty good 
marriage relationships - and some Christians can have a rocky one, for 
obvious reasons.

� If you don't have the ability to work out your problems during the
� relationship, you shouldn't marry that person.
Right!  It would put the problem, or ones selfish view of it as more
important than the relationship.  Of course, that's not eaying they have to
agree on every detail - that would make them mind-clones - but the areas of
difference have to be mutually accepted.  She likes Mozart, I prefer
Beethoven, but each can out up with a turn of the other ;-) 

							Andrew

	Andrew, you do bring a smile to me from time to time! The Beetoven and
Mozart thing was a classic. To clarify what I mean by problems is that many
people I have met over the years had rocky relationships while dating. They
never resolved their problems and the relationship stayed rocky after marriage.
Most have ended in a divorce. Minor problems are one thing, but it's ignoring
the big ones that always amaze me.

	BTW, why was .25 set hidden?


Glen

� Andrew, you do bring a smile to me from time to time! 

Glad you enjoyed ... - but its true! ;-)

� Minor problems are one thing, but it's ignoring the big ones that always
� amaze me. 
Very true.  Some people seem to think that the problems will disappear when 
they marry - instead of looming larger, as they tend to, at least 
eventually, unless they have a different Priority to guide them together....

�	BTW, why was .25 set hidden?

I think the author misunderstood something, so its input was inappropriate,
and could have given offense. 

							Andrew

        1. Is a divorced person who re-marries living in a continual state of
           adultery?

	2. If you answer to 1. was yes;

                a. Which is the greatest sin, remaining in the re-married
                   relationship or abandoning the new family?

                b. Are the children of such a union Biblically
                   illegitemate?

	2. Is there any difference if the re-marriage occurs before or after
	   the person becomes a Christian?

        3. Does the Bible provide differing expectations from men and women in
           this regard?

	4. For the Dispensationalists ";^)
	   Do the Old and New Testaments have different requirements?

	Peace to all,
		Tony
		

 Yeessh...

Hi Tony,

I'll have a quick stab at this one before I go home, but a lot of it 
depends how you understand certain scriptures.  I haven't time to look 
up references (I'm on the bike today, and it's prayer meeting night!), but 
maybe it'll be a start....

1. Is a divorced person who re-marries living in a continual state of
   adultery?

Not according to my understanding.

2. If you answer to 1. was yes;

Whew!  I got it right, so get to skip this nasty one! ;-}

                a. Which is the greatest sin, remaining in the re-married
                   relationship or abandoning the new family?

  If there is a specific choice open, the complexity of the situation is 
  such that it would be dangerous to generalise.

                b. Are the children of such a union Biblically
                   illegitemate?

  I do not think there is any such thing under the new covenant.  Almost 
  all I know about the parents I never met after birth is that they weren't 
  married.  I don't think that affects my role in the church, unlike the 
  first covenant rules.

	2. Is there any difference if the re-marriage occurs before or after
	   the person becomes a Christian?

  Different fellowships will see this in different ways, but I would doubt 
  that many would have a difficulty there.  Possibly a few more might be 
  uncomfortable if the _divorce_ happened after both were saveed.

        3. Does the Bible provide differing expectations from men and women in
           this regard?

  Not as I understand it, though some instructions tend to be specified as to
  one sex because of cultural norms.

	4. For the Dispensationalists ";^)
	   Do the Old and New Testaments have different requirements?

  Yes - though I don't really think of myself as a dispensationalist.
  For instance, point 2b is affected by Deuteronomy 23:2 

that's my peace! ;-)

						God bless
								Andrew

    	re .29
    
    	A great example of sin begetting more sin.  In some cases
    	one's sin gets him into so much trouble that no matter what
    	he does he is going to hurt himself and others.
    
    	My answer to your first question is YES.  My answer to your
    	question 1-B is the statement above.  Is one sin really
    	worse than another?  All paths you've suggested lead to pain.
    	The real answer is to avoid getting into the dilemma in the
    	first place.
    
    	Another possibility in the situation you described is the
    	possibility that the first marriage was never really a valid
    	marriage.  Perhaps it was a forced marriage, or one into
    	which the partners were not mature enough to really know
    	what they were doing.  Lots of reasons.  In the Catholic
    	Church they have a formal way of declaring such marriages
    	annulled.  (Unfortunately, much to my chagrin as a member
    	of that Church, annullments are far too freely granted.
    	It seems to me that the Church leaders who handle this
    	dubious task have fallen into the "not-my-fault" mindset
    	of this society and do not call upon these couples with
    	adequate vigor to honor the commitments they made before
    	God and in the eyes of the Church.  It seems that in
    	today's process nearly any excuse is valid, tainting
    	the credibility of the process -- rightly so -- in the eyes 
    	of critics, and diminishing the validity of those cases
    	where annulment truly is warranted.  And finally, the
    	large number of annulments so granted means that the Church
    	is not doing its job up front in working to ensure that the
    	marriages it blesses are truly valid.)
    
    	Having said all that parenthetically, remarriage after a
    	valid marriage is adultry.  Marriage after an invalid
    	marriage is not, though that then makes the previous sexual
    	relationship fornication.
    
    	It can all get so messy when we do not approach marriage with
    	the respect it deserves.
    	
>	2. Is there any difference if the re-marriage occurs before or after
>	   the person becomes a Christian?
    
    	I've heard it argued that what matters is if the first marriage
    	and divorce occurred before the person becomes Christian.  One
    	cannot sin if one does not know it is sin.  And when one becomes
    	Christian, part of that is a repentance for past sin.  In a 
    	sense one starts off with a clean slate.
    
    	I would expect that if one were married at the time he becomes
    	Christian, that he would continue to honor the commitments of
    	the marriage already in place -- in essence making it a 
    	Christian marriage at that point...

>        3. Does the Bible provide differing expectations from men and women in
>           this regard?
    
	I'm sure that someone could argue it does, but I don't think so.
    
>	4. For the Dispensationalists ";^)
>	   Do the Old and New Testaments have different requirements?

    	I'm sure that someone could argue it does, but I don't think so.

	These are hard questions.

	Here are some more.

	1. How many marriages does God recognize?

	2. In Matthew 19:9, is the Greek verb for "comitteth adultery" in
	   the aorist tense?

	3. Also, in the above passage, we know that not all fornication is
	   adultery, but is all adultery fornication?

        4. In Timothy and Titus, Paul says that the bishop should be the
           "husband" of one wife.  Is it possible that OT-style polygamy was
           not cause for disfellowship, but cause to limit the allowable
           responsibility for a practitioner of same?

           a. Do these verses indicate that multiple marriages, whether
              serial, as common today, or parallel as common in the OT, were
              not continuing states of adultery?

	God's peace to you all,
		Tony
	

    Paperwork for the following is buried deep within a box somewhere, so
    what follows is from (a somewhat dim) memory...

    Last year I attended a divorce recovery workshop at First Presbyterian
    Church in Las Vegas.  The night we were studying the chapter on remar-
    riage, we were given a separate sheet with an opinion differing from
    that in the textbook.  This was a condensed version of a paper written
    by a pastor who had taken a closer look at the original texts.  

    What he found is that the Greek word used in Matthew 19 occurred 19
    times in the New Testament; that in the other 18 it is translated "set
    aside", and in this one passage as "divorce".  

    It is this pastor's position that the original meaning might have been
    to prohibit the "setting aside" of a wife no longer in favor, and the
    marriage of another.  Someone else marrying this "set aside" wife would
    then be guilty of adultery.  

    From this he inferred that, although God hates divorce (that was never
    in question), He does allow it.  What God does not allow is the setting
    aside of a spouse without the formality of divorce.  

    The pastor went on to say that nowhere does Scripture specifically
    state what he has inferred, but he does believe that his inference does
    fit with what was written in the original text. 
    
    Food for thought, anyway...

    .29
    
    I feel here that I have to share a part of my path to Jesus with you.
    
    I had been divorced for 10 years and living with a women I very much
    loved and still have a great affection for. Our partnership was a
    wonderful experience but there remained an emptiness, something was not
    quite right.
    During the time we were living together my partner lost her only
    daughter and has never recovered from the tradegy.
    Then I heard the calling of God. How could I change my ways?. Whatever I
    decided had a morally wrong sound about it.
    The commandments were given to us to protect us and here I was
    considering the enforcement of a commandment that would harm someone
    and maybe lead them into a lifelong depression. A women 47 years old,
    attractive but with limited chance of remarriage. A women who needed
    companionship and love to replace her loss.
    I prayed, prayed and prayed again. I consulted many priests for advise
    until I thought I had found the answer, hoping to find some clause to
    justify me continuing my life unchanged.
    This process went on many months, I continued making excusses for
    living with her: God accepts you as you are when you come to Him...Joint 
    ownership of property.... maybe I could help her to understand about God...
    etc...etc.
    
    Then one day I met a person and for me this was a devine appointment.
    It was a time when I was ready to accept advise and was hungry for God.
    The advise I received was simply: "At each junction of your life choose 
    the apparent lessor of the two wrongs. Every day you will make new choices
    at new decision moments as they arise. Alway deciding on the lessor of
    the two wrongs will lead you to perfection. Pray for guidance...Take it
    gradually with very much sensitivity and respect for the other party
    involved."
    It is a hard road and after three years I can say that it was worth
    it..
        

Thank you Peter.  The testimony of how the LORD has led is invaluable.

							Andrew

    	re .35
    
    	I must have missed it.  What was your decision?  Or was the
    	decision not relevant to the point you were making...

    .37
    
    The point I was making in .35 was that with relationships one has to be
    very sensitive to the others feelings. In these cases we cannot decide 
    alone what is best, we must seek guidence from God and trust that by
    continually taking the decision to follow the path of the least of two 
    wrongs He will lead us out of the problem.
    In my case we eventually separated holding a deep respect for each
    other. 

RE:  <<< Note 376.38 by VNABRW::WILLIAMS >>>

>    In my case we eventually separated holding a deep respect for each
>    other.

        Ah, but what if you had been married to her and had children with her?
        What then, separate?  Divorce again?  How does that square with 1st
        Timothy 5:8?

                "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for
                those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is
                worse than an infidel."	

        Scripture tells us to attain to knowledge, but with all our
        knowledge to have understanding, also.  Knowledge is the "what",
        but understanding is the "why".  The application of the "what" with
        close attention to the "why" is the "how", or wisdom.  Jesus
        pointed this out to the Pharisees again and again.  They had a lot
        of knowledge, but little understanding.  Consider the
        confrontations He had with them over the Sabbath.

	None of us can stand and say that we are 100% sinless at any time.

	1st John 1:8
	If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
	is not in us.

	And if we have sin, then;

	James 2:10
	For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one
	point, he is guilty of all.
	
        How hopeless our condition is without Christ!  He is the one that
	cleanses us from sin.  The earthly consequences of sin, we must
	live with.  But we have been set free from the eternal
	consequences, if we are in Christ.

	God's peace to all,

	TonyC
	

    	What if... What if... What if...
    
    	What if we just avoided these problem situations in the
    	first place?

RE: <<< Note 376.40 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	What if we just avoided these problem situations in the
>    	first place?

        True enough!  And that is the point of the Scriputral exhortations
        against such a situation.  But what about those who came into this
        situation before they met Jesus?  Before that, they would have had
        little or no understanding of the spiritual principles involved. 
        This does not excuse them, and they must still confess it as sin. 
        However, unserstanding and wisdom would move against yet another
        broken family.  I believe that the Scripture shows us that, except
        for those times we are prostrate and broken before the Holy
        Almighty we are virtually continuously in a state of sin.

        As for why more people don't know the Lord *AND* His commandments,
        the fault lies with the believers.  Where were they when
        unbelieving youth got involved in relationships and marriages that
        were doomed?  See, there's another sin for us to confess.  

    Joe, that would be too easy and makes too much sense.

    I agree with Joe.  I was was divorced and remarried. I had no
    idea the spiritual priciples behind divorce found in the word.
    When I divorced I felt as if God hated me and could never use
    me.  God gave me the scripture in Jeremiah 30:9, " But they shall
    serve the Lord their God and David their King, whom I will raise
    up unto them.  David commited adultery and then turned around
    and murdered the husband of the one who he slept with. He realized
    he sinned and repented. After doing so David became one of the most
    powerful and mighty Kings of the Old Testament. I believe that God
    doesnt honor divorce but in the same he doesnt turn around and
    condemn.  

 Amen!

RE: <<< Note 376.43 by CSC32::DAWSON >>>

        1. Is your former spouse still living?

        2. If so, and if you are still remarried, do you consider yourself
        to be in a constant state of adultery?

        3. Do you believe the correct solution is to leave your latest
        spouse, as she cannot be your spouse if only the first one is
        recognized as such?

	4. Or do you consider yourself as having more than one spouse?

I am not Thomas but was in a similar situation, so will give my answers.
    
    
        1. Is your former spouse still living?

           Yes
    
        2. If so, and if you are still remarried, do you consider yourself
        to be in a constant state of adultery?

           No.  My ex-spouse broke the bonds of our marriage when
           he chose to join with another woman and have a child with
           her.  He committed adultery and took a new wife.  Thus, it
           is my belief that I was free to remarry.  I do not have the
           Biblical references for this and do not have a Bible with me
           so, can not prove this however.  I was not a Christian when
           I divorced, however, I learned to trust in Christ, became
           a new person in Him, had my sins forgiven and was joined
           in matrimony with the man that God made me for.
    
        3. Do you believe the correct solution is to leave your latest
        spouse, as she cannot be your spouse if only the first one is
        recognized as such?

           Not applicable.  I do not recognize my ex-husband as my
           current spouse and I don't believe God does either.
    
     	4. Or do you consider yourself as having more than one spouse?

            This is absurd.
    
    Pam

RE: <<< Note 376.42 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    Joe, that would be too easy and makes too much sense.

        Not so for the unbeliever, Mike.  The world teaches that divorce is
        easy and remarriage makes sense.  When the unbeliever becomes a
        believer and finds himself as having been previously divorced and
        remarried, all before professing Christ, should he then dissolve
        his new family, making a widow of his new wife and orphans of any
        children they may have had?  Is this just or wise?  Is this
        knowledge with understanding?  Is this "mercy rather than
        sacrifice"?  Is this really God's wisdom vs. man's wisdom?

        How about a married couple of believers where one of them
        apostasizes and sues for divorce?  With the laws the way they are,
        challenging a divorce is an exercise in futility.  You can argue
        that the believer should not seek to remarry in that case.  But
        there is so much bad teaching around, that there are many churches
        that would actually *ENCOURAGE* the remarriage of a divorced
        believer.  I have seen this with my own eyes.  I saw it in what
        many would consider a "holiness" evangelical denomination.  

	These are not frivolous "what if" scenarios.  There are many
	hurting souls reading this that are in these situations.  What is
	your heartfelt, Spirit inspired, scripture supported advice to
	them?

	God's peace to you,

	TonyC	

RE: <<< Note 376.46 by CSC32::P_SO "Get those shoes off your head!" >>>

	Please do not take offense, Pam.  I am only trying to get to the
	bottom of all this myself.  I, too, am divorced and remarried,
	both of these things occuring before I was a believer.  Recently, I
	had been challenged by several other believers who told me that I
	was in a state of constant adultery as long as I lived with my
	current wife.  Indeed, they have some good scriptural basis for
	this contention.

        From the words of Jesus:

        Matthew 19:9
        And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be
        for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
        whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

        Mark 10:11-12
        And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and
        marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman
        shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she
        committeth adultery.

        Luke 16:18
        Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
        adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her
        husband committeth adultery.

        A lot of folks use the "exept for fornication" clause to justify
        divorce and remarriage.  However, many sects believe that "except
        for fornication" only applies if the newlywed bride is found by her
        husband to not be a virgin, noting that fornication and adultery
        are not exactly the same. Adultery can only be commited against a
        married mate, whereas fornication is the sex act between unmarried
        partners. This is a very old tradition going back to Jewish
        betrothal customs, and held by the Roman Church and many
        Anabaptist, Baptist and Evangelical denominations as well.
        Scriptural support for this is given in Luke, where Joseph almost
        "put away" Mary, because she was found with child.

        Another NT verse commonly used to justify divorce is 1st Cor 7:15,
        "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a
        sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us
        to peace."
   
	However, this does *NOT* justify remarriage, because later in the
	very same chapter of the very same book, in 1st Cor 7:39, we find,
        "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if
        her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she
        will; only in the Lord."

	God's peace,
		TonyC
		

	Tony,


	Thank you for adding the information as to your personal
	situation.  I think it helps greatly toward understanding your
	earlier postings.

	I'd ask that we all remember that there are several re-married
	members here, and that we keep that in mind as we respond.

	Thomas Dawson's last paragraph is a good reminder.

	Karen

    Maybe I'm simplifying this too much (I'm not and have never been
    married)
    
    1 - There is no sin that cannot be forgiven (except the unforgivable one
        which is most definitely not adultery)
    
    2 - God knows the persons heart and if they are truly repentant
    
    3 - Some people divorce out of disobedience, some out of ignorance that
    it is a sin (ie non-christians), some have no choice (ie their spouse
    makes the decision)
    
    4 - In the first instance repentance is necessary and, if true heart
    repentance, then forgiveness will be given. In the second instance
    repentance is required for ALL sins before salvation and then with
    salvation comes full forgiveness. In the third instance you cannot be
    judged for somebody elses sin.
    
    5 - Either way, if true repentance has taken place where required the 
    God is merciful and will forgive.
    
    
    Love
    Ben

RE: <<< Note 376.50 by CHEFS::PRICE_B "Ben Price" >>>

	Thanks, Ben.  According to your understanding, does repentence of
	the adultery of remarriage require the dissolution of the new
	marriage?

Hi Tony,

This subject was considered to some length in CHRISTIAN V4 note 208.  I'll
re-enter my reply below, as my church had covered this around then in some
detail.  I've run through it again, and still think it's valid!

Press 'Select' while reading this note to add CHRISTIAN_V4 to your notebook.


        <<< ATLANA::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN_V4.NOTE;1 >>>
         -< Christian conference v4 - Read-only - for reference only >-
================================================================================
Note 208.1                   Divorce and Remarriage                      1 of 32
ICTHUS::YUILLE "Jesus is LORD"                       95 lines  19-JUL-1989 10:34
                    -< Our church covered this recently... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hi, Ronda,
    
    This is a fearfully knotty one, which has caused problems in churches
    to my knowledge.  I used to understand remarriage of divorcees to be
    forbidden on the grounds of Matthew 5:32 '...anyone who marries the
    divorced woman commits adultery', though in the context this
    specifically applies to marrying a woman who is divorced because of her
    adultery, and implies that the person marrying an adulterer shares in
    their state.  This could change - eg if repentance / salvation had come
    between the divorce and remarriage.
    
    Recently at my church two people have come forward for marriage where
    the woman had divorced her previous husband under these rules. 
    Subsequently we have had some teaching addressing this situation, which
    indicates that remarriage is permissable.
    
    In 1 Corinthians 7, verse 10-11 applies to married believers, who
    should not separate (because of their personal commitment before the
    LORD to each other - as in verse 2-5), and if they do stay apart for a
    time, the relationship is not dissolved; they should be aiming at
    reconciliation.
    
    The verses about staying with an unbelieving spouse if they will accept
    you, end with the situation which I understand as meaning that the
    unbelieving spouse demands a divorce on incompatibility grounds. In
    this case the believer doesn't have to live in conflict (with the
    spouse but without the LORD, in order to preserve the marriage). 
    
    The key point as to whether the Christian whose marriage has been
    dissolved by the partner's adultery, with subsequent divorce can
    remarry is addressed in verse 27-28. I commonly use the NIV, which
    says:
    
      'Are you married, Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not
      seek for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a 
      virgin marries, she has not sinned...'
    
    However, here, the word translated as 'unmarried' should be 'divorced',
    as it refers to one whose marriage has been dissolved (un-married)
    rather than one who has never been married.  This is clearer in the A.V.
    (! :-):
    
      'Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed
      from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not
      sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned...'
    
    In this verse, 'unmarried' must mean something other than 'single',
    otherwise the clause about virgins marrying would be mere repetition.
    However the two statements apply to different cases.
    
    So Paul is saying that it's ideal to be content in whatever state you
    are (married or single), but there are circumstances which can override
    this basic rule.  The marriage may be broken by an unfaithful partner,
    when the divorce nullifies the relationship. This is why it is
    abhorrent in God's eyes - it is cancelling a covenant established
    before Him (Malachi 2:14-16).
    
    The physical requirement for sexual fulfillment is akin to the appetite
    for food and drink. The latter is required to keep the body alive; the
    former to keep the species alive.  God ordained and commanded marriage
    and procreation (Genesis 2:24, 9:1,7). He put the sexual appetite
    within us to make fulfillment of His commands a pleasure rather than a
    chore (! cf 1 John 5:3), and He gave us marriage to be the sinless
    expression of His command (Hebrews 13:4).
    
    Thus if one partner breaks the covenant, the other partner is left with
    the natural God-given human appetites, but no immediate channel of
    expression.  The practical physical requirement (as recognised in 1
    Corinthians 7:3-5) is still there, and if the legal expression is
    denied, leaves only temptation - when we come to 1 Corinthians 10:13
    
      'No temptation has seized you except what is common. And God is
      faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear.
      But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you 
      can stand up under it.'
                                  The 'way out' could be remarriage.
    
    Our pastor also pointed out that divorce totally cancels the marriage
    bond.  That is why it is hateful to God (though the legal divorce
    merely establishes and proclaims before the LORD and mankind, the state
    of heart and spirit which already exists in the no-longer couple).  As
    such, the person who has been through divorce and remarriage is not
    considered as 'married to more than one person'.  This means that 1
    Timothy 3:2,12 does not exclude a remarried person from office in the
    church.
    
    I personally still have a slight qualm about remarriage where the
    former partner is still living.  The pain of the old one-flesh broken 
    relationship still remains. But then, this is to do with the divorce,
    rather than the remarriage...  This enters into the grey area of 1
    Corinthians 7:27-28, where a preference is expressed which is not
    binding.
    
    
                                                             Andrew

RE:   <<< Note 376.52 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>

	Thanks, Andrew.  But what about 1st Cor 7:39?

        "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if
        her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she
        will; only in the Lord."
				
	Seems like death of a spouse is the only scriptural basis for
	remarriage.

    1. Yes my former spouse is still living and what I have heard she has
    also remarried.
    
    2.  Yes I am happily married to my wife, in which the 4th of August, we
    celebrated our 5th wedding anniversary.  No I dont consider to be in a
    constant state of adultery.  First I didnt want to get divorced she
    did.  I was devestated to find out that while I was gone to basic
    training at the time she was in the midst of adultery.  And recently I 
    found out the the one she was with is now her present husband. 
    Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled, but
    whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."  
    
    3.  No I dont beleive I should leave my latest spouse because she is
    the one annointed and ordained to be my wife.  God has given her
    specially to me. That of course is a different testimony I will have
    to share with you later.  
    
    4. No I dont consider myself to having more than one wife.  When all
    this happened God gave my the story found in John 8: 1-11. 
    This is a story about an adultress who was forced out of her house and
    in my opinion was also caught with another scribe or Pharisee. She was
    dragged out into the street. Naked and ashamed because I dont believe
    they gave her time to get dressed.  The punched and smit upon her. And
    was taken her out to be stoned.  Well here was this angry mob ready to
    stone this young lady and turned the corner and came right in the
    middle of another crowd. This crowd was listening to this prophet talk
    about love that day. Immediately I beleive the pharisee found there way
    out of a diffecult situation. They confronted our master by saying,
    Master, according to the law of moses this women was caught in adultry
    and
    therefore should be stoned to death. What doesth thou say?"
    Jesus just sat down in the dirt and started writing.  Im sure the
    ppharisees were angry and insulted.  "How dare he do that!?!?"" Does He
    not know who we are?"
    Jesus started writing in the dirt and ask," He that is withou sin among
    you, let himfirst cast a stone at her."  When they heard this being
    convicted by their own conscience went out one by one beginning at the
    eldest, even unto the last and Jesus was left alone with the
    standingint His midst. Naked, ashamed, blood pouring out of here body
    and waiting for the sharp smooth stones to come lashing down upon her.
    She waited. Nothing happened and she decide to look up and see what was
    happening. Instead of seeing 45 pairs of feet she only seen one. They
    were dirted and worn because Jesus was always on the go.  She looked up
    at his garment which was not the prettiest but was special because His
    mother Mary made it for him. She looked in further and seen His rough
    beard and into his eyes. Instead of seeing hate she looked into the
    masters love which reached down to her soul. 
    Jesus said to her in verse 10,"Women, where are those thine accusers?
    hath no man condemned thee?" She said, No man Lord.  And Jesus said
    unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee, go, ans sin no more."
    
    I believe that even tho I was wrong in God eyes for divorce, God still
    forgave me.  And God said to me," Who is it that condeemns you?" 
    "No one Lord."
    "Neither do I but please Try not to sin any more."

� 1 Cor 7:39?

        "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if
        her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she
        will; only in the Lord."

The point about divorce is that the marriage covenant is dissolved. That is
the terrible thing about it.  The cancellation of that vow before the LORD
is what He hates in Malachi 2:16. 

So, as it is dissolved, they are no longer husband and wife.  In that case,
the woman no longer has a husband living.  As far as her marital status is 
concerned, he is dead.  They certainly no longer have any conjugal rights
over each other as per 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.

								Andrew

RE: <<< Note 376.54 by CSC32::DAWSON >>>

	Thank you for sharing that.  I also believe that my current wife
	and I have been blessed by God, though it has not always been so.

        My first wife got the wanderlust and asked for a separation. 
        During the separation, her boyfriend got to move into my house and
        I got to make the payments on it.  Hey, I was no prince, neither
        was I blameless, but I was not an adulterer.  I wasn't even
        interested in other women.  Before the separation, if I was
        encounterd by a flirt, I went out of my way to let her know I was
        happily married and had two children.  But in many other respects,
        I was not a good husband.  I was able to provide, but I was not a
        good listener and had a constant parade of wierd musician friends
        traipsing in and out of the house.  

	After about 2 years of separation, she filed for and obtained a
        divorce. I lost the house, the kids, and a portion of my weekly
        wages.  She eventually remarried and then redivorced a couple
        of years later.

        During the separation, I met a young lady.  After about 2 years of
        courtship, we set up house together.  After 2 more years, we were
        married.  This was 19 years ago.  We were married 13 years and had
        no children, not because we didn't want them, but because we
        couldn't have them.  After years and years and thousands of dollars
        in doctors bills, we pretty much gave up.  In the meantime, I had
        obtained custody of my two children.  For my new bride, this was
        like having my first wife living with us, because she was bossy
        about the kids and was frequently calling up, visitiing, and
        interfering with what little discipline we meted out.

	Things went from bad to worse.  My kids grew up and left to persue
	their own interests, and my second wife was spending more time at
	her parents than at home.  She was very unhappy and had even
	mentioned divorce from time to time.  She just wasn't sure about
	anything anymore.  Drugs and alcohol became real problems.
	
	What a mess!

        One Summer day in 1988, all alone in the house, with nothing else
        left to do, I got on my knees and prayed for the first time in
        about 20 years.  I felt so bad about the mess I had made of things.
        I asked God to take over from there.  I even said this little
        prayer, having had absolutely no prior contact with any Evangelical
        Christians.  "Lord Jesus, come into my life, come into my heart,
        that I may live more accordingly to the will of God."  I asked God
        to show me if He was there.  I asked Him for a sign.

        I continued to pray twice a day, essentially repeating the above
        and asking forgiveness for my uncountable sins.  I also said the
        "Lord's Prayer", as I didn't know any other formal entreaties.  I
        began to clean up my language, making a conscious effort to
        eliminate God's name from my lexicon of epithets.

	After about 2 weeks of this, one morning at work, I received a
	phone call from my wife.  She said, "Are you sitting down?"  My gut
	reaction was, "Oh, boy, here it comes.  Divorce number 2."  She
	said, "I'm pregnant.  I want to come home to stay."

	It seems that the Lord was working in her life, too.  Her two
	youngest brothers, who know the Lord, had got her to make a
	sinners' confession and ask Jesus into her heart.  This is one of
	the reasons she continued to come home from her mothers' a few
	times a week, keeping us conjugal.

        My wife came back to stay, and God continued to show His grace in
        our lives, as we still had a lot of growing to do, and we had to
        get a lot of junk out of our lives.  I guess that's still the case
	today.

        The point of all this is, if God really wanted me to separate from
        my new wife as a condition for repentence, would He have allowed us
        to be blessed with a child as an answer to my prayer to take my
        life over?  Would that have been His answer to my wife, who,
        unbeknonwnst to me at the time, had also made a confession and
        profession?

	God's peace to you, brothers and sisters.

	TonyC

>So, as it is dissolved, they are no longer husband and wife.  In that case,
>the woman no longer has a husband living.  As far as her marital status is 
>concerned, he is dead.  They certainly no longer have any conjugal rights
>over each other as per 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.

	Isn't this a bit of a stretch, Andrew?  "%^)

	Matthew 19:6
        Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
        hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 re .56




 Praise God, Tony...

    
    Tony, 
    
    What a testimony!  I'll tell you that I think 
    God has truly blessed this marriage.  Also, it seems to me
    that your divorce was under Biblical guidelines and that the
    bonds of marriage to your first wife had clearly been cut (she
    was no longer your wife) prior to your remarrying.  
    
    And, I think that anyone who tells you that you are living in 
    a state of sin with your wife (your only wife) that they are
    being heartless and judgemental.  God knows your heart.
    
    I thank you for clarifying that you were searching for answers
    in your questions.  Honestly, I was feeling attacked by your
    questions and I apologize for not asking you where you were
    coming from.
    
    God bless you,
    
    Pam

>	would He have allowed us
>        to be blessed with a child as an answer to my prayer to take my
>        life over?  Would that have been His answer to my wife, who,
>        unbeknonwnst to me at the time, had also made a confession and
>        profession?

No, No, No a thousand times No.  Be free, my brother.  Be released by the
Blood of Christ from this constant anxiety that you are displeasing Him. He
shed His Blood for the very reason that you be released.  The past is past,
released and washed by the Blood of Christ.  Your original divorce was not
your sin in the first place.  Though I don't believe so, it's possible that
your second marriage may have been sin before the Lord.  But that, too is
washed before the Lord and has now been made clean.

Remember when David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her
husband so she could be his wife, far worse than what has happened to you. 
Yet in confronting David with his sin, the Lord never asked him or told him
to divorce Bathsheba.  Far from it.  After the child born of their adultery
died, "Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and lay
with her.  She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord
loved him." 2 Sam 12:24

The situation of David's marriage to Bathsheba was as stained with sin as it
could possibly be, yet after David confessed and repented before the Lord,
the Lord blessed their union so greatly that He chose that fruit of that
union to build a house for His name and to be King over Israel.

Regardless of the state in which your marriage began, it is now washed by the
Lord and is clean and spotless in His sight.  Rest in His peace.

Paul

�	Isn't this a bit of a stretch, Andrew?  "%^)

Yes, as far as saying 'he is dead' is concerned.  But that's the only sense 
that stretches it, because he *is* dead to her conjugal rights, as she is to 
his.  

�	Matthew 19:6
�        Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
�        hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Remember that this is spoken in the context of an inquiry about divorce,
and Jesus is saying that the offence of divorce is that it *does* put
asunder what God has joined together. 

							Andrew 

Good point Paul.  I've always been intrigued by God's choice of Bathsheba 
as the mother of the continuing dynasty, and His special blessing on 
Solomon.  

						Andrew

RE:  <<< Note 376.59 by URQUEL::P_SO "Get those shoes off your head!" >>>

	Thank, you dear sister.  If you feel like you were attacked by
	those questions, you should've been there when 5 men were posing
	those same questions to me!  I was so overcome with shame and
	doubt.  Not a happy circumstance.  They did apologize for making me
	uncomfortable, and asked my forgiveness for that.  I told them that
	I appreciated their boldness and their willingness to stand for
	their convictions in spite of social trends.  I did say, however,
	that I must respectfully disagree with their teaching in this
	matter, as I believe that they had the knowledge without the
	necessary understanding, thereby showing a lack of wisdom.  Ask
	anyone in this conference, and they'll tell you that I have been
	guilty of this very same thing.  Even when I was right.  =;-)

	Please forgive me for not making clear the intent of my questions.

	God's peace and protection to you and yours, 

	Tony
    

RE: <<< Note 376.60 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

	Thank you, Paul.  You are a brother indeed.  You are ever in my
	prayrers.

	God bless and keep you, dear brother.

	TonyC

    amen. Thank You for sharing that tony.

RE:    <<< Note 376.61 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>

>Remember that this is spoken in the context of an inquiry about divorce,
>and Jesus is saying that the offence of divorce is that it *does* put
>asunder what God has joined together. 

	Point well taken and noted, Andrew. Thank you for the comfort and
	support.  Your entries are always so well considered and
	considerate.

	Bless you, brother.

	TonyC	

RE: <<< Note 376.58 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

> Praise God,

	Exactly, Jim!

	Thank you and God bless you.

    
     In light of the various questions/situations discussed in this note
    I would recommend those interested to read the Awake Magazine dated 
    Aug.8th 1995. It has a short, 2 page, article titled "Adultary 
    To Forgive or Not to Forgive?" It discusses several aspects;
    subheadings include "Must You Always Forgive","Forgiveness-What about
    the Consequences?"and "Forgiveness and Divorce". Many bible references
    are cited, quotes or referenced. I'm sure it will be of benefit to
    those having the opportunity to review the article. Based on some of 
    the notes I've read in this note string quite a few participants will
    be able to relate to the discussions and questions raised and answered
    in the article.
                            robin 
    

    TonyC,

    I read one of your earlier replies, and you described quite closely my
    situation ;')

    Having been experientially in the midst of all this stuff, and having
    agonised for *years* over it too, can I just say...

    IICor12:9 "My grace is sufficient for you"

    And *that* has been what has gotten me through the guilt, the shame,
    the pain, the anguish, the tears, the fear, and just about every other
    negative emotion surrounding this who damn mess.

    "My grace is sufficient for you".

    amen. it is.

    AMEN. IT SURELY IS

        I, Joseph, do take thee, Beverly, to be my lawfully wedded wife,
        to have and to hold from this day forth, and do promise before God
        and these witnesses, to love, cherish, honor, protect and keep you,
        for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and
        in health; and to cleave unto you, and you only, till death do us
        part, or as long as we both shall live.

        So begins a tome that I [mostly] read yesterday.  When I read these
        words, I was pierced to my heart, realizing the awesome
        responsibility of the oath I made before God.

        I have made this oath twice.

	The name of the book is _Till_Death_Do_Us_Part_, by Joe Webb.
	The book teaches that couples that marry divorced should separate.

        I met a brother this weekend who married a divorced woman and had
        two children with her.  They have separated, not because there was
        any anguish or incompatability, but because they were led by a
        church to believe that if they continued living together, they
        would remain in a state of adultery.  In such a state, they would
        not have repented of all their sins, and would therefore not be
        saved. This church believes in "Conditional Eternal Security."  For
        them, repentence of the sin of adultery requires the separation of
        couples who have married divorced.  Sad.

	Basically, their position is as follows.

	1. Once an oath is made to God, it must be kept and cannot be
	broken.

	2. Once God has joined a man and a woman in marriage, they become
	one flesh, and no device of man can change that.  Any attempt at
	remarriage is rejected by God and is not honored by Him as a
	marriage, ergo it constitutes a state of adultery.

        The scriptural support for this is quite extensive.  I disagree,
        however, with their dispensational exegeis, which is required to
        support their position.  I disagree with the separation of the new
	family, which constitutes yet another divorce, as well as flies in
	the face of 1st Tim 5:8.

	More later,
		TonyC

	

    .71
    
    Sad... very very sad.
    
    However, dare I ask what this is?   "Till deat do us part"
    

>    However, dare I ask what this is?   "Till deat do us part"

	The outcome of a recalcitrant "h" key.  =;-)
    

    	Pain all around.  A very sad situation to be sure.
    
    	That's why my original answer to .29 was to avoid the first
    	divorce in the first place.  That's why my wife and I are
    	committed to marriage prep and marriage preservation as our
    	ministry.  The more marriages we can help to avoid these
    	situations -- by hopefully helping them to start off in the 
    	right direction, and then by helping them flourish -- the
    	less frequently couples might be faced with these problems.
    	If we can prevent even one such situation, all our work is
    	worth it.
    
    	The circumstances you've been investigating since your post 
    	in .29 are such terribly difficult ones.  It hurts to read 
    	about them, much less experience them.  "There but for the
    	grace of God..."

RE: <<< Note 376.74 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>"There but for the grace of God..."

        Bless God!  Exactly!  This is why it is so important to get the
        message out!  I would highly recommend Joe Webb's book and tapes to
        any ministry that performs pre-marital counselling.  Though I
        disagree with his recommendation to separate those who marry
        divorced, because it is based on a concept of "Conditional
        Salvation" alien to the Grace and Mercy of God, and because of its
        dispensational roots, the power of the scriptures presented is
        overwhelming.  It is only fair to say that his suggestion to
        separate is presented gently and lovingly and with an admonition
        not to do anything rashly, but rather to consider the situation
        under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God, who will lead you to
        Truth.

	Having said that, I believe that this message should be preached
	from the pulpit.  

	Indeed, there is a better way.  Would that somebody had presented
	me with the Gospel message when I was growing up.  Such pain I
	could've avoided.  The seriousness of the message must be
	presented, too.  I'm afraid we've sugared it and watered it down to
	where Christians are glib about divorce and remarriage, as well as
	other moral issues. 

	Blessed be the Holy name of the Lord!

	TonyC
	

                <<< Note 376.75 by WRKSYS::CAMUSO "alphabits" >>>

>	Indeed, there is a better way.  Would that somebody had presented
>	me with the Gospel message when I was growing up.  Such pain I
>	could've avoided.  The seriousness of the message must be
>	presented, too.  I'm afraid we've sugared it and watered it down to
>	where Christians are glib about divorce and remarriage, as well as
>	other moral issues. 

    	AMEN!!!  This is all too true!  I'm afraid that far too many
    	pastors and preachers are afraid of offending those of their
    	congregation who have bought into the new morality which has
    	dismissed the value of marriage and has created the divorce
    	culture we now face.  How can they preach the truth about
    	marriage vs divorce when their biggest benefactor is sitting
    	right there in the front row next to his third wife?
    
    	Divorce is ugly.  It causes pain.  It is not final.  Its 
    	repurcussions haunt you and your ex and your children for 
    	the rest of your/their lives.

 A GREAT BIG AMEN to .75!

RE:  <<< Note 376.76 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

        Joe, may God abundantly bless you and your wife as you endeavor to
        promulgate the Truth about marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

	Contact Webb Ministries, Inc, PO Box 729, Longwood FL 32752-0729
	for a copy of _Till_Death_Do_Us_Part_

        An oath before God is the most solemn act any person can perform,
        as it requires adherence to same.

        Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, please, please, please read in
        Judges 11:30-ff the horribly sad tale of Jephthah.  He promised to
        God that if He would give Jephthah victory over the Ammonites,
        Jephthah would then sacrifice as a burnt offering whatsoever came
        out of his house to greet him when he returned home.  He probably
        expected one of the family's chickens, or the cat, or his pet
        sheep, or at worst his trusty dog.  But in Judges 11:34-35 we read,

                Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and behold, his
                daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with
                dances; she was his only child; beside her he had neither
                son nor daughter.

                And when he saw her, he rent his clothes, and said, "Alas,
                my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you have
                become the cause of great trouble to me; for I have opened
                my mouth to the LORD, and I cannot take back my vow."
		 
        "I cannot take back my vow."  If you have made such a vow before
        the Lord, and have broken it, I believe that His mercy and grace
        are sufficient to put away the eternal consequences of such an
        error, if you confess with a contrite and broken heart this sin,
        and repent from it by never again breaking any promise to God.  The
        temporal consequences of having broken such a promise will, as Joe
        has said, haunt you and your progeny throughout your and their days
        on this earth.

	"Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest
	vow and not pay."  Ecclesiastes 5:5

	TonyC

RE: -1

	Revisiting the story of Jephthah.

	1. Jephthah did not have to make such an oath to secure the
	blessing of God for his victory over the Ammonites.

	2. After Jephthah made the oath, to keep it would be to violate the
	commandment against murder, as God specifically prohibited human
	sacrifice again and again.

	Questions:

	1. Would God honor Jephthah's oath, seeing as He knew what the
	outcome would be?

	2. If your answer to 1 is yes, should Jephthah have tried to choose
	the lesser of the two sins, breaking his oath to God or offering
	his daughter as a sacrifice?

	3. If your answer to 2 is yes, which do you believe would have been
	the greater sin?

	4. Does God honor all vows?  For example, would He honor marriage
	vows between a father and daughter (incest)?

	Peace,
		TonyC

Hi Tony,

All the firstborn of Israel were specially dedicated to the LORD.  In that
sense, they were owed to Him as a sacrifice.  But their sacrifice wasn't
permitted (Deuteronomy 12:4,31,18:10), so the conflict that Jephthah faced
already existed, and had been resolved by the law of the LORD. 

The Levites were dedicated to the LORD, and were taken in place of - 
directly substituting for - the firstborn 'ordinary' Israelites.  But there 
were more firstborn Israelites than there were Levites, so a redemption sum 
of 5 shekels per head was taken from the 273 excess firstborn Israelites.

This is detailed in Numbers 3:40-51.

In Leviticus 27, the rules are specified by which an individual is redeemed
from a particular dedication to the LORD - whereby they can be 'bought
back', the price being set according to the age and sex of the individual. 

I believe that God had already provided the 'way out' for this particular 
situation, and had Jephthah consulted with a priest who was properly 
conversant with the law, he would have been told a sum to be paid into the 
levitical treasury to redeem his daughter, as the only acceptable course 
before the LORD.

However, in his ignorance, Jephthah knew neither that this course was
possible, nor that human sacrifice was unacceptable.  In fear and awe of 
the LORD, he fulfilled the vow he dared not revoke.  It does not make the
fact of the sacrifice itself acceptable, but the submissive state of heart
before the LORD of both Jephthah and his daughter in this situation covers
the sin aspect. 

If Jephthah had decided not to sacrifice his daughter, the significance of 
the decision would lie in the reason for making it.  If Jephthah had 
abandoned his vow because he felt that it was too big a favour to pay the 
LORD - effectively reneging on his promise because he put his own will 
before his regard for the LORD, I believe that a sin situation would remain 
to be dealt with in his life.

If he abandoned his vow because he felt it was an unclean thing to do, 
before the LORD - wanting to fulfil the vow, yet at the crunch point, 
realising from inbuilt nature and conscience that this was violating God's 
laws, then I believe that ultimately the LORD would have led him to those
redemption laws already established. 

On your point #4 - there are certain things that are incompatible, non
sequiteurs.  The vow to the LORD to do something evil is not acceptable to
Him.  When made in ignorance which is later enlightened, it needs to be
revoked according to the way that He leads. 

 - as I understand it
								Andrew

btw - we've covered Jephthah before, and I believe included the 'popular'
alternative that his vow committed his daughter to remain single, rather
than actually be sacrificed.  I don't believe that myself (it's generally
only offered by some commentaries which operate within the perspective of
today's culture), but it is only fair to refer to it. 

>btw - we've covered Jephthah before, and I believe included the 'popular'
>alternative that his vow committed his daughter to remain single, rather
>than actually be sacrificed.  I don't believe that myself (it's generally
>only offered by some commentaries which operate within the perspective of
>today's culture), but it is only fair to refer to it. 

I think this idea is based in part on that the passage says his daughter
reqested a month to be with her friends to lament that she will always be
a virgin, rather than lamenting that she will be dead.

Leslie

Hi Leslie

Judges 11:38 - 'bewailed her virginity', or 'wept because she would never 
marry' (ie she would die in her virginity).

This verse is referred to in that context, but it is a very tenuous link, 
and not sufficient to justify that reading of the text in general.  
Committing oneself to a celibate life, for the LORD is a more recent idea, 
and there's a number of reasons why it's thought unlikely in this case.

							Andrew

RE: <<< Note 376.80 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>

	Thanks, Andrew.

        In light of your reply, then, it is not outside the pale of
        Christian orthodoxy to believe that God does not honor a
        re-marriage vow, given Jesus' clear invective, "But I say unto you,
        That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
        fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
        marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

        The explanaton for "fornication" I've heard is that it's not the
        same as adultery, the former being an indication that a bride was
        married under the guise of being pure and was found not to be.

        Jesus here seems to be correcting the previous (Mosaic)
        understanding of divorce and remarriage by leading with, "But I say
        unto you...".

	Believe me, Andrew, there are people being hurt and families being
	split-up because of this teaching, and I need to know how to most
	effectively illustrate to those with a dispensational bent that
	this was not the intent of Jesus' teaching, unless it really is, of
	course.

	

Hi Tony,

I was wondering if we were leaving the strict topic, but I see not!  I'm 
not in much now until 11th September, but I'll try to get back to you!

					God bless
							Andrew

RE: <<< Note 376.83 by WRKSYS::CAMUSO "alphabits" >>>

	How about it, people?  Is Andrew the only one who'll come forward
	and offer to shed light on this very dark subject?

	Where is Mark Metcalfe when we need him?  ;-)

	TonyC
	

    Working for another company?

RE: <<< Note 376.86 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>>    Working for another company?

	Yep, that's where he is.  Sigh ...

re .85
    
    TonyC,
    
    It's only a very dark subject if you view the burn't offering as
    literal. If Jephthah's daughter spent all her days serving in the
    temple then it's something totally different. There is a discussion on 
    this subject somewhere, either in this conference or Christian-Perspective.
    This looks very similar in many ways to the example of Samuel who 
    from a small boy spent all his days in temple service (1 Samuel 1).
    
    Anyway, I cannot see this as dark subject for the the Apostle Paul
    mentions Jephthah as a person of faith (Hewbrews 11:32). To be identified 
    as such his actions must of been in keeping with the Law covenant and as
    Andrew has pointed out offering his daughter literally as a burnt 
    offering would be in breach of it.
    
    Phil.

I think the dark topic is the idea that people who have been divorced
and then remarried are living continuously in a state of sin and adultry.
Jephath was brought up in connection with keeping vows.

I disagree that those who are remarried are in a continual state of adultry
and that they should divorce their current spouse. I think that divorce is
a very sad thing which should not be looked at lightly. I think divorce is
the result of sin, but I do not think it is an unforgivable sin.  Somewhere
or other in this file I've talked about this in more detail & the reasons for
why I think that, but I am too tired to go through it all again.

Leslie

    
    Leslie,
    
    Thanks, shows what misunderstandings one can have when you come in
    the middle of a conversation. I'll leave you all to your discussion
    on divorce.
    
    Phil.

    Hi the previous version of this conference atlana::Christian_v6 has an
    indepth look at marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
    
    That is most likely where Leslie, Mark Metcalfe, myself and Mark Lovik
    and others have exhausted their concepts.
    
    Nancy
    The helpful co-mod :-)

    Well,

    being someone who has been in the situation of feeling increadibly
    burdened with the guilt of married/divorced/remarried/?living_in_
    continual_sin?

    God's Grace. that's all I can rely on, God's boundless Grace to me
    through Jesus Christ.

Hi Tony,

� In light of your reply, then, it is not outside the pale of Christian
� orthodoxy to believe that God does not honor a re-marriage vow, given
� Jesus' clear invective, "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
� his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
� adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
� adultery." 

I believe you mean 'directive', rather than 'invective'.  The difference is
very significant! ;-) 

I had a struggle to understand quite how you deduce the above, in particular:
� ... to believe that God does not honor a re-marriage vow ...
unless you haven't got the meaning in my earlier replies.  You can only say
this if you equate remarriage of a divorced person with living in an
adulterous state.  I do not make that equation at all.  I do not believe that
is what the Bible is saying on this subject.  You have to take all the
scriptures on the subject to get the full picture, and there is an essential
body of teaching in 1 Corinthians 7.  This chapter also agrees with the
principle of no divorce (verses 10-14).  But in verse 15, it adds a proviso
concerning events beyond the control of a newly saved partner, where the
unsaved spouse finds they cannot stay with a saved partner.  Note the
instruction at the end of verse 15 - the saved partner (of either sex) is then
no longer bound.  The divorce is not only a physical distancing, but a
spiritual disconnection.  The 'no longer bound' in this context can only mean
that the marriage no longer exists.  That is a terrible thing to say - that a
marriage has actually been destroyed - because marriage is so important, but
that is the awfulness of divorce.  It destroys something precious, which needs
work, commitment and investment to sustain it, but is of great value. 

Coming back to the Matthew 19:1-12 / Mark 10:1-12 passages, note that the
adultery situation referred to in verses Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12
includes both the divorce and the remarriage as a part of the same action -
almost in the same breath.  Taken with 1 Corinthians 7, I would understand the
Matthew / Mark passages to mean that it is adultery for someone to divorce for
the purpose of remarrying.  The sin of adultery results when the remarriage
effectively replaces an existing one, rather than the void situation of
someone who is already divorced. 

Note the question with which the Pharisees start the dialogue in Matthew 19:3
- "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" Their
law permitted divorce on a whim.  Moses' 'permission for the hardness of your
hearts' had got corrupted and degraded to a most reprehensible state, where a
lifelong marital commitment could be jettisoned in an uncontrolled moment, for
any fabrication of an excuse. - Jesus was addressing this.  Not the condition
of someone who had previously been in a marriage commitment, which had
grieviously been terminated, which is the concern of this discussion, and is
approached more in 1 Corinthians 7. 

� The explanaton for "fornication" I've heard is that it's not the same as
� adultery, the former being an indication that a bride was married under the
� guise of being pure and was found not to be. 
The word used in Matthew 19:9 is 'pornaea', which covers a range of sexual
uncleaness.  Other translations use other words here from fornication.  the 
NIV (which I happen to have in front of me) uses 'marital unfaithfulness', 
with 'pornaea' in the margin - where I put my reminder notes!

� Jesus here seems to be correcting the previous (Mosaic) understanding of
� divorce and remarriage by leading with, "But I say unto you...". 

Of course, Jesus is not going to contradict the Mosaic law - Matthew 5:17-20.
As in that chapter, He is not superseding it, but explaining it.  The 
different dispensations do not change God's law, but rather, our perception of 
it.  What God has said in one era stands for all time.  However, sometimes it 
is grossly misunderstood and misapplied.

During Israel's history, schools of prophets studied the law.  Each generation 
- especially following Ezra's time - drew up envelopes of laws which were 
increasingly specific as to what precise actions and situations constituted a 
transgression of the law.  Sadly, these became a legalism and bondage which 
led people away from God rather than towards Him.  In Matthew 5, Jesus 
expanded on the law as originally given, and explained that it was meant to 
govern the attitudes of the heart, and thus guide our actions, rather than be 
merely a set of "do's and dont's" which would guarantee a result totally 
separated from heart and mind.

In Matthew 19, Jesus goes a little further in the divorce question,and I
understand verse 8 to mean:  "Yes, divorce is the awful result of sin, and
should not be taken as an open option if you just happen to want to marry
someone else.  It was never meant to be taken that lightly, and even Moses'
laws on divorce (which he received from God) were a concession to the weakness
of sinful flesh, rather than according to original design." 

� Believe me, Andrew, there are people being hurt and families being split-up
� because of this teaching, and I need to know how to most effectively
� illustrate to those with a dispensational bent that this was not the intent
� of Jesus' teaching, unless it really is, of course. 

Yes.  I can see that it is a desperately critical problem, when the word has
been misunderstood, and used to impose guilt where the situation (the
maintaining of a sequential marriage covenant) already has many problems to
overcome.  Especially when this is being applied by - albeit Godlt - men, who 
have not personally experienced the situation, and can only intepret it from 
a legalisatic and simplistic perspective.

Note that where that view has been strongly held and applied, it is very 
unlikely that it will be dislodged.  Certainly not by arguments offered by
people already in the 'sequential marriage' situation, because they would be
seen as having a vested interest in the outcome.

The answer to one broken covenant (the original marriage) is not to break 
another covenant (the new marriage), but to hold together to the best of your 
ability, - and according to the LORD's enabling - what remains.

There are indications that 'even' God sees the sexual appetite as a legitimate 
need, rather than as just an extra (even besides the command to multiply, in 
Genesi2 1:28, 9:1, with the reminder that His commands aren't just a burden, 
in 1 John 5:4!).  Probably the most obvious is the otherwise unclear deduction
in Matthew 5:32, which says that someone who divorces a hitherto faithful wife
makes _her_ into an adulteress!  The implication that I would take from that 
is that God recognises the sexual needs of the individual as something which 
does need practical provision, and where someone refuses their obligation to
the point of abandoning their wife, it puts _her_ in an anomalous position,
and liable to fall into an adulterous situation for alternative fulfillment. 

Other examples are the levirate marriages, where it is a brother's duty to
fulfil his deceased brothers marital duty for the widow, and the Old Testament
injunction that where someone has (contrary to the ideal state) taken a second 
wife, he is not to deprive the least favoured wife of any support, whether 
sustenance or sex.

Tony, I hope that this is of help.  I haven't time for more just now - and
won't until I return on 11th September (God willing).  I pray that God will
sustain, comfort and lead those who are suffering such torment through those
they rely on spiritually, and look to as leaders. 


 					In Jesus' love
  								Andrew

re:  <<< Note 376.93 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease"

        Excellent response.  A lot to digest.  Thanks, Andrew.  Because I
        am emotionally connected to this issue, it is not always easy to
        express the non-dispensational position on the matter so clearly as
        one who is not.  Your observation about the futility of changing
	entrenched doctrine on this issue by one perceived as having a
	vested interest in the outcome is most likely correct.

	As for the Grace of Jesus Christ, I had forgotten that "his
	commandments are not grevous." (1st John 5:3).  And let us not
	forget Paul's description of the struggle between the flesh and the
	spirit in Romans 7 ending in verse 25 with, "I thank God through
	Jesus Christ our Lord.  So then with the mind I myself serve the
	law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

	Thanks, again Andrew.  I look forward to more input from you on
	this matter after 11-Sep.  "%^)

	TonyC

            As for the Grace of Jesus Christ, I had forgotten that "his
            commandments are not grevous." (1st John 5:3).  And let us not
            forget Paul's description of the struggle between the flesh and
            the spirit in Romans 7 ending in verse 25 with, "I thank God
            through Jesus Christ our Lord.  So then with the mind I myself serve
            the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
    
    
    I agree with Harry, take it one step farther:
    
    (2Cor 12:7-9)
    7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of
    the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the 
    messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 
    
    8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from
    me. 
    
    9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength
    is made perfect in weakness.
    
    
    We need to stop trying to be perfect.  We were not meant to be perfect.
    Only Jesus is perfect.  Thats why we are given grace.  Be at peace.
    
    Jill2 

    > for my strength is made perfect in weakness.
    
    God is just so wonderful!  I just wrote about this in a note prior to
    reading this and wham it hit me between the eyes again!  I think God
    must be trying to tell me something.
    
    Love you Jill2,
    Nancy

    Tony do I have a treat for you!  For all of us actually!  I've 
    been talking to our good brother Mark and he saw fit to respond
    to the questions I posed to him that were discussed here.  As 
    usual, Mark was extremely thorough.  I appreciate the thought
    and effort he put into his reply.  Since we quote other sources
    all the time, I don't see any problem with this so hopefully no
    one else will.  I'll enter it separately and if for some reason
    there is a problem, I can send a copy to those who request it.
    
    Thanks,
    Jilla
    

Jephthah first:

His apprehension of the coming battle caused a hasty vow that was poorly
worded.  Clearly, by his distraught reaction, he did not expect hgis
vow to include human sacrafice.  He knew enough about the law to know
that human sacrafice was strictly forbidden.  To further this ludicrous
situation, he knew that sacrafices to Jehovah were to be exclusively of
the male gender.  Next, a priest would have to perform the sacrafice
and no priest of Jehovah would do it.  Further, would Jephthah have been
included in the list of the heros of faith (Heb. 11:32) if he commited
human sacrafice?  Or would he be ridiculed for being so galactically
ignorant of the God He purported to serve?  And more, why does his
daughter bemoan her virginity instead of her short life?  Why does
she spend two months with her friends instead of her mourning father?
Why spend two months at all?  Why not fulfill the vow immediately?
The phrase "she knew no man" seems meaningless if her life was taken.

(adapted from Zodhaite's commentary)

Andrew's contention is that Jepthah was ignorant; that is, so focused
on a legalistic issue of his vow as to disregard all other things in
the law - things in the law that no sane Israelite could be unaware of,
such as human sacrafice.

Is it possible?  When we consider Jesus' demonstration of healing on
the Sabbth to the consternation of some of the Pharisees, I suppose such
a (dreadfully wrong) focus could be placed on a vow.  (Again, to perform
the sacrafice, Jephthah would have to have the complicity of a priest,
which still should be highly unlikely.)

The fact that it is hotly debated shows that there is no clear rendition,
despite the clarity of some people's minds about it.

The law made provision for such things as "substitute" husbands (when
your husband died, the next of kin was responsible for creating children
for the first husband) and ways that brothers could sell this duty to
another (as in the case of Boaz and Ruth).  (Forgive my poor wording.)
Also, you could borrow from God's treasury if you gave it back with 20%.

Perhaps most compelling to me is the intended sacrafice of Isaac.  God
permitted and provided a substitute.  And yet, we also know that
Isaac was completely dedicated to God because of abraham's act of faith.

Although this text in Judges does not clearly state that Jephthah's
daughter (and only child) was turned over for service (like Samuel
was, by the way), it does not clearly state that she was offered as
a *burnt sacrafice*.  The phrase, "did with her according to his vow"
does not actually state that he took her life, but that Jephthah dedicated
her to the Lord.

And so I would argue against the interpretation that Jephthah was
somehow ignorant or myopically fanatical so as to try to fulfill
righteousness by abominable sin.  And I would also argue that such
ignorance would not be hailed in hindsight as "faith" worthy of
tribute in Hebrews.  All it does is portray "blind faith" Christians
as "blind and unthinking."
-------------

As to marriage and divorce:

One must wonder why Jesus didn't give a direct balck and white answer
regarding the disposition of divorce but instead turned the discussion
around to how God intended marriage to be.

I believe he did this because of the way sin twists the truth so that
black and white legalism is inadequate to address all the issue surrounding
divorce.  Jesus made it plain that divorcing for other than adultery
was sin.  But then we have to look at what sin is and how we deal with it.
More about that in a moment.  I want to address the legalism of the subject
versus the intended freedom through attitude.

If you take a look at the Ten Commandments, you may be surprised to see
that it is not a list of legalistic do's and don'ts such that you know
exactly where to place your left foot and your right foot.  Instead,
the do's and don'ts of the Law are commandments to align our attitudes
acfording to the guidelines they illustrate.  For example, how does one
honor their father and mother?  How does one not steal?  The answer can
be any of a million or more ways!  No left foot here, right foot here,
mother's day card on Mother's day...That's not the spirit of the law!
And Jesus came to fulfill the law, to breathe life into it where the
law only showed people just how inadequate we really are at keeping the
law.  The written word is a reflection of the spiritual word written
on our hearts.

Keeping this in mind, Jesus has a pointed question about divorce put to
him.  Does he say that it is good for a person to divorce his or her
spouse on the grounds of adultery?  Nope.  He says that "divorce in such
a case is not a sin... but let Me tell you how marriage ought to be."

Now about sin and vows.  Vows are very serious.  Very serious.  It is
a sin to go back on a vow and a sin that has consequence.  When a vow
is broken, the contract that it represents is severed - the terms of
the vow have been violated and the agreement is now null and void.

Sin, yes.  Unpardonable?             Hello?

Is divorce the unpardonable sin?
Is breaking a vow the unpardonable sin?
Is murder the unpardonable sin?
Is incest the unpardonable sin?

Sins (plural) have different degrees of consequence.  Murding someone
is worse than stealing gum from a store.  The degree of consequence
to others is measurably greater.  The sin of breaking a vow is serious.
The sin of divorce is serious.

I believe the sin of divorce is the murder of a union.  One-flesh;
the two become one!  That one is murdered and the two become two
again.  It is a tragedy and sin against God, who sanctified the union,
and against each other by harming and killing the relationship.
(Remember, the meaning of life is "relationship.")

The biggest problem people have with divorce within Christendom is
whether people can get remarried or does remarriage constitute
***continued*** adultery against the first spouse?

A man in my father's first church was married to his third wife.
This issue came up and he wondered if he should leave his third
wife and children and a happy marriage, and seek to reunite with his
first wife, who had already been remarried.  Here we see the dilemma
of Jephthah again - do we attempt righteousness by committing more
sin?  What about the vows made at the third marriage?  Were they
null and void and unrecognized?  If so, then how come Jephthah's vows
were not declared null and void.

Revelation of sin (regarding his first TWO divorces) came in his
third marriage.  The weight of this conviction was powerful and he
wanted to make it right.  But you know something?  You CAN'T.  You
can't unmurder someone (or a marriage).  You can only OBTAIN FORGIVENESS,
THANK THE GRACIOUS LORD, and "go and sin no more."  Some people may
interpret going and sinning no more to mean to leave all but the
first spouse but I find this to be quite a legalistic attempt to
again define just what is and what is not permitted.  Again, what about
other vows made to God, such as in a subsequent marriage?  Are
they vows or not?  (Some will say no, but they may have the clarity
that the rest of us lack and that Jesus did not see fit to clarify.)

A grave warning should also be issued to those who are tempted to
presumption based on God's grace and purpose to forgive sinners.
People going into sin with the intent of obtaining forgiveness
after you have gotten the divorce you selfishly want are in greater
danger than those who have committed divorce in ignorance of God's grace.
Presumption is a sin that is difficult to shake because how can you
*sincerely* repent KNOWING your intent.  So while the legalism of
viewing divorce and remarriage can lead to strife and debate, the
liberalism and presumption of God's grace can lead to worse.  (And
perhaps this is why writing as I have can be so alarming to some who
consider divorce and remarriage an open and shut case.)

But let me re-emphasize Jesus' words about what God intended for a couple.
God sees the heart.  He rejoices over a contrite heart that turns (back)
to Him and he will in nowise cast them out.  He takes us where we are
and from there, ushers us into righteousness.

I grieve over marriages that suffer disunity because they can have
undreamable satisfaction and wholeness in a mate.  I hate divorce and
it's murder of the union God has created.  I hate the fact that many
people have all but severed the union and merely exist in a
co-habitational relationship.  God will forgive those who sincerely
repent, and He will help those to go through the consequences of
forgiven sin.

Mark
                Mark Metcalfe   ______ ______  "...be transformed by the
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.  _/      Y      \_  renewing of your mind that
  270 Billerica Road, MS 04  // ~~ ~~ | Romans\\  you may prove what the
      Chelmsford, MA 01824  // ~ ~ ~~ | 12:2b  \\  will of God is, that which
      Tel: (508) 446-6451  //________.|.________\\  is good and acceptable
   [email protected]  `----------`-'----------'  and perfect."

-- 

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail2.digital.com by us3rmc.pa.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA15480; Thu, 24 Aug 95 06:11:52 -070
% Received: from mailgate.Cadence.COM by mail2.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA19782; Thu, 24 Aug 1995 06:04:40 -070
% Received: (from smap@localhost) by mailgate.Cadence.COM (8.6.8/8.6.8) id GAA20468 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 24 Aug 1995 06:03:24 -0700
% Received: from cadence.cadence.com(158.140.18.1) by mailgate.cadence.com via smap (V1.0mjr) id sma020416; Thu Aug 24 06:03:03 199
% Received: from toknow by cadence.Cadence.COM (5.61/3.14) id AA21934; Thu, 24 Aug 95 06:02:59 -070
% Received: by toknow (5.65+/1.5) id AA02306; Thu, 24 Aug 95 09:02:58 -040
% From: [email protected] (Mark Metcalfe)
% Message-Id: <9508240902.ZM2304@toknow>
% Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 09:02:57 -0400
% In-Reply-To: Resting On His Goodness  23-Aug-1995 1336 <[email protected]> "A little something from CHRISTIAN for you..." (Aug 23,  4:03pm
% References: <[email protected]>
% Motto: Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers
% Thought-Of-The-Day: I am a task force.
% X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95)
% To: Resting On His Goodness  23-Aug-1995 1336 <csc32::kinsella>
% Subject: Re: A little something from CHRISTIAN for you...
% Cc: [email protected]
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    

    hey...

    
    a snarf!
    

    
    dedicated in memory of Mark Metcalfe!  :-)

Well thanks Jill and Mark c/o Jill!  

Leslie

	Good to see Mark in here again, even if only in a cameo appearance.

	Thanks, Jill, for bringing his message.

	TonyC
	

    yes, Jill - thanks from me, too. 
    
    I have been struggling with a bit of legalism in my own life around
    this very issue, and very much needed to hear what Mark had to say.  
    
    /John

    re: .95
    
    I just reread my note and I want to make it perfectly clear that 
    I *still hate* not being perfect.
    
    Jill2 

    .105
    
    I understand that feeling very very very well.
    
    Last night comes to mind... :-(

    
    Bummer Nancy,
    
    Hope you're feeling better today.

 re .105



 "I used to sin and love it...now I sin and hate it"


                   Brother John Hopps a very wise man in my church

	Thank you all for the help.  There is one more sticky thing to
	clear up.  Please consider the following passage, Mark 6:17-18.

                For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John,
                and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother
                Philip's wife: for he had married her.

                For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to
                have thy brother's wife.

         Herodias had divorced Phillip and was re-married to Herod.  Here,
	 as well as in the synoptic passage in Matthew, the author refers
	 to Herodias as Phillip's wife, not Herod's, even though Herod had
	 married her.  Inference could be made that John accused Herod of
	 living in a continual state of adultery with his brother's wife,
	 and that her second marriage was not recognized as such.

	 Any takers on this one?
	 Should I copy MarkM?

	 TonyC
	 

	RE: -1

        In Josephus, I learned that Herodias gave her husband Phillip a
        bill of divorcement, which was not legal for a woman to do under
        Mosaic civil law without the consent of her husband, which Phillip
        had not given.  Josephus indicates that her reasons for the divorce
        were political.  I believe this answers the Baptist's invective
	against Herod and Herodias. 

        If you're not a dispensationalist, and I don't believe that God is
        one ;-), then God does allow divorce for adultery.  He also allows
        for re-marriage.  He does not allow for someone who has been
        divorced and re-married to divorce again to re-marry their original
        spouse.  God says that He hates divorce and that to divorce simply
        to re-marry another and fulfill the lust of the flesh is adultery,
        and that is the sin.  Not the divorce,  not the re-marriage.  And
        the sin stops there.  Once re-married, stay right where you are.
        Recognize the sin of adultery for what it is, confess it, repent
        from it (never do it again), and get on with your life. You can not
        return to your original spouse any more than you can raise someone
        from the dead.

	God himself obtained a divorce from Israel.  From Jeremiah 3:1-8.

          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.

          Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast
          not been lain with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the
          Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with
          thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.

          Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been
          no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst
          to be ashamed.

          Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the
          guide of my youth?

          Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end?
          Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest.

          The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast
          thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up
          upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there
          hath played the harlot.

          And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto
          me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw
          it.

          And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel
          committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of
          divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went
          and played the harlot also.

						 

    The question I've been stewing on for a while is, what is marriage?  In
    ancient Israel, there was no difference between Church and State; they
    were one and the same.  And things, while differing in being under
    Roman law, were still similar.  There was no question as what was
    marriage, and what wasn't - it was pretty clear to all.  
    
    But today, we're in a whole different ball game.  Marriage/divorce laws
    vary from state to state within the US, and widely between countries. 
    And they *definately* vary from God's law.   
    
    Do the biblical dictates we've been discussing here apply to just to
    those married by the state (which by default includes all Church
    marriages) or do they also apply to common-law marriages (those without
    formal, legally-registered foundation)?  
    
    Specifically, does God also hate the separation of two people who have
    been living together?  Particularly if there are children from that
    relationship?  Is it "marriage" in His eyes?  Do His same rules apply?  
    
    /John

    -1
    
    Deep questions, John.  I don't have the time to give it the go your
    question deserves, but I have responded to the same question in the
    previous version of this conference.  Let me see what I can do to find
    it and repost.  
    
    Perhaps others will give their views before I can.
    
    Your Sis,
    Nancy

    --Specifically, does God also hate the separation of two people who have
    --been living together?  Particularly if there are children from that
    --relationship?  Is it "marriage" in His eyes?  Do His same rules apply?  
    My instinctive reaction was ask Him.
    
    I think that the situation varies for each couple.  It is not man's laws
    that count.  It is only God's laws.  So, if when you got married (or
    choose common law marriage) you asked God to bless your marriage and 
    made a marriage vow to Him - then I would call it a marriage.
    
    By the way, living together and having children without a marriage is
    right up there with divorce.  So the stand that its not a marriage and
    can therefore be disolved without a divorce(in God's eyes) - isn't a
    really great place to be either.
    
    Jill2

    
>         Herodias had divorced Phillip and was re-married to Herod.  Here,
>	 as well as in the synoptic passage in Matthew, the author refers
>	 to Herodias as Phillip's wife, not Herod's, even though Herod had
>	 married her.  Inference could be made that John accused Herod of
>	 living in a continual state of adultery with his brother's wife,
>	 and that her second marriage was not recognized as such.
>
>	 Any takers on this one?

Yes.  Remembering the part about presumption, defiance is a close relative
of presumption but with greater surety of destruction.

By the way, does it say anywhere that Herodias was divorced from Philip?
I may have missed it.  I think it just says that Herod married her, which
would add the charge of polygamy to Herodias.  But it even gets more
twisted, as the following shows.

You see, divorce is WRONG.  No two ways about it.  It is the murder of
a relationship.

The Law concerning the marriage to a brother's wife had to do with a
brother's death - to carry on the brother's family line.  It is a comment
about a law of re-marrying within the family and likely was thought of
more of an incestual arrangement than anything else.  And by one of the
commentaries I have, it becomes even more apparent:

"This infamous woman was both niece and wife to Philip and Herod, being
the daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great.  She first married
Philip, her uncle, by whom she had Salome.  Later she left him to live
publicly with her brother-in-law, who had been before married to the
daughter of Aretes, king of Arabia Petra."

It wasn't lawful for Herod to have his brother's wife because it
was "not lawful because she was his niece and his brother's wife
(Lev. 18:6, 16; 20:21)"

What we see in this relationship is a tangle of defiant sin.  It wasn't
lawful for Philip to have Herodias either, by the law.  It wasn't lawful
for Herod to marry a married woman (again, was there a divorce?).  It
wasn't lawful for Herod to marry his niece, sister-in-law or not.

The skinny of it is, I don't think this is a good passage to proof text
remarriage as a case for "continued adultery."

Jesus was brought a woman who was caught in adultery.  This is the
passage in John 8 where Jesus writes in the sand after telling people
to go ahead and stone her as she deserves if anyone in the crowd of
accusers didn't have any sin that would convict them of deserving
sin's penalty.  The woman received mercy (let me repeat that, because
we understand and exercise so little of that in the Christian Church
these days: MERCY) from our Lord.  And his admonition wasn't to leave
this or that person.  It was "go and sin no more."

It is we who place specific values on "go and sin no more" such that
we say sinning is returning to the spouse that you now have that is
not your first spouse (because of divorce).  When we place this specific
clause onto sin, we step away from clear teaching (so I believe) and
into speculative teaching, such that marriage is never dissolved and
marriage to another is never permitted - except for widows and maybe...
maybe "innocent" parties in a divorce.  I say "maybe" because these
are very difficult to *define* specifically, which illustrates more
clearly how easy it is to become legalistic about the whole thing.

We can agree on some fundamentals.  Divorce is wrong and God hates it.
But after that, we're left with sin, confessed and repented, or
unconfessed and defiant.

God instituted marriage as a means to express how He desires to have
a relationship with us.  He woos us and courts us because He loves us.
He proposes, and if we accept, we can enter into intimate relations
with a God who is Love and not just one who typifies it.  He wants to
be our greatest companion, our joy, and our lover.  He wants us to be
His bride.  This is what was "intended from the beginning."

For those of us who are married, strengthen your marriages.  For those
of us who are married but caught in adultery: STOP IT   N O W, repent
and go and sin no more; rebuild what you are putting into ruins!
For those of us who have committed the sin of divorce, repent of it
and go and sin no more.  (Does this extend to remarriage?  You and God
can see your heart; no one else.)  For those of us who are remarried,
seek God's forgiveness and see to it that the vows you made to the
one you are remarried are carried out.

God is merciful, people.  He seeks to restore, not to destroy.
God hates sin and grieves when people commit sin.  But when people
repent, He welcomes them.

"'Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?'
She said, 'No man, Lord.  And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn
thee: go and sin no more.'"  (John 8:10b-11)  "For God sent not His Son
into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might
be saved.  He that believeth on Him is not condemned." (John 3:17-18a)

Mark

Mark Metcalfe                   _______    "What about him, Lord?"       ,
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.   / Holy /,                            ,__0_/
270 Billerica Road, MS 04     /Bible //    "What is that to you?       M
Chelmsford, MA 01824         /______//        You must follow Me."   ./|.
(508) 446-6451              (______(/              John 21:21-22

-- 

RE: <<< Note 376.114 by CSC32::KINSELLA >>>

	An excellent reply from Mark!

	Just want to cover a couple of things.

>>By the way, does it say anywhere that Herodias was divorced from Philip?

	It does not say this in Scripture, but in the works of Josephus.

>Jesus was brought a woman who was caught in adultery.  This is the
>passage in John 8 where Jesus writes in the sand after telling people
>to go ahead and stone her as she deserves if anyone in the crowd of
>accusers didn't have any sin that would convict them of deserving
>sin's penalty.  

        I like to think that Jesus was writing into the sand the sins of
        those standing around to stone the accused adulteress.  No
	Scripture supports this, but I think it adds a nice touch.

	Regards,
		Tony