Marriage, Remarriage, Divorce

[282Mikado]

Words have definitions.

Marriage, for instance, does.
So does adultery.

Now hear this:

Heb 13:4
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


Anishinaabe

 

I agree: words do have definitions, but when man's sin gets into the mix those definitions can become OBscured.

 

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 

 

Undefiled: Unsoiled, pure.

 

Can a marriage bed be undefiled if it has more than one woman in it?

[robmac68]

I would have to go back to some notes I took once. I believe the original text uses two different words for adultery. One is a physical (sexual) adultery and the other is a spiritual form of adultery. Like when God divorces Israel for her adulterous behavior (being faithless). The original word used in the remarriage passages for "commits adultery" is not referring to marital relations, rather a withdrawal of one's commitment to their spouse, in a spiritual sense. 

 

So, yes, divorce is a serious matter. It is disOBedience to God. It is a dishonor to our spouse. And it is a disservice to our children, as well as the church. It damages your testimony, hurts your loved ones, and can cause lifelong ramifications. Divorce also violates Jesus' command for us to forgive others when they have transgressed against us. Some of the best testimonies of marriage I've ever heard are the result of a person remaining faithful to their vows, out of OBedience to God's Word, to an alcoholic spouse or a cheating spouse, or in some cases an abusive one, who prayed for nothing less than God's will and amazing things happened. How these people were the only impression of Christ their spouse had ever seen, and it caused them to fall under conviction and get saved. If God can change Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor and murderer of Christians, into the Apostle Paul, He can restore even the most seemingly broken marriages.

 

It's important to remember that divorce and remarriage are not unforgivable sins. To claim they are degrades the sufficiency of Christ's death on the cross for the remission of our sins.

I just thought of something reading another thread about fornication and adultery, anyway, is adultery sin? 

 

Moses, because of the hardness of hearts, was allowed by God to let the people divorce.  If divorce is spiritual adultery because their no longer connected spiritually, and adultery is sin, then God allowed people to sin.  I don't think so.  God allowed divorce.  When does God allow sin?  If the adultery happens at the time of divorce, then God either allows sin or adultery specifically refers to physical relations with someone other than the spouse. 

[JimsHelpmeet]

 Can one repent of something while remaining glad it happened?

 

 

Sure. I think that we can repent and still have gladness in our hearts if for no other reason than realizing just how vast God's grace is, and that it's something we experienced that we can use to help minister to others in the same position. Me being remarried has not been without its share of consequences. My husband and I cannot have children together, even though we have children with our previous spouses. And there have been moments of jealousy toward the exes. Divorce means baggage. It's baggage that can cause strife and jealousy. It's baggage that can upset children. That does not mean God cannot bless, and use, such a couple. It is often through our own shortcomings and sin that God can illustrate to others the power of His saving grace. Psalm 103:12 says, "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." This is good news! When we lay that baggage at the foot of the cross, we must leave it there. 

 

When Saul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, he was a Pharisee. He was responsible for the execution of countless believers in Christ. He mercilessly persecuted believers.  Jesus asked Saul, "why persecutest thou me?" Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit and became the apostle, Paul. Paul, who lead so many to Christ. Who laid everything on the line for the sake of the Gospel. Who, under the supernatural influence of God, penned the epistles. Was Paul happy he had been  a persecutor? I doubt it, but his sinful past became one of the greatest testimonies of God's grace that I know of.

[swathdiver]

...I've noticed you tend not to follow-up on the discussions you have here. 

 

You have me at a loss here, I do not understand what you mean.

[Alimantado]

Sure. I think that we can repent and still have gladness in our hearts if for no other reason than realizing just how vast God's grace is, and that it's something we experienced that we can use to help minister to others in the same position. Me being remarried has not been without its share of consequences. My husband and I cannot have children together, even though we have children with our previous spouses. And there have been moments of jealousy toward the exes. Divorce means baggage. It's baggage that can cause strife and jealousy. It's baggage that can upset children. That does not mean God cannot bless, and use, such a couple. It is often through our own shortcomings and sin that God can illustrate to others the power of His saving grace. Psalm 103:12 says, "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." This is good news! When we lay that baggage at the foot of the cross, we must leave it there. 

 

When Saul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, he was a Pharisee. He was responsible for the execution of countless believers in Christ. He mercilessly persecuted believers.  Jesus asked Saul, "why persecutest thou me?" Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit and became the apostle, Paul. Paul, who lead so many to Christ. Who laid everything on the line for the sake of the Gospel. Who, under the supernatural influence of God, penned the epistles. Was Paul happy he had been  a persecutor? I doubt it, but his sinful past became one of the greatest testimonies of God's grace that I know of.

 

Amen, JHM! That was a blessing to read, but it didn't really answer the question. What you are saying is that no matter what we have done we have reason to be glad in spite of our sins, thanks to the grace of God. Praise God for that! But what I was asking was, can one say one has repented if they are glad because of their sins.

 

I don't really want to dwell on your personal life so lets switch to a hypothetical. I'm a 'rags to riches' businessman who has risen to become head of a very successful firm in a legitimate enterprise and I have lots of assets to my name. But to get there I did a lot of lying, swindling and plotting the downfall of rivals, many of whom have been left destitute. Now I come to Christ and repent of my wicked ways. But I keep my assets and position and continue to enjoy them and make the most of them, feeling glad I'm not materially impoverished like I once was.

[Alimantado]

You have me at a loss here, I do not understand what you mean.

 

I don't mean anything offensive, Swath. All I mean is that I've noticed that with you more than average if I respond to your posts, even asking a few questions, I tend not to get replies back. There's no OBligation for you to do so, of course, and such happens on forums all the time. I just bear this in mind and keep my replies to you very brief.

[JimsHelpmeet]

Amen, JHM! That was a blessing to read, but it didn't really answer the question. What you are saying is that no matter what we have done we have reason to be glad in spite of our sins, thanks to the grace of God. Praise God for that! But what I was asking was, can one say one has repented if they are glad because of their sins.

 

I don't really want to dwell on your personal life so lets switch to a hypothetical. I'm a 'rags to riches' businessman who has risen to become head of a very successful firm in a legitimate enterprise and I have lots of assets to my name. But to get there I did a lot of lying, swindling and plotting the downfall of rivals, many of whom have been left destitute. Now I come to Christ and repent of my wicked ways. But I keep my assets and position and continue to enjoy them and make the most of them, feeling glad I'm not materially impoverished like I once was.

 

I think that it's one thing to be glad for your sin and another to be glad how God can use that sin and turn it around for something good. In your hypothetical, it would be okay to be glad for your success, but then use those riches for the glory of the Kingdom. It would be a matter of what you did with what you gained through your sin, after coming to repentance, that would matter. Could the person who swindled others to achieve financial wealthy repent, and then use their money to support missions or a local church? Could they use their business savvy to help their church use the offerings of the members wisely? The Bible says that *all* things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose. Not just some things. Not just the "good" things we've done. Our seemingly righteous works are as filthy rags to Him. But, He can take ALL things and use them for His glory.

 

I'm not happy that I sinned. I'm happy that in spite of my sin God can still forgive me and use me in His service. I'm glad that my husband is kind and loves the Lord and treats my son well. The first sin was neither one of us were with the Lord when we married, each other or our ex spouses and I didn't wait on God's timing to marry, so I settled. So did Jim. Had I waited,Jim prOBably would have come into my life anyway, but I wasn't willing to be patient and seek His will. Instead, I settled for an abusive man and we divorced.

[Alimantado]

Amen, JHM.

[swathdiver]

I don't mean anything offensive, Swath. All I mean is that I've noticed that with you more than average if I respond to your posts, even asking a few questions, I tend not to get replies back. There's no OBligation for you to do so, of course, and such happens on forums all the time. I just bear this in mind and keep my replies to you very brief.

 

Hmm, I'm sorry about that, I got out of my way usually to reply to every question asked of me.  Lately I've been posting and then leaving for a week or two or more so if something was asked after I left, I'm sure to have missed it.

 

If you have something in mind, please bring it to my attention and I will happily address it.  I get frustrated when my questions are ignored so I try not to do the same.   

[prophet1]

I agree: words do have definitions, but when man's sin gets into the mix those definitions can become OBscured. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Undefiled: Unsoiled, pure. Can a marriage bed be undefiled if it has more than one woman in it?

The context is David's polygamy. It is a marriage bed, if the man and woman in it are married to each other. God called them wives, so don't get irrevrant. Anishinaabe

[282Mikado]

The context is David's polygamy. It is a marriage bed, if the man and woman in it are married to each other. God called them wives, so don't get irrevrant. Anishinaabe

 

I’m not being irreverent. Just because David was a polygamist does not make it right in God’s eyes. To me the Bible is clear that God expects a marriage relationship to be singular; one man with one woman only. Since we know God is immutable:

 

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;…

 

 Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

 

It stands to reason he did not change his thinking on marriage being between one man and one woman. This is evidenced when Jesus admonishes the Pharisees concerning divorce:

 

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

 

It is only man’s sin that necessitated God to introduce provisos so that sinful man could still hope to have a relationship with Him. Everything in this admonishment is singular; one man, one woman.

 

It has been so since the beginning:

 

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

All references in this first record of what marriage was to be are singular. “AN help meet” not many helps meet, “a woman”, not many women, “his wife” not his wives, “one flesh”…singular.

 

While referencing future kings a similar mandate is put forth in Deuteronomy:

 

Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

 

We see similar mandates for leaders in the church: 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12, Titus 1:6. Referring to the common man we look to 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul admonishes:

 

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

 

All references to husband and wife in this passage are singular, as is true in Ephesians 5:25-33.

 

So, you are correct in that “God called them wives”, but that is not because that is how He intended it to be, but because that is how man’s sin made it. One thing we see in the Bible is that God does not hide the sin of even those He says were after His own heart. Is it irreverent to say that God was right and David was wrong?

 

It doesn’t take much study of David and Solomon to see the harm that came to them, their children, and their country because of their polygamy.

 

On a related aside, I know my wife, and most likely every woman at least on this forum, would consider the marriage bed defiled should their husband decide to add another wife.

 

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

You know, it seems to me, that if a married man is considering marrying another woman, he is most likely lusting after her in his heart (at least a little). Just sayin’. Didn't Jesus call that adultery?

[prophet1]

I’m not being irreverent. Just because David was a polygamist does not make it right in God’s eyes. To me the Bible is clear that God expects a marriage relationship to be singular; one man with one woman only. Since we know God is immutable:

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;…

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

It stands to reason he did not change his thinking on marriage being between one man and one woman. This is evidenced when Jesus admonishes the Pharisees concerning divorce:

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

It is only man’s sin that necessitated God to introduce provisos so that sinful man could still hope to have a relationship with Him. Everything in this admonishment is singular; one man, one woman.

It has been so since the beginning:

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

All references in this first record of what marriage was to be are singular. “AN help meet” not many helps meet, “a woman”, not many women, “his wife” not his wives, “one flesh”…singular.

While referencing future kings a similar mandate is put forth in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

We see similar mandates for leaders in the church: 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12, Titus 1:6. Referring to the common man we look to 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul admonishes:

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

All references to husband and wife in this passage are singular, as is true in Ephesians 5:25-33.

So, you are correct in that “God called them wives”, but that is not because that is how He intended it to be, but because that is how man’s sin made it. One thing we see in the Bible is that God does not hide the sin of even those He says were after His own heart. Is it irreverent to say that God was right and David was wrong?

It doesn’t take much study of David and Solomon to see the harm that came to them, their children, and their country because of their polygamy.

On a related aside, I know my wife, and most likely every woman at least on this forum, would consider the marriage bed defiled should their husband decide to add another wife.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

You know, it seems to me, that if a married man is considering marrying another woman, he is most likely lusting after her in his heart (at least a little). Just sayin’. Didn't Jesus call that adultery?

If God called them wives, then the marriage bed, by definition, is implied.
What God calls undefiled, call not thou filthy.

Your own reasoning, which is what you have offered here, doesn't trump God's Word.

After you cool down, cuz this post just set you off, read God's account of David and Abigail...not his first wife.

Anishinaabe

[282Mikado]

If God called them wives, then the marriage bed, by definition, is implied.
What God calls undefiled, call not thou filthy.

Your own reasoning, which is what you have offered here, doesn't trump God's Word.

After you cool down, cuz this post just set you off, read God's account of David and Abigail...not his first wife.

Anishinaabe

 

1. I do not need to cool down because I was never set off. I gave you reasonable references from God's word, not my own reasoning.

 

2. To me it seems that it is you who is doing your own reasoning. I just reread the account of Abigail and David and I see no verbiage that leads me to believe that God officially sanctioned that marriage. I see how David thanked the Lord for His handling of Nabal, and then I see David taking it upon himself to commune with Abigail and subsequently marry her. Nowhere does it say that he nor Abigail consulted the Lord prior to that marriage, nor his subsequent marriage to Ahinoam which is mentioned almost in the same breath.

 

3. As I said in my previous post: "One thing we see in the Bible is that God does not hide the sin of even those He says were after His own heart". Just because David married multiple wives does not mean that God condoned it, and there is no verbiage in the account of Abigail that leads me to believe that he condoned that union. It is just a factual retelling of the events that occured; good and bad.

[prophet1]

1. I do not need to cool down because I was never set off. I gave you reasonable references from God's word, not my own reasoning.

2. To me it seems that it is you who is doing your own reasoning. I just reread the account of Abigail and David and I see no verbiage that leads me to believe that God officially sanctioned that marriage. I see how David thanked the Lord for His handling of Nabal, and then I see David taking it upon himself to commune with Abigail and subsequently marry her. Nowhere does it say that he nor Abigail consulted the Lord prior to that marriage, nor his subsequent marriage to Ahinoam which is mentioned almost in the same breath.

3. As I said in my previous post: "One thing we see in the Bible is that God does not hide the sin of even those He says were after His own heart". Just because David married multiple wives does not mean that God condoned it, and there is no verbiage in the account of Abigail that leads me to believe that he condoned that union. It is just a factual retelling of the events that occured; good and bad.

Scripture says David married Abigail.
Scripture says the marriage bed is undefiled.

To say that marrying Abigail was an act of adultery, or perpetual adultery, is unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Since Scripture tells us the exact opposite, that marriage is pure, than we have no right to call marriage adultery....unless it falls under the category of woman who was put away for fornication.

You are imposing your reasoning on the Scripture.

Anishinaabe

[282Mikado]

Scripture says David married Abigail.
Scripture says the marriage bed is undefiled.

To say that marrying Abigail was an act of adultery, or perpetual adultery, is unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Since Scripture tells us the exact opposite, that marriage is pure, than we have no right to call marriage adultery....unless it falls under the category of woman who was put away for fornication.

You are imposing your reasoning on the Scripture.

Anishinaabe

 

I gave you scripture after scripture showing that marriage was designed by God to be between 1 man and 1 woman, and scripture that stated you were not to have multiple wives. In that light, when comparing scripture with scripture, the marriage bed is undefiled. Not when you add man's sin into the mix. Is it your way of thinking that all marriage beds are undefiled? Homosexual? Incestuous?

 

Prophet1 huh? Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Mohommed called themselves prophets too. Any relation?