Playing the Pope with Divorce and Remarriage

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

PreTribGuy

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 7, 2009
42
1
8
#1
He is an article on Divorce and Remarriage. I did not write this article, but I agree with it.

Please note that it is long, but it is well worth the read. This article is broken into 3 parts in order to fit the formatting here.

[FONT=&quot]original composition: December 20, 2005[/FONT]
PLAYING THE POPE WITH DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
[FONT=&quot]
15+ hours to compose (as of March 8, 2009)
D/RM = Divorced and Re-Married
Dear Christian Friends:

This matter of who has authority to DECIDE when another person may justly escape and be free from obligation to their marriage; when a person sets themself up to DECIDE when and if another person is free to remarry - this is ultimately the kind of decisions that are made by "Popes" - by people who consider themselves ABOVE The Word of God. These "Popes" do not submit their judgments to the Bible, nor do they feel any obligation to prove to others that their decisions are Biblically supported. What they are about - is POWER, power among men and over men.

To this very day - any divorce (or annulment) in the RCC has to be approved by The Pope. Once again: it takes an approval from the Pope for any divorced (or annulled) Roman Catholic to remarry. What a power!

Now what "some people" want, is for someone ELSE to take responsibility for them in these matters (and of course, to agree to their plans) - and the Roman Catholics finally do not much care all that much. Those with enough money and political connections can usually get an "annulment" - especially if the person requesting annulment promises to be a faithful Roman Catholic after the fact (a sort of unspoken deal between the annulment seeker and the Pope)not a real or good Roman Catholic, anyway.. An ANNULMENT amounts to a declaration that the marriage was fraudulent in the first place, and therefore not a binding contract. How this "fraud" is defined is, well..... there's a lot of ways to describe how you "Never knew about this" or "Never knew about that" - so that you get to walk away as free from all obligation as if you were never married! That means, of course, that you are free to remarry someone else as long as your new spouse they will also play the "good Catholic". DIVORCE is almost never granted in the RCC, and in most cases of authorized divorce, neither person is free to EVER REMARRY (anyone else)! So you see that the RCC maintains quite a grip on it's people by taking total control over and responsibility for who they can marry and when - and YOU CAN get "official sanction" on your new marriage if you dance to the right tune (and make donations to the right people). Henry the 8th of England managed to connive 3 "annulments" out of the Pope - 3 - before the Pope finally got embarrassed enough about the appearance of favoritism and scandal that he said "NO" to the 4th annulment! SO WHAT DID KING HENRY DO? He invented the Anglican Church (also known as The Church Of England and The Episcopal Church) - and appointed himself a bishop who quickly and cooperatively granted Henry not just ONE, but actually 2 more annullments. Henry managed to get "religious sanction" on a succession of 8 marriages to 6 different women - a few of which he just killed offanother "legal annulment". As a widower - he could (of course) marry again - right?

I believe that for someone (like me) to take it upon himself to arbitrarily decide what marriages may be justly annulled or canceled, and to decide (and say) when it is acceptable for a divorcee to remarry - WITHOUT CLEAR AGREEMENT FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT - is to place myself above The Word of God, and therefore above all of you. This is how such a thing as a "Pope" comes into existence. Remember, God said (about marriage) "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (am I still a man???): and I suppose we may now begin to argue about whether or not God actually confirmed a marriage in the first place (thus the annulment clause) - but these words plainly declare that it is not the prerogative of ANY MAN to authorize a divorce. How can I (Dean) know whether or not God affirmed (agreed to) any particular marriage or divorce or remarriage? IS each divorced person the only judge of whether or not they are responsibly at fault for what happened?

The moment that any man sets himself to decide, just upon his own instincts or feelings or "sense of the Spirit" whether or not a divorce and/or a remarriage after divorce is sanctified - that man has made himself into a Pope.

It is SO TEMPTING to play the Pope..... because once you play the Pope, you can make many friends (especially in today's divorce ravaged population). You can become the adored and respected 'man of God' - merely for allowing someone to avoid answering to God and The Bible by inviting them to become answerable only to yourself.

A "Pope" in the evil sense of the word, is someone who inserts himself between the PRESUMED Saint (someone who is acknowledged as saved) AND God. A Pope becomes and plays the role as "mediator" or "deal arranger" between The Saint and The Saint's God. This is to re-establish an Old Testament type priesthood - in which the "ordinary folks" have to apply to God's "formal representative" - a "clergyman" - who manages the business between God and The Saint. In the New Testament, we are ALL called "Priests". There ARE NO "special men" through which any Christian must negotiate with God. Jesus Christ IS our only Priest - we neither have nor need any other. Our Priest IS Our God.

(1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

NOT that God never speaks to us through our Brethren - but that we are not allowed to USE our Brethren as "negotiators" between us and God. ON THE CONTRARY - we (Christians) are ALL "priests" between the unsaved people and the Christian God - in that - no one can claim to have come to Christ while ignoring or rejecting "us". But this is a separate subject, which I do not want to have to speak to here and now.

NO MATTER WHAT anyone else says to you about this matter - you have to be reconciled to God on your own in the matter. No man's permission can justify you and no man's condemnation should control you.

The New Testament simply DOES NOT SAY WHAT TO SAY TO D/RM people. I (and others) have strained ourselves to the utmost to find something definite in the NEW TESTAMENT that tells us WHAT TO SAY TO D/RM people who are insecure about their circumstances. It's JUST NOT THERE, my Friends...... it's just not there.

So here is where I have "landed" on the matter (for now, at least):
The language of the New Testament does not tell me what to SAY TO anyone who is already D/RM, so therefore, I have nothing to say to them about their marital state. The NEW TESTAMENT seems to speak in a generality to all married people, that upon FIRST hearing these words from the New Testament about their marital state, they are supposed to REMAIN in whatever state those words first find them.

(1 Cor 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

(1 Cor 7:27 KJV) Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

CONSIDERING THIS - I say, what the Bible does tell ME to say, is that if you are married, stay married to that person. If it's impossible to bear with your spouse because they are so evil, then you may separate from that spouse - but you are told - upon finding yourself in divorced state - to remain both single and celibate, or be restored to your spouse unless you are clearly in the case where your spouse, without provocation by you, has sexual relations with another person.
An "UNreasonable excuse" would be where one spouse, through abuse or sexual denial, literally DRIVES the spouse to infidelity. But only God and that person really knows WHY someone else did what they did.

(1 Cor 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

ALSO - this language places the man and the woman on EQUAL footing in respect to their freedom to divorce and remarry. It was obvious in the OT that the man had a certain advantage in matters of divorce and remarriage - but my reading of the New Testament does way with this "advantage". Jesus clearly places both the man and the woman on EQUAL footing in respect to divorce -

(Mark 10:11 KJV) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

(Mark 10:12 KJV) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

I cannot see how this means anything less than that man and woman are under EQUAL restriction and obligation in these matters.

(Continued in the next post)[/FONT]
 

PreTribGuy

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 7, 2009
42
1
8
#2
Playing the Pope with Divorce and Remarriage-part 2

(continued from part 1)

[FONT=&quot] IF I CANNOT AND DO NOT KNOW the reality of why you married you who you married, and IF I CANNOT AND DO NOT KNOW the reality of why you ended up divorced from the previous spouse - please do NOT ASK me (or anyone who does not know) to "sanctify" your divorce or your remarriage. Do not ask me to justify what you did. Do not (PLEASE) do not ask "my permission" to remarry, if you are already divorced and single, or if you are actually planning to get a divorce. DO NOT ASK ME - because unless I really know from God's perspective who did what to who when and why and how - I simply cannot make a right judgment. I will have to say, "Remain celibate, or be reconciled to your spouse". This is what Paul 'simply says' to those in the divorced condition! YEA, I know all about sex drive: but it's not my responsibility to answer for your sex drive! If you are in the justifiable exception category, then you know that, and do what you do on your own responsibility. PLEASE do not ask other Christians whose conscience is sensitive on the matter to approve your divorce or remarriage - leaving them feeling like you will resent them or reject them if they withhold their approval.

BUT IF YOU ARE ALREADY D/RM, then all I look for from you and your spouse is that you act like saved people NOW. I have no interest in or desire to "examine" your past divorce or your present marriage. All I can say to you about that - is to treat the spouse you have now like they were the first and only spouse you ever had.
I would be grateful if I was NOT INVITED to any wedding ceremonies involving questionable or doubtful divorces. Please do not ask me to "sanctify and approve" a remarriage after divorce. Just "do it (get married in a civil ceremony)" and start from there. I have no challenges to issue to anyone who is already D/RM - but unless I have a serene confidence that the divorce was justified according to the New Testament and so also is the new marriage - I cannot in good conscience convey an approval on re-marriage to a different person after a divorce.

WHAT STILL confounds me about this matter is the radical change in D/RM laws from the OT to the NT. In the OT, there were a few restrictions on who could marry or divorce whom: but all in all, divorce and remarriage were treated like a rather mundane and common occurance in the Old Testament. Neither polygamy nor a history of divorces seemed to be matters for severe examination and concern in the OT. SUDDENLY, in the NT, what was once regarded as no more complicated and costly than a willingness to write down an excuse for a divorce and hand that "divorce notice" to a spouse - what was once so very simple and easy - abruptly becomes rigidly constrained and controlled; leaving a shadow of disapproval lingering..... BUT...... whatever is described as a sin against marriage in the NT had to actually be a sin in the OT: if it's sin in the NT, it had to be a sin in the OT. BECAUSE D/RM was readily allowed with little or no "legislated consequence" in the OT - and because the human condition has not changed - I cannot see any "legislated" consequences for (even a definitely illicit) D/RM in the NT.

I have the feeling that what I just said was not said plainly enough: THERE ARE things which are NOT described as SIN for Jews in the OT, which are sins if done in the NT Age. IT WAS NOT DECLARED AS SIN for a person to divorce and remarry in the OT under most circumstances! But THE SAME acts in the NT are NOW labeled as sin! BUT they always had to be sin! - SO - what I am saying is, that these were "sins" that were not legislated against in the OT. Except in some very specific cases, there were very few restrictions placed on divorce and remarriage. Yet the NT declares that what was treated as hardly more than a legal formality in the OT is NOW a sin! (THIS IS HARD TO SAY RIGHT!). I say that what the NT describes as a sin against marriage always was a sin and always will be a sin everywhere. God evidently decided to NOT write legislation against many of these forms of sin-against-marriage in the OT because mankind would be so incapable of conforming to it, that Judaism itself would have failed and fallen apart long before the Messiah came to earth. God has revealed MORE OF His actual displeasure with these sins-against-marriage in the NT: yet even there, God is still not legislating required conformity to His perfect will concerning marriage! God is STILL allowing people who claim to be His servants to 'get by' with things that He is ultimately displeased with concerning marriage and sexual sin. FOR EXAMPLE: in the OT, persons who were caught committing adultery were executed (put to death) for this "crime". In the NT, we are told that to even look-with-lustful-longing at some person that we have no right to amounts to adultery........ yet no one is supposed to be put to death for THAT "sin of adultery". Jesus calls it a sin, but does not allow or authorize us to punish anyone for committing "adultery-of-the-heart". This "adultery of the heart" was always a sin - even in the OT - but was not directly addressed. It was implied in the 10th Commandment against coveting: BUT AGAIN (notice!) - THERE ARE NO PUNISHMENTS legislated against coveting in the OT. Only God and God alone was authorized to actually punish someone for coveting. There were things which always were sins that God apparently just decided to "put up with" in the OT. I suggest that God is STILL virtually overpassing certain sins in the NT. They are sins, and God may exact some price from those who commit them: but God has not authorized YOU or ME to officially "police" those sins and enforce God's perfect law. THUS IT IS with D/RM. In any D/RM there was always something WRONG that should not have happened. Perhaps it is the marriage that should not have happened in the first place. Perhaps there were sins that the spouses committed against each other that made fidelity near-to-impossible. In any case, the NT simply does not TELL US what to say to or do about people who are already D/RM. If God has a problem with those persons - we must allow God alone to pursue the matter and render judgment against the sinner. No one ever gets away with anything anywhere: so do not worry yourself that certain people are "getting away with" anything.


IN FACT - it (D/RM) actually looks to me like it is "taken for granted" in the language of the NT with these words:

(Mat 5:32 KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]causeth[/FONT][FONT=&quot] her to commit adultery[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

How can a husband CAUSE his wife to commit adultery? Does he force her to marry and sleep with another man? But yet, in this place, Jesus says that if (any) man puts away his wife for any reason BESIDES sexual immorality of some kind, he FORCES/CAUSES that woman to commit adultery! It looks (to me) like Jesus is "taking for granted" that almost always (or, ALWAYS?), the woman will remarry. If that is not what Jesus means by "causeth her to commit adultery" - I cannot imagine what this means.

ALSO - I am intrigued and annoyed by the use of the word "fornication" in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9. IF, by "fornication", is meant that the party has sexual relations with someone other than the spouse - isn't that ADULTERY? But "fornication", USUALLY means sex sin that does not necessarily involve adultery, SO IT CAN MEAN (YES) that you can divorce your spouse IF THEY ARE A PORNOGRAPHY ADDICT(apparently)!

AND - if "fornication" simply means "sex-sin", than it could also be said that a spouse who consistently and unreasonably denies intimacy to their spouse is also committing a "sex-sin", though not the kind of sex sin we normally speak of. A spouse who denies intimate affection to their spouse is committing a sin that involves sex. This feels like "a stretch" to suggest, but I am not satisfied that "fornication" in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 means only ADULTERY. If ADULTERY was what was meant, then I think it should have read 'ADULTERY'. Fornication is a broader term that includes a lot more than just adultery, which is, of course, a form of fornication. IF "fornication" in this place was meant to describe many forms of sexual sin - not just the "fornication of adultery" - THEN I can understand why "fornication" is used here instead of adultery.

LET ME ASK THE CLARIFYING QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE..... How does a married person have sex with someone besides their spouse and it NOT be ADULTERY? If you are married, and you have sex with someone other than your spouse, do you call that "fornication" - or - "adultery"? IT'S ADULTERY! SO (therefore), the only reason I can imagine for why Jesus used "fornication" instead of "adultery" in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 is because "fornication" covers all sorts of sexual sin including but not restricted to ADULTERY.

UNDERSTAND, my Dear Friends (please?) - That I have no personal need or desire to give D/RM people a hard time, or to subject them to any scowl, or to shove them under any shadow and make them live there. I declare, pledge and insist that my only interest in pursuing this subject is to have my opinion on THIS matter be easy to verify and defend from the Bible. I do not want to look like I am making excuses and room for "Dean's Friends", just because Dean likes his friends!

THIS SUBJECT is like the "women preachers" debate: WHENEVER I say that the Bible does NOT authorize any women preachers - "they" ALWAYS accuse me of being one of those "chauvinists" whose real motive is to diminish all women and make them into my servants or slaves. It does not seem to matter if I pledge and declare that I (Dean) have ZERO personal need to deny women anything! For 20 years I was in churches that had women pastors and preachers, and I did not complain or rebel against them. In fact, I could not think of one good reason why a woman should not pastor or preach! Some women were AND ARE superb preachers and excellent scholars. I only decided against women preachers in about 1989, when I became very concerned about making my faith work for me. I had to believe the Bible, and my Bible obviously said, "NO women preachers"! To this day - I declare that THE ONLY REASON why I will not accept women preachers is BECAUSE OF WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.

IT IS THE SAME with this issue. I have no prideful thing which provokes me to look for excuses to look down on D/RM people. I have no "stake" in taking anything away from them. How bad will I be if I even tell you that I WISH that the New Testament would confer "just fine" status on ALL D/RM people? Would anyone believe me? I have been accused of smug pride, because I am still with my 1st wife, and THAT PRIDE (they say) is the ONLY REASON why I have doubts and questions about their divorce and/or remarriage. I did not invent or create this controversy - I stumbled into it by reading the Bible, and it causes me almost as much sorrow and consternation as some of you who are D/RM!

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It would be (would have been) just fine with me if the laws governing divorce and remarriage were still just the same as in the OT - for that would allow me to escape from being resented or suspected by people who would have called themselves my Friends except for what they think I think about this issue!
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I can only wonder if the Lord is displeased with me because that in THESE CASES, I am actually somewhat ashamed of what I think-I-see the New Testament teaching! I have no affection for the New Testament teachings on women preachers and D/RM, for both of these things cause me all sorts of pain and drag me into miserable conflicts with people that I otherwise and actually really like!!!!

[/FONT]
(continued in part 3)
 

PreTribGuy

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 7, 2009
42
1
8
#3
Playing the Pope with Divorce and Remarriage - part 3

(continued from part 2-this is the conclusion)

[FONT=&quot]YES, I am PLEADING FOR MERCY from my D/RM Friends. [/FONT][FONT=&quot] I have nothing personal against you for being D/RM and I am likely to want to believe your story about how you could not prevent what happened. WHAT (I ask myself) could I possibly say to some woman who wanted out of a forced/arranged marriage to some pig of a brute that abused her? I have heard nearly every story you can imagine, my Friends! "They" tell me how they married and divorced before they were saved and so all that should be written off as if it never happened. They tell me how they got married in their unconverted ignorance and that the marriage was going well UNTIL THEY GOT SAVED - and then (I am told) that the spouse grew to hate them and left them EXPLICITLY BECAUSE of the changes that Christianity made in their lives and personalities. Don't think that I am referring to YOU (whoever you are that's reading this) - I am NOT referring to ANYONE ON THIS LIST. I've been here on this internet ALMOST FULL TIME for 12 (as of 2005) years and I was a "clergyman" in the past. THEY CAME TO ME with all these stories - and I have heard every kind of story you can imagine!

Let me make this perfectly clear one more time: I do not believe that being D/RM damns anyone. People are damned because they refused the claims of Jesus Christ - period. No one who is saved can get unsaved by any means, and so you cannot become unsaved by D/RM. I do not believe that being D/RM means you were never really converted. I do not believe that D/RM guarantees you a diminished quality of life. I do not believe that a past DIVORCE has to cause cause any harm to your present marriage. I do not believe that being D/RM means that God will deny you any special comfort that others (who are not D/RM) can experience. The only thing that being D/RM costs you in this life (that I can see) is THIS CONTROVERSY - the "apparently never adequately described question & answer" thing. I have called it "the shadow" - though for some, the word "shadow" may seem to be too harsh and threatening a word.

ONE THING IS CLEAR TO ME - God does NOT want us to regard marriage and divorce as incidental matters that can be related to like changing jobs or moving to a new house. God has marriage and divorce ALL HEDGED IN with restrictions and threats and obligations IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. God evidently wants to make it REALLY REALLY HARD for us to divorce - and there is nothing He could say that would make divorce MORE EXPENSIVE to us than to say that if we divorce and marry another we commit adultery! If a person thinks that they will NOT be "blessed of God" to marry again so long as their spouse lives, they will think a lot longer about it before they dump that spouse. I also realize that some people who have a conscience about remarrying would EVEN wish the former spouse DEAD so that they can be free to remarry! In the NT, marriage is treated like a contract that has unspoken punitive consequences for failure to fullil it. God wants us to avoid divorce with all our mights - and to choose living in a bad marriage even for the rest of our lives, rather than divorce. That really is how the NT reads.......

The New Testament makes it difficult for a conscientious Saint to even find a mate (not many real Christians to pick from), and then makes it really hard to divorce after we are married.

I just do not know what to say (or can be said) to people who married before they were converted, and then after they were converted, THERE WAS A DIVORCE. I totally understand the argument about "How could I have been expected to make a wise choice in a mate when I was not even saved?" YUP - the argument makes perfect sense to me!. The problem is - I have not seen where the NT allows us to make any distinction between pre and post conversion marriages. ALSO - the Bible does not seem to recognize the potential problems of arranged marriages - where the adolescent daughter could have been traded off to some filthy old creep by her dad just because the filthy old creep had financial security or gave the parents a fat dowry. I am not blind to the possibilities!

WHY? WHY? WHY? (I have to ask myself) did God choose to PROTECT ME from getting into anything that could be called a "prior marriage" before I married my wife? The only women that I ever "made and implied the promise to" before I was married - I never had intimate relations with them. I may have done it if I could have. This was both before AND AFTER I was converted. If I had ever been intimate with these girls (that I pledged my love to) - it would have been a marriage in the way that I understand it. SOMEHOW I was just "kept back". I also, though burning with lust and sinning both alone and with a few others, JUST DIDN'T marry the wrong girl before I met Cheri. A few times, beautiful girls were literally "prophesied to marry me" and I was literally "herded into a relationship" with some church-girl by the elders, who "knew from God (they claimed)" who was supposed to marry who! I was literally called out by so-called prophets and prophetesses that announced that Dean and so-and-so were supposed to marry! These were very attractive girls and I really burned with desire for them - BUT IT JUST DID NOT HAPPEN, somehow. I was consumed with lust for years (after I was converted) and always looking for a wife to meet my need: and the last 6 years that I went between being converted and married felt like an eternity - but SOMEHOW I just DIDN'T "marry the wrong girl" - and SOMEHOW, even though the first 10 years of my marriage were pretty rough, I SOMEHOW just did not commit actual adultery against my wife and I SOMEHOW just did not ever end up divorced! WHY? I do not know - and I feel a WARNING IN MY SOUL against imagining that that I am or was "more morally upright" than any of you (generally speaking). I feel like I was rescued from a bad marriage and any subsequent divorce almost DESPITE my will and ways.

I do NOT feel like I was morally superior to ANYONE on this list. It just worked out that I married the right girl the first time. It just worked out that any girl (before Cheri) that I think I might have married wouldn't have me, and any girl (before Cheri) that would have me, I just could not go all the way with.

I guess what I am saying is - that GOD, on His own initiative, decided to keep me from marrying the wrong girl, no matter what my plans and desires were. HAD I gotten into a previous failed marriage, I would have (in my own eyes) been DISQUALIFIED from the ministry that I am privileged to be involved in TODAY

I can hypothesize on how and why (some of) you married badly and ended in divorce: but I think those reasons would be the same for everyone who married badly and ended in divorce.

I had a "close friend" that married 4 times. I met him after the 1st divorce and then lost track of him until he was in the 3rd marriage. This 3rd wife was truly, clinically insane when I met her, a genuine danger to herself and others. So my "close friend" got another divorce (and I agreed and even helped him do it). Then, he called me up a few years later asking me to attend and bless his 4th marriage - to some girl that was only half his age, and who was herself also divorced and had a child by the former husband. I just could not "bless" this marriage, nor attend, nor approve. I lost his friendship over this. I wonder if this former "close friend" is still married to this girl...........

THE REALLY BIG problem with being married to more than one person is exposed when you think of marriage in The Millennium. I expect AND WANT to spend that 1000 years with my beloved wife Cheri. I plan on it. I see the Millennium as my opportunity to finally be 'the husband she always wished I was' -and to be with my wife, Cheri, who will then also be the "perfect her". I will be the most handsome Dean that I could ever be, and she will be the very image of female beauty. I will no longer disappoint her and she will not disappoint me. My wife (actually) says that she wants many more children - and hopes to do this in the Millennium. I foresee and hope for this 1000 years with my darling, in which we shall not live in fear of anything! The prophecy even says that "they will not bring forth for trouble" (meaning that their children will all be good and healthy and righteous!)

IF YOU BELIEVE in Millennial marriage - WHO will be married to who there? MAYBE, if you had asked me 18 years ago. if I was eagerly looking forward to 1000 more years with this same woman (my wife) - I would have halted and been uneasy in thinking about how I wanted to answer. But now, now that my wife and I have finally been able to stop offending each other constantly, and because of how much of a blessing Cheri is to me now - I freely and happily look forward to a FOREVER with this girl! Some of you may wince at this question, but do not despair - I had to be married for about 11 years before I could sincerely answer with a happy and definite "YES". True marital love is LEARNED - and as 'they" say (rightly), the infatuation and sexual hypnosis that drags you together in the first place does not necessarily develop into sincere adoration and respect. IN FACT, those images are always disappointed - no matter how rich or beautiful or handsome or clever or fascinating the person you married was. Their share of the "ugly" of the human race ALWAYS COMES THROUGH soon enough. YES, that "gorgeous girl" that you never wanted to be away from for even one minute can turn into "the harpy from hell" in your eyes and you will not even be able to see a glimpse of what you once thought she was. YOU GIRLS KNOW that that "Prince Charming" that you were sure that you would always admire can end up looking like the summary of every crummy man you ever detested. He becomes a "bum" or a slob AND A BULLY in your sight, or he always insults you and treats you like dirt. YOU ALL KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

I do not believe that the Millennium is some 1000 year long orgy by beautiful people who go around having sex with everyone they like the sight of - nor do I believe that we all become sexless angels. The Mohammedans believe that each man gets an entire "stable" of concubines in heaven - and why ANY woman would subscribe to this sick religion eludes me. NO, I no longer want any more wives or any other wife. (hard to believe?) I want to make a perfect success with the wife I've got - and I have an image in my mind of this "perfect couple" that are beautiful to see and dignified together. Sort of like an OT picture that we could imagine - like Isaac and Rebecca. Imagine (if you can ) Adam and Eve BEFORE the sin: that's what I aspire to, now. It took me these many years and I had to endure AND SURVIVE all sorts of "marital misery" to get to this place - and a fine place it is, too.

I think it is because of the possible problem of someone arriving in the Millennium to face 2 or more spouses that lay claim to them. That is why (I believe) Paul says that even a widow "would be happier" if she remains single. This can be for no other reason than that it could be a problem with 2 men claiming the same wife in the Millennium. It makes me suspect that Real Christians will only marry ONE other Real Christian in their earthly life. SO IF the first husband of the widow at the end of 1 Cor. chapter 7 was married to a Real Christian, if she married again - it may not be to a real Christian - AND SO - when Paul says "only in the Lord" he has more or less predicted that she will never find another saved spouse in this life that will marry her. She will either have to marry an unbeliever who will be damned (and gone), or if she marries a believer, it COULD prove that the former spouse was not a believer. Just ask yourself WHY Paul says that this this widow would be "happier" if she does not marry again? How can she be "happier" unless there is some automatically negative reality to any future marriage that she may enter?

(1 Cor 7:39 KJV) 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.

(1 Cor 7:40 KJV) But [/FONT][FONT=&quot]she is happier [/FONT][FONT=&quot]if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]HAPPIER? Why should she be happier? The very reason WHY this hypothetical widow is looking for a another husband is because she thinks she will be HAPPIER with a husband than without one. HOW in the world can this widow be necessarily happier if she never married again in this life? Paul say that if she MUST marry, it MUST be "only in the Lord"; meaning, he must be a Real Christian AND there must be some sense of or reason to believe that God is VOTING FOR IT - that God is doing more than not preventing it, but that God is ACTUALLY SAYING, "YES - DO IT"!

AND NOW I must answer to the last thing that I can think of in this matter of D/RM that always seems to come up - a thing that requires me to make a judgment in my own mind even if I do not feel like I can or should say anything about it.

DIVORCED people who SAY that "God told them" to marry again - and that God even picked out the new spouse for them.

PLEASE do not ask me to "second" this kind of thing - do not ask me to agree or disagree - because if I have any doubts - I MUST DISAGREE. "HOW?" (I must ask myself) would God say IN THE BIBLE that the divorced person should either remain single or be reconciled to their original spouse - and (how) then (does) THE SAME GOD tell the divorced person that THEY CAN (and even) SHOULD marry another person?

LIKE I SAID in a previous post on this issue: IF YOU WANT me (or anyone) to approve your divorce and to approve your remarriage - then you MUST make both yourself and any future spouse completely answerable to everyone whose approval you seek. They must be able to ask ANY QUESTIONS that they feel the need to ask and YOU have to supply answers that SATISFY THE ASKER. If you have ANY DOUBTS about how they will answer you (and especially if you are going to do it (get married AGAIN) no matter what they say, anyway) THEN DON'T ASK, please?. Don't put "your Friends" through this. You just TELL ME what you say God told you that you can and should do AND DO IT - and then you prove that God authorized this by the life that you and your spouse live after that.

The NT does NOT forbid POLYGAMY. But if anyone were to tell me that GOD TOLD THEM they could or should take more than one wife......... I may not be able to believe them, no matter what they said or explained. Could you? AND WHAT IF this "Friend" made your acceptance of their claim that God told them that they could have more than one wife into THE TEST OF FELLOWSHIP? How would you like that? You're about to lose that Friend, aren't you? IF THEY ASKED - and if you said anything but "YES" - even if you NEVER mistreated them over it or said another criitcal word about it, they would always know that you said "NO" and things would NEVER be the same..... would they?

I could say that this subject makes me wish I was living under the OT Law: for that would get me out of this dilemma - EXCEPT - that there are 2 couples that I know AND LIKE who divorced and then remarried their original spouse AFTER one or both of the spouses lived with or was actually married to another person! THAT IS FORBIDDEN in the OT. Under the OT Law, these restored couples would have to either divorce again or be punished for their "crime". There is no "relief" for me in this matter no matter where I look. I love and want to keep my Christian Friends. Some of my Christian Friends are D/RM. I do not want to hurt or insult them (or anyone!) - but the New Testament DOES NOT ALLOW ME to just "approve and confirm" every marriage there ever was or is or shall be. What do you want ME to do about that? Do you want me to violate my own conscience and simply ignore WHAT I THINK the Bible tells me in this matter? Is that what I must do in order to keep your favor? I dare not play the Pope - I do not want to be a Pope. I want to be "under" authority, not the center or source of authority - I am AFRAID to raise myself above the obligation to simply YIELD to the language of the New Testament. My submission to The Word of God may be faint and spotty and very inconsistent: but what I have not yet done is simply DECIDE TO IGNORE anything in the Bible just because it inconveniences me or causes me problems. This subject GREATLY inconveniences me and causes me endless problems. So, do I get to remain as your esteemed Christian Friend and proven "minister of Christ" or not?
3 John 2 Dean

ADDENDUM from Richard,
I agree with what Dean has written above, and just wanted to add the following.
[/FONT]about how the Bible speaks to them about divorce and remarriage - they are only concerned with maintaining psychological power over the people and if it can be argued that the "bad spouse" was to avoid the "messiness" of getting - or if they have any other deviant and unnatural, perverted sexual fixation. CERTAINLY, if your spouse has sex with animals - they did not commit actual adultery against you, DID THEY? But that IS fornication. YOU CAN DIVORCE THEM AND REMARRY
[FONT=&quot]In Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman, He acknowledged that she had had 5 husbands. I must conclude, since nothing is said of her being widowed 5 times that at least some of those husbands were still alive at the time of that conversation. What this implies is that her prior marriages were regarded as dissolved by the subsequent marriages, and there is nothing in Jesus' speech to suggest that these marriages were invalid. Jesus did say that the man she was presently with was not her husband, but He did not deny the validity of her previous marriages.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This is critically important! This means that Jesus in no way suggests that subsequent marriages are regarded as ongoing, continuous adultery that can only be remedied by another divorce.
Have you divorced and married another? Treat this as your first, only, and permanent marriage. What you can expect from us is acceptance of your present marital status as valid and permanent. As far as we are concerned, your first marriage is dissolved and whatever sins you may have committed then or in your remarriage are forgiven. We can only know who and what you are by what you do and say now.

The way to success and blessing is clear:
(Eph 5:22 KJV) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
(Eph 5:25 KJV) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-- [/FONT]
 

PreTribGuy

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 7, 2009
42
1
8
#4
Re: Playing the Pope with Divorce and Remarriage - part 3

Bumped to the top since this seems to be an ongoing topic in the Bible Study room. At least people can know where I 'stand' on this issue.