4/04/12 (a)
Note: If you found this web-site either you are internet savvy
or have been told by someone regarding its existence. Either way what you have
found is a work in progress which is being left up on the web as I continue to
work on it (and the above date corresponds to the last edited posting).
This web-page contains a rough draft
of a book I am writing called Divorce and the Christian and although the
book is about divorce, it really isn't, but more a book on maturity (and will
end on that note) as well as the mature way of looking at one’s life.
For example: A Christian does not
have to "get divorced" to change the nature of his or her
relationship. Christians are not under iron clad (relationship) law.
Because this web page will contain
content that will deal with maturity - and because I desire to keep people
updated as to my ongoing work on this subject - I ask you to please
keep the pages content to yourself and only share it with mature (or maturing)
people [and if you are a member of the responsible press I ask you
to not publish anything about it, nor pick up any stories concerning it (and
note I may end up keeping this work “hidden” permanently to which the maturing
can always refer to)].
As said before this work is ‘a work
in progress’ [and please note that because of that it might change as I study,
write (and possibly re-write) the book]. Also note I do “hop around” as I write
and will work on the books sections at random so if you are interested in a
particular section just check on that section ever once in a while
[also note that the final posting will say “1st Edition” on the
cover page and - as with all my books – it’s released as “public domain” (note
the rough draft you are reading at present is public domain as well, do with it
as you wish {however read a request in Appendix N before you do (that is: if
you are going to put my name on a publication)})].
Steve Ryan
North Port (Warm Springs)* Florida
U.S.A.
*as is the rest of Florida,
especially the west side of Florida (including Arcadia)
Note
to Churches: in my book Sustaining Revival I
mention that supportive relationships (which can be intimate and personal and
may need to be straightened out) will be something God will deal with in the
next renewal / revival and the prophetic will have a role in it. From what I
can see such a thing has begun to start in Florida (namely in Charlotte, DeSoto
and Sarasota Counties) and although it’s just beginning (and because of that
it’s difficult to get a handle on everything) it is definitely here thus you might want to begin to pray for the
area that they (the three counties and then some) will sort through and complete
the good work that God has started.
Divorce
and the
Christian
Steve
Ryan
Table of
Content
Introduction
What is Divorce?
Christian Views on Divorce
The Law of Divorce (and other Underlying
Assumptions)
Covenant or Contract? Which one is it?
Biblical Engagement Covenants: What is a Wife?
The Issue of Vows
Illegitimate Covenants?
Biblical Grounds for Annulments (Another way of
Looking at the Issue)
Biblical Grounds for Divorce: Believer /
Unbeliever Relations
Biblical Grounds for Divorce: Believer /
Believer Relation
Extra - Biblical Grounds for Divorce: Hearing
from God (and the Gifts)
The Question on the Progression of Apostolic
Thought in Regards to Divorce
The Question of ‘Christian Testimony’
The Question of Children (and their
“Sanctification”) 1 Corinthians 7
The Roles of Conscience and Faith in Decision
Making
Bi-Lateral vs. Unilateral Action
Christian Healing (Mercy and Restoration)
Life
Moving on to Maturity
Conclusion
Problem Verses
Questions and Answers
Points to Remember
Appendix A:
The Systematic Principle(s)
Appendix B:
The Angels
Appendix C: Lust,
Love and Passion: What are the Differences?
Appendix D:
Understanding Men and Women (On This Side
of Eternity)
Appendix E:
Issues and Concerns
Appendix F:
The Law in Regards to Relationships
Appendix
G: Non-Traditional Closed Relationships
Appendix
H: Guidelines for Mature Open Relationships
Appendix
I: Mature
Considerations for Open (“N” & “D”) Relationships
Appendix J: Open “Waved Rights” Marriages
Appendix K:
Exchanges and Other Possibilities
Appendix L:
Christian Communities
Appendix M:
Various Forms (Text) for Church Use
Appendix
N: A Note to Non-Christians Reading this Work
Footnotes
______
Introduction
This book deals with the subject of Christian
divorce. It is not a book on the subject of Christian separation, nor does it
go into great detail regarding the possibility of a Christian altering their
marital covenant, it is a book that deals with the ending a marriage covenant
completely - as we know it - and in doing so gives some Christian’s -
particularly those who cannot see their way through certain viewpoints (or
verses) - new - or expanded - options for their lives.
The subject of Divorce (or ending an agreement)
- in relation to Christianity - is not easy subject and will divide churches
and Christians and has been talked about from a number of perspectives all of
which can be divided up into either believer / believer grounds for divorce
[which are either denied (that is: rejected) or debatable in some camps]; as
well as believer / unbeliever grounds for the same (which are usually not
contested in Christianity) with the main issue being whether a covenant is
immutable (unchangeable) or can be treated more like a contract that can be
ended.
Brothers and sisters how you view this
“covenant vs. contract” issue will determine a lot.
Sisters and brothers God is restoring His
people as a dedicated people to Himself, and as in the days of old when His
people returned from captivity, God today is dealing with the subject of
relationships [which happened to be one of the first things both He and they
dealt with on their return from that place of errant viewpoints - Babylon (and
note that they dealt with these things even before the walls around Jerusalem
went up {Ezra 9:1-10:44})].
Brethren, as it was then, so it is today.
What I would like to do in this book is examine
the issue of Divorce and the Christian (as well as its relation to different
verses in scripture) and after doing so give Christians true
biblical grounds for divorce (that is: ending an agreement) as well as expanded
and mature options for their lives. Brothers and sisters this is not an easy
subject, but the concept of divorce is something that is seen in both covenants
and is a viable option for people’s lives.
The contents of this book are arranged in a
logical order and are set up in such a way that the reader can enter the debate
at any point with no need to read the entire book. I am not Catholic, nor
Protestant just Christian and write from a Christian perspective. The best
thing one can do to save time is to go back to the books Table of Contents and find out where “is at” in regards to their
thought on the subject and read on from there. The book is like a bridge from
one point to another (a bridge that has many entrance and exit ramps). Where a
person enters and exits that bridge is where they “are at” in their thinking,
experience and conscience. Feel free to enter and exit the bridge at any
point (or completely drive across), but I would advise you that once you get
(or can see) where you are going, not look back (why waste time?).
______
Chapter 1
What is Divorce?
“So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took
bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar, putting them on her shoulder
and gave her the boy and sent her away.” (Genesis 21:14)
This story of Abraham and Hagar is the first
divorce mentioned in the bible and although the subject of grounds - and
provision - are debatable points in divorce, never the less this story
illustrates the ending of a relationship - which is basically what
divorce is all about.
Theologically speaking divorce involves the
abrogation of an agreement and / or understanding or covenant -
and can be granted under a variety of conditions. It is serious business,
so serious that some Christians reject the action outright no matter who is
involved (believer / unbeliever) or no matter what was done. Divorce is
different than altering a covenant [or even suspending it (that is separation)
which is uncontestably allowed in scripture (1)] and is much more serious and
egregious.
Once again much of the thinking behind the
differing views on divorce have to do with the understanding of the word
“covenant” and how that concept relates to this issue. Some Christians have a
holy and sacred - in cement (no matter what) - view of the word while other see
it more as a contract which can be changed, added to (2) or even ended (3).
While one can view the word covenant as sacred
- depending on what you are talking about (4) - it is at its
heart just a concept - a pact - an understanding which even God can end for
reason (5).
Again brethren, divorce involves the abrogation
of an agreement, understanding or for our purposes here a covenant
between what were to be lifelong partners. In regards to spousal relations it
is the ending of a “blood brother and sister” agreement (6) which can produce both pain and
new blessing depending on what you are talking about. It is much more serious
business than ‘separation’ and because of what is involved here ought not be
taken lightly by Christians.
______
Chapter 2
Christian Views on Divorce
Brothers and sisters Christianity and its views
on divorce center around New Covenant teaching, not particularly old…
““They (the Pharisees) said to Him (Jesus),
“Why then did Moses command to give…(ones wife)… a certificate and divorce
her?” [that is: for any reason (…but Jesus said)] to them, “Because of the
hardness of heart Moses permitted you….”” (Matthew 19:7,8)
Sisters and brothers, because we have at least
one Mosaic (old covenant) law, possibly more that God did not give,
but acquiesced to, in regards to New Covenant teaching on the matter we need to
be careful about going back to the Old Covenant (that is: Mosaic law)
in regards to this subject, particularly since we as Christians are not under
law, but grace (and actually don’t even have to go back to any of these laws at
all).
However brethren, in regards to the New
Covenant teaching on divorce [which is where Christianity is coming from
(7)], many Christians and churches will again - at the
minimum - see a difference between / believer relationships and believer / unbeliever
relationships (7A).
Now in regards to the issue of believer / unbeliever covenants ending,
the following reasons (viewpoints) are usually put forth (and this is just a
brief overview and will be handled in much more detail in Chapters ____ )
Believer / Unbeliever Viewpoints
(Grounds) for Ending of a Covenant
* They cannot be ended
* Desertion
* Abuse
* Neglect of Sexual Relations
* God told me (Hagar)
* Any reason
In regards to Believer / Believer covenants
ending also the following viewpoints (or reasons) are put forth (and again this
as well is just a brief – yet exhaustive - overview and will
be handled in much more detail in Chapters ____ )
Believer / Believer Viewpoints (Grounds) for
Ending of a Covenant
* They cannot be ended
* It was made when we were unbelievers
* Fornication (during engagement period)
* Adultery
* Desertion
* Abuse
* Spouse backslid
* Spouse is hypocrite (talks the talk, but does
not walk the walk)
* Spouse lost their salvation
* Spouse was never saved to begin with (and I
and everyone else thought they were)
* There is a progression of understanding in
scripture
* The issue of divorce is an issue of
conscience and really boils down to the principle of life over law [that is:
since we are not under any law anymore which includes the law of
relationships go with the flow of life (or wherever life
leads)].
* I have unique circumstances [that is: what is
(or may be) said to “the group” (in scripture) is not what is said to me
because…]
* God told me to divorce (directly or through
the gifts of others)
* or anything (or for any reason)
And these reasons (or grounds) can be
interchangeable between the two groupings.
Brothers and sisters because there are
biblical reasons given in scripture for covenants to end, the idea that
covenants cannot end or change is foundationally wrong in definition and
the word “immutable” ought not be used (8). Also in
regards to the definition of covenants the concept that there are illegitimately
made covenants (9), is something to factor into the concept (or idea) of
divorce as well.
Sisters and brothers because we are not under
law we ought to be careful about going back into the old covenant for teaching
about divorce [particularly if you are a sister (10)], however
as you have - and will see - the writers of the new testament will draw principles
from the old covenant in which to draw conclusions on divorce in some matters
(for example: drawing principles from God’s treatment of slavery in the old
covenant). Thus even though we need to be careful about going
back into the Old Covenant (Mosaic law) in regards to this subject [especially
since we as Christians are not under law, but grace (and again don’t even have
to go back to any of these laws at all)] we can - if we wish - look back at
‘the old’ with the eyeglasses of ‘the new’ to help in this matter -
particularly in regards to unique circumstances. Also because we are new
covenant people we can draw upon apostolic revelation [and reasoning
(11)] in this matter as well which will help in our
Christian view (and understanding) of reasons behind divorce.
______
Chapter 3
The Law of Divorce
(and other Underlying Assumptions)
“and Joseph her husband, being a righteous
man (who followed the law)… not wanting to dis-grace
her (that is: stone her)…” (Matthew 1:19)
Brethren, in the Introduction of this book I
mentioned that this book deals with the ending a marriage covenant completely
and in doing so gives Christian’s - particularly those who cannot see their way
through certain viewpoints (or verses) - new - or expanded - options for their lives.
In regards to the issue of underlying assumptions (which are usually behind the
forbidding of Christian getting divorce) I want to address the major ones here.
We are Under the Law (of Marriage) (12)
“but from
the beginning (of creation, divorce) has not been (intended to be part of this
world) ” (Matthew 19:8)
Brothers and sisters, although the above verse
speaks of God’s intentions (or ideal) in regards to people staying together (13), in regards to the issue of seeing marriage as under
a law (as in “a must stay”) there is a major assumption here that
we are under some kind of external hovering over law (13A) and must follow it (14).
Granted the term ‘covenant’ implies commitment (15), but as already mentioned it is not an absolute
concept and can be added to, altered, or even ended. Sisters and brothers even
God Himself can go against “the law of marriages” teachings and is not
bound to it as the following verse - which goes against Mosaic teachings
(16) - indicates
“For she (Israel) said, “I will go after my
lovers”...therefore, behold I (God) will hedge up her way with thorns, and I
will build a wall against her so she cannot find her paths. And she will pursue
her lovers, but she will not overtake them; and she will seek them, but will not
find...Then she will say, “I will go back to my first husband, For
it was better for me then than now” (Hosea 2:5-7)
In other words God is not under law (or the
Mosaic marriage law) and can take back a spouse who had already remarried (16A),
all of which can have bearing on marital relationships [for example: if God
could take back a spouse He divorced, I certainly can, especially since we as
Christians are not under biblical law anymore (17)].
Sisters and brothers, priests [ministers, which
we all are (17A)],
in the old covenant where forbidden to marry a person who was divorced (Lev
21:7) and the High Priest was forbidden to marry someone who was a widow (Lev
21:13,14). Brethren, I don’t know anyone who - let’s say, is “into” the law(s)
of marriage - who would go back to those marital laws today (17B).
So again brethren we need to be careful about
going back to (the Mosaic) law in regards to this subject, particularly since
we as Christians are not under law, but grace (18).
Other prohibiting assumptions - aside from
Christians being under some kind of biblical (or iron clad external) law
- include…
Commandments in the New
Covenant are an Absolute Concept (No “if’s,” “and’s” or “but’s”)
“But to
the rest (of the married) I say, not the Lord (in His teaching in the Gospels)”
[1 Corinthians 7:12 (19)]
Sisters and brothers, remember in regards to
this subject few people alive today follow every single rule and regulation
found in the Bible. Since this is true, the question then becomes what criteria
does one uses to sift through and sort out which rules (if you do follow
rules), or which principles (if you do follow principles) or even what quote unquote “commandments”(19A) you follow (20).
In regards to the issue of divorce most
everyone does not believe that once one is married that’s it - period (or
that’s it - comma - unless it is annulled) but will allow for exceptions in
regards to the issue of divorce - if certain conditions exist (20A)
“Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him
leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in
such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15)
As we can see in the just mentioned verse (and
this includes the gospels in the subject) there is at least one (more)
exception to the iron clad concept of the “law of marriage” (which again we are
not under) (21). Commandments on the subject (21A) are not absolute and ought not
be viewed, nor equated with rock solid unchangeable law. As said in the first “We are Under the Law (of Marriage)” section in this chapter there can be
‘alterations’ (22) and exceptions.
Brethren, the next (or the last) prohibiting
assumption - aside from Christians being under some kind of biblical (or iron
clad external) law – is…
There is no Forgiveness, nor Grace for Repentance
Regarding the ‘Making of a Mistake’
Brothers and sisters, first off I would be
extremely hesitant to say that a marriage was “a mistake” - particularly if
there are children involved, mistakes do happen in regards to this issue (23) and for the most part most people get married for
mixed reasons of various weight, and aside from annulling the marriage (23A),
divorce can be a legitimate option here.
Sisters and brothers, when one makes a mistake
usually forgiveness is offered (24), and when one
is forgiven a sin one does not look back at what one did (24A) but
looks forward and moves on. The idea that there is no forgiveness for sin in
this area is preposterous and the idea that there is no grace for repentance is
equally preposterous as well. Repentance involves a ‘change of direction’ and
change of direction in this area could mean leaving a mistake and moving on.
Now in regards to the issue of vows and mistakes this will be handled in a
later chapter, but biblically speaking people can be released from vows under a
number of criteria (25), and even in
the new covenant are encouraged to leave certain
relationships (26). Therefore because of this vows and oaths in regards
to this issue are not as solid as one might think and as a result grace for
repentance in regards to making a (or any) mistake in this area is available.
Conclusion
Brothers and sisters in regards to this issue
of ‘assumptions,’ assumptions underlie a lot of thinking in life and in regards
to the issue of divorce usually revolve around the idea that the law of
marriage is rock solid and / or
misunderstandings regarding God’s grace and mercy in regards to forgiveness (and
forgetting the past). Sisters and brothers people we called out
of illegitimate vows (or covenants) under Ezra and Nehemiah (26A) and under the new covenant vows can even be negated
for the sake of God’s overriding purposes (1 Corinthians 7:29). Terms like
vows, covenants (legitimate / illegitimate), contracts, ground, mercy,
forgiveness, restoration and even maturity need to be thoroughly thought out –
and defined - in regards to this entire issue.
Brethren, in regards to any personal decisions
in these matters one ought to question everything one
believes in regards to this issue and especially why one
believes what they believes before making any (personal) conclusions or
decisions - one way or the other - on this matter (27).
Why you believe what you believe is important (27A).
______
See Chapter 15 before final
rewrite
Chapter 4
Covenant or Contract?
Which is it?
“and I
saw for all the adulteries of faithless Israel (northern kingdom), I had sent
her away, and given her a writ of divorce…” (Jeremiah 3:8)
Sisters and brothers, the view that states that
once married that’s it and there is no such thing as divorce is not biblical
for even God himself divorced the northern kingdom - Israel (not
the southern, which included Judah or Benjamin) and eventually went on to bring
in (or in essence marry) another - the gentiles to make the surviving portion
of Israel jealous (28).
Once again brethren (and this is important for
those who fell that a covenant is quote on quote forever), God did in fact
“cancel” His covenant, or contract, or pact (29) with
a large numeric portion of Israel, and did so for reason (30).
Now the question of what a marriage is
(covenant or contract?) and how that definition relates to the issue of divorce
has been debated for quite some time, however the difference between a covenant
and contract is something that can also boil down to semantics since both can
be binding. Covenants [as in covenants between people (not contracts between
them per say)] are basically sacred “contracts” which are sacred because they
bring in a third party – God – to oversee the parties promises to one another (31)
The
parties involved are not “given” to God (32) and because of that could actually be repented
over (32A), rejected (32B), annulled (32C), as well
as creatively adjusted (32D). They – because we
are imperfect beings – are not unalterable (32E). The thing is because we are dealing with
promises – not sworn statements and / or promises (33) – in regards to covenants with
one another [that is between people (34)], they
can easily be changed (or altered) – especially if mutually agreed upon (35) –
since again God is only overseeing the agreed upon – or even altered -
arrangement (36),
and are not made explicitly with (or by) God which can result in a very
different outcome (36A)]
“Now… if
you… diligently obey the Lord your God, being careful to (obey the pact)…all
these blessings shall come upon you… but it shall come about, if you will not
obey (the pact)… that all these curses shall come upon you (as well)…” (Deuteronomy
28:1,2,15)
““Then Joshua said to the people, “You will not
be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will
not forgive (as in ‘let slide’) your transgression(s) or your sins.”” (Joshua
24:19)
“Behold the days are coming declares the Lord (that because
this arrangement didn’t work)…I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and the house of Judah… (and) I will put My law (36B) within
them, and on their hearts I will write it…” (Jeremiah 31:31,33) (36C)
The thing is marriages are not sealed with an
oath in scripture, or a swearing to do something but something more along the
lines of contractual promises (or in modern terms vows) and although oaths,
swearing and vows describe basically the same activities in some minds they
might be a little different [strength wise (36D)]. However the question of whether an
individual (believer) can unilaterally - without ground, or sound reason, or
the leading of God – alter or end a legitimate (believer / believer) covenant (37) without
the consent of the other party can be an issue for some individuals (or
under certain circumstances) and is a question - and issue - that may in fact
always be there (37A) [that is: from the position of only law (38)].
However
aside from that question [as well as the question of - from a legal (law)
perspective - if promises (vows, oaths) - outside certain exceptions listed -
can be unilaterally negated)], contracts (covenants) can be adjusted, and even
ended (39).
Brethren, if God made a “pact” and ended it, so
can we (Jeremiah 3:8). Therefore the difference between a (signed) contract and
a (holy) covenant is pretty much semantics as far as we’re concerned. Botha are
treated pretty much the same.
______
40)
49)
Chapter 5
Biblical Engagement Covenants
What is a Wife?
(Something to Note in Regards to Jesus Statement on Divorce)
A Quick Word (F.Y.I)
Biblically speaking a wife can be a number of things, with most of the non-traditional
ideas not being found in western culture (40). The reasons I
include this chapter here is twofold, the first is that to understand biblical
engagement covenants is to more than likely understand Jesus main statement on
grounds for divorce (40A), and secondly
some people may have legitimate (legally biblically speaking) issues (concerns)
in regards to old engagement promises - especially as they read this chapter -
and may need to be resolved (40B) [and may
actually be an interesting “back way” to getting at grounds for divorce,
annulling and / or even altering a current covenant (that is: if God is leading
you in those directions (40C))].
Biblical Engagement Covenants [Contracts (40D)]
In Biblical Judaism there were steps to a
marriage (40E),
and if there were no grounds for ending it at each and every step the marriage
would go through. Such steps can be seen in Gods multi-step covenant with
Abraham that begins with a promise and ends with the sealing of the covenant
and the steps involved faithfulness, belief and trust all of which revolve
around a waiting (or even testing) period (41). Jesus in the
scriptures, when He talks about grounds for divorce does not use the word
adultery (as in a post marriage
sense) but fornication (or unchasteness) which is more in line with the Jewish
understanding of a post engagement pre-marital state of affairs (41A).
The problem is when one today reads Jesus
statements on grounds for divorce (41A-1) - if one is
of Gentile background and does not understand the (biblical) Jewish concept of
“wife” (41B)
- when one sees the term “wife” in Jesus divorce exemption (Matthew 5:31,32
& 19:9) one automatically thinks of and assumes that Jesus is speaking of adultery [that is: a post marital term (41C)] as grounds for divorce
when that is not the word Jesus uses in his discussion but fornication (which
again is translated as unchasteness). In other words Jesus is more than likely (41D) speaking of a post engagement / pre-marital state of
affairs (41E), and once married (or you went through the steps)
that (appears to be) it (41F), as do the rest
of the gospel bear witness too.
The Use of Unfaithfulness During the
Engagement Period as Grounds
I don’t think there is any question here that
from a biblical legal perspective
that if some act of unfaithfulness happened during an engagement period that
that would be grounds for divorce (or ending the agreement). However one can also
choose to work with a “person” [like God did (and still does) with physical Israel
(41G)]
or one may not to [like God also did with Saul (42) and
Jeroboam (42A)].
It’s totally up to the (injured) person and a lot may depend on the intent, or reason
or “the why(s)” behind the particular sin (42B). However since the engagement period is a
testing period and one party failed the test an injured party would be within
their rights to end the agreement – especially when you are dealing with the
relative issue of loss (42C) and how much loss [or loss of “value” (42D)] a
person can take.
How about Post Marriage?
Note: while this will be covered in detail
later in Chapter ___ on Annulments it ought
to be pointed out quickly here that the argument that says no to a “faulty foundation exemption” (43) is
based mostly on Joshua’s bound agreement with the Gibeonites [who actually
outright lied about the foundation of their relationship or covenant (43A)]
and how that agreement, with the exception of Saul (43B), continued to be honored
throughout their relationship with Israel (43C). The thing about that agreement (as well as
others in scripture) is that they are usually sealed with an oath, vow or a
sworn agreement, which is not something that a marriage is usually sealed with
[but more of a promise to one another (43D)], which does have bearing on some aspects of
this issue (43E)
Super-Secret Marriages
Although these are few and far between such
thing as a super-secret marriage [that is an exchange of marital promises (usually
by people who will not be living together in the near term {as in teens}) with
no authority present (not eloping per say)] can and does happen (43F) is an allowable and a valid covenant (43G). Upon
discovery such a thing is beyond an engagement covenant and ought to be treated
like a marriage and can actually negate a current relationship in regards to
ground [however once again it is usually something that is not sealed with a
sworn oath or even a vow but more of a promise which again does have bearing on
some aspects of this issue (43H)].
Conclusion
Brethren, as said at the beginning of this
chapter this is a quick word on the engagement covenant that does branch off
into a number of related issues (44). In regards to the (biblical legal)
engagement contract and its implications and effects on modern relationships it
appears that once an agreement is made (44A), if there are no grounds for ending it (44B) biblically
speaking it stays and can probably be revisited years later by either party even
if grounds exist [for one can wave grounds (as in forgiveness)]. A subsequent
marriage to another [especially for a woman (44C)] can break the previous
engagement agreement due to unfaithfulness, but again it doesn’t have to and
depends on the parties involved. However legally (biblically legally) speaking
if there are in fact ‘unfaithful grounds’ (44D) one is within their rights to end the
previous engagement agreement (44E) (or usually verbal contract) and say so to
the other party.
In regards to all this effect on a current
marriage if there is a legitimate (45) ex promised “spouse”
out there it can affect the current relationship on the basis of the faulty
foundation (or base) of the current agreement (45A) and
again whose resolution would be subject to the (two or possibly three) parties
involved [as in annulling, amending, leaving it alone (45B) and for some - divorcing (45C) the
current relationship (45D)], and in regards to a discovered act of
unfaithfulness during the engagement of a current marriage and or a false
foundation of it, it depends on how one views the ceremonial words that were
said to each other – promises or vows –
which can determine a course of action in either case if one desires to do so.
Brethren remember in regards to this issue it’s
important to define and separate ones categories, and annulling, amending and
divorcing are three different terms that relate to this issue (as well as
leaving things alone).
______
48)
69)
Chapter 6
The Issue of Vows
“But if
you (do this)… then we shall be free of our oath,
which you have made us swear.” (Joshua 2:20)
(Note:
Israel’s covenant with Rahab is a good example on how a party can be
released from an oath).
Once again as said in Footnote 34, Vows, Oaths and Swearing
are actually three different words that define the same activity (or different
aspects of it); that is giving ones word in such a way that it usually locks or
“locks” one in to the statement (48) that was made, and if the statement (promise or act) is not
preformed, or turns out not to be true, it tends to say something highly
negative about the person (49).
For many vows, oaths and
swearing operate on a higher level than ‘a promise’ by itself. It “up’s” and
enforces ones word (promise) and puts a sense of seriousness behind it (49A) and
is beyond a simple yes or no (49B). You commonly see the
“upping” of ones word in a court of law where the bailiff puts a witness ‘under
oath‘ and makes them “swear” to tell the truth. When this is done one is
“raising the bar” on ones word by vowing (or taking a vow)
which in effect means the witness will not play games and will tell the truth on a
particular matter before the court - so help
me (to tell this particular truth) God
(50).
Once again in scripture
the words “Vow,” “Oath” and “Swear” are used interchangeably and are basically
interchangeable words (50A).
Understanding
Vows
Brothers and sisters, under the old
covenant there were rules and regulations given to govern the use of vows (that
is: under what circumstances they were to be accepted). Believe it or not they
could very well be something that did not
lock people in, where not
iron clad, and could be changed, for
example consider the following four categories regarding the flexibility of
vows…
Repentance
over Difficult Vows
Vowing to
the “Impossible”
“Again, the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak to the sons of
Israel and say to them, ‘When a man makes a difficult vow…” (Leviticus
27:1 and following)
And although this verse has been mentioned in
the footnotes, if you read this chapter in the
book of Leviticus it concerns the making of difficult vows and
how to redeem them. The particular verse mentioned here expressly says
that if the person who made the vow considered it too hard to fulfill [unless
it concerned something dedicated to the Lord (50B)], the person could pay a fine
and be released from it. Now this verse in the bible and is part of the quote
unquote “rock solid” laws of
Moses (50C),
and even though it’s true that you will find more grace under the New Covenant than
the old there is still grace found here and
it was not as rock hard as one might
expect and offered people leeway. Thus in regards to the Mosaic law if one made
a vow and it turned out to be difficult to fulfill there was a way out of it.
The Annulling of Vows that were a Mistake
Sisters, a woman’s vows [that is: a woman living under the
roof of her father in her youth (50D)], could be annulled by her father
“…if… her father
should forbid her ON THE DAY he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations
by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her
because her father had forbidden her” (Numbers 30:5)
Also, a woman’s vows could be annulled by her husband too…
“However if (the woman)… should
marry while under her (pre-marital) vows or the rash statement of her lips by
which she has bound herself and her (now married) husband hears of (these
previous vows) and says nothing to her on the day he hears of it, then her vows
shall stand… But if ON THE DAY her husband hears of
it (the vow), he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow
which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound
herself; and the Lord will forgive her (Numbers 30:8)
Therefore once again, we find the classic definition of a
vow as being a rock solid thing not true. Women - under certain circumstances -
were offered quite a bit of leeway in this area, one in regards to her father
(that is)
(1) if the vow was said in her youth
(2) and she was living in her father’s house
(3) and he annulled it on the day he heard about it - which
could be quite some time from the actual date of the vow
and second, in regards to her husband [that is he could also
annul it, even if made before they got married (50E)].
The Non-Acceptance of Vows
“In respect to an ox or a lamb which
has an overgrown or stunted member, you may present it for a
freewill offering, but for a vow it
shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23)
Brethren, if you were going to make a vow and part of the
vow included the offering of something that wasn’t right, then the vow would
not be accepted and therefore could be voided (50F).
and…
the Creative Adjustment of Vows
(Vows with Unexpected
Consequences)
(Two
Examples)
“And Jephthah made a vow to
the Lord and said, “If Thou wilt indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand,
then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me
when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lords, and I
will offer it up as a burnt offering. So Jephthah crossed over to the sons of
Ammon to fight against them, and the Lord gave them into his hand… (then
afterward) when Jephthat came to his house behold his daughter was coming out
(the door) to meet him, and it came about when he saw her that he tore his
cloths and said, ‘Alas my daughter you have brought me very low… for I have given my word to the Lord and
cannot take it back. So she said to him, do to me as you have said… only let me alone for two months” (and
he did as she requested) Judges 11:30-40
Brothers and sisters, when one reads this account one really
wonders about Jephthah and what he meant by the word sacrifice (51).
However, this aside.
Whichever way you view the story, once the daughter (the
subject of the vow) became aware of the vow - even though she was under the
authority of the person who made the vow, she was allowed to add a
request to it - which was granted. Again, the point, the real point (for
our purposes) here is that the vow had wiggle room, even though it concerned
something that was set apart for the Lord (Leviticus 27) it was no so
iron clad that one could not adjust it or delay its implementation (51A).
To put it simply she was allowed to adjust or delay a vow
that was made and it was OK.
Now in regards to the second [more prominent (as in: going
out of one’s way)] example of creatively adjusting a mistaken vow… read the
following scriptural account and note the play between the words “give” and
“take”…
“Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpath saying
“None of us shall give his daughter to (the tribe of)
Benjamin in marriage“…and (as a result) the sons of Israel (became) sorry for
their brother Benjamin and said, “(because of our vow) One tribe is cut off
from Israel today. What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since we
have sworn to the Lord not to give them any of our
daughters in marriage”… Then the elders of the congregation said… “Behold there
is a feast of the Lord… in Shiloh… And they commanded the sons of Benjamin (to)
lie in wait… and watch, and behold if the (Israelite) daughters of Shiloh come
out to take part in the dances, then you shall come out and… (take)
a wife…And it shall come about, when their fathers or brothers complain to us,
that we shall say to them, “Give them to us voluntarily (in other words just
let the “taking” situation stand as it is), because we
(made an error and) did not take (from the women of the
tribe of Benjamin whom we all killed) for each man of Benjamin a wife (during
the conflict) … nor did you GIVE (your Israelite women) to
them , else you (too as fellow Israelites) would now be guilty (that is guilty
of breaking the corporate oath) (Judges 21:1-25)
Brethren, this story can be summed up as doing something
rash, sealing it up with a vow, and then trying to figure a way to get the heck
out of that vow which turned out to be not in ones best interest. If you read
the account the elders of Israel became very creative in regards to this matter
and it did work. What they did was, in effect, keep “the letter” of the vow
(that is: they did not GIVE wives to Benjamin), but broke “the
spirit” behind the vow (for they let Benjamin TAKE
wives for themselves) and it was OK (51B).
Thus, once again, in regards to the issue that vows are
solid, lock people in, are iron clad and cannot be changed, we see another
example which illustrates the point that vows (or saying and doing something
rash in this case), are not as solid as one might think and at the minimum
there is flexibility if not a lot more.
Sisters and brothers in regards to
vows, if one has trouble with the concept of not being under the law anymore (51C), you - according to scriptural pretexts’ - are
allowed to use your head to find creative ways out of them, especially if what
you vowed was wrong (and again this creativity was something that was done
under the old covenant) and it would all be OK.
Also, again because they (vows,
oaths and swearing) are an evil thing to do (that is to put oneself under
them), and evil can be repented of, the motivation and ability to just walk
away from them - especially wrong ones -
can also be done.
Therefore, in regards to the situation
of “changed circumstances” in a marriage covenant (51D) if you still have trouble in
regards to the issue of vows “work it out” (as in be creative) until you can
live with what your conscience will allow you to live with, especially if what
you vowed was wrong (51E).
Let’s go on…
Christians,
Vows and Marriage
Brothers and sisters, once again
under the old covenant there were rules and regulations given to govern the use
of vows (basically under what circumstances they were to be accepted). However
under the new covenant once again vows (oaths, swearing) are discouraged (52) Christians are not to vow and while such a concept
may be debated by some Christians in regards to civil action and function -
such a concept is not debatable in regards to matters of Christian religion,
belief or practice.
Now what does this mean in regards
to marriage? Particularly the question (or questions) at hand of ending,
altering or amending of a marital covenant?
Believe it or not the concept of
Christians ‘not vowing’ [or repenting of the evil of
making them (53)] has interesting implications in regards to this
issue for if the new covenant marriage ceremony was done correctly,
it’s not vows [or wedding vows, for they (that is vows) are not to be exchange]
but what links or “links” people together is ones word (or wedding words) as
best as one sees them (54).
The word “vow” ought again not even
be mentioned.
Therefore in regards to the issue of
divorce, altering or amending a marriage covenant - if the ceremony was
correctly done (55) and / or we are repenting of the evil of making them - we are not dealing with the level of an oath or vow
here (anymore), but more along the line of a promise (56).
Christian marriage is to be held
together by ones word, period (57) which in unforeseen circumstances - as with any word
- might and can be changed [the interesting implication (57A)], and can be changed
particularly in regards to changed circumstances, and particularly if agreed on
mutually by both parties.
“But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by
heaven or by earth, or with any other oath; but let your yes be yes and your
no, no; so that you may not fall under judgment.” (James 5:12)
Anything else in
addition to one’s word is not right for again its putting one on higher plane,
a plane where - for one reason or another - God does not want us to function.
We are not all-knowing and things may change especially as we mature (58).
Brothers and sisters trying to get
all this proper thinking about things into your head is probably where most
peoples focus ought to be at in regards to this entire issue [not condemning
people (58A)]
for once again, in regards to the new covenant, vows are equated with evil (a
strong statement, Matthew 5:37) and evil can be repented over – especially when
confronted with changed circumstances.
Brethren, it’s now ‘ones word’ (Yes
Yes; or promises) that is the basis of solidifying things, and again this lowered threshold can and does has
implications in regards to “unforeseen circumstances” with this issue. Things
can change and be change as Christians - especially when it’s mutually
agreed upon.
and remember, it’s about life (59)
______
70)
88)
Chapter 7
Illegitimate Covenants
Both Primary and Secondary
Foundations
of Contract Law
“for Herod himself had sent and had John
arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother
Philip, because he had married her, for John had been saying to Herod, “It is
not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” (Mark 6:17,18) (70)
Brothers and sisters, this chapter is a lot
like the chapter on Engagement Covenants except it deals with wrongly established
marriage covenants (71) and the mechanism behind dissolving them.
Basically in this chapter the marriage itself is illegitimate (or has become
illegitimate) in that one or both parties were…
*not available to be married (72).
*or something has become foundationally wrong
with the marriage (73).
As said in a previous footnote even for those
who agree that a marriage is a marriage and one ought not divorce would
probably call Micals (David’s wife) second marriage (relationship) illegitimate
and would allow for not only the dissolving of it but also her return to her
husband [verse needed (73A)] as well as Philips wife from
Herod (Mark 6:17,18). Therefore given this, that there are in fact illegitimate covenants (or relationships) out there
that can be dissolved, we need to be careful about a universal application
of Jesus no divorce statement [in other words since there are illegitimate
marriages (as in: secondary marriages) or marriages that become illegitimate
(primary mostly) that not only revolve around current arrangements, but also
revolve (legally speaking) around the previous issues mentioned in this book
(as well as what will be mentioned) we need to be careful in regards to any blanket application of Jesus divorce / remarriage statement [see again Chapter ___ and Footnote ___ regarding not only
the divorce from an illegitimate arrangement but also reasons for a legitimate remarriage
(see also 1 Corinthians 7:15)].
The
Making of Bad Agreements
Faulty logic and wishful thinking
Legitimate vs. the Illegitimate
and the Renegotiated
Sisters and brothers, people - including
Christians - can make bad decisions and in regards to decisions in this area
they can be multi-fold (74). While most Christians will not argue much
about the ending of relationships made between Christians and unbelievers,
believer / believer ending decisions are subject to much debate - especially in
regards to secondary (or post salvation) decisions (74A). In regards to that topic the
subject of legitimate and illegitimate can still come up (74B). Sisters and brothers, while
putting aside exceptions and / or mitigating circumstances for a moment (with
the issue of mitigating circumstances effecting quite a few things here), the
question of bad agreements – even wrong or even illegal agreements (including
the ending of legitimate ones) can haunt people years after a decision is made.
Now this does not mean that one cannot go back and undue things and there are
enough testimonies about this that it is not uncommon (74B-1). However truth be told most
people don’t and chalk the past up to “life” (in one way or another), and usually
go forward the best they can (74C).
Brethren, faulty logic and wishful thinking is
the basis of a lot of relationships out there with people trying to change one
another as well as hoping for things that may not happen (or are unrealistic).
Those two points in and of themselves do not define a legitimate vs.
illegitimate agreement (or covenant) but more define the making of a bad
agreement especially if one or both parties based their joint future on some
“iffy” hopes (74D).
The thing is in regards to legitimate vs.
illegitimate covenants while love can be blind (which is OK and needed) at the
minimum both parties must be available
to enter into a marriage (74E) and the foundation of it must be up front
and correct (74F).
If either party is unavailable the covenant is illegitimate and if the foundation is off the covenant has become illegitimate (74G) and
in both cases the covenant can be ended (74H).
But what if there are no grounds (and the
covenant is and remains legitimate) can a covenant be ended unilaterally
without the consent of the other party?
Suppose you hired a contractor and made an
agreement that he would build an addition to your house for $5.000 and then he
went to the lumber yard and because of a recent forest fire the price of lumber
doubled and it would now cost $7.000 dollars to build your addition – but he
gave his word and you had a deal. If you were unreasonable you might say a deal
is a deal, but he might walk. If you were reasonable you might renegotiate and
/ or just end it due to the unexpected expenses (circumstances). The same can
be true in regards to the unilateral ending of a marriage agreement. Even if
there are no grounds - unexpected circumstances - can bring them about and the
deal that was, is now up in the air (75)
Brothers and sisters in regards to this point even
if there are no grounds - unexpected circumstances - while not making the
covenant illegitimate can cause it to become unstable and as a result - like
the contractor story - an agreement can be renegotiated (75A) or
more than likely just unilaterally ended (75B).
The Issue
of Homosexuality
and the
Making of Foundationally Wrong Agreements
Are
Homosexual Covenants Legal?
How about
Proper?
In regards to the
issue of homosexuality (76), it would be
proper to draw a distinction between homosexual love (77), and the homosexual act
itself (78).
Biblically Jonathan
loved David and they made a covenant of great love with one another (verses needed) so the issue of the properness of
people of the same sex actually making covenant (of love) with one another is
mute – there is nothing wrong with it. Thus domestic partnerships are fine,
even if made between the same sex. However the question of calling such a
covenant a “marriage” can be another matter (depending on how one defines the
word). If by marriage one means ‘sexual relations’… because the honesty and
integrity behind the sexual act is called into question, the honesty or
integrity of the “marriage” is called into question as well. Orthodox churches
can annul a marriage if there is no sex [or if people enter into the covenant
under false ‘sexual’ pretenses (79)],
thus making the requirement of sex part of the definition of marriage (79A).
Therefore in regards
to the question as to whether a homosexual covenant is legal, one could
say yes both biblically and civilly as in domestic partnerships, however in
regards to the issue as to whether it is an actual marriage is where
civil law not only splits from the common definition of the word, but because
the actual honesty and integrity behind the act is called into question, it
would split from the definition of the word marriage and it would not be proper
to call it marriage at all. Therefore in regards to this issue ‘homosexual
marriages’ may be legal but they are not proper and because of that they can be
annulled or walked out on.
Conclusion
“Do not be bound together (unequally
yoked) with…” (2 Corinthians 6:14)
Once again as stated in Footnote
117 in regards to the issue of covenants
and proper foundation, if certain building blocks (or steps) were lacking, a
covenant would be without proper foundation and something could be done about
it. For example, the following steps were…
After which
the Covenant was sealed [ratified, consummated etc. (79B)], and again if any of these
things did not materialize or were violated the covenant would become unstable
(and by our standards possibly ended)
Brethren, the
thing is we are dealing with law throughout this chapter, and if one has ground
to end a covenant that is one thing, but if there is no ground and one wishes
to keep it and strictly follow the letter of the agreement in regards to this
area? (80) Brethren, while such a desire is honorable
(and can have a point), such desires can
almost always overlook some type of legitimate grounds for the dissolving (annulling
/ amending) of a marriage (81), as well
as legitimate grounds for divorce (82), gray areas (82A), and
the leading of God (83).
Some relationships are an absolute wreck [or
need something (83A)],
and for people to stay in them no matter
what [or not amend them (83B)] only for the sake of one’s word, while it
can be quite honorable can be highly questionable at times as well (83C).
Brothers and sisters as the just mentioned
verse states there is such a thing as inequity in covenants (or in fact
illegality of covenants) and in that section of scripture, if you look at it, they can be dissolved, and not only
that, but people are in fact encouraged to come out of them…
“Therefore
come
out…says the Lord…and I will welcome you…” (2 Corinthians 6:17)
Remember it’s not that such a thing
can’t be done, it can, and that verse (and ff) as well as other verses explain the
mechanism behind it. The real question is how wide one wants to make this
“illegality area” (as in Illegal Covenants, primary and secondary) or “ground
area” (or reasons) in regards to the ending / altering / amending of a marriage
that is the subject of debate among Christians, it’s not that it can’t be done (83D).
The thing is sisters and brothers in regards to
the position of law (or legally speaking about things) remember we are not
under law so when one mentions the idea that doing something is illegal that
ought to raise red flags in ones thinking for as we will see later, life is
about life, not law. However the idea of ‘the proper and appropriate’ and what
is fair and decent (as in the contractor story) can still come into play as
well, so we need to be fair about things too especially with fellow believers (84) if
led in this direction (85).
Sisters and brothers in conclusion, scripturally
speaking men are probably always available to be married even if they are, for while closed covenants are legally allowed
(civilly), scripturally speaking they may not be (however sisters are not always available), and in regards
to the foundation of a marriage such a thing as a foundation of a marriage
becoming faulty can happen and when it does - for sisters especially - that is the thing
that leaves the door open other possibilities for one’s life [but again all
this is from the position of law (in one way or the other), and not so much from
the position of life or following with (or allowing one another to flow with) the
flow of life].
Remember again it’s about life (not law).
______89A)
89)
109)
Chapter 8
Biblical Grounds for Annulments
Another way of Looking at the Issue
“…then he shall annul her vow which she is
under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and
the Lord will forgive her” (Numbers 30:8)
The Negating for cause Primary (first) Marriages
and Secondary (second) Illegitimate Marriages
I was never married
Brethren, to annul means to cancel out, and to
annul a marriage means to void it as if it never happened, as if it never took place (89A). Annulments are different than
divorce in that it regards the faulty foundation of a Marriage [and not post-(legitimate) marriage reasons (89A-1) (which is the subject matter
of divorce)] and like divorce there can be ground for (civil) action.
Biblically speaking the concept of ‘annul’ is used
in the sense of annulling a vow (which also happens to be the foundation of a
marriage). The concept of ‘annulling a marriage’ is a church term, and is not a
term used in the bible. The concept (or idea) of cancelling a marriage or
marriage obligations is (89B), but annulling (or voiding it) it as if it
never happened is not (89C).
What basically happened is that somewhere along
the line - since the Roman Catholic Church was basically the only church around
and
divorce was frowned upon - someone (89D), took a couple of verses and became very
creative and established a formal format that undermined (voided) the
foundation of marriage for many just causes (89E),
and a popular idea sprung forth that marriage could be voided - as if
it never happened.
Now although ‘annulling a marriage’ is not a
term found in the bible, canceling a marriage (or obligation) on the basis of annulling a vow is, so for our purposes we will use
the term ‘annulling a marriage’ in that sense and that is annulling or voiding the vow that underlies it
(89F), thereby
cancelling a marriage (89G).
Annulments
of Vows
Faulty Words
“I shouldn’t have said that”
(What was I thinking?)
“But if her father should forbid her on the day
he hears of it (that is her vow), none
of her vows of her obligations by which she has bound
herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her
father had forbidden her.” (Numbers 30:5)
Brothers and sisters while one can draw a
number of points and principles from this chapter in Numbers, in this
particular verse we find the principle of mercy being extended for the sake of
- not the person who made a vow (per say), but a person being affected by it
(namely the father), and although one can draw a proper parallel between the
earthly father in this passage and the heavenly Father (90), to extend mercy to the person who also made a wrong vow is not unheard of either…
“However if (the woman)… should marry (that is leave her
father house and enter the house of another) while under her vows or the rash
statement of her lips by which she has bound herself and her (now married, new)
husband (’s “house”) hears of (these previous vows)… on the day her husband
hears of it (the vow), (if) he forbids her, then he shall annul her
vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she
has bound herself; and the Lord will forgive her (Numbers 30:8)
Now one can be creative here and see this vow
as a previous marriage covenant (91), however it does not seem to be the context in
the passage here, however the concept
is valid (91A)
and can be applicably used in the sense of extending mercy to the woman as well
(92).
Brethren, when viewing this entire chapter in
Numbers regarding vows, oaths etc. the concept of mercy does come out and in
regards to Numbers 30’s influence on the concept of voiding a marriage (that is: the vows that underlie it) it does
carry a lot of weight.
Annulments
of Marriages
Grounds
for Cancelling a Marriage
Once again Annulments are different than
divorce in that it regards the faulty foundation of a Marriage and like divorce
there can be ground for the action. In regards to Annulments some “fault” was
found in the original arrangement [for example of fault again see Jesus divorce
exemption (92A)],
and while it can be argued that in regards to “ignorance” as reason for
annulment (92B)
quite honestly nobody really knows what they are doing when they get married, so
that in and of itself may or may not be an acceptable excuse for usually
everyone has at least have some idea (92C). However the assumption that one is “in and
of a sound mind” (93A) is usually a given and if it is not there then ones words
can be questionable (93B) which might
lead to the faulty foundation of a contract (or covenant) which can also lead
to its negation.
Thus in regards to grounds for cancelling
(annulling) a marriage any activity that causes one to not be of or in a sound mind when they made the decision (as in
drunk, on medication, even psychological reasons, etc.) can qualify for an
annulment - if one honestly believes that any of these
things had undue influence on their
decision. Now in regards to the issue of “undue influence” one needs to be
careful for usually something ‘tips the scales’ in all marriage decisions here
– and it’s not always love (per say), but yet can still be legitimate tipping
(1 Corinthians 7:2,9), however there are unfair “tipsters” out there too (93B-1).
David,
Mical (and Marriage Covenants with Unbelievers in the New Testament)
More on
Cancelling a Marriage
Vowing to
Something Illegal
Sisters and brothers, if Number’s Chapter 30
did not exist we have other verses that mention and talk about cancelling a
marriage (93C)
outright regarding David negating Micals marriage to Paltiel (2 Samuel 3:14,15) as well
as the more than likely (the desire at least) of John the Baptist to have Herod
return Herodias to Philip (Mark
6:17,18).
The thing is as mentioned before in
regards to canceling of legitimate covenants (93C-1) there will probably always
be a question as to whether it can be done
1) without cause (or ground)
2) and unilaterally [that is: without mutual agreement (93C-2)].
from a legal (law) perspective (93D) and in regards to these verses there is cause –
certainly with David (93E). However this aside, as well as the question
of whether we are dealing with an actual divorce or an annulment in these
verses (93F)
what we see here is still another ground for dissolving / ending a marriage and
that is if it is illegitimate [as in: a without grounds (unilateral) second marriage].
Brethren, remember that in regards to the
illegitimacy of a covenant remember the point that a new covenant [for example:
a 2nd covenant (marriage)], can be legitimately nullified by another covenant
(that is: let’s say a 3rd renewed covenant), because of a pre-existing 1st
covenant. For example, when the people returning from the exile chose to renew
their 1st covenant (Ezra 10:3,5; Nehemiah 10:26-30), it was almost
like making a new 3rd covenant with God (that is: they rededicate
themselves to the first one or
possibly entered into it for the first time) and that act of rededication will wipe out any unfaithful covenants made
in-between the 1st and 3rd covenants, such as their marrying foreign women
[which they did (see Ezra 10:2,3 & Nehemiah 13:23)] or relationships with false harlot god’s for
that matter (93G).
In other words “acts of rededication”
will wipe out mistakes and will nullify (annul) second covenants (93H), thus
we have another area in which the concept of annulment can be applied –
illegitimate (or without ground) second covenants (93 I) can be nullified (annulled).
Married
as Unbelievers
Still More on Canceling a Marriage
In regard to the concept of covenants -
legitimate covenants (94), people who marry as unbelievers and get
saved have had – strictly speaking – all their old agreements negated (94A),
and have joined up with another – God (94B).
This being the case it leaves the door open to
other options for their lives and is in effect an annulment of their of their
marriage – if they (or one) want(s) it. The idea that both parties - if they
get save together (94C), have “baptized” all old agreements is not
proper (94C-1).
At the minimum you have is a new foundation of the marriage – God –
which broke up everything (94D), and promises
can be restated (or renewed) or not. For a Christian or a church
to hold two new believers to their old arrangement – while it may sound nice
(and could be forthcoming and is a wonderful testimony) – is strictly speaking not legally required according to the concept
of ‘foundation of legitimate covenants’ for things have changed – as well as
possibly even the directions (and callings) of the spouses involved.
Brothers and sisters, if you happen to find
yourself in such a situation (that is: being unsaved together and together, and
now saved together and together), if you decide to end your agreement you can but
it probably ought to be mutually done without (public) cause or ground because
you are sisters and brothers [as in saying: “we decided to mutually
agree on (legitimately) canceling our arrangement for either personal reasons
and / or different callings”]. Although this point will be brought up again in
the next chapter on divorce it may fall more under annulments that divorce
itself.
Super-Secret
Marriages (again)
Although this has been mentioned previously a super-secret
marriage [that is an exchange of marital promises (usually by people who will
not be living together in the near term {as in teens}) with no authority
present (not eloping per say)] can and does happen is
an allowable and a valid covenant (94 D-1). Upon discovery again such a thing is
beyond an engagement covenant and is to be treated like a marriage and can
actually negate a current relationship in regards to ground (however once again
it is usually something that is not sealed with a sworn oath or even a vow, but
more of a promise which again does have bearing on some aspects of this issue
and can qualify for annulment by the second husband if it was done without the
fathers permission (as too the father if she is living under his roof).
Offended
Spouses
Victims
of Law – and sometimes Immaturity
Societal
(Civil) Ramifications
and Getting Even
“I’m not filling for
divorce, but annulment” (94E)
Revisiting old divorce cases (94F)
Basically an offended spouse is the victim of
the action (95), and although there are verses speaking of God’s
compassion for an abandoned spouse (95A), in the Law,
God allows for the dissolving and ending of a marriage. Nevertheless the thing
is in regards to ‘grounds’ in the case of Annulments, unlike divorce they
regard the faulty foundation of a Marriage and as mentioned before some “fault”
was found in the original arrangement (95B), and
biblically women are more often than not ‘the victims’ of such an action (95C), and
because of that one could argue that the annulment verses in scripture are
geared for women to save their reputations from divorce (or the divorce verses)
that seen to be geared towards men.
The thing is in regards to the New Covenant
(unlike the old) strength is given to deal with things whatever they are, the
strength of a new mind, new heart and the Holy Spirit within. Because of this
‘offended spouses’ - the victims of such an action, can always bring up this fact
before such an action is taken.
Because men (biblically speaking) are usually
the people who initiate things – like divorce (95C-1) and
women are more the victims they ought to take care because women are social
creatures (95D),
and such a thing can be devastating for them on a number of levels (95E)
For a new covenant spouse to fall back on old
covenant law is questionable when dealing with a new covenant spouse -
particularly since we and not under that covenant anymore and are maturing (95F)
Men who discard new covenant spouses can say a
lot about themselves
However even though this is true, this in and
of itself does not mean that such a thing can’t be done for a whole host of
legitimate reasons – including personal
Brothers and sister although there are
ramifications [and getting even ought not enter into our mindset (96)], filing
for annulments and revisiting old divorce cases can bring about new blessing
depending on how one approaches the issue and ought not be dismissed out of
hand by the church (97). In regards to annulments because we as
Christians are probably dealing with standing in our social circle going to the
church about things is probably the first and best option here [and that is: getting
a ruling from your local church with a “writ” (or a certificate) granting it (98)], for such a thing can take the edge off of divorce (99).
Conclusion
Brethren, as noted in Chapter
___ vows themselves can be ended under a number of conditions and again
we have to remember that marriage vows are not said to God (100), but to each other and God is a witness to
them.
Sisters and brothers in conclusion when one
views the scriptures in regards to vows obviously not only mercy, but
forgiveness is extended in cases of error, mistakes and just plain old lack of
consideration to others, and guilt offerings - the remedies - were given for
reason. Now although we as Christians are not under the law, for those who
still have trouble with the concept of canceling vows in regards marriage, can
still derive these principles from these old covenant laws regarding the
question of annulment (101).
Men who discard new covenant spouses can say a
lot about themselves – as do women who do the same, but at the end of the day we are not to judge a particular situation
unless God has given us insight and only then possibly get involved.
Annulments are different than divorce in that they strike at the foundation of
a marriage for cause (102), however
since few knew what they were doing when they got involved in that arrangement (103) Christians ought to be lenient towards one another
since - quite honestly - everyone seems to have ground of some sort.
Biblically speaking
and the Biblically Inferred
and the Legally Inferred
Note: since most
believers will allow for an exceptions in regards to the issue of divorce and
remarriage - if certain conditions exist, why not annulments as well? So for
those who frown upon this avenue for an individual needs to be careful. Also
note you (or a friend) may
not have grounds for the annulment of your (their) marriage, but you (or they) may
have grounds for divorce – keep reading.
______110)
110)
130)
Chapter 9
Biblical Grounds for Divorce
Believer / Unbeliever Relations
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have
righteousness and lawlessness, or what harmony has Christ with Belial? (pagan
deity), or what has a believer in common (even) with an
unbeliever? Or what agreement (covenant) has the temple of God with
idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God has said... Therefore,
come
out from their midst and separate, says the Lord... And I will welcome
you...(2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
Brothers and sisters in regards to all the
relationships that one can separate, or even divorce over, relationships
between believers and unbelievers are the easiest to solve (110).
Even if you believe based on Jesus statement in the gospels ‘a covenant is a
covenant’ you will see an apostle breaking over Jesus statement regarding
divorce with a clarification - or even an extension – of Jesus thought on the
matter in 1 Corinthians 7:15 (111).
Sisters and brothers, believer and unbelievers
do not mix and even though such relationships can be, and are allowed in both
covenants (112),
if there is even a hint of ‘ground’ for divorce [of which is not even necessary
(113)],
a believer can leave such a relationship if he or she chooses to do so (114).
In regards to justification of this the apostle
in 1 Corinthians 7:15 (115), draws from…
1)
not only God’s treatment of Israel in this
matter (116)
2)
but also basis his reasoning on the Mosaic law
regarding slavery [Exodus 21:9-11; Deuteronomy
7:1-6 (116A)]
3)
and the “slave clause” section of Joshua
9:23,24 that speaks of adding condition (s) to a covenant.
In regards to the issue of slavery here, when
one looks at 1 Corinthians 7:15 regarding an unbeliever leaving, apparently the
apostle draws heavily from Exodus 21:9-11 regarding desertion as grounds for
dissolving a slave / servant relationship (116B).
Also note in regards to the basis used to
support the reasoning behind 1 Corinthians 7:15 (the slave / servant
relationship), even though there is debate as to who is cast in who’s role
(believer / master or slave?), the point in that passage is that there is an inequality in the
relationship which the apostle, in his reasoning, draws heavily upon
and brings out – and due to that inequality – his general desertion clause. Therefore in regards to the Mosaic law he basis it on, grounds for
separation (actually divorce if you see his parallel), are as follows…
Each of which can be used in regards to grounds
for divorce is such a thing is needed (116D), however
remember once again, when one looks at all the verses in the bible regarding
believer / unbeliever divorce, one does not actually need ground for such an
action for not only are such covenants unequal but such covenants are (usually)
without proper foundation (117)
Brothers and sisters, while
one may see Gods pursuing of the gentiles as an example of a believer pursing
an unbeliever for the justification behind the pursuit of such questionable
relationships (118), they are for the most part
frowned upon in scripture – for reason – and believers are encouraged to leave
them – especially when given an opportunity (118A).
The
Illegitimacy of a Covenant
In regards to the legitimacy of a covenant,
let’s say a marital covenant, there are usually steps involved, proper steps (119),
and if all is right in each and every step the “contract” (119A), goes through and is
“ratified” by an oath or an agreement – and some would might action (that is
it’s consummated).
While there is debate over the legitimacy of a
believers marital covenant with unbeliever’s such a thing is inherently without
proper foundation (and can also become without proper foundation if in an
unbelievers marriage one party gets saved). The reasons being many, some legal (120),
and some personal (121), and the right for a believer to end
will always be there (122).
Also in regards to this issue (that is the
illegitimacy of a covenant) remember the point that a covenant (for example: a
2nd covenant), can be legitimately nullified by another covenant (that is: a
3rd covenant), because of a pre-existing 1st covenant (122A).
For example, again when the people returning
from the exile chose to renew their 1st covenant (Ezra 10:3,5;
Nehemiah 10:26-30), it was almost like making a new 3rd covenant
with God (that is: they rededicate themselves to the first one or possibly
entered into it for the first time). That act
of rededication wipes out any unfaithful covenants made in-between the 1st
and 3rd covenants, such as their marrying foreign women [which they did (see Ezra
10:2,3 & Nehemiah 13:23)] or relationships with false harlot god’s for that matter (122B), both are expressly forbidden in the 1st Covenant and
can be AND WERE repented over.
In other words according to this
point “acts of rededication” will wipe out mistakes – including
covenants (122C).
Brothers and sisters,
already we can see due to a number of concepts, principles and verses believer
/ unbeliever covenants can be ended for one reason or another and some without
going into legal grounds to do so [even though legal grounds exist (122D)].
However for those who
wish to see more on the subject of ‘legal grounds’ (122E), I will continue….
God’s Treatment of Israel
Brethren, in regards to continuing evidence
supporting believer / unbeliever divorce one only has to look at God’s
treatment (divorce) of Israel (123), in the bible. God made a covenant with
Israel (123A),
and because Israel (the northern kingdom) was not faithful to it – and pursued
others - they basically negated their agreement and were cast in the role of an
unbeliever (or “the unbeliever” in covenant terminology) in scripture. As a
result God sent many prophets to warn and woo them, but at
the end of the day they – for the most part did not listen. The entire northern
kingdom was divorced and went into un-returnable exile in the land of
Assyria (a kingdom to the north); and the southern kingdom [who was actually
worse than the northern kingdom - but was shown mercy (Jeremiah 3:10,11)] went
into returnable exile in Babylon (a kingdom to the east), many years later (123B)
Brothers and sisters, in regards to legal
grounds there is no doubt that if God could divorce an unbeliever for
unfaithfulness (123C),
so could we and this alone
casts doubt on the view that there is no such thing as a “divorce (for cause)
believer” (123D).
As far as support for the question of a believers divorced from unbelievers remarriage – although the
illustration is debatable – one only has to look at God’s pursuing of the
gentiles for evidence that such a thing can take place (123E).
The Slave Clause Verse Again
Resolving Unfairness
Negation Due to Fraud
Now although there is a
general ‘calling out’ and a believer can just walk out, there are still more
legal arguments (or grounds) as well - - including nuisances.
Brethren, if you
remember the “slave clause” that Joshua LEGALLY added unto his covenant with
the Gibeonites (which God recognized) and was added to it for his protection
(because the enemies – that is: his enemies - were allowed to live and not be
destroyed). It is to be noted here that in regards to this issue, Joshua legally added a condition (or
clause) to a (slave) covenant to resolve an inequity or
unfairness in a covenant (124).
Therefore because of
this we as believers can also add a stipulation to a marriage covenant - if it was entered into by fraud (as
Joshua’s was), because - as
mentioned previously - the foundation of his covenant was false (124A).
Again it goes to the question of
foundation in these cases, and in his particular case, legally put the
stipulation had the potential to negate an established covenant due to
fraud.
Gods
Preference
Conclusion
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and
lawlessness, or what harmony has Christ with Belial? (pagan deity), or
what has a believer in common (even) with an unbeliever? Or what agreement
(covenant) has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the
living God; just as God has said... Therefore, come out from their midst and
separate, says the Lord... And I will welcome you...(2 Corinthians
6:14-18)
Brothers and sisters, in conclusion you can do
more than separate, but actually walk out
on unbelievers relations, and even have them
leave you (125)
by enforcing legal grounds, or just end it (125A), and not be bound by your vow
(agreement).
Brothers and sisters again, there
are a lot of variables – and possibilities here in regards to believer /
unbeliever marital covenants, anywhere from…
1) people who entered their relationships unsaved (and now one
is saved),
2) to one party entering a relationship as saved (that is:
they purposely married an unbeliever),
3) to both parties being saved (and now both dealing with the
legitimacy of the old arrangement now that a third party – namely God, has
intervened Himself in the relationship).
One of the things about the “exemption (slave)
clause” section of Joshua with the Gibeonites is that it comes out that an
unstated thing in all relationships between believers and unbelievers is that
they are in the end unstable and without proper foundation (126). Therefore because of this their marriage
covenant is or has become without proper foundation and can legally be ended.
However
even though this is true there are still those who feel – regardless of the
evidence - that unless God is calling you out (as in you heard from God), that
if there are no grounds the believer still cannot leave because of his (your)
oath or vow [which for some can actually be questionably “in play” in some
cases (127)], but remember at the very least
according to scripture (1 Corinthians 7:15), if the unbeliever leaves
[or now abuses or sexual mistreats and fails to provide food and clothing for
the believer (128)], the believer (meaning
you), can be released from your oath and can remarry if you choose. So this being the
case, how binding really is ones oath (or vow)? Not very (128A)
Summation
Sisters and brothers, in summary let me
say that on this
truth God will rest eternal and that is that God does not want his people linked with
unbelievers forever. He may allow it (linking) for a period for reason (see 1
Corinthians 7:12-17), or like with Samson (possibly Ester) allow it for a
particular cause (128B), but in the end
He’d rather the relationship end, then stay. Why? Brothers and sisters the
whole history of Israel - with all the problems they wrestled with - can be
linked to their ties with unbelievers (128C). Unbelievers can cause believers to backslide and
worse. Believer’s who have an unbelieving
spouse leave (128D), ought not
be encouraged by brothers and sisters
to seek them back (128E). They have
perfectly LEGAL ground to end the relationship and have a right to seek God’s
will for their life and remarry if they choose [1 Corinthians 7:15 (128F)]
Brothers and sisters, although a lot has
be talked about in this chapter, to sum it up, a believer / unbeliever marital
covenant can legally be negated in the following ways…
1)
The believer is physically abused by an
unbeliever in a major way.
2)
The believer is neglected by the unbeliever in
a three-fold way [denial of sex and provisions (that is: food and clothing)].
3)
The believer has been lied too regarding
something that was the foundation of their relationship (and the believer adds
a stipulation to their covenant and unbeliever violates it).
4)
The believer was left by an unbeliever [really
deserted (as some take the ‘general leaving’ of 1 Corinthians 7:15)].
5)
The believer can ask (or force) the unbeliever
to leave (especially if they are not content as stated in 1 Corinthians
7:12,13).
6)
The believer can just leave themselves in
accordance with biblical injunctions which includes
A) People who have entered relationships as unsaved (and now one is saved)
B) And one party entering a relationship as saved (that is: they purposely
married an unbeliever)
7)
God can speak directly into a believer’s life
(as in Abraham and Hagar) and tell the believer what to do.
8)
two believers who married as unbelievers have
foundation reasons to do the same as well [or the “salvation exemption” (128G)].
9)
And although not talked about in this chapter
according to Chapter ____ on Annulments since
a husband can negate the vows of a wife (128H) it can
certainly be applied to previous unbeliever marriages.
10)
As well as one final one that is also not
talked about in this chapter but may fall under believer / believer relations
and that is the believer / (became) unbeliever reason for divorce (128 I)
and if you want you can reread this entire
chapter at any time to see the logic behind Points 1-8.
Brethren, as said in the beginning in regards
to all the relationships that one can separate, or even divorce over,
relationships between believers and unbelievers are the easiest to
solve. If you, according to the thinking of this chapter, go this route with
your spouse and as a result any Christian who treats you differently because you -
after having been divorced for the just mentioned reasons - choose to go on
with your life that is their problem, not yours (129).
Sisters and brothers if
you can’t hear from God regarding a “calling out” (129A), and are looking for
legal grounds for your situation, don’t stop at desertion (in general), but
look into any denial of provision, sexual relations as well as abuse for they
qualify as legal grounds as well (and don’t forget to reexamine and reflect on
the foundation of your agreement too). However also remember that such
relationships (believer / unbeliever) are allowed in scripture and for a
person to hear from God in questionable circumstances is probably not a bad
idea either.
______130A)
130A)
160)
Chapter 10
Biblical Grounds for Divorce
Believer / Believer Relations
Brothers and sisters, when talking
about believer / believer covenant relations (130A), you may want to – depending
on where you are coming from – make a distinction between grounds for
annulments; reasons for separations, altering a believer’s marriage covenant (131), and grounds for divorce.
Biblically (again depending on where
you are coming from) you can easily find verses to support the first two (132),
and in regards to altering a marriage covenant it can easily be brought out
with inferences from a number of verses as well (133)
In regards to divorce
(which may be a semantic issue with separation in practical essence being no
different than divorce), the right to remarry seems to be
the thing that makes a difference between the two and it’s more the remarriage
that is frowned upon than the divorce per say (see 1 Corinthians 7:11 in
regards to the priority)] (133A).
Sisters and brothers the thing in
regards to the issue of (believer) divorce in the New Testament is that Jesus,
when speaking of the issue, is speaking to Jews about the Jewish pre-marital
covenant (post engagement) and not adultery (which is post marriage), for in
regards to the (general) issue of “unfaithfulness” two different Greek words
are used to describe what (133B), you are
talking about (134).
If one were to only rely on the New
Testament gospels to back up their right to divorce a believer (135), one would
have to use them properly and go back to some unknown hidden pre-marital
ground found out after a marriage took place to undermine the agreement (136), and although there is disagreement here in regards to the
order and strength of a legitimately made covenant (137), even
one in which in regards to some unknown ground found out after a marriage took
place (137A), there is no doubt that it can be suspended for reason,
and separation take place (138).
Given this, a covenant
is not as rock solid as one might think it is with people able to walk out on
obligations (138A), due to new conditions and a new party – namely God – who can
even alter the arrangement (138B).
Divorce
for Discipline and God Pursuing Another
The
Gentiles
Sisters and brothers remember we get
the majority of our concept of divorce from how God treated Israel and is not
something that is pulled out of “thin air” per say. Although Jesus mentions the
way God originally intended things to be (139), we are not
commanded to go back to that situation and again Jesus was speaking to people
under the law (140).
When studying the issue it is
helpful to make a distinction between verses in the New Testament and verses in
the New Covenant (141), which is a big thing that
leaves open other possibilities for how one views the issue (142)
Now even though 1
Corinthians 7 does allow for believer separation (and not allow for remarriage
by saying ‘not I but the Lord’) the biblical principle that God can say
something to ‘the group’ and something different to ‘the individual’ can still
take place (142A), especially depending on where the believer ‘is at’ (143), and
because of this no one cannot rule out with certainty the possibility of
believer / believer divorce and remarriage completely (143A), and
people do press ahead into what is coming next (144).
Brothers and sisters,
although debatable, God did divorce the northern kingdom (Jeremiah 3:6-11), and
eventually shunned descendants of Jews who had returned from Babylon (that is:
what was left of the southern kingdom) and ended up pursuing mostly the
gentiles (145).
In the New Testament the concept of
‘shunning for discipline’ to bring about shame and repentance is something
still not unheard of in the Christian world (146), and
as God divorced the northern kingdom only to pursue her, so we can divorce – at
least for cause (147) – someone (148), we had a relationship with.
Once Again
Suspension of a Covenant
and
God’s Overriding Purposes
“Truly I say to you,
there is no one who has left house or wife or brother or parents or children
for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times as much at
this time and in the age to come eternal life.” (Luke 18:29,30)
Brothers and sisters, as
said in _____ Hagar is cast as an unbeliever in scripture and
was cast out (the first divorce) all of which has bearing believer / unbeliever
covenants. But what about the use of that story in regards to believer /
believer covenants? Let’s look at a New Testament reiteration of the same
account…
“Tell me, you who want to be under
the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that
Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman… this is
allegorically speaking: for these (two) woman…(represent) two covenants, one
proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves (to the law),
she is Hagar (a slave)… and corresponds to the present Jerusalem… [who is still
to this day (149)] in slavery (under the law) with her children.
But the Jerusalem above (a higher place) is free: she is our mother… and you
brethren, like Isaac are children of promise… so then brethren, we are not
children of a bondwoman (slaves under the law), but of the free woman.”
(Galatians 4:21-31)
Sisters and brothers one
of the first things we notice here is that there is a rebuke directed at those
who desire to live under the law [which
has bearing on a number of issues raise in this book (150)], secondly it’s to be noticed that we as
believers are under another covenant that is not based on law, but actually -
believe it or not – faith, trust and freedom [as in: not slaves (to law), but
freemen (“without” master, per say) (150A)].
Now in regards to the
application of this story - and these points - on the issue of believer /
believer divorce, as mentioned before, God could (like Abraham) call a person
out of a situation (a believer’s marriage) based on a number of issues (151)
and there is nothing
that keeps us from using that story in regards to believer / believer marriages
for God does in fact do this kind of thing
“and another one said (to Him ‘I know you called
me, but), I have married a wife, and for that reason I cannot come.” (Luke
14:20)
In fact, as we have
already seen, we already have an apostle telling people to suspend their
marriage covenants (obligations) for God’s overriding purposes…
“But this I say, brethren, the time
has been shortened so that from now on those who have wives should be as they
had none…” (1 Corinthians 7:29)
So strictly speaking its plain to
see that covenants (agreements) are not as binding as one might think (or
imagine) and based on another gospel verse we can see that God and His purposes
can actually get in the way of covenantal relationships too
“If anyone comes to Me and does not
hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters,
yes even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26) (152)
and when one combines that point
with the point of not being under the law (of vows) anymore (152A) there are a number of quite viable possibilities out
there for believers and their relationships with one another (153).
Brethren, once again there is
nothing limiting God from telling believers [especially in unique circumstances
or individual (non-group) situations (154)] what to do in regards to divorce and
remarriage especially based again on a number of gray areas (155), thus
knowing God as we do, it’s more than likely that God will just tell people what
to do here especially those at the crossroads.
In summary God and His purposes can
not only suspend a believer / believer covenant, but also not even warrant a
goodbye
“and another also said, “I will
follow you Lord, but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.” But
Jesus said to him “No one, after putting his hand to the plow [that is
beginning to (or a) work for God] and (then) looking back, is fit for the
kingdom of God.” [Luke 9:61,62; see also Matthew 19:29 (156)].
And in regards to the issue of
divorce (which is not really an issue), remember it’s the remarriage (157) not the divorce that is the issue (157A).
The Non- Command of 1
Corinthians 7:10, 11
“But to the married (believers), I give instruction,
not I but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does
leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and
that the husband should not send his wife away” (1 Corinthians 7:10,11)
Now although this is brought out in
detail in the Problem Verses
Appendix of this book, it ought to be noted here that the word “instruction” is
not the word “command” and that while lots of advice is given in that chapter
of 1 Corinthians no commands are given at all. Now what this means in regards
to Believer / Believer covenants is that according to this verse they are not
bound by commands from the Lord but more of instructions of which the Holy
Spirit (the other member of the tri-unity) also gives and can be regulated to
an individual’s conscience [as later writings illustrate (157 A-1)]. The bottom line brothers and
sisters is this: if a sister or brother were to get divorced and remarried
again one would be hard pressed to use these verses against them and the only
possibility of using them may be in regards to a without ground unilaterally ended
covenant (157 A-2) otherwise they ought to be
free to remarry.
And
Finally…
The Believer
Became
Unbeliever reason for Divorce
(or believer / (became) unbeliever)
Brothers and sisters although we are
to be careful about judging one another this is a viable reason for divorce and
remarriage among Christians and that is if one renounces their faith in both their
words and deeds (as in they no longer believe)
“(and) The sower went out to sow his
seed… and…(some) seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up it withered
away…” (Luke 8:6)
And if you read the corresponding
explanation of this verse it reads…
“and those on the rocky soil are
those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm
root; they believe for a while, and
in time of temptation fall away”
(Luke 8:13)
Now although there is an eternal
debate out there regarding whether one can lose their salvation (putting aside
the loaded phrase “they believe for a while” as well as the sadness of the
teaching) what we have here is that explanative fact that some believers “wither
away”
as in gone (leave).
Therefore (again putting aside the
sadness of the verse) what we have here is - strictly speaking - at least one
more category of believer / believer reasons for divorce and that is if a believer
became an unbeliever - and although possibly rare (157B) - is possible according to
these verses (157C).
Conclusion
Sisters and brothers, believer
/ believer divorce with
remarriage is a tough concept, but at least in theory it can be done (158), and
in regards to the issue of “remarriage” a Christian man can - at the minimum -
alter (amend) a Christian covenant and get (new)married again (159), and…
alter a Christian covenant and not get “married” at all (See again Appendix _____ regarding the different types of multiple spousal relationships),
and remember altering or amending a covenant is not divorce.
Brothers and sisters,
sisters and brothers, even though the divorce (or Christians) and remarriage (to
other Christians) is (at least - theoretically) possible, believe it or not for
the sincere and dedicated there are still yet other options out there for
Christian men and women to explore other than divorce (160).
God is not a fan of
divorce (Malachi 2:16).
______
161)
175)
Chapter 11
Extra - Biblical Grounds for Divorce
Hearing from God (and the Gifts)
Prophecy
and the Word of Knowledge, Faith, Wisdom and Exhortation
To
shine a light
First off brethren, before we begin
one has to acknowledge here (as in sincere belief) that since Jesus is the same
yesterday, today and forever (Hebrew 13:8) and that He still alive! and still
speaks to us even today (161) that God
could at the minimum tell Christians to separate (that is suspend vowed
obligations) from one another for God’s overriding purposes (1 Corinthians
7:29) if not more.
We also have seen that an apostle –
through possibly his calling (161A) and gifts (161B) – tell believers that if married to an unbeliever (and
they leave) that they could not only get a divorced, but actually remarried (1
Corinthians 7:15) and given such things as the calling of God on one’s life (162) the likelihood that such a thing as a separation -
and even a divorce - might happen to a Christian (at least in regards to a marriage
with an unbeliever) is a real possibility and at the minimum in regards to
Christian / Christian relations, Christians are again allowed to separate from
one another for not only those same overriding purposes (1 Corinthians
7:29), but also for not seeing “eye to eye” (1 Corinthians 7:11), and all this is allowed in scripture without hearing from God
directly per say.
Now in regards to Extra - Biblical Grounds for Divorce: Hearing from God (and the Gifts)
we have just mentioned in this chapter about a half a dozen scriptures that an
individual (or a person flowing with the gifts) can key / springboard off of and
flow with (163) in regards to guiding principles of what to
do in a particular fitting situation
in an individual’s life [and this is not including other possibilities and
insight (164) that flowing with the gifts can bring].
Brethren, those half a dozen scriptures included in about two dozen
reasons (options) in this book - so far - for Christians to use in regards to
their marriage with three possible options (Divorce, Separation, Annulment) as
well as a forth (Amending to allow another spouse) (164A) leaves a lot possibilities (and possible options) in
the “arsenal” of a believer flowing with the gifts for God to shine light upon
in a particular believers situation (165A)
Prophecy, the Word of Knowledge and the Word of Wisdom, Faith and
Exhortation all speaking gifts given to the body of Christ to use can help out
here tremendously (166).
Criteria’s
for Divine Guidance
Using
oneself and others
Divine Guidance:
the Right of God’s Children
Brothers and sisters, as said before in Footnote 50E regarding
the issue of vows and marriage that for the sake of a head of household a
father or husband was allowed to annul vows under certain conditions and the
applicableness of this principle to the Father God for the sake of His children
is obvious (167) in regards to not only annulling a marriage, but divorce and
even altering or amending a covenant. The thing is even though we have a large
“arsenal” of reasons to choose from there may be others that are not listed (or
possibly some sort of combinations of the ones that we have not considered)
therefore it’s important to get a leading from the Spirit of God as to what to
do in any situation.
Sisters and brothers, the thing that
is nailed down is the options,
and in regards to the ‘not stay
married’ option you can…
and that is not only pretty much it,
that is it.
It’s the (individuals) direction (168) and the reasons behind it (168A) that are the question
Therefore since uncertainty can be
an issue (even after studying the issue), the question then becomes how can one
tap into this extra-biblical (that is: outside the bible) guidance (168B) and then apply it to one’s life? (168C)
I don’t know where
to go
“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but do
not know where it comes from (or “is coming from”) and where it is going (as in
direction) so it is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8)
“…and the Spirit of the Lord snatched
Philip away (from where he was) and…Philip found himself... (somewhere
else)” (Acts 8:39,40)
Brethren as good as this book may be in regards to examining this issue
it again can still leave most with the question of what to do in their own situation.
In regards to Philip he didn’t worry about anything, but just flowed with the
Spirit and God and God lead him to where HE wanted him to be (168D) and as good as
the scriptures can be in regards to this issue they can get in the way of things
and cloud peoples thinking if the Spirit of God says or
leads one way and the people respond by saying laws, rules and principles say
something else.
The thing is divine guidance is the right of God’s children and if we
can’t hear correctly in our own situation God has given gifts to the church to
help us hear instantly if need be, and because the Spirit flows where it wills we
need to be open to the fact that the direction He wants up to go in may cut against
the grain (which can be law, rules, even principles) and we may find our self
somewhere (or with someone) we did not expect.
“Every branch in
Me that does not bear fruit He takes away, and every branch that bears
fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit” (John 15:2)
Now we are not to judge individual situations by this verse alone,
however there is a principle established here that if you are fruitful and with
someone who is not (168E) the relationship is in danger of being dissolved (168F) and with that dissolve-ment comes options
and possibilities.
Criteria’s
for Divine Guidance
Brethren, as children of God we have divine rights, among them is to be
led by our Father into His purposes (which include personal). Thus it’s
important to remember that in spite of our circumstances or any feelings to the
contrary that we are His child and He cares for us immensely and desires to
help and guide us – particularly in our moments of uncertainty.
The thing is in regards to being
at the crossroads of decision is for one to be open and ready to going down the
road of the Fathers choosing (not ours), and in regards to being open we need
to realize that we may be wrong about things (or resistant to change) and if we
are not open to different possibilities
it can be very difficult to be led – particularly if one is kicking and
screaming and dragging their feet about everything. Brothers and sisters while
God can just give us “a word” in spite of a closed or negative attitude, if we
have unbelief (i.e. no faith) it may be to no avail for it (the word) will not
be received. Thus…
can help not only God lead us into His purposes but also the servants of
God with speaking gifts that come our way (as in who wants to speak to an
unbelieving, negative, closed person?)
The thing is in regards to ourselves some basic considerations in
regards to relationships can be helpful as we approach God in prayer (168 F-1) and in regards to encountering the gifts,
particularly the prophetic [which can be unlike people with the gifts of the word
knowledge, faith, wisdom and exhortation in that it can be a front and center
gift (where as the other four can be more private / personal)] and although all
five giftings can be helped by the just mentioned four criteria’s for being
led, the prophetic - especially when it is front and center - can be help (as
in helping the flow) when it encounters open people who are not resistant and
full of faith. Thus again while it is not necessary to be in a positive open attitude
to hear a word of guidance, to receive it is
another matter.
Conclusion
The thing is in regards to this chapter brothers and sisters one can
either exit “the bridge” we are on here (168G) or take ‘a word’ given by the gifts under advisement
(169), and if for some reason you happen to be in a church
where the gifts are frowned upon go to a different church (or some different
church services) where they are not and sit in for a few services and get a
feel for things and then talk to someone you’ve heard and / or grown to trust.
Brothers and sister this chapter deal with extra-biblical
(that is again: outside the bible) revelation and is to make you aware that it exists.
The bible itself is revelation (169A) which people
go to and base major decisions on and if for some reason you have trouble
discerning from things already written (170), because God is the same yesterday, today
and forever and still speaks today (170A) we have hope in yet another direction for guidance
[but this time outside the scriptures (171)]. Sisters and brothers some churches frown upon
on this avenue of guidance, but again will let missionaries speak before the
congregation about their extra-biblical (outside the bible – equal to scripture
in certainty) calling. Don’t be among the two faced here, if you can’t see or
hear clearly about something (172) and need help – don’t be afraid to get it.
Note to churches: just as God dealt with
relationships after the Babylonian captivity so it is today in the church. Much
needs to be done in regards to this area in all churches for the status of many
relationships are unresolved with people not knowing what to do (which can and
does include people who are married). The thing is in regards to the gifts here
some church may feel they may not “need” them and want to deal with things
through biblical teaching alone - which is fine – if it addresses the
particular issue involved, but in my experience most churches have
cases where no one knows what to do – so the gifts are needed at least in some
cases. Brothers and sisters, if one needs a proof text or paradigm in regards
to where this all fits into God’s purposes I would go to the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah where God dealt with relationships even before the walls of Jerusalem
went up. Thus in regards to the local church, since most churches need to
address (or revisit) this area badly, the easiest way to start would be in
individual cases where one does not know what to do and go to (revisit)
biblical teaching on the matter (Chapters 1-10 in this book) and
if no answer is found there then go to the gifts in the church (Chapter 11)
which all churches have - even if suppressed - and then ask the gifted (173) “their”
opinion on a particular personal matter. Sisters and brothers, personally I
expect this issue to be revisited by all churches and a very quick clean
sweep made in regards to this entire issue so the body of Christ can grow -
and glow - together better and support one another in the work of God to come
[which paradigm-ically speaking would be building the walls of Jerusalem (174)]. Brethren, I
would not be surprised to find some churches center around this issue - with
ongoing ministry - for the period to come with people flocking to them [but in
regards to the local congregation if local leadership can address this issue
firmly and accurately in their church they ought to have no fear
of “losing” or in fact losing a portion of their flock to these churches on
going ministry to come (175)]. Also note: if your local church needs someone to
help in regards to the prophetic seek God on the matter and if no one is
flowing enough in your church to help - God will send someone.
_____
176)
198)
Chapter 12
The Question on the Progression of
Apostolic Thought in Regards to Divorce
Doing away with Law to set up new Law?
Teachings; Commands; Exhortations; Pleas and
Requests
Knowing the Difference
Sisters and brothers, even though
the apostles progressed in their understanding of things, they were also
promised revelation (John 14:26; Galatians 1:12), and were given it. In regards
to the teachings of Jesus on divorce (176),
once again you will find
an elaboration in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 which is not found in the
Gospels, and once again in this elaboration you will find the word play “I
say, not the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:12), which again seems to contradict the
teaching put for by the Lord not only in the gospels but also in the letter of
1 Corinthians itself (1 Corinthians 7:10,11). However… at the end of the
chapter (176A),
it makes an exemption by saying “I also think I have the Spirit of God” (1
Corinthians 7:40), which is a significant point (176B).
Therefore, if you are looking at what
the apostle is doing here one can - under the inspiration of the Spirit -
elaborate on something Jesus said (that is: kind of “fill in the blank” to
a “what about this?” kind of situation)
which is not found in the gospels - and still be correct (176C).
Thus when
we look at scripture we are not only dealing with a progression of apostolic
understanding, but also a progression of revelation - specifically apostolic
revelation (176D).
The Progression of Apostolic Understanding
Snapshots in Time
Helping One to Understand Scripture
Insight
Brothers and sisters, since we are
dealing with the apostles here, if you read the epistles [their books (177)],
particularly the book of Galatians you will notice a few interesting points
that bring insight…
The Apostles were Only People (too)
At first an apostle (called by the
Lord) went around for years preaching a Gospel he wasn’t completely sure about
(Galatians 2:2).
(however it’s important to note that he did
not write any biblical epistles during
this time period and all the epistles we have of his were written after the
book that this comment appears in - the book of Galatians {which happens to be
his very first epistle to a church that we know of }).
Anyway, according to the book of
Galatians this apostle went to other apostles in private
lest he found out that he had the wrong gospel - that is “run in vain” - and as
a result didn’t want to be publicly embarrassed (178),
in other words there came a point where he wasn’t sure [not about
something small, but about something as big as the gospel and (it depends on
when this doubt {if it was doubt} came in)], but if it came in much previous to
this meeting of the apostles it did not stop him from preaching (which is my
point here) (179)
The Progression
of Understanding in Regards to Law
If you read the book of Galatians
(which again is a very early book) the writer mentioned people “coming… from
James” (Galatians 2:12), with a contradictory message of as to
what the Gospel was about (and I do understand the objection here that just
because people ‘came from James’ does not necessarily mean that James agreed
with what these people were doing or with what they were teaching). However the
Epistle of James (180), is also a very
early book (181), but is a very
controversial book as well [Martin Luther wanted to take it out of Bible (181A).
Let’s take a look at another verse
in regards to James (181B), and his
possible [works (legalism/law)], slant on the gospel (181C), and subsequent influence on early Christianity…
“And when we (that is: Paul and Luke
etc.) had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly, and the following
day …(we)… went … to James and all the elders of the church… and
when they heard (our report)…. began glorifying God…(but James) …said… “You see
brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who
believe and they are all
zealous for the Law [He was speaking of the Christians in Jerusalem. A
church that he had tremendous influence over (Acts 21:18-20)] (181D).
Brethren, as for myself I have no
problem with the book of James and again I have no problem reconciling the
controversial verse regarding justification by works - if you see it as it was
written meaning works of faith (Hebrews 6:1). However my point is ‘people from
James’ (181E), did come with a contradictory message.
There was definitely a progression of understanding somewhere here (181F), as to where it lies is the question? (181G).
The Progression of Understanding in Regards to Sanctification
Brothers and sisters how
one views the issue of law in a believers life directly corresponds to their
view on the sanctification (or holiness) of a believer. What makes one holy
before God? can be an issue for some and correctly understanding the role of
law in a believers life may leave one to wonder (181H).
While sanctification is
a topic in itself (181-I), there
does seem to be a progression of understanding in scripture regarding this
issue as well. Paul says that he buffets his body to make it obey him (181J), as well as reckoning a thing or two (181K), while another apostle (who wrote 40
or 50 years later) says one only needs to focus on Jesus makes oneself pure
[holy or sanctified (1 John 3:3)] and says nothing about buffeting the body and
treating it harshly. Brethren while one can write a lot on this point again we
see a contrast or progression [at least in the way something is obtained (181L)] between the apostles on yet again
another issue.
The Progression of Understanding in Regards to the Gifts
If you read the book of 2 Peter (2
Peter 3:15,16) you will see him talk about an apostle whose teachings are
difficult to understand [in other words Peter bears witness to a progression,
that is: someone was ahead (or “ahead” of other in regards to his
understanding of things].
Brethren, at the minimum there is a progression of understanding of things (182), [which seems to be reflected in the epistles. For
example you see a quite a bit written in regards to the gifts in 1 Corinthians
(a book that was written in the middle of what some would call the Christian
century), however if you read the book of 1st John (which was
written towards the end of that century) you will see that the gift of teaching
(which is a major gift) is practically disregarded (You have no need for a man
to teach you, you have an anointing {1 John 2:27}) (182A)].
Brethren if there was ever evidence
of a progression of understanding or revelation about things this
issue regarding the gift of teaching is it.
The
Progression of Understanding in Regards to the Role of Women in the Church
176D may make
reference to this section (this old footnote C:52)
Once again in regards to a
progression of understanding in regards to women in the church would again be
to contrast an early writer of an epistle with a later writer. Paul (who wrote
in the 40’s - the 60’s or maybe just after the very early 70’s at the latest),
definitely had well known opinions on the role of women in the church and at
home that were based on both tradition (183), and theological arguments (183A).
The essence of his arguments are
basically that women ought to be under authority of men in a church gathering
and not open their mouth unless they are prophesying [of which they are to show
a sign that they are under that authority by wearing a head covering (183B)].
Also women are not allowed to teach men in a church gathering either (183C),
and are basically to be married (183D), unless their father doesn’t mind them at
home (183E),
and be in subjection to their husbands (183F) - and get married again if widowed before 60 (183G).
Also women are to bear children for which they will be preserved for
that is their function in life (183H).
Although women are mentioned at the
end of some of his epistles as helpers in the gospel (183-I), there
is not a lot of high regard shown for them – there is not (183J), and most seem to be put
under the same category (or stereotyped)
John on the other hand mentions a number of
positive things about women
1) Jesus talks to a woman
who in essence becomes an evangelist [note that the apostles are surprised that
Jesus is even talking to (much more possibly calling) a woman] (John 4:5-42)
2) Jesus sends a woman
(not a man) to tell his disciples the good news (John 20:17)
3) Jesus forgives a
woman of a major sin (to which the man doesn’t show up) and then sends her on
her redeemed way (John 8:1-11).
4) Jesus loved Mary and
Martha (John 11:5)
5) John writes a letter
to a women [which could be a church (2 John 1:1)].
6) and most notably
(once again) Jesus appears to a woman - Mary - first, in
his resurrected state and once again tells her to go with the message of His
resurrection (John 20:11-18), which (and this goes to the difference between
Paul and John) is a fact sadly missed (or overlooked) by Paul in Paul’s orderly
recounting of the appearances or Jesus [which may in fact once again say
something about Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5-8)]. (See Footnote 179 on this).
Now this is not to say that there
aren’t differences between men and women (of which Appendixes
___ & ___ mention) which can have some bearing on some things –
general speaking, but an obvious example that can be pointed out here in
regards to the progression of modern experience let’s say in regards to the
apostle forbidding women to teach men (1 Timothy 2:12), is how do you
explain the Holy Spirit using and
actually speaking through women who teach - while men are present (that
is they are “teaching men” ) - when I can make a “slam dunk” argument - based
on 1 Timothy 2:13 - as to why it shouldn’t happen? (183K).
One can see a progression here, even
by modern post 2000 years experience, so even there (in regards to the churches
view on women) we have progressed as a church. Brothers, women are more than
wives, and bearers of children but are servants of the living God - just as
much as men are (184).
Conclusion
Brethren, when looking over the
teaching of the apostolic writings in the letters they wrote one might want to
ask themselves a ridiculous question, and that is: were they doing away with life under the law in order to set up
new law? (which some people will view the epistles as, and that is, a new
set of - written in stone
- rules and regulations).
Sisters and brothers I really don’t
think so and at “worst” when speaking of Christianity in terms of “rules and
regulations” - if looked at it within the entire context of Christian thought -
you are speaking of how (generally speaking now) the Christian life ought to
play itself out. There is leeway here.
Brothers and sisters, in regards to
these things – particularly the concept of apostolic revelation - try and see
scriptural teachings as steps that build upon one another for dealing with life on this side of eternity (184A), with most epistles written
to deal with particular situations in particular churches [along with the
apostolic “fess up” of incomplete knowledge on this side of eternity as well (Verse needed) (184B)].
Remember also that the basic thrust
of apostolic teaching is living a life of faith (trust), hope and love with one
another and not having “a relationship” with rules and regulations (that is the
commandments of the old covenant), but an active ongoing relationship with a
still speaking God (185).
Brethren, even though we are not
under the law when the Apostles give commandments regarding how the Christian
life ought to play itself out they usually center around simple issues, the
issues of faith (trust), hope and love towards one another as well as faith and
trust towards God, and not just doing things for the sake of doing things (186).
Thus again
when we look at scripture we are not only dealing with a progression of
apostolic understanding (186A), but also
a progression of revelation - specifically apostolic revelation, which again in regards to the teachings of Jesus on divorce, because you will find
an elaboration in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 which is not found in the
Gospels (186B), who knows what other
elaborations (on marital life) might be out there? (187).
“for…(presently) I (only) know in part” (1 Corinthians
13:12)
Stay tuned (188).
______
190)
224)
Chapter 13
The Question of ‘Christian Testimony’
“I thought you were a Christian?”
“but I am”
What’s the color of your shining light?
The Common Christian Witness
Testimony and Confession
The question of Christian public
(or even household) testimony is something that brought up time and time again
in regards to marital issues. What a Christian ought to and ought not do under
certain circumstances seems to be pretty well defined in Christian culture with
the adage of ‘What issue is out there that God can’t handle?’ ruling the day.
If there is one weakness in the
entire book (which is quite exhaustive and quite honestly cutting edge) it’s the
danger of an individual being found outside of what God is doing in the here
and now – and yet still be O.K. is real (190)
The thing is even though this is a book about
divorce, leaving a relationship is not necessarily a first choice as to where
one ought to go for there is benefit to staying in some types of relationships
- even hard ones - for we can develop character by letting our
perseverance grow and if we pass a particular trial we are going through our
faith is tested and expanded (all of which may not happen or develop if we
leave)
Also, the issue of what God is doing on this side of
eternity, and the testimony He wishes believers to put forth in regards to
relationships can be another thing to consider (191)
Brothers and sisters, in regards to
the issue at hand (Christian Testimony) which is something Christians try their
best to maintain, what happens if change is in the wind and one’s private life
(or private troubles) becomes public knowledge? (which is something that can
happen in regards to Christian marriage and divorce). For believers not to get
along with unbelievers in a marital situation is one thing (and whose outcome
is usually accepted), for believers not to get along with one another is
something else. There is the church one can go to in regards to certain things
and there is counseling, however the reality of the situation is that
even though a believer’s marital covenant can be frowned upon by some in
regards to change it can be changed for a number of legitimate reasons (200) and believer can in fact separate [biblically
approved mind you (1 Corinthians 7:11)], which can mean the suspension of
obligations in the marital covenant completely (201) and
this is not to mention questionable issues (202), logical conclusions (203), as well as God’s leading that can arise in regards to this
entire issue as well (204)
So the question of “Christian
testimony” in regards to Christian / Christian (believer / believer) marriage
and divorce issues needs some
qualification right off the bat, with believers able to disagree – and
leave – for biblically approved reasons (204A).
Tension
Points
Brethren, in regards to
disagreements that lead to divorce between believers most of the disagreements
and tension between brothers and sisters regarding the issue of ‘Christian Testimony’ will
revolve around the following issues
* Holiness (which everyone ought to be moving towards {see Sustaining Revival Appendix D}),
* God’s Direction (which unless God or circumstances say
different ought to be moving towards God’s Best {see Sustaining
Revival Appendix F},
which can mean His mature best),
* Maturity (which, although inclusive of self, ought to at
the same time be away from self and unto God and others {see Sustaining Revival Appendix H})
* And Relationships (where what’s best for
others and not ourselves {that is: considering someone else’s
need above our own} is of importance {see Sustaining
Revival Appendix E})].
In regards to marital relations [that
is: marital (public) testimony relations] these four issues can create a huge
amount of tension – with push and pull - between people and unless people (that
is: believer / believer relationships) are ‘moving on together’ (particularly
pressing unto maturity together), it is very easy for one partner to lag behind
- or even be left behind (205), or for one person to lead the way.
Now this does not mean believers
have to get divorced to resolve issues (206) but yet it is a viable option – for the
mature and immature, however for the mature there is a better way – and as long
as certain issues are addressed and guarded we can still be found
inside of what God is doing in the here and now and get on board that train for
it’s both our right and our heritage.
207-209
Questioning Christian Culture
Living among the “Off Balanced”
Is culture always right?
How about theology?
Sisters and brothers, as said in a
just mentioned footnote in (American) Christian culture marriage is held up so
high as to make never married singles feel that something is wrong with them [and
separated believers (from believers) usually shunned]. Also again divorced
Christians are almost equated with having some kind of disease (207) and none of the three groups (along with just singles
in general) are usually invited to socialize among the married (208).
In regards to correct theology brethren,
how many times has the end of the world come upon us? and how many people have
been swayed to act accordingly? Just because someone may say “whatever” does
not mean it is so and in regards to marriage the “whatever’s” in contemporary
Christian culture are all pointed 100% positively
in that direction. However biblically speaking marriage may not what it is
portrayed to be at all (that is: romantic and that’s biblically speaking) for it can be something people enter into just
to keep from lusting (1 Corinthians 7:9), steered there to keep them from being
busybodies (1 Timothy 5:13,14), is definitely not someone’s first happiest
choice (1 Corinthians 7:40) and is an arrangement that can cause tension for it
can distract someone from the purposes of God (1 Corinthians 7:32-35), and all
these things may be embodied (or can be reasons) that the person you
love (or who just asked you to marry them) want to be with you which does not
only not make for a 100% solid
relationship but quite possibly a very unromantic one. Marriage usually brings
tension whose solution is compromise and no individual always gets what they want
fully. Now although there are very positive aspects to marriage and there is nothing
wrong with it (1 Corinthians 7:28, 1 Timothy 4:2) for contemporary Christian
culture to leave out all these negatives and trash other options like
singlehood (209)
is not smart. With the divorce rate at 50% it seems that at least half the
people who get married either assumed something wrong about it, or assumed
something wrong about what the nature of their “marriage material” is (as in a
“Romeo” or some sort) .
210-216
Can the Unmarried have a Christian Testimony?
How about the multiple spousal?
Is it Married vs. Trash?
(is something wrong with mom?)
Brothers and sisters traditionally married
people do not have a monopoly on Christian Testimony and the never married, un-married, and non-traditionally married, divorced, separated (as well as those who alter or amend their
marital covenant) all have claims on Christian
testimony too.
In regards to singles the scriptures speak of
those who never marry (have children) as God making a greater name for them on
the other side of eternity than those who had (210) To
be single in scripture is great and is to not only be free of concern but to be
dedicated to the work of God wholeheartedly (211). For a married person to be
pushing a single person into marriage - particularly a single person who is
content where they are - is not only improper but ill-advised. If one can ‘control’
themselves the question of why get married? can be a legitimate question. In
regards to any ‘single’ Christian testimony here being content where one is at,
as well as throwing oneself fully into the work of God is
basically where it’s at. Other than that the common Christian testimony that is
shared by all (212) is what is needed.
In regards to the divorced and separated (and
annulled) they too share the common Christian witness (or testimony) and since
nobody knows the nature of their situation [as well as some believers saying
that they believe God to work in it, or trust God for it (as in hand the
situation over to God)], it’s not as bad as some make it out to be, especially
so since there are legitimate reasons for such and people in such a state can
have answers at the ready for those who ask if need be (212a). However the truth of the
matter is that (almost) everyone makes mistakes, can act badly, or just “muck’s
up” all of which can have an effect on current relationships. In regards to the
reasons behind separation, divorce and annulment there are legitimate reasons
for all (and again Christians can at the minimum separate from believers) so
the idea that something is wrong with Christians who find themselves in such a
state or that their testimony is ruined (or still can’t have one) is rubbish. Again
if there is legitimate concern about an individual or situation one can always
ask, otherwise assume the best (unless led otherwise) and the common Christian
testimony still stands and is still shared by all.
In regards to non-traditional multiple
spousal relationships or even altering (or
amending) a marital covenant for more freedom (213) or
an additional spouse
[which
will most likely NOT be kept private at all the reason being because this has
to do with Christians understanding of the use of only ones words (vows) in
relationship to law which, when mutually agreed upon by couples and then
amended to the church publicly (and the reasons behind the change are nobody’s
business), congregations can generally live with and accept particularly, once again, if it’s mutually
agreed upon and especially so if the couple feels that God has led them to this
decision].
the general direction of one man / one woman in
society seems to be more the concern here than the amending of a vow (213A) and
truth be told one man / one woman is probably the general direction of God publicly and is probably God’s
preference, but any churches disallowance of it based on God’s preference (if
such preference be the case) - when scripturally speaking God does indeed allow
for people to choose this option for their lives is not right. The church is
not asked to maintain this testimony (but probably ought not push multiple
spousal relationships either due to God’s general direction). The church is not
asked to maintain this testimony.
The thing is aside from the multiple spousal
relationship (214) the
Christian Testimony for those who enter into it is just one like the single and
married and although the emphasis publically may be a little different (215) just
like the singles we are dealing with individuals who maintain their own
Christian testimony of whose nature is reflected throughout the New Testament.
Sisters and brothers, in conclusion it’s not married
v. trash for there is nothing wrong with singleness [whether by choice or not
(which also entails separation and divorce without remarriage, and annulment)],
and if mom (or dad) is unmarried they may not only like that state, but also
never seek to be married again. Brethren while there are positive aspects to
being married there are negative aspects as well, however all Christians share
the common Christian testimony and can bring forth that testimony in whatever
state they are in (216).
217-219
In the Midst of Divorce, Separation, Altering and Amending a
Covenant
Maintaining a Christian Testimony
What (part of the) Testimony? and What’s Involved?
Brothers and sisters in regards to being in the
midst of change here there is not much difference between this testimony and
the testimony of someone who is going through change or a tough time (217). The
thing to remember is that different types of things (divorce, separation,
altering and amending a covenant) can require different types of “reserves” to
see one thorough change [and although usually similar (217A)], to maintain a change is
where one will usually see the difference.
In regards to divorce there is a finality to it
(or a relationship) and while people can believe God for reconciliation almost
everyone who gets divorced does not go back (217B). In
regards to Christian testimony if one feels they have been wrongfully divorced,
for the wronged party to actively believe and trust God for reconciliation (as
well as handing things over to Him both consciously in prayer) is where a lot
of Christian testimony is at (217C). If however
if the divorce is final with no realistic hope of reconciliation then that’s pretty
much it, and in regards to Christian / Christian divorce it can more than
likely be assumed that
Thus in all cases the parties are free to
remarry [even in regards to the ‘loosing of it’ which is the end result of
backsliddeness (not apostasy per say)]
However sisters and brothers in regards to (Christian
/ Christian) separation because there is no finality to it, maintaining the
original agreement in regards to at least faithfulness (again at least for the
woman) is paramount and again is where the main bulk of the testimony lies (217G).
Now in regards to altering or amending a marital
covenant to allow for an addition to another spouse is where one sees a real
change in emphasis on testimony issues for such things as…
self-esteem
issues; questions of loneliness; realizing ones intimacy will probably be on a
schedule; dealing with jealousy; questions about how all the women get along
with each other; will there be other (or more) spouses later? Will all the wives
be treated the same? Will there be favorites? Will there be a competitive
spirit among the women? (and can they recognize it if it happens and head it
off?), Will there be an expression of affection with one spouse in the presence
of the other (s)? How the bills will be paid? Will everyone be living under one
roof (and if not will two households be viable?), How the estate will be
handled if there is a break up or if someone moves on to the other side of
eternity? And questions about the inheritance rights of the children? All come
into play here
Multiple spousal relationships are challenge
for the church as well as individual testimony and although women involved in
it can supplement hardship by knowing that their relationship is not with each
other but the man (218) they still carry the bulk of the hardship in
regards to these types of relationships and because of what is involved here,
especially in regards to Christian testimony they ought only be entered into by
the mature.
Maintaining Change
Sisters and brothers, in regards to the issue
of maintaining a proper attitude in
change the things required can differ according to gender and in regards to
altering a marital covenant for the addition of another spouse much weight again
for Christian testimony is put on a woman (or women already) in the
relationship. While women already in the
relationship can supplement any pain with the knowledge that everyone is
pressing on to maturity [which entails mature options for one’s life (218A)] along with the knowledge that there will be more
free time for themselves to explore different things, the fact of the matter is
that the different genders have to
bear different things - it’s just the way it is – and in regards to women the
thing that they have to bear and work through are self-esteem issues – as
well as … because we live on this side of eternity with all its
imperfections - what other women may think of them. Men on the other hand (the
other gender) lose (more) freedom with the possibility of starting life all
over again with children – and all kinds of responsibilities. Given the weight
of things here it might be an equal “wash” (or close to it) for the original
couple and in regards to a woman (women) who enter into the relationship
along with heartfelt reason (218B) there may also
be expected compensation of some sort by the man that makes things easier (219)
Brothers and sisters there is not much one can
do in life in regards to “gender assigned burdens” but to be mature and bear
them. While sisters and brothers can help one another bear them, and make them
easier on an individual, the genders have unique burdens assigned to them and
there is not much anyone can do but ease pain.
220-224
Conclusion
Brethren while there are legitimate tension
points between Christians there is general agreement regarding how the
Christian life ought to unfold testimony (witness) wise and in regards to
relationships because we don’t know how our own life is going to unfold we
ought to be gracious if witnessing the unfolding of others in a negative or
“negative” or positive and new way. In regards to any personal reasons behind a
divorce and remarriage they are nobody’s business but our (or a person’s) own.
If you happen to be in a church that wants to know “the whys” one can always
fall back on the chapters previous to this one and more than likely find one
(if a person doesn’t have one already). Every reason mentioned there is
legitimate and on the level and ought to keep one in good conscience as well as
all those who we - not only associate with - but also ask (or ask us) to enter
into an intimate relationship with (220).
In regards to multiple spousal relationships the
church ought to be familiar with the arguments and concerns regarding their
existence (221) as
well as realize that most people who
will enter them will probably have been previously married [or maybe even still
married (that is the man)] and in regards to maintaining Christian testimony unless
all were never married it ought to be assumed by all churches that one of the possibly two dozen reasons
mentioned previously in this book may apply somewhere, to someone (222) especially to the original
couple so everyone ought not inquire unless there is a
legitimate need to know (223).
In regards to very public figures –
particularly Christians – because the public does not have recourse to a
believers background or church I would advise the general public and press not
to ask but assume (like the public figures Christian friends) that public Christian
figures have again one of the possibly two dozen reasons mentioned previously
in this book that may apply somewhere,
to someone (particularly in regards to multiple spousal relationships if
the original couple is still together), and in regards to any public figures
response to questions I would advise “no comment” or “personal reasons” to all
that ask- period.
The thing is brothers and sisters Christian
testimony means a lot and can open and close doors in regards to relationships.
Dealing with things among our circle of friends is one thing, dealing with
things in the world may be something else. In regards to reasons behind divorce
and remarriage the world may not understand things like the illegitimacy of
covenants, but that is not our concern. Nor may they understand attitudes like
‘waiting things out’ in prayer or even a believer opting for a non-traditional spousal
relationship, but all that is not our concern either. Basic Christian testimony is our concern in
regards to the world and friends and
that is it. The world does not need to know the
details (and / or reason) behind our lives and in regards to fellow Christians they
ought to always assume the best of reasons (or that things that were beyond our
control). Sisters and brothers showing
love to the ones you are with and associate with is all that is needed. We ought not be concerned about what people
think, it’s only what God thinks that matters.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy peace,
patience, kindness, goodness (and) self-control…” (Galatians 5:22)
Again basic Christian testimony.
______
Chapter 14
The Question of Children (and their “Sanctification”)
1 Corinthians 7
“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through
his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband;
for otherwise ( i.e. if a believer divorce’s his or her unbelieving
spouse) your children are unclean [i.e. the believers presence in a single
household doesn’t matter (225)],
but now (because
you stay together) they (your children) are holy (or sanctified) . 1
Corinthians 7:14
Brothers and sisters the question
of children and their sanctification (226) is something that is brought up every now and then in regards to keeping
households together…
Now, this does not necessarily mean that children from unbroken / unsaved
households are truly ‘clean’ either obviously, but scripturally speaking there
is something about the presence of a believing parent - IN A WHOLE HOUSEHOLD -
that sanctifies the household against attacks from the evil one (i.e. the
households are set apart by the presence of the believing parent who is
prayerfully keeping the household intact). This sanctifying role of a
believing parent - in a whole household (227)
______
249)
274)
Chapter 15
The Roles of Conscience
and Faith in Decision Making
“I’ve thought it through and I have no problems with _____”
What are the Issues?
Understanding ones Conscience in
Regards to the Law of Marriage
What is the Conscience?
Brothers and sisters, there are lots
of laws out there – including the law of marriage. Dealing with the issue of law is one
thing. Dealing with the issue of the conscience can be another matter (249).
If you read Chapter
___ on the progression of apostolic thought, the question was asked
whether one feels the apostles did away with law to set up new law? and that
question is not without consideration for you will find some statements in the
scriptures (which are handled in the Chapter ____
regarding “Problem Verses” as well as Chapter _____
of this book), that lends one to believe that in regards to marriage we are
still under some type of external covenant law [as in the concepts (or “laws”)
behind covenants are still in play unless cause is given (that is: they are
forever binding {which was handled in Chapter ____
of this book}) (250)].
Brothers and sisters law is law is
law, whether it’s biblical, civil or even the law of definition [which does has
play in it in regards to this issue (250A)], especially
in regards to covenants and mutually agreed on changes [which can take place in
covenant law (251)].
The thing about the conscience
(which everyone has) is that it just happens to operate in terms of law until
it matures when it begins to operate in terms of life (251A), and until it matures [and it will always
be with us (251-A1)],
it will prompt us – even bother us – when
any type of legal violation is in the offering. Because the
conscience is part of our being - and we need it (251B), we
as believers must deal with it – rightly, in a non-harden way (251C), in regards to any issue that surrounds law – even
teaching. However in regards to the “law” of marriage (or the idea of the
bindingness - no - matter - what concept of covenants by some) we as Christians
first need to be convinced that such a thought is rubbish – at least in regards
to unbelievers leaving – and then build upon that thought from there (251D).
Reasoning “Together” (that is with yourself) in Regards to
Marital Changes
Keeping Yourself Honest – and “in Check”
and
not Lying to Yourself (251E)
Understanding
what’s Going on
Brothers and sisters our conscience (252), which involves our mind (252A), is a
reasoning part within us that
contains a basic internal sense of right (good) and wrong (evil) (252-A1),
but matures (and this is an important point to remember in
this discussion) to a place of not operating in terms of right and wrong (like
the tree in the garden of Eden), but operating in terms of what causes life and
what does not (or the tree of life) (252B), which again is an important thing to note –
and helpful to remember in regards to going ahead with any type of marital
changes (252 B-1).
Brethren, in
regards to our conscience, our conscience is pre-programmed (for lack of a
better phrase) with basic, elemental rules and regulations (or
internal law) which regulates man’s behavior (252C), however as we experience life it
matures through revelation and reasoning (for example “since there are
no other gods it’s ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols” or some such).
Sisters and brothers, this innate
internal sense of basic right and wrong which is imprinted on our being (252 C-1), is something we may have to deal with in regards to
this entire issue [that is its basic sense of right and wrong (252 C-2)]
which actually predates written biblical law (252D)
`
“For when the Gentiles who do not
have the (written) Law (of Moses) do instinctively the
things of the Law, these (even though) not having the Law…show the (evidence of
the written law)… written in their hearts…” (Romans 2:14,15) (252-D1)
and still to this day this internal
law can take the place of written civil law in society [which includes cities,
states and nations (252E)].
Brethren, as said before the
conscience (253A)
– our conscience actually
matures with age (253B), and will actually supersede our basic internal law
as it matures (254)
as well as supersede it’s previous understanding of things as well (254 A-1).
What usually happens is that when Christians
(eventually) realize that we are not under law anymore (which for our purposes
here includes the law of marriage) they slowly but surely ought to start
breaking out of ‘a law mentality’ and ought to start flowing (255)
with ‘the
flow of life’ mentality in regards to any marital question or issue.
The thing is because the conscience
(a guide) will always be with us (255A), we have to
realize that even in its maturity we will be dealing with something that – at
the minimum - sees life in a ‘broad boundary stroke’ way (256), and
that “boundary feature” (or guide) of our being - whether broad or narrow in
stroke (or scope) - will always be with us prodding us
(which we must expect) as well as again guiding us in that default way (256A), however
in regards to this entire issue (spousal arrangements / options) its best to
let in mature.
Listening to that Little “Voice” (in your Head)
Brethren, in regards to this issue
of marital changes (256 B) our conscience will come into play and
could be described as a little voice inside your head telling you not to do a
particular thing, BECAUSE you would not want that done to you (256 B1).
Our conscience [with its ongoing (experiential) programing and updating (256 B2)],
will contributes to the reasoning process that goes on before any act is done (256C),
and in my experience pretty much deals with life’s basic parameters (256-C1)
“their conscience bearing witness,
and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them” (Romans 2:15).
In other words there is a mental ballpark with
foul lines, but it will expand and mature (256-C2), using expandedly mature parameters (256D) but
its purpose is to always keep us “in check” or
“in line” and honest no matter how mature we are.
Brothers and sisters remember in
regards to any marital changes there is nothing wrong with having a good
conscience throughout the entire process [1 Timothy
1:5 (256E)], but again remember that our conscience does
matures with age (which is an important point to keep that in mind when again
considering the subject matter of this book – once again marital / spousal
arrangements and options), and a lot of its maturing will happen to center
around life related issues [which, believe it or not may in the
end violate biblical law (256F)]. Sisters
and brothers once again our consciences maturity (that is: traits of a mature
conscience) is again not operating in terms of what is good and evil [the way
the law works (256G)],
but in terms of what causes life and
what does not. Again, the way the God of life works].
Brethren, let’s look at what Jesus
said about King David (and again keep your marriage related questions in mind).
Once again Jesus speaking…
“Have you
not read what David did, when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he
entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not
lawful for him to eat...” (Matthew 12:3-4).
Now look at what an apostle said
regarding the teaching of Christ
“…
(Al)though (I myself am) not… under the (old Mosaic) law… (I am) not…without…
law (or boundaries)… but… (I’m) under
the… law (or teaching) of Christ…” (1
Corinthians 9:20, 21) (257).
Sisters and brothers, David violated law for the sake of life - and Jesus
said it was OK (258), therefore in
regards to life (that is life issues), life is always more important than
obedience to law (259).
Brethren, this is one area (the
violation of biblical law) where peoples consciences do need to mature [Acts
15:28; 15:10 (260)].
Understanding the Role of Faith
(that is a Life of Faith)
In Regards to Encountering the Law(s) of Marriage
Individuals vs. the Group and Stepping Stones
Keeping
Faith and a Good Conscience (1 Timothy 1:19)
It
Does Not take into Account Exceptions (260A)
Brothers and sisters the new
covenant is about living a life of faith and trust with one another.
“But now
that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (the Law)…” (Galatians
3:25)
The purpose of law was to confine
and box people in until one was able - by the power of the Holy Spirit within -
to live a life based on higher things than that. In other words a life of faith
and trust.
“So the
word of the Lord to them will be, Order on order, order on order, line on line,
line on line, a little here, a little there (as in boxing in)…” [Isaiah 28:13 (261)].
Brethren, one of the things that
being under law did was to lead one to desire higher things and a higher way of
living. However because the Holy Spirit had not been given yet (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:13), one needed to wait until
that day came. Now that He has come we can live the life that was promised us,
a life of faith and trust with one another, not based on rules and regulations
but from the life and power of the risen Christ within.
Brethren, in regards to this new
life and the issue at hand – abolishing, even altering or changing a marriage
covenant, a lot has already been said in the footnotes regarding a weak conscience (immature) vs. a strong one (or mature) as
well as scripture (and the Holy Spirit that matter) saying one thing to the
group and something different to individuals based on that strength of
conscience [or maturity of it (262)].
However in
regards to the role of faith, to walk from one point to the other not a lot has
really been said (263).
Brothers and
sisters once you encounter a situation where change is on the horizon and you
see’s teachings / commandments in the way, if you have a word from the Lord
about the situation that – like in the case of Hagar – that is easy (263A).
However, if
there is no direct word from the Lord (as of yet), and “the crossroads” is
coming quickly and the only thing that is standing in the way is that law or teaching and as a result
your conscience is not really sure (as in your arguing with it), what does one
do then?
Well if you
have read the chapters on Unbeliever / Believer and Believer / Believer
covenants there are exceptions
(263B), and one can ease their conscience there for legitimate – on the level - reasons.
However sisters and brothers in regards to living with one’s conscience when
one is unsure about what direction to go in, the role of faith (that is
factoring faith into the decision) is another way or direction one can go in to
bring about the answer they need.
Brethren, if everything about your particular
situation is clear cut between life and not life (263C), the only problem in regards to any clear cut answer is that your
conscience has not matured to the level of life and that is all (263D). Therefore
one needs to let it mature by reasoning rightly with it as well as factoring in
life experience (which can mean going to other peoples experiences in life as
well) in order to help it mature. Sisters and brothers, the thing about the
role of faith in the midst of “the crossroads” is that, although it’s possible
for one to be 100% sure about a decision made in regards to marital changes,
most people never are and one may never
really be 100% sure about any decision made
here and that is one of the purposes of faith – which is a gap filler (264).
The thing is
in regards to assurances unless God directly tells us what to do there is only
so much we know (1 Corinthians 13:9), however some of the things we do know in
regards to this issue is that maturity a goal in life and along with maturity
comes independence (264A), so like it or not we are all going in that
direction and like it or not it (maturity) is pulling us in that direction as
well. Also we know that with maturity comes
change (whether we like it or not too) - and just as children go through
stages to adulthood so will we [unless we are somehow “mentally challenged” (264B)].
Therefore
when one combines maturity (with its ongoing - unfolding - independence) with a
conscience that deals with law / teaching which also factors in God saying one
thing to the (general) group and one thing to individuals you have, not only
the formula for a maturing conscience (264C), but also a
ripe area for faith and trust to develop. Sisters and brothers, the role of
faith therefore in regards to the issue of marital changes is one of filling in
“the gap of uncertainties” [that is taking forward steps knowing that God is
not going to lead you into the muck (264D)].
Faith helps
the believer take one step to another.
Conclusion
Are
you seared in your conscience as with a branding iron? (1Timothy 4:2)
Or
is your conscience clear? (2 Timothy 1:3)
[Watch
the Alcohol (265)]
Brothers
and sisters remember as you live your life - and mature, sin becomes not so
much the violation of law per say, but involves a much higher thing and that is
whatever is done - not in faith - is sin [Romans 14:23 (266)]. Again our consciences will always be with us (and
it’s part of our being) and will always work as a form of guidance (266A), but it’s
parameters will change as we mature and if we don’t realize that (267), nor expect
it we will remain immature “forever.”
Now this is not to say that all will
be permitted as we mature for there are rock hard barriers regarding things (268), as well as a
direction that God is going in (268A), and a
goal He is leading His people to (268B).
However, even though this is so
remember we have been set free from the law not to do anything, but the right thing before us (268 B-1), and because of that we have expanded – and mature -
parameters in which to operate in and under (268 B-2),
which can encompass a wide variety of activities (268C), that
can include the activities of our “left hand” so
to speak (269).
Sisters and brothers in regards to
our conscience and its encountering “the law of marriage” the immature will see
things one way (269A),
whereas the mature will usually see things another (269B), and a lot of it (the
tension, arguments etc.), comes down to “where you are at” as an individual (or
on “the totem pole”).
I am writing to you little children…
I am writing to you young men… I am writing to you fathers… (1 John 2:12,13) (269C)
Remember our conscience contains the
default (and basic) way to look at things, but will mature if one does not hardening themselves to it
(as in “take a hike!”), but uses correct and sound reasoning within new expanded boundaries and /
or revelation directly from the Lord (269D).
Also remember brethren, that we are
given a new heart (or a “new disk on system,” per say), with new instructions
when we are saved, and thus we can expect our consciences to change as well (or
mature and grow up) as evidence by the fact that in scripture there are saved people with weak consciences
(immature) and saved people with strong consciences (mature). Positionally
everything is done at salvation [that is we are completely redeemed, forgiven,
sanctified, healed and even perfected (or mature)] however in our experience
the realization of these truths (which has bearing on their outworking) does
seem to take time for most people, so in regards to our conscience encountering
the law of marriage (the topic of this book) it may take some time for some
people to work their way through it, but they will if they apply themselves to
the task correctly (270).
Brothers and sisters, sisters and brothers,
knowing of the right thing (of faith) to do (in a situation)
and not doing it is sin (James 4:17). If you know what needs to be done then by
all means do it – in faith (271).
“Rejoice young man (and young
woman)… during your childhood, and
let your heart be pleasant during the days of young manhood… (and young
womanhood), and follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes.
Yet know that God will bring you to judgment for all these things” [so with
that in mind be careful and make sure you - at the minimum - follow your
conscience in all your life choices (and for heaven’s sake don’t forget to let
it God - ordained - mature - too, in all your mature life choices {and decisions} as well {Ecclesiastes 11:9})].
I am writing
to you little children… I am writing to you young men… I am writing to you
(mature) fathers… (1 John 2:12,13).
______
275)
299)
Chapter 16
Bi-Lateral vs. Unilateral Action
We are all God’s Creation, but we are not all His Children
Which way are you weighted?
Sisters and brothers we are born in a war zone
with an ongoing, unfolding story line that starts with paradise lost and ends
with paradise regained. As with any war there are good stories and bad – and
sometimes casualties. Most of us are victims of one thing or another in life
and most of us unfortunately carry around the scars we have acquired - with all
their ‘hurts’- into new relationships. Many of us as we enter relationships
also carry around baggage in the form of personal problems that need to be addressed. Few have attained perfection, however
even though we are all on our way to that perfection, there may come a time
when it is necessary to stop and reexamine one’s life and ask themselves some
very honest questions - particularly as we all move on together into maturity.
In regards to relationships there are pluses
and minuses to all of them and at the minimum in regards to ‘the positive’ we
help out one another and in regards to ‘the negative’ – if approached rightly
we are like sandpaper on one another taking off the rough edges. However when
relationships are not only not helpful, but destructive to one’s person, and
the sandpaper is not sandpaper but a jackhammer destroying another’s life, such
situations are more than likely a signal from God for a person to revisit their
commitment and either end it or modify it – particularly as we mature from dependence to independency.
In regards to marital relationships a lot has
been established here regarding grounds for annulments and divorce and whether
a person applies those grounds to a personal situation is a personal call. What
I have done here in this chapter is give some basic guidelines to help
Christians in their decision (275).
Is the
Other Party a Believer (Christian)?
“and she (Abigail) fell at his feet (that is:
her future ‘unbeknownst to her’ husbands feet) and said… please let you
maidservant speak to you… Please do not let my lord pay attention to this
worthless man Nabal (my husband), for as his name is, so he is. Nabal is his
name and folly is with him… (1 Samuel 25:24,25)
Brothers and sisters, unbelievers can _____,
and can be a drag on everything in life and can more times than not dig in and
kick their feet in regards to everything God wants to do. Now although an
apostle does talk about what to do in situations where an unbeliever is content
[(consents) 1 Corinthians 7:12,13], that may not – and usually is not - the
case, and as I wrote in Chapter ______
(Christian Testimony) marital relations between people will center around certain issues (275A), that can create a huge amount of tension –
with push and pull - between people and unless spouses are ‘moving on together’
(particularly pressing unto maturity together), it is very easy for one partner
to lag behind - or even be left behind, or for one person
to lead the way [as Abigail did (276)], and make a corrective move.
Christian Women and Unbelievers
In regards to Christian women wanting to
divorce their unbelieving spouse let me first say that it is not uncommon for a
women to think along the lines of “Who does he think I am a _______” as well as
“If I can only get the right man I would _______” and those two thoughts do underlie a lot in
regards to personal life changing decisions women make (276A)
Sisters, although there are grounds and sound
reasons to leave an unbelieving relationship the two just mentioned reasons
ought not be deciding factors – at least not the second (276B). It
would be nice if things worked out that way, but a sister does not need “the
right man” to fulfill God’s calling in her life (276C).
Sisters, those two thoughts ought to be
factored out of any decisions here, and once they are you can make a reasonable
(that is sound, stable) decision.
Christian Men and Unbelievers
In regards to Christian men wanting to divorce
their unbelieving spouse let me say first that it is not uncommon for a men to
think along the lines of superficial things and not see woman for the value and
unique insight they can give to situations – including their own (276D).
Also it’s not uncommon for men in life to want
a beautiful wife (or even for women to want to be that beauty queen throughout
their entire life), for men to use that as ground to dump a spouse [and put
that kind of pressure (or continual pressure) on a new wife], is not be wise.
Most women cannot do much about the way their body changes after pregnancy or
later in life (276E),
and some physical changes can be expected in all women.
Although unbelieving women can – much more than
saved women - want to be the center of all things (276F), and can be very ‘cutting’ if
their “needs” aren’t met (276G), men like women must realize that a
person’s self-esteem and self-worth ought not be tied up in another person’s
(that is: woman’s) opinion of you - but what God thinks of you (at least the
mature think this way) and if you are doing your best and have failed (276H),
you have done your best.
Now like with the sisters I am not saying a
brother ought not seek grounds for either annulment or divorce (276I),
but the reasons behind the pursuit of those two ought be - at the minimum - the
grounds themselves more than, once again, a wish list that may not pan out
(especially in the long run).
Again, like with women considering the same
certain thoughts (or “ideals” in a man’s case, which are usually much more
superficial) ought to be factored out of any decisions here (276J).
276K) –
276P)
What if
they Talk the Talk, but don’t Walk the Walk?
How
bright the candle (or bulb)?
The Gray Areas
This is a tough one because even among the
obviously saved there are great differences. The assumption in this particular
consideration is that the person is either not really saved or they were (or
“were”) and like the parable of the seeds there was either not much root or
their life was chocked with thorns and they lost what they had (276K)
Sisters and brothers, if the spouse you are
with falls under the first two categories [that is: not really saved or actually lost what they had due to lack of root (276L) then they fall into the
category of an unbeliever – even if they believe in the existence of God, and
can be divorce under the regular believer / unbeliever guidelines (or even the
relationship annulled - depending). Brethren…
276Q - 289
What if
they are a Believer?
…but
if she does leave… (1 Corinthians 7: 11)
Brothers and sisters, although more will be
brought out later in regards to 1 Corinthians 7:10,11 (276Q),what
you have here in this verse is - at the minimum - permission for a believing
spouse to leave another believing spouse, with the suspension of their vows (276R), and in regards to the issue of divorce if you read
the chapter on believer / believer relations…
Now in regards to question of
actually divorcing a believer (as to actually go through with it) there has
been enough “trailblazers” in this area that it’s old (277), however
in regards to other options for believer’s lives (278) –
particularly mature options where one (mature) partner leads the way it may be a
different story.
The impetus for any actions here – including
believers divorce – once again revolve around these four issues (279)
* Holiness [which everyone ought to
be moving towards (which can mean here dedication to what the Lord wants)],
* God’s Direction (which means
moving towards God’s Best - His mature
best),
* Maturity (which, although
inclusive of self, ought to at the same time also be away from self and towards
others)
* And Relationships (where what’s best for
others and not ourselves {that is: considering someone else’s need
above our own} is of importance).
Now in regards to the issue of
believer / believer divorce these four issues can influence things here –
particularly in regards to either divorce for discipline reasons (280), or one partner not moving on with God (281). However the mature thing would be to explore other
options here… for usually both partners can be at fault in some regards (282) and it’s not really about ‘blame’ anyway (283).
But more maturity than anything.
Brothers and sisters, for a person
to lead the way here….
Are they
Helping you Mature?
Needy Men
and High Maintenance Women
The Wimps
and Princesses among Us
“..son of
my womb… son of my vows, do not give your strength to women…” (Proverbs 31:2,3)
The
Desire to Relive Ones Youth
Brothers and sisters there is such a thing as
dependency - in one’s youth - but as one matures one becomes less and less
dependent on everything
Also where everyone gets this idea of they are
to be the center of all attention
290-299
Making the Decision
Is there
anything in between?
First
consider other options
Brethren, in regards to the question of God’s
desire generally speaking God hates divorce (290), but yet has called us to
peace in our relationships (290A), given those two extremes in regards to relationships (ending them or being content)
with major fallout in regards to the one that is the topic of this book, one
has to ask themselves - if considering divorce - if there anything in
between that one can live with before one divorces and terminates what
was to be a life-long agreement even if it’s just possibly a temporary solution
(as in: separation) or possibly a trial [as in: I’ll give it a try
(altering / amending our covenant)]. Brothers and sisters the thing is in light
of the mature solution offered in the later chapters of this book -
particularly between Christians - if one does divorce (290B) one does so because they are
probably considering - and doing - the public aspect of the new or any new relationship
rather than having or maintaining a private one (290C). In regards to that public
aspect it ought to be noted that some intimate relationships between people are
maintained on a ‘small public scale’ (not large) and understood among friends
of the new partners (290D) and regarding
those who are not friends (but not enemies) they are also understood without
anyone saying anything about them (290E). The thing is in regards to the public
aspect of any new relationship (unless you are dealing with major public image)
it often boils down to concern over what friends and family think (and their
friends and family think). Our personal friends usually are not that difficult
to deal with, family can be another matter particularly in regards to the reasons
behind such new arrangements which again - although not necessary - could be
done (and maintained) privately to offset this concern.
Therefore because of all these things and
because divorce is such a major change in regards to a believer / believer
marital covenant the following things ought to at least be considered before divorcing and once again they are…
For Both:
Separation (which could be anywhere from a few days every week to longer)
and (Primarily) for the man:
Altering for an additional spouse [which could also be maintained as a private
matter (if so wished) in the following order…
1. Private [as in completely hidden except between the new couple (a
hidden marriage) how it would work would vary]
2. Then private (except among friends)
3. Private except among friends and family
4. Private except among friends, family and the chosen public
5. Then finally the new relationship would be completely and fully public].
and (Primarily) for the woman (in the first
relationship):
Amending [which again could also be maintained as a private matter (if so
wished) in the following order…
1. Private (as in details hidden except between the couple)
2. Then private (except among friends)
3. Private except among friends and family
4. Private except among friends, family and the chosen public
5. Then finally the details would be completely and fully public].
Again the thing that differs altering from
amending is that amending primarily effects the women (or usually “first” wife)
in the relationship (291) and altering primarily effects the man (291A). The
thing that’s interesting about separation here is that while it is a category
unto itself (291B) it can also can contain or allow for altering and
amending if so wished (291C) Thus once again because divorce is such a
major change in regards to a believer / believer marital covenant the just
mentioned things ought to at least be considered before divorcing (291D).
292 -299
What if
there is no other option?
God’s
Desire
Dedication, Fruitfulness and Peace
Brothers
and sisters, sisters and brothers, dealing with unbelievers and gray areas is
one thing, dealing with an obvious Christian spouse is another. The thing is in
regards to divorce one can - as the minimum - separate from a believer without
concern of being on quote unquote “God’s bad side” and suspend obligations as
long as one does not get married again (1 Corinthians 7:10,11). That is a
scriptural fact. Also one can actually extend this point by saying that since there
is no real difference between separation and divorce one can actually get a divorce
if one wishes (if one remains
unmarried) and it would all be biblically sound and more than likely not
disputed by any thinking
church (292). It is the remarriage that
is the thing that is in dispute in most churches, not the separation [or even
the divorce per say (again as long as the parties remain single)], all of which
can lead to some interesting possibilities for some people (292A).
The thing
is in regards to the issue of a Christians remarriage in such cases is that
there are legitimate reasons
for at least some Christian / Christian divorces and remarriage to other
Christians (292B) as well as reasons for annulments (292C)
so at the
minimum we are dealing with groups of people who may fall into this category of
Christian / Christian divorce (with the possibility of remarriage) and may need
to make decision here.
In regards
to making that decision once everything is considered (292D) even though
God hates divorce He also loves and desires our Dedication (2 Timothy 2:20,21), Fruitfulness (John 15:2) and Peace (1
Corinthians 7:15) thus if a final decision is made to divorce (unless God says
different) because we may be or are dealing
with complex things where things are intermingled between people - it’s
probably best for Christians to mutually agree on ending (or altering) a marriage
covenant before one does so (292E),
reason being that people’s lives can be so intertwined and interdependent on
one another that any ending (altering) without talking it over first can be
destructive (Genesis 44:30). Thus if ‘life’ (which includes God and
circumstances) is leading only one party to see things differently in regards
to their marriage - if God is behind it, it
ought to be something that is seen, or
will eventually be seen by both
parties (especially if they are jointly seeking God on the matter).
Brethren, in regards to dealing with
these ‘life issues’ if they happen to be individual issues that only effect the
individual that’s one thing, but because they affect others (such as altering
or amending a marriage covenant, even divorce and separation), the
responsibility for ones actions (as well as the actions outcome) becomes a
little more weighty - even if relationships are just on the “promise” level (293) thus it would be best to exercise caution. However if
after going to the word, the gifts and prayer and the only option is change, then change it is and one has to see
that it would be for the better. As
said before there can be many reasons for marital change, some horizontal (or
personal), and some vertically directed (as in the ability to serve God better),
the thing is individuals have to weigh out all
these things out and after the practical aspects (such as finances, etc.) are
considered and / or the word of God
(or a word from God) is clear on the matter (293A) if there is no other option then you have to change (293B).
Brothers and sisters, once again if
God is leading you in the direction of ending (or altering) a marriage covenant
(293C),
seek the Lords leading on how to end / alter the
relationship for once again, if God is behind it, it ought to be something that
is seen (or will be seen) by both parties and it can just be a matter of
patience and prayer before it actually comes about (293D)
Brethren, mutually agreeing on major
decisions that were prearranged (unless God says different) is pretty much
common sense (and you don’t have to be religious to see that either).
“…(keep in mind) God has called
us to peace.” (1 Corinthians 7:15)
Talk.
______
300)
324)
Chapter 17
Christian Healing
(Mercy and Restoration)
Sisters and brothers, the question of whether
God could have achieved His purposes for our lives in some other way will
probably always be there. When looking back at our lives most see at the
minimum things there they wish weren’t there and some things that they wish to
modify. We all make mistakes and even
worse we all sin. Sometimes we have to live with our failings and many times we
are surprise to find out that we actually can… and life goes on. Sometimes we
have to wait for God’s mercy in our situation, even though He has forgiven us,
still we wait for His dealing, to make things right and set things straight -
and He eventually does. Many times we can confess a fault, failing or mistake
and move on trusting God in faith that He will take care of any fallout - and
again He does. There is nothing that is worth killing oneself over – if life is
so bad (which with God is impossible), it’s better to just leave a situation
than stay (300), however
God can correct a situation and you stay, correct a situation and you leave but
we need to listen to God here (301).
In regards to the
topic of divorce it seems like at least half the population goes through it (302) – with no one on any level of society being
immune and most everyone seems to make it through. If you happen to go through
it it’s done and over, and while the very few do go back, most everyone does
not and if they did things probably wouldn’t be the same – not exactly, for
people change when they go through things and divorce usually does bring about
resolve in people’s lives (303)
Seeing the Hand of God Behind Everything that
Happens
Sisters and brothers, once again the question
of whether God could have achieved His purposes for our lives in some other way
will probably always be there, but when things happen in finality obviously He
chose (or allowed) a certain path, and if that path happens to be “on the
negative” (304),
there comes a point in one’s life where after one has done everything they can
about a situation - and it doesn’t change - they surrender themselves to the
will of God (305).
Brothers and sisters, God is ultimately in
control of everything and what He allows to happen He allows for reason – and
it is usually for the best, even though we may not see it at the time (306).
Life does not always turn out the way we wish (307), but there are times that it
does - through detours - that may last some time.
The thing about God’s mercy and restoration in
regards to divorce is that it’s a two-fold thing that affects two
relationships, one being ourselves with God and the other being ourselves with
others and the best thing to be in regards to everything here is to be honest
with oneself about all things (308), for that is the beginning and start of
positive change in any situation we find ourselves in.
Healing
Brothers and sisters…
Mercy and Restoration
Brothers and sisters in regards to the issue of
restoration of what we once had… it is possible – if you, the other party and
God want it - but only if we correct the things that brought us to lose what to
begin with. However restoration does not necessarily mean things will be
exactly the same… or … but ..
And one can be
restored in God’s standing and purposes and yet still not have what they lost
either
Brethren, in regards
to this issue…
Maturity
______
325)
349)
Chapter 18
Life
SEE E:8 on this
Brothers and sisters, because we
have factored in a new way of looking at things (that is flowing with the flow
of life as opposed to flowing with the flow of law), try to remember that
because of the way life is, couples see things (or state things) as best as
they can see it at this time and one’s life could still change in regards to
commitments, especially as one matures (the next chapter) and everyone needs to
be aware of that.
______
350-373
Note: First mention of the
angels(including footnotes)
SEE E:8 on this
---------------------------
Chapter 19
Moving on to Maturity
To
Act in a Mature Way, or in Any Way?
Would a
Mature Person Do “Such and Such”?
The
Sound and Stable Among Us
For now
we see in a mirror dimly (that is not in a perfectly clear or full way),
but then (when we reach perfection or maturity) face to face (that is you can’t
get see any more clearer) (1 Corinthians 13…………….)
Brothers and sisters how one approaches any
issue is important (350), and how one approaches the issue of divorce
is important. Looking at all the scriptures on the subject is one way (350A),
looking at it from the position of law or principles of life is another.
However when looking at the subject from a mature perspective [or maturity (which can be factored into
reasons behind divorce)], one may begin to wonder why such a thing as divorce
is necessary for although the mature lifestyle moves from dependency to
independency (350B) there is an interdependence on one another (which
varies in degree as we mature), which for the mature flows with the flow
of life - not law (or legal criteria for relationships). Divorce involves a
dissolving of relationships and for the Christian - even when moving more and
more towards independency - such things probably ought not be. While one can
argue back and forth regarding the merits / demerits of believer / unbeliever
relationships (351),
believer / believer relationships (outside possible ‘phony
believer’ relationships) can always be salvaged, saved and steered correctly
because of common ground in Him.
However even though this is true one cannot escape the concept of the maturity of the believer with all
that that entails which includes independence.
Jesus,
speaking of the other side of eternity talks about the angels not being married
but ‘flowing “without commitment” (352) and even though people can be committed on
this side of eternity, as people on this side of eternity mature the drawing of
and towards that non-committed
independent life(style) (353) is inevitable and that “tug” along with the
desire for maturity (and its mature lifestyle with all its benefits) will
always be there (354). Factoring that
into believer’s personal relationships (355), which
includes husband and wife relationships - particularly
as they mature, is probably a wise thing to do (356)
A Need to
Enforce the “Riot Act”?
Buffoons,
Clowns and the Immature
Dumping
Someone
Now this is not to say that there can’t be a home
base or a “house” (357), or even an independent house
(358), but the mature house
is to be a realistic house (359), and not only open to change (360), but open period (361), and is to be
a house (base) based on love (362).
In regards to the angelic (lifestyle) because
of the inevitable “tug” towards as well as the
desire for maturity (and its mature lifestyle with all its benefits) friction
in an established household can be possible and the continual need by some to
revisit commitments (363) and refresh one’s mind about those
commitments (364)
- with ultimatums - is about as mature as just dumping someone and walking out
on them completely. Brothers and sisters, there must be a middle ground that
allows for forward change among the
maturing
that also factors in one’s previous commitment into a new (joint) lifestyle [which
are not forgotten but augmented to allow for change – mature (joint) change (365)].
Sisters and brothers, for the sound and stable
among us, acting in a mature way (not in “any way”) along with a consideration
of whether a mature person would do “such and such” in a situation is a sign of
maturing (or moving on to maturity) and for a brother or sister to just ‘dump’
a legitimate spouse and / or not allow for spousal change in a “committed”
relationship is not a sign of maturity, but are signs of being immature [for
people may need to be able to both move on to the (their) independent mature future
(if need be (366))
and yet deal with “the past” correctly (if so be (367)) in order to mature (that is:
live the mature angelic life)]. Thus we as maturing Christians must be open to
change and allow for it – regardless (368).
Correctly
Thinking Things Through
What
would an Adult do?
Building Current and Future Relationships on Faith, Hope and
Love
“Therefore
leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, let
us press
on to maturity (in our experience!) … (Hebrews 6:1).
The Nature of Independence (370)
Brothers and
sisters as the just mentioned verse just stated we are exhorted leave
elementary teaching about Christ (or if you continue reading Hebrews 6 –
Christianity) and move on to maturity. Now while one can go back and forth
about the nature of maturity (or mature independence) there is no question that
we are to move in that direction (370A) and will get there someday. Sisters and
brothers we are not to be babies, toddlers, children or young adults for all
our lives, all of which are dependent, but actual full grown mature adults with the full rights and privileges thereof.
The thing is in regards to establishing
current and future - cross spectrum productive relationships (370B) –
things are needed and while one can go back and forth about the nature of
allowable (usually temporary) productive relationships, in regards to a fully mature productive
relationship the things that establish productivity in every area are usually not material things (370C) but
more altruistic things like faith, hope and love.
Brethren, those
three things are linked together many times in scripture and are not only the traits
of productive fruitfulness, but also are the actual fruit to be desired in all
relationships. Thus the question then becomes for the mature “what kind of
relationship do you want?
(all of
which do not necessarily involve “full-time commitment”), and of course “why do
you want the one you want?” (370D)
Brothers and
sisters, for the mature (regardless of the type of relationship chosen) unless
it is distant for reason (370E) it is
important for all to build current and future intimate relationships on a
proper foundation (which is faith, hope and love) for that is where the true and
full benefits of any high(er) relationship lie (370F)
Again brethren,
unless a relationship is distant for sound reason that is where all higher
functioning relationships lie, in altruism not in the thing (370G) itself.
Faith (371’s)
Because
higher functioning relationships lie (or fall) in altruism such things as faith
hope and love are ‘in play’ in regards to all higher functioning relationships.
Thus any act (or action) of higher functioning that is done between the people
in a relationship is done because of - and towards - a higher end than the just
the act itself. In regards to the concept of faith in regards to intimate
relationships…
Hope (372’s)
Again because
all higher functioning relationships lie (or fall) in altruism, such things as
faith, hope and love are ‘in play’ in regards to all higher functioning
relationships. Thus once again any act (or action) of higher functioning that
is done between the people in a relationship is done because of - and towards -
a higher end than the just the act itself. In regards to the concept of hope in regards
to intimate relationships most people would at least hope that another person
loves them for reasons outside the physical (372) or
the material (372A) or even the social (372B) and
while all three can make a person attractive (372C) none
make for a firm and lasting intimate relationship for… peoples bodies do
change, riches either fade or get used to - as does most peoples social status’s
(which may not even last), brethren it’s the altruistic (or higher things) that
really matter and are the ‘things of worth’ that continue throughout one’s life
[for its really these things (372D) that help
one through life’s difficulties and ‘shore up’ one’s ‘being’ the fruit of which
(372E) we bring to the other side of eternity].
In regards
to the concept of hope in higher functioning intimate relationships…
372) that they have a
beautiful body
372A) or
that they are rich
372B) if they have social
status
372C) which people can and do
use to start off relationships
372D) which can be expressed
through a simple hug, or a pat on the back
372E) along with - believe it
or not - what we do with our
material things (verse needed)
Love (373’s)
Sisters and
brothers, love is usually given as the (main) reason and (main) basis of all
higher level relationship and in regards to loves definition it is not only a
feeling, but biblically speaking a state of mind and regards action (the doing
or not doing of something). It would be nice if one were to “feel”
love towards the person one is in relationship with (and most probably do), but
it ought to be noted that according to 1 Corinthians 13 (the classic definition
of love) the word “feelings” is not even mentioned, but once again is a state
of mind that involves both the doing and the not doing
of certain things.
According to
1 Corinthians 13:4-8
Love is…
______
Chapter 20
Conclusion
“Now if perfection was through the
Levitical (Mosaic) priesthood… what further need was there for another priest
after the order of Melchizedek… who has become ______ …. not on the basis of … law, but according to the power of
…indestructible life” (Hebrews 7:11-16)
Although I said in the beginning this
book was and is about divorce, it really wasn't (at least not completely), but is more a book on maturity as well as
the mature way of looking at one’s life (374).
Although Christian can get divorced they
don’t have to and can explore other viable options for their lives. For
people who have known each other for quite some time to end all contact and all
arrangements and end a relationship between
what were again to be lifelong partners
is very serious business. Divorce is much more serious business than ‘separation’ (375), so serious that some Christians reject the action
outright no matter who is involved (even believer / unbeliever) or no matter
what was done. However the fact of the matter is that people do get divorced
and some of it is done amicably, uncontested with ex-spouses on very good
terms. Divorce can produce both pain and new blessing depending on what you are
talking about (376).
Sisters and brothers what I did in this book
was to approach the subject from a number of different perspectives - and
levels - hoping that whatever level the reader was on they would be able to
find an answer for the dilemma they were facing (377). For some this book gave some answers in terms of of law
(that is: annulments, grounds and vows), or in old teaching (377A).
For others this book gave answers not in terms of law at all
but simply knowing that the only law Christians are under is law of liberty
(that or seeing the principle of ‘life over law’). Still others found their
answer in terms of correctly understanding that there is a progression of
revelation in scripture (377B), in regards to a
maturing conscience and how that maturity may have applied to their entire
situation (that or listening to God for answers and direction).
As said in the introduction this book is like a
bridge from one point to another (a bridge that has many entrance and exit
ramps). Where a person enters and exits that bridge is where they “are at” in
their thinking, experience and conscience, and what I try to do
is move people logically from one point (position) to another, moving everyone
unto maturity (or a more mature viewpoint on life).
However the main point of the matter
is that even though divorce (and annulments) are options for the Christian,
Christians do not have to get divorced (or
annulled) at all and can explore other – quite viable - options for their
lives.
Brothers and sisters the final way
one ought to look at life is from the mature perspective of maturity. Life is a
life in
motion under continual construction to that mature perfect state (as well as
the mature perfect way of looking at
one’s life). There are levels to (ones) life, and steps to that maturity
and it’s important to remember that one’s life is a life in process to that
perfection. Sisters and brothers the thing is this perfection (or maturity)
involves a number of things (some have already been mentioned) but most of all
it involves not dependence but moving towards independence (378)
While there is such a
thing as interdependence [hence certain types of arrangements (378A)] for a person – especially a woman – to see
themselves as not only individuals – but as self-sufficient individuals, not dependent on someone else for
self- esteem…. is a goal for everyone in this life as well as the life to come.
Brethren, what I did in
this book was to connect those two lives (the present life as well as the future
life of God’s children) for probably the best and final answer in regards to
this entire issue (and all the issues involved), progressing from one point to
another - connecting all the dots - that leads us to that mature perfect state
and mature way of thinking about things of which can be found in the life of
the angels (379).
Brothers and sisters while divorce
can be an option for Christians lives (380) there is
benefit to staying together (or at the minimum splitting amicably on very good terms), and there are other options here too. However
the thing about maturity is that it takes time and there seem to be steps to it that involves other people’s
lives (381), however in regards
to exploring other options than divorce for dilemmas or issue one may face in a
spousal relationship if you can, once again, reach a
level of maturity (perfection) where your emotions are in control
(that is: you are mature enough to handle everything); issues of
comparison and the past are not issues; the understanding that both you
and the person you may be involved in are not possessions (that is:
there is an understand that no one ‘owns them’ nor do they ‘own’ you, God does)
as well as ones reputations (dignity) and ones sense of self-worth (or value) is
not threatened. Also, that there is an acknowledgement that these
relationships can be temporary, “temporary” or even “staggered” and that there
is mutual respect present and necessary boundaries between one another in these
type of relationships (as in the honoring of requests for example) are honored;
and the understanding that people are not objects or things to be used
and of course both your consciences are soft {not hard, or hardened} -
and most of all faith, hope and love is present in this relationship you are
considering, then I would say that you are
a mature individual and have a mature way of looking at things in
this particular area of your life (that is: in regards to
relationships you’ve reached perfection) and as a result you can partake in
these mature type of relationships instead
of divorcing.
Brothers and sisters,
sisters and brothers you have another option than divorce.
______
400)
450)
Chapter 21
Problem Verses
Brothers and sisters, it would be a
mistake to think that there aren’t people who object to the content of this
book and most everyone who does so will attempt to justify their views
scripturally. After almost 40 years of being a Christian and dealing with
people from most every denomination – and cult, I have found out that everyone
can find a scripture to support their viewpoint – no matter what the subject,
but are those scriptures interpreted rightly? in context? and do the people who
use those scriptures to support a particular viewpoint understand ‘how the
progression of revelation in scripture’ might affect their cherished viewpoints
is quite another matter altogether (400).
Sisters and brothers, in this
chapter I wish to address those particular verses that Christians - who object
this book – would use to justify their own position and explain them – not away
– but explain them in the context in which they were written.
400A – 400G
Matthew
23:16-22
“Woe to you, blind guides (the
Pharisees), who say, ‘whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but
whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.’ You fools and blind
men, which is more important, the gold, or the temple that sanctified the gold?
And ‘ whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the
offering upon it, he is obligated. ‘ You blind men, which is more important,
the offering or the altar that sanctifies it?’ Therefore he who swears, swears
both by the altar and by everything on it. An he who swears by the temple,
swears both by the temple and Him who dwells within it. And he who swears by
heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.” (Matthew
23:16-22)
The point of this discourse by Jesus
concerns the Pharisees - who were
champions of the law - and Jesus was pointing out the wrongness of their views
on vows.
Jesus does not, or is not talking
about anything other than the foundational content of them.
Jesus in regards to the issue of
taking vows advises that a person make no vows at all
“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told,
‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I
say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem for it is
the city of the great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you
cannot make one hair white or black.” But let your statement be, “Yes, yes’ or
‘No, no’; and anything beyond these is evil.” (Matthew 5:33-37)
No where in the gospels does Jesus
address the issue of the bindingness of vows. One might think that because He
brings up the issue in Matthew 23 that one might infer that they are binding,
but one can also infer from Matthew 5, that because doing such a thing is evil,
and evil can be repented over, repenting of vows is OK.
Also it is helpful to point out that
according to the law (which everyone was under at the time) there were
exceptions to vows which in effect nullified them (reread
Chapter____ ) and this fact also weighs against the idea (or at
least tempers the idea) that Jesus brought up the subject in order that
everyone would understand that vows (or at least all vows) made are binding on
the individual [again He could not say that because He was speaking to people
who were under the law and there were exceptions (Chapter
____ )].
Jesus does not condone, and is not
condoning the use of vows in Matthew 23
Brothers and sisters remember, if
anything the focus of Jesus teaching was not on law [putting oneself under
something; for example guardians, custody or bondage (Galatians 3:23; 4:2,3)
but His focus was on life (Chapter ____).
Once again remember that according
to the law (which again both Jesus and the Pharisees were under at the time)
there were exceptions, and one could nullify (annul) vows, so the idea
that Jesus brought up the subject so that everyone would understand that vows
(or at least all vows) made by an individual are binding on that individual is
incorrect. The law had exceptions.
Brethren, again remember that no
where in the gospels does Jesus address the issue of the bindingness of vows,
if anything it’s just the opposite. Remember again His focus in life was on
life - not law (reread Chapter ).
Brethren to make a vow is evil and
according to Christianity evil can be repented over.
400 H – 400 L
Romans 7:1,2,4 & 6
“Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as
long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while she is living; but if her husband dies,
she is released from the law concerning the husband … Therefore my
brethren, you were also made to die to the law
through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to
Him…but now we have been released from the law, having died to that which
we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit, and not in
oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:1,2, 4 & 6)
This verse is often use to
illustrate not so much the grounds for remarriage, but to illustrate how a
covenant cannot end until one party dies using the old Mosaic covenant as an example
by stating that the Mosaic covenant couldn’t end until one party died (400H)
Christians who use this verse to say
that a covenant is a covenant and one is not release from the covenant until
one party of the covenant passes away must remember that the person who wrote
this verse also wrote the exception verse in 1 Corinthians 7:15 so already
we have a problem with that view [and these verses (400 I)].
Also it is to be noted that the
apostle is talking to those who know the
law (which includes the law of marriage) and also states that we have been made to die to the
law through the body (death) of Christ, that you might be joined to another
- to Him which abrogates all previous agreements (400J).
The apostle is not mentioning this point to say that if you
are married that’s it but is making the point to illustrate how we as believers
are no longer under the law (400K).
Brethren, as clear cut as some might
want to make this passage it is again not being used in the sense of the
permanency of marriage, but to illustrate the fact that a first relationship
can be dissolved so that we can be joined to another (in other words first
relationships are not that solid especially when the second – namely joining up
with God – overrules it).
Also note the following verse as
well…
“…but now we have been released from the law, having
died to that which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the
Spirit, and not in oldness (thinking of old covenant which
was) of the letter” (or the letter of the law) (Romans 7:1,2,
4 & 6)
Brothers
and sisters we are just not under the law (on a number of levels)
____________
James 5:12
“But above all, my brethren, do not
swear, either by heaven or by earth, or with any other oath; but let your yes
be yes and your no, no; so that you may not fall under judgment.” (James 5:12)
This is one of those scriptures that
seem to make a black and white case for judgment following a broken (or not followed
through) vow.
The thing about scripture is that
you need to compare scripture with scripture and because we already have a case
where vows can be annulled if an unbeliever leaves (1 Corinthian 7:15), for an
individual to not follow through with the following of a vow and not have to
worry about being judged for not fulfilling it is - in at least one case –
correct (400 M).
Once again Jesus does talk about the
issue of making vows as being evil (and for some this may be one of the reasons
why He says such a thing), however to say that evil cannot be repented of is
not Christian, nor Christianity (401).
Brothers and sisters I think the
main point in James 5:12 is not to swear (an oath or vow) to begin with (and
for me if you take what is written in this verse seriously to immediately
repent of it so you don’t - set - yourself - up - for a situation where -
because of your imperfection - you may either fail to follow through with it; fail
to follow through with it completely or just fail to fulfill it altogether) (402).
And again remember that the laws of
Moses were flexible in regards to this issue.
Note: in the
book of Revelation we see an angel swear (402A) that there will be no more delay (402B) [and
he does so standing in the sun (verse needed)]
which basically means that if he was lying judgment would fall upon him
instantly (as in some king of “poof”), but since he did not go “poof” (402C) he
is not lying and can tolerate even standing in the sun [in other words he picks
the main part of the sky so that everyone will notice (as well as standing in an
obvious dangerous place untouched) so that everyone would also notice and would know for certain the end is on its
way (402D)].
But brethren, what would happen if the angel was honestly mistaken could he get
out of the situation (that is: a certain coming “poof” judgment) by (verbal) repentance? Yes or no?
____________
Hebrews 13:4
Let marriage be held in honor among
all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for fornicators and adulterers God
will judge (Hebrews 13:4)
When one sins in scripture [and
there is such a thing as sin (1 John 1:8)] they usually sin against either God
and themselves; or God, themselves and someone else.
The sin mentions here regards people
not being faithful to what they vowed to another person (or spouse) (403).
Brethren in regards to this verse
one has to admit that on the surface (and not considering any other verses in
scripture) - one does seem to be able to make a (small or large) case
(depending on your view of things) for if one does not mutually agree to
alter (or adjust) a covenant you are in fact dealing with the issue of adultery
[and you may make a (small or large) case for God stepping in], however on the
other hand it begs the question of what happens if the altering or adjusting of
a covenant is mutually agree upon? Would the then altered covenant be OK (that
is would the new partner to the relationship be in an adulterous
situation?). I would say no (404).
Sisters and brothers, the issue of
adultery can be broad, particularly if God is telling you to do something (And
again remember we are not under the law of vows anymore so at the minimum
adjusting a covenant should be more than OK).
Also brethren most Christians do not
hold to the viewpoint that once married that’s it, period, particularly when
considering 1 Corinthians 7:15 (a biblical exception to this issue of defiling
a marriage bed). So since we already have at least one exception in scripture
in regards to Hebrews 13:4 the question arises is there any more? (Read the
conclusion at the end of the chapter).
____________
1 Corinthians 7:10, 11
“But to the married (believers), I
give instruction, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her
husband (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled
to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away” (1
Corinthians 7:10,11)
One of the first things to note here
is that this is not so much focusing on the issue of divorce, (that is leave
her husband - which according to the verses is permissible), but the
issue of remarriage
“but if she
does leave, let her remain unmarried” (1 Corinthians 7:11)”
Sisters and brothers the apostle is
not saying that a believer can’t leave a relationship (the phrase
“should not” is not the phrase “must not”). In other words it’s ok for
believers to divorce (or at the minimum separate from one another)
Brethren, the issue of believer
divorce (that is believers divorcing one another), and the whole subsequent
issue of believer remarriage (that is believers then marrying other believers)
aside for a moment, what we see in these verses is a believer can walk out on a
multitude of vowed responsibilities (405), and the main
issue regarding these verses concerns the remarriage of believers after
divorcing previous spouses who
believe not the altering of a marital covenant or living the angelic life (405A).
It ought to also be pointed out that
the word "Command" is not used in the verse, but the word "Instructions"
is, which is an important point to note. In scripture there are commands,
pleas, requests all kinds of things which Christians usually do not take note of (405B) and
most bible believing churches will lump together as 'commands' (or even iron
clad commands) and corporately follow when they ought not to (405 C).
Sisters and brothers, the thing that
backs up these verses NOT being ‘a universal no exception command’ from the
Lord is that a person is allowed to leave (that is: not stay together) as well
as the general tone of the section in that no
commands are given in the entire chapter, but opinions and a plea for concession
(405D).
Brethren, the thing about the word "instructions" is that again remember
we also have instructions given by the Holy Spirit (the other member of the
tri-unity) to a group (405E) some of
which later turns out to be regulated to a matter of conscience in regards to
the individual in later epistles (verse needed)
also it is to be noted about the particular "instruction" given here
is that the “traditional reason” is not the reason for it (405F) but seems to revolve around
the issue of the sanctification of the children (7:14) which leaves open a possibility regarding a divorce
and remarriage taking place if that issue is taken care of through other means (405G).
Also in regards to this it leaves
open the question of whether there can be legitimate reasons [as in (unique)
individual reasons (405H)] not to follow it, and again since the word
“instruction” is used [not the word “command” (405 I)] it
also leaves open the question of whether "instructions" can come to
the contrary, especially to an individual.
The thing about these verses brethren
even though it comes from the Lord it is probably based on His teaching in the
gospels which would not allow for such a thing (405 J) but
as we have already noted in 1 Corinthians 7:15 in regards to that gospel
teaching we have an exception regarding divorce and remarriage that is not
found in the gospels (but yet is allowable) which because of that leaves open
the question of whether there can be other exceptions to the teaching as
well.
In summation sisters and brothers
1) because we are not dealing with a universal no
exception command (a spouse is allowed to leave).
2) and the reason given for it can be addressed
through other legitimate means.
3) and we already mentioned in this book that we have
a situation where the Holy Spirit (again the other member of the tri-unity) can
say one thing to a group and a different thing to an individual base on
maturity of conscience issues.
It is possible for a believer to
leave a Christian and marry another because (or if) there are (or will
be) children the sanctification of the children issue would be (legitimately)
addressed (405
K) and it is possible for
God to tell a believer to leave a believer and remarry as well [as to whether
He would do it or not is debatable, but it's not impossible and because of that
one ought not question a believer - based on these verses alone - who has felt
so led to do so (406)]
Brothers and sisters aside from
divorce and remarriage if believing
spouses consent or mutually agree to do alter their covenant is
there a problem? No not according to these verses (406A). How about if they separate
and walk out on vowed responsibilities is there a problem according to these
verses? – no (406B).
How about living the mature lifestyle for those who have achieved perfection in
that area of their life? Is there a problem? Why would there be? Sisters and
brothers in regards to the issue of a mature lifestyle if a person can walk out
on vowed responsibilities does it really matter which ones they walked out on
(or amend)? – particularly (according to this verse) if they are not going to
get married again? (406B-1) I don’t think so (406C).
Brothers and sisters the most you
get from this passage is a sense from the Lord (in the sense of instructions)
that believers (that is: legitimate covenants) ought to stay together for the
sake of the children. Now although we ought not look down on that instructional
advise it’s not a “no if’s and’s or but’s”
situation and if that issue can be addressed by other legitimate means it
leaves open the possibility of divorce and remarriage among believers (406 C-1).
Revelation 2:20-22
“but I
have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel who calls herself a
prophetess and teaches and leads my bond-servants astray so that they commit
acts of immorality, and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to
repent… of her immorality and she does not want to repent… (therefore)… I will
cast her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her…
(Revelation 2:20-22)
One of the
first things that stands out in this passage (for those who are familiar with
the reasoning in this book) is the linking of fornication with eating things
sacrificed to idols [which is also in line with what is written in Acts 15:29 -
but is something that is regulated to a matter of conscience in a later epistle
(406D).
Now although some might see Jesus
statement on regarding ‘eating things sacrificed to idols’ as more commentary
as to what Jezebel did (406E), the word “and” (406F), links fornication and eating
things sacrificed to idols together [which in regards to things sacrificed to
idols no one believes we are under (406F1)].
Sisters and brothers, this passage is pretty
easy to solve for the word “teach” (as with the “spirit of Balaam” in verse 14)
is used and because you are dealing with matter of conscience issues you can’t
teach someone to violate their conscience – you need a revelation (406G)
Brothers and sisters in regards to
the angelic option (or end) for ones mature life, for one to practice it on
this side of eternity you need ‘a revelation’ that it is OK (not a teaching per
say), otherwise I guarantee you at some point you will begin to doubt, stumble
and possibly fall.
1 Corinthians 6:15-17,19
“Do you not know that your
bodies are member of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ (that
is: the sexual member of the body) and make them members of a harlot? May it
never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one
body with her? For He says, “the two will become on flesh” But the one who
joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him… or do you not know that your
body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you… and that you are not your
own?” (1 Corinthians 6:15-17,19)
First off
the scriptures are talking about joining oneself with a harlot (not fornication
per say) and the reasons (as in the reason) it is ‘frowned upon’ [as in sin (vs. 18)] is because the two
will become one flesh (which usually is meant as the two becoming or having a
fleshly child) and one’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Now although one
can look at the ‘two becoming one’ in the sense of emotional linkage (or
emotional ties) the point of the two (opposites) becoming one in any way (children or even
emotional) seems to be of concern here{footnote}
Footnote) see Unbelievers and Covenants Chapter ___ in regards to some of this.
Now although one can prevent children through birth control and emotionally disconnect (see Footnote 266a & 266c) in order to circumvent some or all concern here, the question of holiness [in
one’s experience (see Footnote 149)] is still something that can be
raised.
The thing
is there are a number of issues and questions that are raised and not raised
here and a lot of wrong assumptions as well [as in the passage is talking
about fornication (or any woman who has sex outside of marriage is a harlot {footnote} Footnote) which begs the question: what of the
man?)]. Also such questions as…
All need
to be answered
The thing
about a harlot is (as mentioned in Footnote 268) there are legitimate - on the level - reasons in
regards to such - paid for sex - activities
so in regards to these verses you are talking about factoring out any legitimate
reasons that surround ‘good intent’ in regards to the definition of a
harlot (which again can include…
The thing
is in regards to the definition of harlotry it’s not as neat as one may want to
make it and when you take the concept of fornication (non-covenant sex) out of
these verses (as well as factoring out good intent) you are basically left with
the payment of sex for no good (as in: sound) reason as the definition of
harlotry (or ‘harlot behavior’). Thus one can keep the basic sense of these
verses intact (and not worry about fornication) and as long as selflessness (as
in “you are not your own”) behavior doesn’t translate into any kind
inappropriate - over the line - behavior things ought to be all right here in
regards to paid sex.
1 Corinthians 7:40
“But in my opinion
she is happier if she… (is single); and I think that I also have the Spirit of
God.” (1 Corinthians 7:40)
Sisters
and brothers although this verse is not so much a doctrinal problem I thought
I’d throw it in to understand a person’s (namely a woman’s) mindset in
relationships [that is she is settling for something that is not her
ultimate happiness and guys may need to understand this (footnote)]. Brothers and sisters, a woman with no
commitment is in a happier state than a woman with one and it’s not that
commitment is sin or wrong it’s just that it’s not the most content state a
person can be in. Life (a mature life) ought to see this and allow for the
possibility of flexibility here realizing that having one step in the present
and one in the future is a better option for spouses than having both steps in
the present [however not as good as both steps in the future (but we are not
{all} there yet)]. Thus at the minimum all past cheating by either spouse ought
to be forgiven (and the future can be open to negotiation).
Footnote)
which can explain a woman’s restlessness or even an “itch”
Conclusion
Brethren, in regards to the issue of
the unchangeableness of vows - according
to Christian teaching - vows can be
changed from a multitude of perspectives. Let’s look again at the biblical
evidence (again 1 Corinthians 7:10,11)
But to the married (believers), I
give instruction, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her
husband (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried… (1 Corinthians
7:10,11)
Sisters and brothers without getting
into the issue of (“let her remain unmarried”); according to the Lord [“not I,
but the Lord” (407)]; as said before a
woman (wife) can walk out on a multitude of vowed responsibilities to the
husband - and it would be OK with the Lord)
Now what does doing such a thing say
about vows? Or the necessity to fulfill them?
Brothers and sisters if you read
gospels you have verses about husbands leaving a wife and family for the sake
of the gospel (Luke 18:29); also in 1
Corinthians 7:29 you have a statement that says “those who have wives should be
as though they had none.”
The issue of vows - especially in
regards to Gods will - is not an issue, however the issue of vows (or should I
say promises), in regards to things that aren’t Gods will [as in focusing on
self (or selfish desires) at the expense of what you may have promise others]
may become an issue for some.
Fornication
and Adultery
The thing about sex outside a
covenant situation is that even though it is frowned upon by the church - and
scripture - the angels do in fact partake in this lifestyle and Jesus said
believers too will someday partake in it as well. The thing that is different
here is if you have read this book is that it is also a Christian
tradition to press ahead into what is coming down the road in faith (407A).
Brethren, the word “fornication” in
scripture can mean a variety of things and in regards to its use with the angels it is used when they go
outside their relationship with one another and have sex with mankind [in other
words they went outside certain boundaries - apparently lustful driven
boundaries (408)].
However, it is important to remember
that non-covenanted sex is within
their boundaries [but it is “the who with” that is defined (409)]. Therefore in regards to the actual definition of the
word fornication, that is its final (and
ultimate) definition, it’s not sex outside a covenant that’s wrong, but
“the who with.”
Also note in regards to the
definition of Adultery if you read what was written in this chapter regarding
the verses in Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Corinthians 7:10,11 (as well as what was
written about 1 Corinthians 7:15 in general throughout this book), the
definition is not as clear cut as one might think – especially in regards to
mutually agreed upon alteration of marital covenants (410), and a maturing lifestyle (411). As a result of all this brethren, there is nothing inherently
wrong with uncovenanted sex (411A) – as long as it stays within certain
boundaries - and if one takes all the verses together in the bible
regarding fornication (of whose definition is wide and debatable) – even verses
on adultery - and combine that with a believers right to press ahead into what is
coming next, you are basically left with (that is: the mature is basically
left with) leaving lust out of any (new) relationship and basing all
relationships on love and mutual respect.
A Word of Warning
Brother and sisters, while a sexual
lifestyle of this type is not unheard of in the Non- Christian world,
possession and control of another person is. Also the ability for Non –
Christians (even new believers) to truly live this kind of life and have relationships
based only on faith, hope and selfless love (411B), is questionable as well (412).
Brothers and sisters, in regards to
any new mature relationships we need to be cautions and remember that we are to
treat one another with mature respect and mature dignity and not abuse [nor
mislead (412A)], anyone we are with. We as
Christians are also not to factor lust into any of our arrangements (412B) – only love and again mutual respect and most of all see
lifelong friendship as a goal of intimacy (412C). Brethren, for Non – Christian’s (412D) to have their desires under control and at the same time
not let the emotional ties (which can result from intimacy) lead to ‘a
ownership mentality’ of another person (that is they are mine and only mine) is
not something that people who do not know God can easily do [which is why some
scriptures – even for (new) believers - are written the way they are (413)].
Sisters and brothers it’s only the
born again experience (with a new
heart and new mind) combined with the
ability to lay down of one’s self life thereby letting God take control
of your new life that enables one to live the mature lifestyle portrayed in
this book. Brethren we are on the right track here and there is nothing
heretical about it any of this. If you want the power to live the lifestyle
portrayed in this book (414) -
believe it or not - you as believers already have that power within you – you
only have to tap into it.
Brothers and sisters, Gods will and
His desires for us trumps all.
Brethren, once again, the lifestyle
portrayed in this book is a mature lifestyle for mature people. Don’t’ be an adulterer to Gods will
for you and your life
Sisters and brothers, brothers and
sisters we are all on the right track here.
______
451)
500)
Chapter 22
Questions and Answers
Pick some Questions
______
501)
550)
Chapter 23
Points to Remember
Go through “Notes” for more points
* for those who have an issue with divorce, in
regards to some of these solution we are talking about altering a covenant –
not divorce per say.
* You can’t vow to something illegal, also
wrongly made vows can be dissolved.
* The spies could be released from their oath if Rahab did not follow it’s
conditions. Gibeonites too if didn’t remain as salves (Joshua 9:23; 2 Samuel
21:4)
* People are not according to Christian
teaching to be put to death anymore for adultery therefore….
* If a covenant can be suspended [separation (1
Corinthians 7:11), why can’t it be ended? (1 Corinthians 7:29)].
* Covenants with more than one spouse are not
illegal
* knowing of the right thing (of faith) to do
(in a situation) and not doing it is sin (James 4:17)
* Brothers and
sisters in regards to the systematic principle at work here not everything is scripture fits
into neat guidelines and there are overlaps (See
Footnote ____).
*altering a covenant is not the same thing as
divorce
*In the Law God allows for the dissolving of a
marriage nevertheless (Numbers 30; Leviticus 22:23 &
27 etc David, Mical also see Marriage Covenants with
Unbelievers in N.T.… More on Cancelling a Marriage in annulments)
* Appendix Footnote H:1: mentions the important fact that there is a
distinction between the two covenants (one was for the immature and one was for
the mature).
*There is such a thing as the annulling or
ending of vows.
*
Remember there is in fact a distinction between the two covenants [one was for
the immature and one for the mature (Galatians 3:23-4:11)]
*Jesus did write in the dirt with His finger
*There are many forms of guidance (see extra
biblical chapter) ? (see Footnote _____ regarding the different -
complementary - forms of guidance available to us as Christians)]
*253B) the
conscience actually goes through non-harden
growth
stages [which is important to note in regards to the question (or issue) of new
spousal arrangements].
-
And helpful in regards to the
definition and application of the words (concepts) of fornication / adultery
*Note that if you continue to read
the rest of the verses in 1 Corinthians 9 the parameters to wining that prize
(not salvation, but distinctions in the sense of a crown), also happen
to do with the Discipleship of the believer as well as Holiness
*consciences
will change as well (or mature or grow up) as evidence by the fact that in
scripture there are saved people with weak consciences (immature) and saved
people with strong consciences (mature)
*“For if
the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion
ought for a second. For finding fault with… (it) He says, “Behold the days are
coming, says the Lord, when I will affect a New Covenant with the house of
Israel…” (Hebrews 8:7,8).
*Brothers and sisters because there are
biblical reasons given in scripture for covenants to end, the idea that
covenants cannot end or change is foundationally wrong in definition and
the word “immutable” ought not be used (8).
*Also in regards to the definition of covenants
the concept that there are illegitimately made covenants (9), is something to factor into the concept (or idea) of
divorce as well.
*from Romans 7:1-6 in problem verses
“Also it is to be noted that the apostle is talking to those who know the law (which includes the
law of marriage and is the point he is illustrating) and also states that we
have been made to die to the law through the body (death) of Christ, that you might be
joined to another - to Him which abrogates all previous agreements (footnote)
Footnote) which for our purposes
include marital and goes to support the “married as unbeliever now believer”
exemption for believer / believer divorce
(See Chapter ___ as well as Footnote ____ again for
more on this) as well as such concepts as Gods
will overriding a previous – even legitimate – marital covenants (See 1 Corinthians
7:29).
*36D) and although oaths, swearing and vows describe
basically the same activities (and we may be and probably are dealing with
semantics here) biblically and ceremonially speaking you are dealing with
contractual promises (which have been upped to “taking your vows” in post
biblical culture)* and as a result it would be more correct to make and say promises
to one another (which turn out to be contractual) rather than actual vows.**
Which does have implication in regards to matters of conscience issues here.***
*and secondly some people may have legitimate
(legally speaking) issues in regards to this concept that may need to be
resolved (and may be an interesting “back way” at getting at grounds for
divorce if God is leading you in that direction) (footnote). Footnote) as in supposed you promised to marry
someone and didn’t follow through would the person you are married to now
(biblically speaking) be in a legitimate marital relationship? (that is:
biblically legally speaking).
*45Da) which can also apply to 1 Corinthians 7:17
[note 1 Corinthians 7:17 can be used by some to state that you stay in the
relationship you are in when you get saved (which may in fact be true {see
Chapter ___ and Footnote ___ regarding the breaking of all ex-agreements when
on gets saved (or a salvation exemption)}), however once one is saved - and
making agreements - the subject of legitimate and illegitimate can still come
up.
______
551-599
Appendix A
The Systematic Principles(s)
(at Work in this Book)
“until
we all attain to… a mature man…” (Ephesians 5:13)
Go through Appendix C Sustaining Revival
Brothers and sisters a systematic
principle (551), is usually a principle that either controls other
principles (552), or is the key systematic principle in at work in a
particular work (like this book), a ministry (553), a religious philosophy (554), or even in person’s life (555). There are a lot of systematic principles in this
world (556), and although they are not called “systematic” – but principles
by people most people usually they have a major one [like the golden rule (557)], and other
ones that they hold on to which will usually determine all subsequent behavior
[and / or other principles by which they live their lives (557A)]
The thing is this: the angelic
lifestyle exists, I did not invent it, it is in scripture and we as Christians will
partake of it someday. Since this is so (558) the question(s) then become…
Sisters and brothers like it or not
we are going to move on to that mature state either on this side of eternity or
the next and if your life has unfolded that way on this side – unless it was
premature – don’t feel badly for it was going to happen one way or the other - sooner
or later - anyway and there was not much you could do about it except delay it.
Thus so you might as well enjoy it - maturity and all that it entails (558B).
Conscience,
Faith, (and Life)
in
Relation to Maturity
Brethren, in chapter ________ we dealt with conscience and faith [both of which
mature with maturity being the
goal as well as a (or the) key systematic principle, and / or way to see life (559)
In regards to the issue of
Conscience – which again matures and is a feature of our being subjected to or
controlled by maturity….
In regards to the issue of Faith,
which also matures….
biblically speaking faith allows one to
transcend things [for example the disciples working on the Sabbath
(picking grain) because Jesus was with them (Verse Needed) a New Covenant, not
Old Covenant {which they were under} permitable thing)] (585)]
Sisters and brothers, a maturing
conscience and a maturing (transcending over law) faith are in fact the two key
systematic sub principles (with maturity being the key word or the determining
systematic principle in a person life). “Life over law” is also a key sub
principle [but is dependent (as in a “sub – sub” principle, under a maturing
conscience and faith), needs clarification (586), but yet is
still a key (587) systematic
principle in the determination of things)],…
If there is a key (as in the key) systematic principle at work
in this work it is maturity [with
all the rights and privileges thereof (593)] while gifts
are needed there is a place in life where they are not (footnote)
Footnote)
and as we attain to that place - on
this side of eternity - (footnote)
Footnote)
different aspects of our life and
being may in fact get there before others. Brethren, to say that we cannot be mature
or even perfect on this side of eternity is unbiblical and to say that everything
(or every part of our being) gets to that ‘mature full state’ (footnote)
Footnote) which can be a
debatable term that needs qualification.
at the same time or rate is probably
not true (footnote)
Footnote) for example:
that is not the way the human body is (also note: the eyes are said to be at
full size at birth, and ones ears continue to grow throughout a person’s lives).
And some “parts” can get “there” (mature)
before others.
The thing is in regards to maturity once
our conscience and faith matures (footnote)
Footnote) in regards to
overriding things like law [for example: vows, etc. (that is if you could not
find a reason to amend / alter the relationship you are in, in the many reasons
found in the first half of this book) and in regards to the angelic lifestyle
remember something does in fact get us from here to there [in other words we
mature (in)to that place].
those are the things that are needed
to expand our relationships (which is just one aspect of our life) to the
angelic, or angelic lifestyle. To mature to the place where the gifts aren’t
needed (footnote)
Footnote) which involves a
mature faith as well as…
can relate more to other areas of
our lives (footnote)
Footnote) for example a
truly long life [or the body (see Footnote ___ )]
As too maturing to the state where
one is perfect (or perfected) would relate to still others areas as well (footnote)
Footnote) for example
living a sinless life (bring in sustain revival on saints)
The thing is brethren, because maturity
involves different things one part of our being can get “there” before others (footnote)
Footnote) especially if
need be [for example a woman’s breast can develop quickly if need be (See Footnote 93Ab and 925i) note: make reference to this footnote in 93Ab and
925i]
Note: things do not have
to be fully “developed” to be maturely used (see Footnote 93Ae on this as well) note: make reference to this footnote in 93Ae)
however once the things that are
necessary are in place in regards to mature relationships (footnote)
Footnote) see Guidelines
for Open Mature Relationships in Appendix ___
one ought to be able to partake of
them on this side of eternity (footnote)
Footnote) Note: the terms
“mature” “perfect” and “full” can be and are used somewhat interchangeably here
and because Jesus says we can be perfect on this side of eternity we can also
be mature too [which again is the thing that is necessary in regards to
partaking of mature relationships – maturity (see Footnote a)], and once again in regards to the mechanism which
allows us to override any questions about “law” in regards to relationships (see Footnote c) it’s maturity, or a
mature life [in other words life over law (or once again maturity {perfection} trumps
all)].
Footnote a) which again in regards to current relationships
may involve a mature conscience and a mature faith in regards to overriding
things like law (for example: vows,
etc.), and again in regards to the angelic lifestyle something does in fact get
us from here to there [in other words once again we do mature (in)to that
place].
Note: ones maturity can be tested if (or even when) one finds out that that person
they are in a relationship with can also (or happens to) also find meaning (or
benefit) in a relationship with someone else [or another relationship (see Footnote b)]. In other words
maturity is a two way street and involves a mature outlook and a mature mindset
for and towards others as well (most people will be tested in regards to this).
Footnote b) which is stupid for of course they can [note:
because we don’t have complete knowledge of the angelic it’s difficult to say
if such a thing signals the beginning of a break up of a current relationship
or is just the way relationships are (as is paralleled in regards to how
friendships take place {multiples / in and out / new ones all the time}). Either
way maturity – even in regards to the concept of friendships (as in a person
can have many of them) is again what is needed here in regards to this entire
issue [and again will probably be tested (as in: are you sure you’re mature…?)].
Note: see ___ regarding not being pushed into such relationships
(for maturity is needed) also ___ regarding the observation that the desire for
maturity (which translates into those kinds of relationships) ought to be
expected. Also note the following Appendixes regarding caution in regards to
this entire issue: Issues and Concerns (Appendix __); Guidelines for Mature Open Relationships (Appendix __); Understanding Men and Women (On This Side of Eternity) (Appendix __) and Mature Considerations for Open (“N” & “D”)
Relationships (Appendix __).
Footnote c) which again if you could not find a ‘lawful reason’
to change the relationship you are in [in the many reasons found in the first
half of this book (and / or debate or question some of those reasons)] there is
still yet a place where one can go to change things (in other words be mature).
The thing is in regards to the role
of conscience and faith in regards to maturity is once again…
(bring in sustaining revival on
maturity)
______
600)
612)
Appendix B
The Angels
But Jesus answered and said to them “You are mistaken, not
understanding the scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they
(that is men and women) neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are
like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29,30)
“Then I lifted up my eyes and
looked, and there (were) two women with wings; and they had wings
like the wings of a stork…” (Zechariah 5:9)
“And angels who did not keep their
own domain, but abandoned their proper abode… Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and
the cities around them, since they in the same way as these
indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, …”
(Jude 1:6-7)
Brothers and sisters, according to
scripture angels are not without gender, but have both gender and open
relationships
For in the resurrection they (that
is men and women) neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like
the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30)
and guess what? I don’t think the
follow verse applies to what I’m going to say next but it is close…
“And I… was caught up into Paradise,
and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (2
Corinthians 12:4)
Redeemed people are the same for
once they are resurrected (600) they - in
regards to their relationships with each other “are like the angels in heaven.”
(Again reread the first three verses of this Appendix and think about what is
being said).
Sisters and brothers, at the resurrection
we get a new body (1 Corinthians 15:35-50) and the new body we get, if you
study the scriptures, has senses…
1) We can see with that body (VERSE NEEDED)
2) We can hear with that body (VERSE NEEDED)
3) We can even eat with that body
“And I say to you, that many shall
come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac and
Jacob, in the Kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11)
“But I say to you, I will not drink
of this fruit of the vine from now on until the day when I drink it new WITH
YOU in my Father kingdom” (Matthew 26:29)
Again, the new body we get - IS NOT
WITHOUT SENSES and according to the 3 introductory verses to this section we
can (and probably will) have sex with that body as well.
Un-covenanted (open) sexual relations.
Brethren, in regards to the
afterlife there is not a lot written about what is on the other side of
eternity. However in the book of Revelation heaven (God’s throne) will come
down and becomes part of a new earth (VERSE
NEEDED) and we also seem to be given homes of some type (which
also seem to have already been prepared for us ahead of time and probably come
down inside the walls of the new Jerusalem (VERSE
NEEDED)
“In My Father house (that is the
place of God’s dwelling) are many dwelling places; if it were not so I would
have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2)
These home (or dwelling places) are
probably up there right now [and if these homes (“mansions” in the King James
Version) are like the homes we have now they will have at the very least walls
about them (in others words privacy)]
Brothers and sisters the thing about
un-covenanted sex in the after life (whether speaking of the angels or between
men and women) (and by the way if you asked people to make a list of what
they’d like to see in the after life, most people, probably the vast majority
of people would put sex on the list. So this should not be such a shock since
again we are dealing with paradise and God wants people to be happy), again the
thing about un-covenanted (open) sex in the afterlife is not only are we mature
and perfect but also that because we
are in the presence of God there is not a problem, however on this side
of eternity there may be problems with that kind of thing, particularly since
His guiding presence can be so hard for some people to sense.
On this side of eternity
(unless you are dealing with mature
people who “know the score” and are secure in themselves) the problems with
un-covenanted sex can be many, particularly among the young (601),
for these reasons (as well as some of the reasons mentioned in the guidelines
of Appendix C) is why is why open
relationships are so frowned upon in scripture (602),
especially since we are a fallen
creation prone “to the negative” rather than the positive.
Once again, where we get on the
other side of eternity things are different. If this is so what has changed
only that we are mature and perfected and are nearer and closer to the guiding
presence of God in regard to all action and behavior and there will be no
“prone to the negative” about anything (and people in scripture do “press
ahead”) (603)
Brothers and sisters un-covenanted
sex between consenting people who know the score and are considerate of one
another is no big deal (but quite honestly, because of the way things are in
this fallen word the more private such an activity is the better it would be
for all concerned (604)
______
613)
624)
Appendix C
Lust,
Love and Passion
What are
the Differences?
A lot has been written here
regarding love as well as lust vs. love, but nothing about passion.
Brothers and sisters, while the
genders are similar in that they seem to both like sexual relations the same
there may be a difference between the sexes in regards to some things,
particularly what starts things off in the direction of sex (614).
Men seem to be attracted by the
physical (which women are not) and for a man to be attracted to a male body
[which can be appreciated in an artistic sense, but not stimulating sense (615)]
when women are not particular about it something else is probably in play (616).
Women on the other hand seem to be
attracted more to the emotional side of things [not so much the physical (616A)],
and if something is done for them or to (towards) them (as in a look) can start
a chain of thoughts that may lead to something else (617).
The thing is even though there are
usually different triggers involved in the release of hormones, once released
they need to either be suppressed or addressed.
Emotional
Bonding
Sisters and brothers, emotions can
lead to things, legitimate things such as love - sincere love - even among
people of the same sex. Shared emotions can lead to an emotional bonding (617A) which
can also lead to an emotional cleaving [as in difficult to
separate (617B)]
and because of that lines can be legitimately crossed (617C) and even wrongly crossed even if sincerely crossed (617D)
In regards to homosexuality while
there is nothing wrong with having a close relationship with the same sex -
even loving someone of the same sex more than the other sex - scripture
draws a line in regards to a person having sexual relations with someone of the
same sex. While bonding [over anything (Luke 23:12)] can lead to a friendship,
sharing intimate things can lead to more if one is not careful, therefore
unless one is watchful (617E) it’s
probably best to find a close friend in the opposite sex.
In regards to any legitimate avenue
of homosexual sexual relations that include love (not lust) one wonders how
possible that is sexually since men are not normally (that is: un-lustfully) attracted
sexually
to men’s bodies and women are not normally (that is: un-lustfully) attracted sexually
to any
bodies. While this Appendix is not meant to examine the issue of homosexuality in
great detail it mentions it here because this issue has direct bearing on why
some of the angels fell [and that is due to gross fornication (or
over the line desire for a forbidden body type (617F))]. In other words lust
(not love) can cause one to go over some line (618), and
because of that lust needs to be carefully avoided.
Genesis
6 and the Angels
Body types
(angelic / human) and similar genders
The
‘Tripping up’ of Lust
and the Crossing
over of Lines
In regards to the subject of ‘lines’
if you read Genesis 6 the male angels (sons of God) were the
initiators (619)
– but with human females (women) – and again apparently lust was the thing that
tripped them up (619A)
and was the line that may have cause them to go over that other line that scripture talks about (619B).
Now again one might be able to make
the case that love was the thing involved that which caused them to go over a (forbidden)
line, but whatever it was, in a sense it’s a moot point for at least a
temporary incarceration (619C) eventually
followed their activity because they went over (or beyond) something (619D).
However brothers and sisters since
God is God and has a direction towards His BEST, that direction towards
His best is (again) not without meaning and will factor into things including
sex. Now although as we have just seen there are sexual lines that either
through intent or just outright explicit ought not be crossed (again see
previous footnotes) as this appendix unfolds it will also be seen that certain
things (or boundaries) can be
crossed, even if just as a temporary allowance (619E) if proper things are in
place, such as faith, hope and love – especially (passionate) love. Sisters and
brothers, although lust ought to be avoided in life (619F), the unfoldingness (and
possible avenues) of love still needs to be further addressed.
Passion
He
/ she really loves me!
Passion is different than lust in
that the person who is ‘acted upon’ does not feel or sense they are an object (620), but feels the person acting “upon” them truly likes
and loves them as a person and (most) all their acts (actions) revolves around their
love for them (620A).
Now (to show a contrast) one can
have a loveless, and yet proper relationship (620B) which is better than a
lustful one, but would obviously not be romantic,
nor even desirable for at the minimum love (even if not passionate love) ought
to be present in all intimate relationships (620B-1).
In regards to the idea of passion, if
one were to read a romantic novel written by a woman and one written by a man
one would probably see a difference in the way a sexual act in a novel is
described (620B-2),
and although there are sexual gender differences (usually in the sense of the
“initiator” of the act), because both sexes enjoy sex the same, if one person
(usually the woman) is never “released” from their inhibitions during sex (which
would result from passionate love) something is probably uncertain and it may
just be that the person (woman) senses lust (not love) or more exactly the objectifying of themselves is
present (620C).
Now this is not to say that there
isn’t ‘the physical’ involved in the sexual act, but if things are forced (or
being forced), or if the other person is saying stop in any number of ways (620D), something else other than romance is obviously
driving the sexual act (for the initiator) and first and foremost it is
more about the initiator than the other person and the initiator likes and
loves themself more than they like the other person (620E).
Once again such things are not
passionate love, but again lust. Lust is the thing that carries activities over
‘the stops’ or lines (620F) in the
unfoldingness of sex (or the sexual act), and for a person to act in such a way
[unless they are oblivious (620G)], may prove that they really don’t like the
other person at all.
The
Pleasing of the Other Person
Rather
than Oneself
Helping
to Keep Lust ‘in Check’
Brothers
and sisters, if the angels crossed a line due to lust a question we ought to
ask ourselves is… are there others forbidden lines aside from “angelic” bad
intent (621) that
can be crossed? In other words are there inherent
lines aside from the emotional “I’m being treated like a (lustful) object”
that have to do with “the physical” that lust can wrongly cross as well?
Again according
to scripture homosexual sex is such a line (621A) and philosophically and
theologically speaking the idea behind calling it sin (621B) revolves around the concept
of “sameness” which one needs to be careful of [with homosexuality meaning “same sex” (621C)]. Thus while pleasing ‘another
person’ is not really the problem here (per say), pleasing (and desiring) the
same sex (sexually) is, for - if things are ‘proper’ – ‘opposites attract’ and
if ‘similar’s attract’ something else is probably in play (621D). In regards to homosexual sex
being ‘a line’ unless sound reason says otherwise it probably stays (621E).
Aside from
incest (621F), oral sex (another
taboo) can be another matter all-together, for although sexual members are
meant biologically to go in certain places [as in normal function (see 621G)]
because there is lee way with some of them (see 621H) and because we are also dealing with
opposites (men and women) there is room ‘to maneuver’ orally in the bedroom (621-I).
Now in
regard to keeping lust ‘in check’ when one factors out lust one is left with
basically heterosexual relationships which are kept ‘in check’ (that is:
lust is kept in check) by pleasing the other partner rather than oneself. Now
although there is nothing wrong with pursuing pleasure during sex, lust (which
again was more than likely involved in the fall of the angels) is kept in check
by doing (or at least keeping) the opposite (in sight) (621-J).
Brothers
and sisters, sisters and brothers pleasing the other person rather than oneself
helps keep lust (the bane of the angels) in check (621k).
Acts of Passion
vs. Acts of Lust
Brothers
and sisters if one were to read the Song of Solomon (622), one
will encounter a host of poetry that has a double meaning - a double sexual
meaning - and although some words and phrases are explicit unless one is
familiar with sex (622A) some
meanings might be missed, especially talk of the garden (622B).
The thing
with the Song of Solomon is that we are dealing with passion, not lust and
although the two may involve similar acts the intent as well as what I would
call ‘the force’ behind them is different. In the Song of Solomon everything is
done gently (with lust it is not) and in the book there is obvious love
expressed between both partners (and again with lust there may be or is not),
and although there can be a fine line between the two [which might be gone over
at times with partners in love (622C)], there is a
definite line between acts of lust and acts of passion (or passionate love)
that one needs to be steered cleared of during the act of sex, for if one does
not as with the angels one can go over some forbidden line.
Now in
regards to what may be allowed gently between the partners (622D) depends on how deep one wants to take the double
meanings of the verses that may or do deal with sex (622E). Certainly
the oral stimulation of the breasts can be allowed [Song of Solomon 4:5,6,16;
7:7,8 (622E-1)]
along with the possibility of oral sex (622F)
and that
seems to be about it, any other act that has to do with any other orifices does
not seem to be in the offering in the
book itself and unless you want to read deep meaning behind David hiding in
“the cave” while Saul “relieves himself” (verse
needed) I’m not sure you’re going to get any other orifice sex acts out
of any
books in the bible.
The thing
in regards to lust, these same three allowable acts [man and woman (upper and
lower)] can also be done lustfully (as too regular sex) so the intent behind
the act is important (which is:
pleasing the other partner; which
is: not doing things forcefully; which
is: not objectifying the other person, which
is: not doing things unto self {per say} etc.)].
Thus,
scripturally speaking there are (at least) 5 kinds of allowable sensual
(sexual) contact between men and women (622-I) and how one
approaches these five allowable types of contacts makes all the difference (622 J).
(623’s)
Love
Love is
more towards a state of mind (whether you feel like it or not), passion is
weighted more towards feeling. The thing is before, during and after sex love
expresses itself in ‘feelings’ (or passion) however the concern about passion in
scripture is - since passion is allowed as seen in the Song of Solomon - is
that passion (feelings) can be a state of mind all the time (as in: a
passionate lifestyle) and ‘feelings’ are known to cloud thinking, even judgment.
Now one
can feel passion without sex and can even love the same sex passionately (as
David and Jonathan did) which can be a residing feature in any relationship,
however outside of that the expectation of popular culture, especially women’s
popular culture (for example: romance novels) can be about as realistic as the
expectation of guys with girly
magazines (623), and that is: it’s not realistic nor true.
Sisters
and brothers because the genders see things differently and are weighted differently
here there are different traps they can fall into and one needs to be cautious
– gender wise – about them.
Now brethren
if you love someone they can be on your mind all the time (which is probably
normal – at least in the beginning of a relationship), but because
relationships are not at the center of God’s purposes (God and His purposes
are), and relationships are meant to support those purposes, the idea that love
(in the sense of someone being on your mind all the time) or passionate love (which is usually someone who is on
your mind sexually all the time) can be a state of mind that goes on
forever is wrong.
For women
(especially) to look for, or expect, this type of ‘always on the mind’ thing to
go on forever in a relationship (or even all the time) is not right, nor proper.
Love will unfold (or expresses itself) in passion, but that passion (or
feelings) is ‘mostly’ during foreplay and sex and is not a continual state of
mind (623A).
Brethren,
passionate love when expressed is the proper extension of love (with lust being
the improper extension), and love will work ‘in concert’ with passion going in
and out of it in its expression of itself. Love (623B) will
not work with lust and the two concepts are actually foreign to one another. For
love to go down the path of lust is to go down and take the wrong path because part
of the definition of love is that it does not seek its own (1 Corinthians 13:
5) and is also kind (1 Corinthians 13:4).
Again love
is more a state of mind (whether you feel like it or not), passion is weighted
more towards feeling. Brothers and sisters there is nothing wrong with being “in” love (623C) as
long as you don’t do, nor expect it (623D) to “go on” all the time (623E).
Love as a state of mind - applied universally towards all - is more where
things are weighted whether you feel like it or not.
Conclusion
To be a
pig or not be a pig?
Pigs don’t
fly
The angels
lost their wings for reason
Sexuality is part of life and once
ones hormones kick in at puberty it can be something that is on the minds of
both men and women (boys and girls). During one’s life there are other things
that can trigger them “kicking in” at any time and in the Song of
Solomon a lot of this “kicking in” seems to be centered around being noticed or
noticing (624).
Brothers and sisters, sisters and
brothers there is nothing wrong with sex (that is: the release of those
hormones) - if done properly.
Sensuality on the other hand (depending on how one defines it)
is both frowned upon (Galatians 5:19) and allowed (or allowable) in scripture (624A) and
in the Song of Solomon such verses as
“Awake, O north wind, and come, wind
of the south; Make my garden breath out fragrance, Let it’s spices be wafted
abroad… (Song of Solomon 4:16)
Shows that there is nothing wrong
with the senses (or sensuality) during sex.
The problem sisters and brothers in
regards to this issue is not the senses (624B), but a lifestyle of sensuality
“But what did you go out and see (in
John the Baptist)... a man dressed in soft clothing? Behold those who wear soft
clothing are in kings palaces” (Matthew 11:8) (624C)
and one that gets in the way and causes
one to disregard Christ [especially if one made a pledge not to do so (1
Timothy 5:11,12)] (624D). Scripturally speaking sensuality is a continuing state
or thing (and not a one-time act per say) (624E) and denial of oneself may be or can be part
of what denial of sensualities (or a continuing state or continual mindset of
sensualities) is all about [Matthew 16:24 (624F)].
However in regards to lust (which is
different than sensuality) (624G), is more about extreme (as in hard)
motivation behind an act (624H), whereas sensuality is more soft, however
because sensualities [or a mindset of sensuality (624H-1)], is something that can always be
on the mind (624-I), always up front and always in the way (as in a
multitude of transgressions) it is condemned.
The thing about oral sex is although
it has traditionally be frowned upon by the church (even forbidden in some
cases) if one can kiss the lips and kiss (or “kiss”) the belly, why not
something else? One may want to argue how far one would want to go with it (624J), but that issue usually revolves around the intent
(or ultimate meaning) of the various parts (624K)
The thing is brethren is that one
can argue some of these ‘oral sex’ points both ways here, particularly in
regards to exceptional circumstances (624L) but one’s intent
is the important thing and when one combines a portion of the definition of
love (not seeking one’s own) and applies that definition to the act of sex, pleasing the other partner both
sexually and sensually (624M) are where things are at. Thus it’s up to
the individual man or woman involved in sex (and foreplay) how far one wants to
go with the pleasing (624N), but
scripturally speaking - because the definition of love involves not seeking
one’s own (pleasure) - there is nothing wrong with doing it [that is the
pleasing (624-O)]
The thing is as said in the
beginning a lot has been written here regarding love as well as lust vs. love
but nothing about passion. Passion is brought out in the Song of Solomon (624P) and
there is nothing wrong with it, however the concern in scripture is that it (passion)
(624Q) can be overdone (as with anything) and
quite honestly can be smothering.
Brethren,
again to read things about ‘the cross’ into the joint act of sex is probably
improper (624R) and can certainly cause
friction in regards to the opposite sex when love expresses itself as not seeking its
own, but pleasing another. Now one may want to be careful in regards to causing
another to stumble (and get “hooked” on things) but that is another matter and
does not reflect on the responsibility of a partner pleasing someone else (624S).
Brothers
and sisters, sisters and brothers the upshot of the whole thing is to enjoy and
please the one who loves you (and let them please you as well),
but it ought not be something that is forced [as in: lust (624T)] and ought to be genteelly
done (624U).
______
Appendix D
Understanding
Men and Women
(On This Side of Eternity)
Newborns; babies; toddlers; children; juniors; young adults and
full mature
grown ups
Where are you on “the totem pole?”
Brothers and sisters, men and women
(male and female) are different and while the genders both mature – with mature
viewpoints - they (the genders) will always see things differently –
particularly in relation to the gender itself. Putting romantic love aside
(love as in ‘love is blind and somehow we will make it’) for a moment, along
with inherent gender traits that can be seen in children, I wish to talk about
the underlying concerns of young to full adults in this appendix.
Understanding Women
Most everyone knows women mature
before men and are ready for children (a serious relationship) in their teens (625).
Given this and given that that kind of
relationship would be with ‘a provider’ it would not unexpected for younger
women to have a noticeable gap between the ages of themselves and ‘a provider’(626).
Most women when they turn 15 or 16 (627), seriously start looking to see (that is: notice) who
is actually available. Women at this age (and actually any age), can have their
lives turn around in a day (628). Therefore for many the desire to attract attention to
themselves (and / or make themselves attractive) is usually “the order of every
day” – and can and will continue indefinitely.
As women continue to age mild flirtations
through dress, body movement – “just to see” – are not uncommon, especially
when feeling down about themselves – and any attention given them as a result
can be something quite meaningful (629), and depending on one’s personal circumstances a woman doing so may
actually be looking to shore up another option for herself (630).
Women can also be very comparing (that is:
measuring themselves up against other women) (631) regarding
social status, material belongings, etc., and some can actually measure their
‘self-worth’ by these standards (632). This combined with the fact
that most women usually outlast men (633), and need to be provided for in that absence can lead to a
hording mentality of the finances, and when spent, it is spent only in a certain
order (634), with again most men not
knowing the source of a wife aggravation, but this time over lack of money. For
a woman to have control (or want control) over her situation – in one way or
another – can be something that most men ought recognize when in, or desiring a
relationship with a woman (634A), particularly an
older woman (634B).
On the up side women can be very
comforting, and there isn’t a man who would argue with that point with most men
willing to work their entire life to support a woman (635). For a man to find a fine wife on
top of that comfort, that takes care of the household (with a hot meal on
time), is usually worth everything to a man.
Women have much value and ought
never look down, nor feel bad about themselves (636).
Understanding Men
Men on the other hand don’t mature
until much later in life. They don’t have to, and it would not be uncommon for
men in their early teens to think of nothing but sex – period (636A), and see women more as objects than people (637).
While both genders can be stupid in
their youth, men seem the dumber by far at that age (638). A trait that can continue onward
with most men never even seeing break ups coming - in spite of many clues (639).
While women can be possessive (640), men, until they mature –
angelically mature – can be very possessive, so much so that a
woman who is also angelically maturing - and is already in a relationship - may
fell unnecessary pressure to dump her “commitment” if she encounters an
immature male. In regards to the issue of men’s possessiveness it seems to be
tied to “performance issues” which are more a thing with men than they are with
women (641), and may
as a result feel intimidated when “in competition” with another male (642).
Women (who are taking the first step into “N”)
ought to factor this in – and deal with it properly (as in maybe the guy you
are looking at may not be ready), before abandoning any previous commitment,
especially a sound stable provider. Because of this performance / competition
issues with men, a woman would more than likely be making a great mistake to
talk about any previous or current sexual encounters with any immature male (643). Men are not like women –
especially in regards to sex (644), and women need to understand men – especially in regards to
sex (645).
Men hate having sex with protection and a woman
ought to factor that into how she plans any activities here (646).
Summary
While this is not an exhaustive
summary of men and women, in regards to the topic of concern here (living the
angelic life), remember that many “first relationships” seem to be founded on
things that may not last (for example lust more than actual love), and although
physical attraction can move and lead on to the “cementing” of things, to find
someone that actually “likes you” as a person (647), when found, is someone you instinctively do not want to
let go, and is the temptation - and cause - of many “a wanderings.”
For men (who are usually the
provider in a relationship) to find someone appreciative of their hard work
(that is: who actually notices their hard work), has led to many a wanderings
“at the office.” This, along with contact with women who care about their
physical appearance (which seems to slip in the home, or after years in a relationship),
can by itself play on men’s sexual nature (648)
Women in regards to this wandering
issue (who are often the receiver of “looks”), are once again looked at -
usually all the time - wherever they go, and they know that (649),
Men not so much (at least not in
the same way).
Women who go outside their original
commitment will often do so on someone not only giving them “looks,” but
attention (or caring), and that more than anything else, can
cause them to wander (650).
The upshot of the whole thing is
while things can be put in place to keep people from wandering in relationships
(651), “noticing”
outside the primary relationship seems to continue – and quite honestly is only
the normal survival thing to do for both genders (652).
Brothers and sisters, sisters and brothers we
are all
on the right track here.
______
Appendix E
Issues and Concerns
“…Spread your (protective, providing) covering over your maid…”
(Ruth 3:9)
Brothers and sisters in regards to
the mature - open - solution offered in this book in regards to ‘relationship
issues’ the solution itself does raise a number of issues and concerns,
particularly in regards to issues of maturity as well as the possibility of a
lifelong link due to children (or a possible “love child”).
In regards to any final answer here as to what a person “ought to
do” - there is “none” (675), for it, the answer, is very relative to the person reading this
work (676). For some readers the final answer to their situation will be found
in divorce and / or in A, B, C relationships. For others it is found in D, or
in A, B, C’s moving towards D or even an “N” relationship (677). Still for others the answer is, at
least for now, found in old law (or teaching) and for now that’s where they
will remain, and as for others the answer is found in the concept of life - a
life of faith, with each and every solution brought forth in this book having
the concept of ‘maturity’ (or moving on to maturity) as their variable and goal
(677A).
Sisters and brothers, the angelic
life or lifestyle seems to be transient (678) without “a forever” commitment. It is a mature life or a
mature lifestyle with dignity and respect and is not for the immature or for
children (679). In regards to any public
approach (or “policy”) to the life (or lifestyle) portrayed here, there is not to be any due to public
immaturity, and any and all approaches to the angelic life (or lifestyle) ought
to be done in private (680).
In regards to any public approaches
regarding the issue of morality, the term proper
conduct ought still be used and ought still be emphasize (681), as well as individuals living a
life of faith, hope and love towards one another (682)
Maturity and the Concept of Freedom
Brothers and sisters, in regards to
the issue or concept of maturity, the mature among us will see the new found
mature freedom portrayed in this book as the ‘freedom to do the right thing in
a situation’ - a relationship situation - while the immature among us may see
this new found freedom as the ‘freedom to do anything in a relationship situation’ (683), which is also another concern here.
This combined with people growing
up too soon (684), which can be a real problem with people lacking the
necessary steps to maturity ought to lead many to be cautious with this books
content, particularly again with the unsaved or especially new Christians (684A), which are also problems that needs
to be watched out for, and addressed – privately - if they arises.
Previous Marriages
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote (me
about)…
let each man remain in… (the) condition in which he was
called” (1 Corinthians 7:1, 24)
Sisters and brothers concern about
previous marriages is an issue that can concern many in that in reading through
the first part of the book regarding rules and regulations one feels that a
previous ex-marriage is still legitimate (maybe even invalidating a current
one). Truth be told I was hesitant to write the first part of this book because
of things like this (being angelically minded) however since everyone is on different
levels of understanding (and plugging into different levels in this book as
well) it had to be done.
Brothers and sisters in regards to
this issue the Corinthians wrote the apostle a bunch of questions (to which 1
Corinthians 7 responses to) one of which was probably this one. The thing about
the church at Corinth was that just about everyone was just saved so issues of
previous legitimate marriages between believers were probably in the minority. However
in regards to this probable question the apostle responds for believers who
wish to separate to stay unmarried (verse 11) which is a verse which is handled
in the Problem Verses Chapter of
this book (Chapter ___)
There are a couple of important
thing to note here in this chapter
1st) that the apostle does not say for newly saved believers to
go back to their original (unsaved) agreement which lends weight to the idea
that all previous marital covenants are broken when one gets saved (684B).
and 2nd) in regards to the saved wanting to get divorced (and
remarried) if you read the explanation of 1 Corinthians 7:10,11 (684C) in the Problem Verses chapter the advice given it is not as solid as
one might think (it is not a command
situation).
The thing is brethren is that things
can change in regards to previous relationships
“were you called while a slave? Don’t worry about it, but if you
are able to also become free, rather do that” (1 Corinthians 7:21)
and even in regards to scriptural
inspired judgments about things (684D), and in regards to believers previously married to other
believers because the advice given to stay single in this chapter probably (or
actually) regards concerns over the sanctification of the children (684E) however
you want to take that concern (684F) it is to be noted
that such concern can be addressed by other means (684G) however for a family to be at
peace (even if it means no covering) is even more important (684H).
Brothers and sisters while one can make a legal
or “legal” argument here in regards to some issues (684-I),
as was stated before that some believers might want to let go of previous
engagement covenants I would say that it’s probably true in regards to this
issue as well – especially in light of the second part of this book where all this really
doesn’t matter. Sisters and brothers where one wants to live
their life [law (rules / regulations) vs. faith] is probably the deciding
factor in regards to a lot of these issues and like a balloon carrying someone
in a basket, how it (or one) is “weighted” in life is the real question (up in
faith or down towards rules and regulations).
Note: also we are not dealing with
a command situation in these verses [again see 1 Corinthians 7:10,11 in the
problem verses section of this book (Chapter ___ )]
Women
Women are similar to men in that
they are independent in spirit (685A), yet
different than men in that they more times than not need to be provided for (686), are biologically different (687), and are more socially conscience (688).
When men and women get together for
let’s say Thanksgiving dinner, the men will most likely be content getting
together in a room and watching a football game and the only time the topic of
women comes up is if a half dressed one appears on a commercial. Women will
also get together (689), and if you listen to their conversations a lot of them are
rooted in insecurities and reassurances, as in what happened to so and so and
can it happen to me? (690)
In regards to angelic thinking and
lifestyle women – because of their social conscience – will immediately see all
things in relation to themselves and how that effect’s them and their social
standing. Also in regards to this angelic lifestyle, if women do not have the
faith to receive provisions and are not provide for (691), they may settle down however the temptation to ‘move on’ (if such an opportunity
presents itself) will be much greater for them than it would be for men if the
going gets rough (691 A).
In regards to multiple spousal
relationships, because of the differences in men and women (specifically young
or immature men) psychologically women are more able to adjust to them (692), however in regards to the angelic
independent lifestyle – because we live on this side of eternity with the
necessity of provisions, in regards to the women unless again they have the
faith for them – if the provisions are not coming (or can be provided for by
the women themselves) the adjustment is a lot harder and quite honestly may not
happen (at least in its “pure form”). Women more often than not want to get married (692A) and because of their desire for some kind of commitment
(or assurances) women who live the angelic lifestyle in it’s pure form will
probably also be thinking of - and factoring in - ‘moving on’ in a variety of
ways the first hint of hardship, opposition etc. especially if they have
children (693).Guys may not get it, but women do, and guys need to be prepared
for all kinds of possibilities (and outcomes) when entering into a relationship
with women.
Because relationships involve
emotional ties – which can be great – for one to lose a love is hard,
particularly one you have open yourself up to, and as a result of the
immature’s (usually men’s) tendency to see people as possessions, and for women
especially to see all things in relationship to themselves and split if things
get bad or “bad” (694), the possibility for a blow up (for the immature) is real
and is one of the reasons this type of lifestyle (in its pure form), is only
for those who have not only matured about things, but have dealt with the issue
of provision and are not caught up in any kind of self-esteem or self- worth
issues.
Brothers and sisters, sisters and
brothers only the mature need apply here.
Children and their Welfare
Also in regards to the possibility
of children, their welfare and the provision for the children’s needs or
household (695), while these types of relationships can productively exist without
children, children can enter into these
relationships and their existence may need to be addressed by those who
enter into these types of relationships.
The thing is this, even though we
as God’s children are “striving” for perfection (or maturity) in our walk,
again all may not ‘be there’ in regards
to this issue and since we do not
yet
live in a “paradise situation” where provisions are ‘at the ready,’ ‘levels of faith’ will factor into many of
these type of relationships for their continence (696).
While the question of the “public
relationship titles” of women who choose to have a “covering” (697), are an issue for some (698), the actual meaning of that title in
regards to this mature type of relationship will need personal - between the
partners – clarification (699).While there is nothing wrong with a man (brother) having a
gracious (covering and / or providing) relationship with a sister (woman /
wife), such things can eventually beg the question regarding what a mature
relationship is all about (700). Also the standing of new partners in regards to the women
(wives or again sisters) involved in such mature relationships if children
result can be an issue (701).
This is all new territory for God’s
children.
Sisters and brothers, the thing is
this, Gods children (702), are not only able to, but can handle such issues – whatever the
arrangement (s) (703). However people in the world who do not know God (or are
young – or are young in the faith) may not be able to [and that is a concern
here (704)]. Open mature relationships mean
relationships that are open to the possibilities and flow of life. They are for
gracious and mature individuals. Men and women who are already independent (705), are already at ‘that place’ and when wanting to enter into
these type of mature (perfect) relationships ought to only enter into those that do not take away from that
independence [however for the young or immature, a ‘wife’ status (for
example) may in fact be a stepping stone to that independence (for example from
their fathers house, to their husbands house, to their own (that is: once again
moving towards self-sufficiency)] (706)
If a maturing sister were to enter
into a mature (wife) relationship with a brother (707), the brother – if he is pressing
onto maturity (perfection) - would understand that it would be (or would
eventually become) an open relationship
and he would be there to – at the minimum - provide the covering of title
(husband) in the meantime (708), and possibly (a last) name for the woman (sister) (709), [and current wives (or “wives”) –
if they are pressing unto perfection (maturity) - ought to be open to the
possibility (or probability) of an expanded house for the husband (710) (as well as the husband for the
wife)] (711)
Brothers and sisters (once again?) only the mature and maturing need to apply (712).
Note: I am not saying that a mature
relationship involves separate living. It could, but not necessarily. What I am
saying is that a mature relationship is an open relationship - open to the
possibilities of life. Also I am not saying we are to push people out the
door into these kind of relationships, people may be happy where they are, and
that is OK - as long as they are open (also note ‘expanded relationships’ may
or may not live together and that is something that people already involved in
relationships may want to consider before expanding any current relationships,
also the nature and foundation of many of these type of relationships are
something along the lines of a very close - life long - friendship {which can
actually be more than a brother / sister relationship depending on how you view
those two terms}).
______
725)
750)
Appendix F
The Law in Regards to Relationships
______
751)
775)
Appendix G
Non-Traditional Closed
Relationships
For your information
Summary of Roles
1) Man - From a
woman’s perspective a different gender than herself.
2) Husband
- generally
speaking, nurtures, provides and protects. He’s more often on the giving end of
things in regards to his relationship with women, than on the receiving end.
3) Woman
- From a man’s
perspective a different gender than himself.
4) Wives
(Three Kinds) - generally speaking a wife is a woman who willingly gives
self over to a man for nurture, protection and provision, She’s more often on
the receiving end of things in regards to her relationship with men, than on
the giving end.
A) “Full”
Wife - From a
biblical perspective a full wife is a woman who is married and as a result has
full rights (that is a full partner) in and over the estate. A woman can be a
wife and not be married (that is a wife in name without rights over the estate.
See the next two sections on this),
Men the input
of the “full” wife in regards to the man taking on another “full” wife is
paramount since the man is not the only full partner in the estate.
IN regards to
the question on how biblically a woman becomes another full wife may in fact be
related to what she brings into the estate [See possibly David and Abigail on
this (1 Samuel 25:40-44)] or it may be something that is just granted to her at
the beginning of the relationship or even after being a “minor” wife [See
Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:1 with 1 Chronicles 1:32 )], or it may be
something she may not want since she may be very well off on her own.
B) A Wife
who is Dependent on the Estate - from a biblical perspective, a wife without partner rights
over the estate and gives herself over to a man for nurture, protection and
provision. She may have a pre-nuptial agreement (or understanding)
[In times past
there were such a thing as ‘lesser” or “minor” wives’ which were also called
concubines in scripture) not lesser in quality or substance (see the Godhead as
an example), or lesser in regards to their relationship with the man, but
lesser in regards to their “position” or role regarding the estate].
Again in
regards to a man being in relationship with a woman and NOT being married to
her, see the story where Abraham married his concubine (compare Genesis
25:1 with 1 Chronicles 1:32). In other words Abraham was already in
relationship with her and not married. And again these women were wives (compare
2 Samuel 12:11 with 2 Samuel 16:21,22)].
The input of
the “full” wife in regards to the man taking on another wife is important here
as well because there would probably be some sort of provision from the estate.
Also remember
“full” wife and “lesser” or “minor” wife are ONLY legal terms that designate
rights over the estate (or power of attorney etc). The woman is still the mans
wife (as much as the full wife is) and the man is still as much as her husband
as he is to the full wife (compare 2 Samuel 12:11 with 2 Samuel 16:21,22; also
see Judges 19:2,3).
Remember, even
if these ‘status’ terms didn’t exist there might still be a legal name for a
wife who did not have rights over the estate. The term “lesser” or “minor” wife
acts like a prenuptial agreement that biblically designates a role of a woman
in regards to the estate,
C) A Wife
who is NOT Dependent on the Estate (One Way Covenant)
This is found
in Isaiah 4:1 and unlike the “full” wives arrangement or the “dependent”
wives arrangement it does not involve the estate of the man (760).
Therefore with this
arrangement the input of the other full wife (or wives) and or other dependent
wife (or wives) is not as pronounced.
Biblically
speaking the estate is under no financial obligation to the woman (women) for
they are not married, and it was a agreed upon arrangement. Yet there is
some type of relationship is taking place
(and again,
please note: we are talking about things from a religious perspective,
from a civil or legal perspective - if the relationship (or understanding) were
to fail and children resulted from this relationship - a woman might be able to
sue for child support).
The man in this
type of relationship is called her husband and the woman is called his wife.
Summary of Possibilities
In Regards to Non Traditional Marital and
Non-Marital Joined Together Relationships
Please note: Once again
the term “lesser” or “minor” wife refers to their standing in regards to issues
that revolve around the estate. All “lesser” or “minor” wives (that is
dependent and independent wives) are on equal footing with the “full” wife in
regards to their relationship with the husband (whom they all share). Also,
women contemplating these kinds of relationships will usually talk things over
with the man and household - before hand - in order to get an understanding as
to what she might possibly be “getting into” to ensure that there are no
surprises (that is “who’s who” and “what’s what” as far as their standing in the
estate), (a prenuptial agreement works in the same fashion). Also in regards to
these arrangements a woman might put preconditions of her own on the table in
regards to certain things [for example the amount of other people the man is in
relationship with (and I outline the various possibilities next), or how much
time each wife gets to spend with their husband (a schedule of some sort?) -
but these are all private matters in these kinds of arrangements].
Again, in
regards to titled ‘status’ relationships if there are to be ‘status’ titles
they would be something that is understood (usually not talked about publicly),
nor ought a person be called by a ‘status’ title and conversations - and
introductions - would only say
“this is my
wife _________”
“this is my
husband _________”
“this is my husbands
other wife _________”
The summary of
possible (titled) relationships in regards to the estate are…
1) A man and
his (full) wife (A) (full partner in the estate)
2) A man and
his (full) wives (A’s) (full partners in the estate)
3) A man and
his (“lesser,” or “minor” dependent ) wife (B) (no rights over the
estate)
4) A man and
(“lesser,” or “minor” non-dependent ) wife (C) (no rights over
the estate)
5) A man and
his (“lesser,” or “minor” dependent ) wives (B’s) (no
rights over the estate)
6) A man and
his (“lesser,” or “minor” non-dependent ) wives (C’ s) (no
rights over the estate)
7) A man and
his (full) wife and (“lesser,” or “minor” dependent ) wife (A+B)
8) A man and
his (full) wife and (“lesser,” or “minor” non-dependent ) wife (A+C)
9) A man and
his full wife and (“lesser,” or “minor” dependent ) wives (A+B’s)
10) A man and
his full wife and (“lesser,” or “minor” non- dependent ) wives
(A+C’s)
11) A man and
his full (major) wives and (“lesser,” or “minor” dependent ) wife
(A’s +B)
12) A man and
his full (major) wives and (“lesser,” or “minor” non-dependent)
wife (A’s +C)
13) A man and
his (full) wives and (“lesser,” or “minor” dependent ) wives (A’s
+B‘s)
14) A man and
his full (major) wives and (“lesser,” or “minor” non-dependent)
wives (A’s +C‘s)
15) A man and
his (full) wife and (“lesser,” or “minor” dependent ) wife and (“lesser,” or
“minor” non-dependent) wife (A +B + C)
16) A man and
his (full) wives and (“lesser,” or “minor” dependent ) wives
and (“lesser,” or “minor” non-dependent) wives (A’s
+B’s + C’s) and with this one I’ll end for you can get into different
combinations with this like (A + B’s + C, and so on)
Terms and
titles are exactly what you find in scripture to differentiate the different
types of spousal arrangements, and they help us to define the different roles
(or positions), people play in relationships. People probably talked all these
things over beforehand in order to understand what they were getting into (that
is “who’s who” and “what’s what” in regards to their standing in the estate)
Also titles
ensure that there are no surprises in regards to the estate, and everything was
ironed out before hand and understood (a prenuptial agreement today works in
the same fashion).
Titles (as in
the titles mentioned on these pages) also help husbands identify and explain
what type of wife they were looking for (or could possibly afford).
And again, these
positions were personal matters that concern the people involved in the estate
and are not subject to outside judgment. Again the titles only reflected the
persons standing in the estate and had nothing to do with the relationship
itself.
Note: in regards to
public policy, aside from the issue of a minimum age for a woman by which she
can enter into such multiple arrangements, the question of whether it’s wise
for a woman to enter into a relationship where she has no vested interest in the estate needs to be thought through
thoroughly. It’s one thing for a household (privately) to agree on a new
spouse’s means of support [B &C (770)], it’s quite another thing for public policy
to reflect this and have someone give up all their rights over an estate [especially
rights that have been established by law and women are entitled to (771)]. Brothers,
women quite honestly don’t want B & C’s (772), may settle for A’s [or C’s especially in a
modified (angelic) form], but that is about it.
Public policy ought to reflect what is best (773) for its citizens [most of which are probably ‘open’ women
(774)]
as well as to hold to the higher standards on this side of eternity. Also note
we are not looking to take “A” singular “off the market” so everyone needs to be careful here in regards to any pending legislation
[which can include a “terminator” tax (see Footnote 84 for
more on that)].
______
Appendix H
Guidelines for Mature Open
Relationships
Amending
a Marital Covenant
“and (as) they were on the road, going up to
Jerusalem… Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed…” (Mark
10:32)
Before
Dawn there is Day Break and Light
Note: The following are general guidelines for open
relationships. Some guidelines may be more appropriate for temporary relationships
and others more appropriate for something more “permanent” (you have to decide
what is best for you). These guidelines may be a little shocking for those who
have not considered this as an option for their lives (and I can’t do anything
about those who read these things and now think “all is permitted”) but the
thing is this, when you trail blaze new areas (or push envelopes) you usually
meet with all kinds of resistance (as well as even “checks” in your own spirit)
and that
is fine as long as you work through the “checks” and the issues
involved behind them. For many people (couples) who read this, these guidelines
are for an open marriage where
spouses (which can be expanded) are [all (still)] “committed” to each other,
but open to new possibilities (and ‘commitments’) for their lives. This (or
these) kind of arrangements (and there
are various possible options
here revolving around levels of faith) were never meant for
the immature (and the following guidelines will in fact test your maturity). However
the point still remains that these type of open relationships do in fact exist
on the other side of eternity and as people on this side press onto
maturity / perfection (which includes dealing with the issues involved with
“keeping” this type of relationship on the other side), individuals can in fact
press
through and partake of them on this side of eternity. Brothers and
sisters, there is nothing wrong with open relationships as long as you are
mature (776).
Again, Guidelines for Mature Open
Relationships.
1) Respect: people are people, not objects and
have an inherent worth and value. When they are giving of themselves and are
used they usually know it.
However brothers and sisters I want
to be careful here for even though people are not objects yet there is
something of the “physical - ness” of opposite sex, that… well it’s more than
OK. When consenting men and women get together - biblically speaking - their
bodies become the domain of the other person (1 Corinthians 7:4) and one
basically surrenders their body to the other person
However brethren, if at any point of
intimacy in an open relationship you feel that your inherent self worth
and value is being violated by something the other person does - say so.
Otherwise enjoy. As long as both people realize that there is a
person in the other body and respects that person there ought to be no
problems.
Again, people are people. Not
objects. One ought not “objectify” them, but respect them.
2) Emotions: sisters and brothers the emotional
attachment the comes with intimacy can’t be underestimated and if you are not
in another relationship (or the relationship you are in has for some reason
waned) the feelings you may have towards any new relationship - with it’s
emotional attachment - can be very hard to fight off (and not only that, but
you may find yourself not wanting to fight them off either).
Because of this, these (new)
feelings can and might very well effect other relationships (for example if
someone who is already in a relationship takes on another relationship - at the
same time - they may be a little “off balance” in their treatment of the first
relationship - now having a foot in both worlds - until they learn to adjust.
Also the person in the first relationship who “let go” may equally become a
little “off balanced” until they learn to adjust too). Brothers and sisters
emotions, particularly intimate emotions are not always easy to handle, and are
basically just attitudes that arise from ones being and are something that
people (that is mature people) learn to control. Sisters and brothers, one
needs to be aware of this fact and factor it into the possibility that a
current relationships may be effected if one party gets involved in another’s
life and that things may change “attitude wise” until everyone learns to
adjusts (Again I think that these kinds of open intimate relationships are only
for the mature and people who are able to “handle” things - especially their
emotions - if they should come up to the surface. Again these types of
relationships are not for the immature).
3) Comparison: since you may be involved (or
have been involved) in more than one relationship the subject of “comparison”
may be something that unfortunately comes to mind (and only to mind). It may be
important to realize that unless you are dealing with something that needs to
be talked about - or worked on (for people can be at different levels of
experiences) - there not a lot of people can do about things. Brothers and
sisters, intimacy usually has to do with other things besides the physical.
Some ‘physical things’ you can talk about (and some physical things it might be
better to let pass), but overall it might be best to focus on the intimate
things that have little to do with the physical intimacy and more to do with
things that are of a higher essence.
4) The Past: unless you are dealing with a “need
to know” situation [and unless a person for some reason offers up information
about their past (whatever that might be)] everyone’s past life it is in
the past. If the past is important to you then talking about what is
important to you is what you do BEFORE you get involved with someone (usually
not afterward). Just realizing that everyone has a relationship / romantic past
in some form, even if it was just a school yard “crush” might help people in
regards to some of the concerns people may have in this area (and personally I
think it’s best to just leave things alone in this area).
5)
The Present:
if you are dealing with someone who is involved in more than one
relationship at a time (which is possible for both partners in an open
relationship), there may be legitimate questions here (and this can also be a
very sensitive area too). Brothers and sisters try to enter into relationships
with people who are sensible [and if you can get to know other partners that
can be of help too (see also Point 15
on this)].
6) Possessions: people are not “possessions,”
they don’t belong to anyone but God. If you happen to have an active ongoing,
productive and fruitful relationship with someone - thank God (but remember
that it may be only temporary or can fact may last a life time). Either way, if
a relationship ends, or changes to allow someone else into the relationship
then that is just the way it is, and one needs to be mature about it (for once
again the person never belonged to you in anyway - they have and always will
belong to God)
Brethren, remember we don’t “own”
people, but people are their own individuals and willingly choose to enter into
relationships and / or withdraw. Even though there might be and probably will
be some sort of lasting ties that result from any intimate relationships it’s
always helpful to remember that those ties can only go so far. We don’t ever
end up “owning” the other person and they (as we also) are able to enter into
other relationships if they choose.
7) Faith, Hope, and Love: sisters and brothers
remember that the parameters of life are faith, hope and love. These three
things regulate all activity concerning life (and all it’s related issues) and
should also be factored into any kind of relationship we have. Remember any act
not done in faith is sin (verse needed) and in
regards to this issue any act done without the view that it will lead to
something better would probably be wrong (782).
Again, people are not objects and if
someone enters into this kind of relationship with the hope that something good
will come out of it - that is the proper way to view things (and once again it
may in fact be a life long productive relationship, especially when one factors
in the concept of love).
8) Impermanency:
because of the way these relationships can be set up - and the things
people may be looking to “get” out of them (but again please reread the first
point here), they may not “last” or even last period. In the afterlife (the
angelic like afterlife), there seems to be benefit to becoming intimate with a
lot of people (783), but even there intimate relationships (between the
sexes) don’t seem to be something that are (necessarily) permanent (for there
is no marriage there).
Brethren, there is always a
direction that God moves and that is forward and upward, and one needs to
always be prepared (again because of the way these relationships are set up)
that one has “gotten” all they are going to “get” out of the relationship (or
at least for the time being) and that one (or both) people may “have to” move
on to spend time with someone else (but at the same time remaining close, very
close friends with the previous person). Brothers and sisters these can be
“permanent” relationships but once again because of the way these relationships
are set up I think one needs to be prepared for change (784).
Just thank God for each day you have
each other and try to “get” the most out of it (them).
9) Virginity: loosing your virginity is
something you may want to think about for we need to be realistic about the way
things are with some people in regards to this issue (particularly among the
young) and factor that into our decision to go any further with this issue.
“Untouched” people of both sexes have a certain value with some people in
regards to their initial meeting of the opposite sex (785).
Brethren, this is a sensitive
subject and is not easily addressed and certainly the mature (who are confident
in themselves or in who they are as a person) can overlook (or look past) these
things if it is a thing of concern (which is why I said at the beginning of
this section that one should consider themselves mature to have this kind of a
relationship). However, sisters and brothers at the end of the day all this
“concern” (if there is any) passes away to
a mature way of looking at things (and if you don’t think so concerning
this side of eternity, certainly all this goes on, on the other side which is
where we are going, and going with these things).
You do have something to offer.
10) Intimacy : don’t forget that relationships
have to do with communication and one of the ways people communicate is
thorough language (in other words intimate relationships have to do with other
things besides sex, for they are about getting to know one another). Brothers
and sisters sex is just one form of communication - an intimate form, but a
form of communication nevertheless. Language is another and can be and usually
is more precise (in other words if you are desirous to have an intimate
relationship … don’t forget to spend time, maybe a lot of time talking and
getting to know one another).
[And P.S. if people do in fact share
intimate things or details about whatever, they should probably remain between
the people involved in that particular relationship. One of the points of an
intimate relationship is to be able to open oneself up and share intimate
things (or concerns) in a safe - nonjudgmental - atmosphere and possibly get
some good advice. Therefore unless there is cause to do otherwise, things that
are shared with each other in an intimate relationship ought probably stay
between to people involved in that relationship [and not be shared with others
outside the relationship (unless of course you have a different understanding
at the beginning of the relationship or are involved in and have very open
relationships with people. In that kind of case it probably doesn‘t matter)].
But again unless there is cause to
do otherwise it might be best to keep certain things - if not all things -
between partners themselves.
Privacy is part of most
relationships.
11) Reputations: this is one area that people may
have legitimate concerns about, particularly relationships that originate in
the workplace. Therefore it might be best to keep these type of relationships
secret (non-public), especially if one partner requests it (and I mean
non-public forever). Britney Boyfriend, Cads and gossips are not welcome here.
12) Requests: if someone makes a request about
something consider it, particularly if it has to do with where people are at,
or sensitive issues. Also be willing to concede things of no real importance
for the sake of the relationship.
13) Your Self Worth: remember that in regards to all relationships (particularly
people’s opinions), your self-worth and value (that is your
self-esteem), are found in what God
thinks of you not what others
may or may not think of you. If a relationship you are in should end, or be
modified (that is the person you are in relationship with should enter into
another relationship at the same time they are having one with you) that does
not necessarily mean that you have failed, or that you are no good, or any other
kind of “worthless” thought. It just means that
life has moved on (and it’s possible that you may be “moving on” in some
capacity as well). Brethren, the point is that one should never get down (or
overly down) on themselves in regards to anything in their life that seemingly
changes for the worst - God is in charge (also few are perfect in regards to
everything anyway and since many of us are “on our way” to that perfection, it
ought not by unexpected that things may change, be modified or even “end”).
Also once again brethren remember
that few couples can provide for one another’s total needs, wants or desires.
Especially if they are at different levels of understanding. Also most couples
in the world (usually individuals within couples) seem to have (non-sexual)
friends outside their spouse, sometimes close intimate friends that help
provide for what is lacking in spousal relationships. What I am saying is the
moving on outside a ‘couple relationship’ is just the way life is. People
always seem to find a way to make up for what is lacking in relationships -
even spousal. The important thing to remember in regards to all this (that is
if your relationship should be modified or take an unexpected “downward”
change) is once again what God thinks of
you as a person and not what others may or may not think of you. Your self
worth and value is found in God, not people. Don’t get down on yourself (they
could be wrong).
14) Brokenness : Again, in regards to
relationships unexpectantly ending, “ending” or being modified, don’t forget
the Christian concept of brokenness. If for some reason you are not happy with
any kind of modifications in your relationship remember that God sometimes
allows things “to happen” in relationships to break us of negative character traits
in our life, for example pride. Unlike the last point you may just have to work
on something, that’s all.
Brothers and sisters, if you are
unhappy that a relationship you are in should end, “end” or be modified and for
example feel humiliated, allow God to work that humility into your life in a
positive way (few people - if any - are the center of all creation) and that
pride may have been a factor in the relationship ending (or being modified) to
begin with.
Also, allow God to break you
of ALL the negative things in your life (by using any negative things that
happen to us in a positive way) so He can fill you (or bring to perfection)
traits that are of value to the kingdom of God and His purposes. In regards to
some reasons behind why relationships end (or are being modified) they may or
may not be overly important, but your
mature attitude when or if they are modified is.
Sisters and brothers, remember these
kinds of relationships are open to begin with. Being happy for the other person
who is leaving or is modifying something - while it may be hard - may be the
mature thing to do (and is a good place to start with that mature outlook). Do
not become hard or bitter, but soft (and it may have nothing to do with you at
all). Also remember that maturity is a goal of the Christian life (790).
Brothers and sisters, if you view
the negative things that come at you in life as new opportunities for God to
begin to bring forth positive character traits in your life, life gets a little
easier [and by the way this is what He is usually up to anyway and that is
breaking us so the light within (that is: the Character of Christ) can come
out]. Brethren, see God “coming at you” in regards to everything that happens
to you. He is in control and He’s always up to something good. Also brethren,
remember seeing things from His perspective not ours is also usually helpful
[“come up here and I will show you” (Revelation 4:1)]. Also wanting what
God wants for us - not what we want - is helpful too [and who knows what’s
around the corner. That is what faith is always about. (and don’t forget the
concept of hope as well (which concerns our attitude). Hope manifests itself as
an expectancy that God “is on the move” and is up to something good)]. Also
brothers and sisters, remember that God sees and knows everything (Genesis
29:31). Nothing “happens” to us that escapes His notice.
15) Open Relations among the already Committed:
Brothers and sisters, if you are married I would be hesitant to enter into
another relationship without mutual agreement for it may eventually appear to
the other spouse that “something is up” (especially if you are slacking off on
any spousal duty) and who knows where that might lead.
However sisters and brothers
remember that in regards to a mutually agreed upon modifications the questions
of Who, What, Where, When and Why are personal questions who’s
information is voluntarily given - if at all [Particularly what
(happened), where, when and why. However the question of Who may
be a legitimate question as well as When if there is a question as to
who is watching the children (792)].
Brethren, once consenting people
mutually agree to alter the terms of their arrangement, couples might be
walking around on eggshells for a while until they feel comfortable exchanging
any information, (particularly information in regards to relationships that are
found to be of value and are productive in some way. Also you may want to
reread previous Point 2 here), but honesty with one another ought to
always be a goal (especially in regards to “the who”), but once again
(and I can’t stress this enough) the giving of any other information is
questionable and if given, is given voluntarily and should not be forced (793),
Sisters and brothers if you agree to
alter the terms of your agreement things can change for the better or the worse
(hopefully the better), but one needs to be prepared for both possibilities.
However spouses - at the minimum - if they go ahead with their new arrangement
[and at the same time keep (some to many) commitments of their original one]
should still “be there” for one another particularly in regards to a new
relationships that may sour (and someone needs help or guidance).
Also brethren, partners need to
factor in the fact that jealousy (which in part comes from the idea of
“ownership”) has been dealt with in a substantial way BEFORE one agrees to
alter the terms of their arrangement. The mature ought to be happy for one
another [not angry, bitter, or thinking badly of one another (as in “good
riddance” or similar sort)].
Brethren, once again, you need to be mature for this kind (or
three kinds) of arrangement(s) and realize that there is an upward progression
towards that maturity with levels of comprehension, and understanding (and once
again remember there is always a direction that God moves in and that is
forward and upward). Again brethren, in regards to open relationships among the
already committed one needs to factor in some things before you agree to alter
your arrangement. Particularly jealousy and the idea of ownership (for if one
person in an arrangement shares personal things and become physically intimate
with others outside their arrangement, there may be an emotional “linking” that
will result with the “other person” (point 2 in this Appendix), and
“original spouses” may (at least temporarily) find themselves not at the (full)
center of things anymore (which can be hard if one spouse was overly dependent
on the other spouse for their self-esteem etc).
Remember (as
said in 7 footnotes before this ) at the minimum these types of
relationships have as their objective a close friendship (or may even confirm
or solidify a friendship).
Brothers and sisters, factoring in a
period of adjustment is probably wise.
Also, brethren one needs to be
realistic and be prepared for the possibility that the new relationship may not
be temporary, and the new arrangement (which includes a spouse with an outside
relationship or even new spouse), may in fact become a some what permanent arrangement
(795), with one (or both) spouses beginning to have
permanently divided interests (and if both spouses are more than
“loosely unknotted“ from one another, but truly unknotted one needs to
be prepared for the possibility that the arrangement could end completely).
Sisters and brothers it might be
best to work out what you can (that is the details of any new arrangements as
best you see them) before hand so there are no surprises.
16) Finally, you may want to read the authors book “Walls:
Guidelines for Healthy Christian Relationships” for more insight into the things
that make for healthy relationships.
and P.S. in regards to these kinds
of relationships don’t forget to have fun!
[Brethren, just a quick ‘summary
addendum’ to this section for the topic here is important and I do want to be
clear about some things. In regards to these open relationships basically you
are talking about relationships that are voluntarily, could either be temporary
or may in fact be life-long (in one form or another) - especially if children
result (796)
However, this point aside, in
regards to these open type of relationships, when you factor in the “general
guidelines” you are most likely not talking about a fling per say, or
an affair (797), but something that in the end is fruitful and
productive [that is the relationship is more than just “helpful,” (798).
Sisters and brothers, people who
don’t want to get married (again) and who desire to enter into intimate open
relationships with others are basically talking about entering into these kind
of voluntary non -binding open relationships. If there is a commitment again it
is voluntary (that is one willfully consents to the things involved in an
intimate open relationship, nothing is forced) and because there is (in
its mature from) no binding commitment (as in a marriage)
everyone also understands that the relationship could be ended (or “ended”) by
either party at any time.
Brethren, again these kinds of
intimate relationships are not for the
immature, but again for people who can handle things (particularly if one
party happens to have an intimate relationship with another person at the same
time. That kind of thing usually only mature people can handle). Also, if one
party desires to “end” it that can be a very upsetting thing (but the mature
have already prepared themselves for that possibility). However if these type
of relationships should end, if they were entered into using these general
guidelines the parties involved ought to end as close and good friends [which
again is their goal (and for that reason they could be started up again in the
future for they only “ended” not ended)].
Once again, when considering all the
things involved in these types of relationships the question of how mature are
you is inevitable ?
[And once again you can combine what
is written in this section with the marital and non-martial relationships mentioned in Appendix C? to bring those kinds of
relationships “up to date” or give them a mature “upgrade” (or “push”) of some
sort to maturity (To understand how already established marriage covenants can
be modified in this way see the authors book “Altering a Marriage Covenant”).].
Note: where “you are” in this debate
reflects where “you are” on the totem pole of life and any tension, debates and
/ or arguments does in fact reflect ‘your position’ - or the position you hold
- in regards to maturity (or mature thinking).
______
825)
850)
Appendix I
Mature Considerations for Open (“N” & “D”)
Relationships
The thing is this, even though we as God’s
children are “striving” for perfection (or maturity) in our walk, all may not ‘be there’ in regards to this
issue and since we do not yet
live in a “paradise situation” where provisions are ‘at the ready,’ ‘levels of faith’ will factor into many of
these type of relationships for their continence. While one can
(hypothetically) argue that no one ought to enter into any of these types of
relationships unless they have the faith and provisions to do so, it may not be
the complete case for some - particularly in regards to young women (in the
faith) or women without much means both of whom are maturing [which can, and probably
will include women taking time off work, as well as provision (help) in regards
to clothing, food, even housing]. While there is nothing wrong with a man
(brother) having a gracious (covering and / or providing) relationship with a
sister (woman / wife), such things can eventually beg the question regarding
what a mature relationship is all about (that is: self-sufficiency) therefore
the man (husband) in these types of open “N” relationship many times will be on the gracious end of the arrangement
for the sake of the wive(s) (that is: women’s or really sisters) sake (and
there is nothing necessarily wrong with that).
Brothers and
sisters while there can be benefits to many of these types of relationships
such as intimate friendships, the combining of households, mutual help and the
possibility for a family life where there was none - particularly in regards to
giving women new choices for their lives - there can, on the other hand, be
many personal sacrifices, even possible detriments to these open type of
relationships [whatever the degree [H-N (for husband and) or for wife’s A-N;
B-N; C-N or the independent D] which you may want to consider before you enter
into them.
For example: in
regards to the woman’s desire for a “wife title” (A-N; B-N; C-N) the question
of why a man (or household), would actually want to take on a “committed” open
relationship or another addition to the
household [that is: another wife (and not have just a H-N open relationship)]
or again why a woman would want to put herself under a covering of a title
(that is: wife) - or a man’s last name – (especially if she is looking for an
open relationship and is already at “D”
status) are legitimate questions that (some of) these particular types of
open relationships ought to consider (and something all parties might want to
discuss before hand - to everyone’s satisfaction) before entering into these arrangements.
Also all
financial arrangements – if any – ought to also be considered before hand
Also, sisters and
brothers remember that if you already have a viable household you will most
likely lose (in one form or another, even temporarily) what you already have
(also remember that you may not be able to take back certain acts, or children,
or new financial obligations etc.).
Brothers and sisters if you agree to alter the terms of your spousal agreement
for an open spousal relationship [H-N (for husband and) or for wife’s A-N; B-N; C-N] things can change for better or worse (hopefully the
better), but one needs to be prepared for both possibilities – especially in
regards to the drawing power of new emotional attachments.
For Women
(especially A-N; B-N; C-N wives): Remember…
* It is
possible that self esteem issues for women (wives) may arise (or be present).
* If there are separate households for
A-N; B-N; C-N wives, remember that wives may have to deal with the issue of
loneliness.
* Ones intimacy
will most likely be scheduled for A-N; B-N; C-N wives
* The issue of
jealousy should be thought about and handled before entering into these types
of relationships.
* In some of
these relationships (A-N; B-N; C-N wives) since wives don’t make promises, to
one another, but to the husband, how both wives (and households), get along
with one another - under separate or combined conditions - are legitimate
questions. If you are thinking of becoming a second wife does the first wife
approve of you? Do you get along?
* Remember for
a potential A-N; B-N; C-N wife to put
forth preconditions of her own before entering into these types of relationships
(for example, putting limits on the amount of time the husband will spend with
each spouse, or how many other women the husband can be in relationship with,
etc.) can be allowable.
* Also in
regards to the possibility of children in open relationships have you
considered the - on the average - 18 year commitment? How about being “alone”
with children along with the cost of child raising? You ought to be wise and consider all these things before
hand in order to make sure there are no lifelong surprises [note: if you do
have children you will be linked in one way or the other to the man in your
relationship forever (and your children to his children). Do you want that?
Watch those two days in the middle].
* Biblically
speaking a completive spirit is very possible between wives (for again the
relationship is not necessarily between wives, but with the husband). Is
everyone in a household - both husband and wives - prepared to recognize this
and to deal with it properly if it should arise? Are you as an individual
prepared to head this off?
* If you are
in a “D” status and become pregnant by a man already in a relationship, how
will that pregnancy will affect the original relationship? Particularly the
public standing of the (first) wife – can be a question to consider [and if not
thought about before hand, one may expect pressure to keep things private (as
in you may be able to have a ceremony* - with pictures - but everyone
understands that they might never be publicly released {or be released at a
much later date}{and note: if there are pictures all parties probably ought to
be there})].
Also if you
are in an A-N; B-N; C-N
and become pregnant by a man who is not “your covering,” is your ‘husband’
mature enough to handle that? (and how will that pregnancy affect the original
relationship {arrangement} between you and him is also something to consider).
* And by the
way, in regards to non-marriage relationships (B-N; C-N) you can still
have a ceremony where promises (as
in “do you promise…”) are made and one is pronounced husband and wife. The only
thing is I would not call promises vows and I would not call it a marriage
ceremony - but maybe a celebration ceremony? (Sometimes people do have
ceremonies to celebrate their love for one another).
* If you are
in a B-N; C-N (wife) status, have you thought about how you will address the
question: “Are you married?” if it comes up? How about answering the same
question from your children?
* If you are
not an A-N; B-N; C-N wife you are in a “D status” meaning you are independent
and on you own (remember D is the goal of maturity and one ought to be
preparing for it even if you are going to end up as “the survivor” in a marital
relationship)
* Remember
that the type of relationship you are looking for is probably not a fling, but
at the minimum a helpful affair (however more than likely you are looking for
and towards a relationship that will end in a close mutual friendship).
*
*
*
Considerations
for Men (husband):
* You – if
married – can be in an H-N (husband and) status with a D woman rather
than being in another (or committed) A-N and / or B-N or C-N status. If a woman
you are with is looking for an A-N; B-N; C-N status you ought not lead her on
if you are not looking to be a husband (however she ought to be up front about
her intentions saying something like ‘someday I’d like to be a wife’ and then
both of you can discuss what that means and why).
* Also remember
that in taking on other wives (A-N; B-N; C-N) the possibility of wives not
being treated fairly (that is: the same), by the husband in an open
relationship is also something all parties might want to discuss before going
ahead with this arrangement (will there be “favorites?” ).
* Note there is
a possibility of men being insensitive in regards to sensitive issues [or
possibly expressing affection with one spouse (in the presence of the other)].
All this needs to be considered. Also what is “on the table” for discussion,
and want is not, and what a husband does in the presence of the other wife (s) is something husbands also need to consider
in A-N; B-N; C-N relationships
* Note: There is not a lot women can
do about physical appearances, particularly the framing of their bodies.
Remember intimacy has to do with other things besides the physical. Some
‘physical things’ can be talked about (weight), but overall it might be best to focus
on the intimate things that have little to do with the physical intimacy
and more to do with things that are of a higher essence.
* Biblically
speaking a man cleaves to his wife [and not necessarily the other way around
(Genesis 2:24)]. Solomon clung to his wives in love (verse needed) . This being
so men are usually much more possessive of women than women are towards men
(which is one of the reasons why multiple spousal relationships work in the
direction they do). Are you as an A-N; B-N; C-N husband prepared to ‘share’ and
not be possessive as the women (you are “covering”) progress form “N” to
“D”? Are you also prepared to recognize
this possessive potential in your life and deal with it properly - without any
hatred, or dislike - if these ‘possessive feelings’ should arise towards an
A-N; B-N; C-N “spouse”? (remember people are not possessions)
* OJ was immature
* Note: Because of the way these
relationships can be set up (for example N’s moving towards D’s), as well as
the things people may be looking to “get” out of them - especially maturity
(and a mature outlook) these types of relationships may not “last” or even last
period. Are you prepared for
this real possibility? Are you also prepared that they may also last in one form or another for a
lifetime?
* Remember that if
a woman says no she means no. The temptation for a man to change no’s to yes’s
in the heat of passion ought to be anticipated and headed off before you even
start anything. Remember respect is a part of all relationships – especially
open ones.
* Remember
that the type of relationship you are looking for is probably not a fling, but
at the minimum a helpful affair (however more than likely you are looking for
and towards a relationship that will end in a close mutual friendship).
* If you
impregnate a woman already in a relationship (“D’ or otherwise), how will that
pregnancy will effect any relationship you are already in – particularly the
public standing of the (first) wife or
any relationship she may be in can be a question to consider and if not
thought about before hand all parties may expect pressure to keep things
private [and note they may not
respond to that pressure - especially if they are immature (or may respond to
it in ways you may not like {for example: a secret love child raised by another man that you may never see (and
note: the child may never know about you either – can you handle all that?)})].
*
* Don’t forget to
talk.
*
*
*
Also in Regards
to Household Finances of a man taking on A-N; B-N; C-N wives
* The financial
viability of any new household is a legitimate question (how will someone pay
the bills?).
* If you have
independent households, and the wife of one household becomes unemployed, the
other household (for example - your household), may end up helping out
her household regardless of any arrangement. Are you ready for that
possibility?
* If you do
plan for independent households remember that someday - for one reason or
another - everyone may have to combine under one roof. Would that OK ?
* While there can be overlaps in A-N; B-N; C-N arrangements in regards to issues of provision -
and living arrangements - as people mature and are becoming
more and more independent people will be moving towards and to a “D”
relationship (in one form or another). Does everyone understand that? and are
and will you (both husband and wives) be making preparations for that?
*
*
*
In
Regards to Unprotected Sex
*
Remember there may be legitimate
questions here, particularly regarding unprotected sex which may be of
concern for some spouses (or anyone) to ask if the other spouse (or partner) or
“other person” has not having been “cautious” in their choice of previous (or
current) partners (if applicable) and / or again the possibility of a spouse or
partner in a new relationship not considering the impact of (new) children in
the original (or new) relationship. Again, we are talking about unprotected
sex. Sisters and brothers “Being Cautious” is a tough area for couples to
address because you are dealing with faith and trust in the other spouse’s (or
partners) wisdom [and faith and trust happens to be the basis of any new
relationship as well (but you can be putting peoples health on the line)].
If one spouse (or
partner) happens to be unsure enough to request a test of the new person in the
relationship (before the one they themselves are in has unprotected sex)
everyone ought not be insulted and realize that that is where that person is at
(and unless God says no, this is ridiculous, go for a test).
Once again this is a
sensitive area because you are dealing with issues of faith and trust, but
there is not much one can do other than to put people’s fears at ease (think before
you have unprotected sex).
In Regards to… Who? What? Where? When? And How?
* Remember in regards to Open spousal relationships the only legitimate
question here (and it would be for reason) is Who? (as well as When? - if it infringes on obligations –
and How? regarding protection being used). If any other information is given it
is voluntary.
In Regards to Rings
* Women in B C relationships will not
wear rings on ‘the married’ left hand ring finger (but possibly on another), which
can be taken to mean that they are still ‘available’ to some outside observers
(All parties involved in these types of relationships need to be made aware of
this).
* Also, might I suggest that all
open spousal relationships “wedding” or wedding bands be open bands in some regards [Note: if you already have a band take
it to the jeweler and have them etch out (or drill out) a (or the) design on
the band so that some of the ring finger shows through (note: in regards to
cost it might possible be a “wash” since the drilled out material is usually of
value {note: they always save gold / silver dust})]
Brothers and
sisters given these things, while multiple spousal open relationships (even
independent open relationships) can be fruitful, and productive, they are not
for the majority, and if not handled properly by mature people they may turn
out to be the things that some people might say they are. If
people who are already in a closed arrangement go forward with this new type of
arrangement and find it not as productive as the relationship they were in,
remember that they can always “go back” or in fact go back (and many many
couples who don’t agree with what is written here get past extra spousal
relationships and go on to live happy fruitful lives. That ought to be no
different here, particularly in regards to spouses who have mutually agreed
in advance to alter their arrangement).
Sisters and
brothers, brother and sisters remember that these types of relationships (and
arrangements) are for mature people. In regards to this issue if you have ‘become
enlightened’ and decide to “explore your options” remember that if you [or your
spouse (if such be the case)] are not mature your life(s) may become a
living “whatever” and your spouse may end up divorcing you (849).
Brothers and sisters, just because you may be
enlightened in regards to this issue does not mean that you are immune from the
consequences of your actions, especially if one of the parties involved is not
truly mature.
Like with some
who see divorce as an only option the immature need not apply.
______
Appendix J
Open “Waved Rights” Marriages
‘Married Pre-Nups’
“AB’s” “AC’s”
This Appendix
deals with open, not closed (851), marriages
(852), which like B-N and C-N relationships deals with an
open A relationship(s) [or
understanding(s)] with a husband (H) whose A (or A’s) are under his
“house,” name and / or covering (853). However
unlike B & C relationships [and unlike A relationships that has full rights
over the estate (854)], the spouse (855), waves
his or her rights over the other spouses estate (856), and
yet is able to keep the ‘married’ title [In other
words the ‘estate rights’ were part of the offer (or proposal) and that part of
the offer was waved, however the married offer (or title) will still stand (but
in name only {857})].
In Regards to
Special Promises
Because we are
dealing with marriage, promises are made to one another, however because we are
dealing in this Appendix with not only an open marriage, but a marriage where
certain rights are waved the promises that are made to one another are somewhat
different than a typical marriage. For example, once again the words “you and
you alone” or “forsaking all others” would not be heard as part of the ceremony,
however a husband can still say that he will love, honor, and cherish (comfort
and keep) and faithfully perform the duties a husband owes a wife [leaving out
the word “all” (as in “all the duties”) in reference to the special pre nuptial
waving of (some to all) estate rights], and a wife can still say that she will,
love, honor and cherish (keep) and perform (all) the duties a wife owes a
husband [again leaving out the word “all” (as in “all the duties”) referring
once again to the special pre nuptial waving of (some to all) estate rights –
if such be the case (858)].
Brothers and
sisters in regards to special promises made between parties in these ceremonies
you can write your own promises to each other [and there is no reason why one
cannot do this (and I do suggest it in regards to these types of relationships)
(859)]
Special Note
Note in regards
to the idea (or ideal) of a (or even the) ‘prestigious’ relationship
here, since things can be relative to the individuals involved, particularly in
regards to ‘situations’ (860), and
most prominently… since all parties in these type of relationships are to be
pressing unto maturity together (861), the idea (or ideal) of “a prestigious relationship” here
(AA, AB, AC, B or C) is indeed transitory and no individual
ought to be ‘looking down’ on anyone’s particular situation, nor even look at
their own situation as something that can’t or won’t change (862).
Maturity
(which involves independence) is a goal and constant in life, and taking this
concept – maturity - and combining it with the idea that biblically speaking
men and women can make ‘relationship contracts’ (agreements, covenants) in a
wide variety of manners, do not be surprised to publicly see a multitude of new
and various arrangements – that will fit individuals ‘in motion’
- in regards to these new relationships between men and women as they go
through life together (but once again the goal of all these types of
relationships is again a close lifelong friendship. We are not turning over the
apple cart here, just upsetting it a little).
______
875)
920)
Appendix K
Exchanges and Other Possibilities
Weekends, Overnights, Temporary as well as Semi-Permanent
Relationships
Knowing How it’s Done
How Many People are in Your Pool?
Regulars?
Brothers
and sisters things like this have gone on forever – usually on business with a
“co-worker” or with an actual co-worker, however in regards to a mutually
agreed upon altering of arrangements, the possibilities of what can happen with
someone on “just an overnight, weekend or even a week” can be greatly expanded,
especially in regards to temporary or semi-permanent arrangements
Like
minded people do attract like minded people, and unless a person hates
themselves, things can spark between people of the same mindset…
However
opposites do attract also…
Exploring
possibilities for the mature individual as well as the mature couple is…
Going it Alone
Talking things Over?
Taking a day off from work or taking a
night class (with work at the library)
Tuesdays are Mine
Finding Time
Brothers
and sisters… (See
point 15 in Appendix G and Appendix H)
Couples
Talking Things Over with the Other Couple
First
Sisters and
brothers, brothers and sisters if you have a close friend of the same sex and…
Maybe “Nothing” will Happen?
Brethren,
if you are worried that something “will happen” you are probably not ready for
this lifestyle and may want to close this book until you are…
Maybe Something will Happen
Preparing for Possibilities
Sex
may happen, but what happens if an exchange becomes semi – permanent or even
permanent…
Life Long Affairs
An Affair to Remember or Continually
Schedule?
Mistresses and “Mister-resses”
(Consorts / Cohorts…
Brothers and
sisters…
Sharing
Too Good to Keep to Oneself
(Not the “Town Squeeze” or “Stud”)
Hotels, Motels, Renting “Love Nests.”
“Group Rates,” Chipping In and “Time
Shares” (Scheduling)
Home life busy?
People always home? Do you happen to have friends of the same mindset and in
the same situation? Why not rent an apartment together – hopefully furnished -
with a six month lease and see what happens?
Women on Top
Strong, Confident,Uninhibited Women
Two Guys for Every Girl?
“Hey buddy wanna go out?”
The Ruth’s Among Us
Brothers and
sisters, sisters and brothers there are Ruth’s among us who are not to be
looked down upon…
“… so spread
your covering over your maid for you are a close relative (or brother in the
Lord)” (Ruth 3:9)
If such things
are a concern to people such a thing is usually not asked unless one feels they
will get a proper response and the only people who usually know the details
about the relationship (that is: if it works out) are usually close friends and
close relatives (900)
In regards to
the concept of two guys for every girl (900A), because of maturity of God’s people such
things as “N” can be expected for the already “committed” and such things as
‘asking out’ – as in the case of Ruth -
can be expected from women - especially strong confident women (901).While
it may be nice to have things work the other way around for women, as the case
of Ruth illustrates, such things are not always the way things work, and women
ought not think badly about doing such a thing and guys ought not think badly
either in regards to a woman being this way (902) – especially a sister in the Lord (903).
“… so spread
your covering over your maid for you are a close
relative (or brother in the Lord)” (Ruth 3:9)
Growing Ones Hair Long
Husbands and Boyfriends
Now in regards
to the issue of “N” guys ought not be surprise to be approached by a committed
woman and ought not expect that she is leaving her spouse either. If she does
that is up to her, but the maturing male ought not expect it (only the immature
male). As said in old footnote 677 in
regards to “N” relationships guys must be prepared for the fact that they are
not the center of all things here and a woman may (also) only be looking for an
“N” relationship and be basically ‘satisfied’ with where she is at as an A (or
a B, C for that matter). Also again remember maturity involves moving towards
independence and for a women (as well as a man) already in a relationship to
move towards “N” is the first step (In other words once again … men – mature
men - ought not be looking at all women as their – or potential - A,B
&C’s for men can be on the other end of ‘this thing’ as well – we are all
‘in process’). Also note women ought not look at all men as their potential A’s
either, again we are all in process.
The End Result
To be intimate
with someone can - but not necessarily - bring a closeness to someone whether
we like it or not (904). Therefore if
intimacy is done right (905) a friendship – a life-long friendship – ought to develop.
The angels as they move from one relationship to another remain friends (906), and so ought be the case here among people.
Brothers
and sisters in this Appendix we explored different non-traditional arrangements
for the already committed (most of whom desire
to stay committed). It would not be
fair to explore these arrangements with the expectation that committed
relationships would end, nor partake of them coaxing another partner to leave.
If things like that happen, they happen, but ought not be forced nor forced
upon people – especially other couples who are already life-long friends. Some
of these arrangements may require private conversations first in regards to
‘whatever’ (907),
especially expectations - before going ahead with them. Others arrangements
(like a woman moving on to an “N” relationship) can only be expected. Sisters and brothers, as with everything here
only the mature (and maturing) need apply.
Two
guys for every girl? Why not start today? Look around.
______
921)
950)
Appendix L
Christian Communities
Communal Settings
Lifting up Christ
Brothers and sisters just as there are many
types of personal Christian relationships there are also many type of Christian
public relationships - or arrangements - that vary in degree of
inter-dependence on one another in communal settings, and unless you want to
live an isolated life it ought to be pointed out that the early church was
communal in nature where no on considered their property their own, but what
they had they had in common and all shared what they had with one another –
voluntarily (921).
The early church had a communal setting (922) which
some might call communist, however if that is the word it was certainly not
Marxist, or Marxist communism where things are forced and freedoms suppressed (922A),
if it was communism, because everyone shared voluntarily, it was a voluntary
communism (922B).
Now how this “ethic” or lifestyle translates
into practical practice in our day and age depends on a number of things
socially and economically, socially being an open enlightened society where non-traditional lifestyles are tolerated (923), as well
as accepted (924)
and non-traditional answers allowed (925) which would also include the decriminalization
(and deregulation) of certain ‘outside the box of traditional lifestyles’ statutes in
societies which (mature) Christians dominate (925A), as well as the willingness to economically let go - voluntarily - of what one has for the
sake of someone else (926).
Sisters and brothers, although independence is
a goal of the Christian life, mutual aid in regards to just plain old help –
especially as people get older and become more physically dependent is a goal
for Christians to shoot for and the idea of and
propagation of Christian communities (or Christian communal settings), are not
only an option to be considered but are probably the answer and solutions for
people’s lives (927) - especially in regards to
mutual aid for religious reasons (928).
Brothers and sisters, in regards to a few or
many people living under one roof for at least mutual support if not more… although
knowing one another intimately is not necessary for these types of
arrangements, people who have exchanged relationships or who have entered into
multiple ones would be good candidates for this type of arrangement that could
lead to lifelong friendships among the people who enter into them (929),
In regards to independent localize housing
[which can be in a mixed neighborhoods with unbelievers (930)], one can have a dependent
structure of support throughout the neighborhood (for example neighbors who are
able watching kids) and still even in a mixed neighborhood with unbelievers
achieve a goal of unity and mutual help.
In regards to employment (931), one can even start-up businesses / companies (932), hiring fellow Christians (932A) who you know won’t steal and you can trust to work. People
can also pool together resources (which includes manpower) to start these up
these companies or businesses and advertise to the outside world (and / or go
into partnership with others too).
And in regards to Churches (933) in
an enlightened area one would have very enlightened churches with
enlightened mature relationships, some hidden (for the sake of the immature)
and some not.
Basically what you would want to have is a without
boundaries (934)
Christian utopia on this side of the kingdom (935).
Sisters and brothers there is
nothing wrong with experimenting with options for your life – especially when
you are young (or even more especially when you are trying to save money or
pool people and resources together for ministry). Also in regards to earning
money, there is nothing wrong with trying to start businesses or lure companies
to your area with the promise of good Christian workers (or even start up
companies on your own).
Brothers and sisters help out one another.
______
Appendix M
Various Forms (Text) for Church Use
Brothers and sisters, while there is a
difference in most countries between church and state in regards to civil
matters, matters of the church belong solely to that realm. Since we are all at
different levels of understanding in regards to the issues mentioned in this
book, it may be of help for some sisters and brothers to have ‘rulings’ from
the local church that may carry weight in civil matters - particularly court. In regards to certain issues like
annulments, or the granting of divorce, it has been a long been an established
tradition for orthodox churches to issues writs stating such things have been
granted – after being investigated for veracity and found groundful.
Sisters and brothers, while not passing judgment on any individuals
involved in these matters there is nothing wrong with a local
(non-orthodox) church doing the same thing here, and if after investigating a
matter and found groundful granting such a writ. (950A),
The following sample forms (text) ought not be
taken lightly, and their weight in civil court may be debatable in regards to
certain issues like child support or alimony, however they may be of help for
some brothers and sisters – particularly in regards to not only matters of
conscience (951),
but also social standing – particularly social standing [that is: status (952)],
among certain groups of believers.
Annulment Forms (Text)
Annulment
of Marriage
The Board of _______________ after being
Requested to Investigate the Marriage of ___________ ___________ on __/__/__ has found biblical ground(s) for
the Annulment of that Marriage and has granted ________ _________ an Annulment
of Marriage from _________ ___________ which Releases - and Dissolves - him /
her from all his / her Biblical Responsibilities and Obligations towards his /
her ex-husband / ex-wife.
We as a church stand behind her / him in his /
her decision and grant him / her the right to remarry if he / she so chooses.
Elders Names
Date of Annulment
(Note: you can type this out without the “his/her” or any parenthesis)
Divorce Forms (Text)
Divorce
of Marriage
The Board of _______________ after being
Requested to Investigate the Marriage of ___________ ___________ on __/__/__ has found Biblical Grounds for
Divorce of that Marriage and has granted him / her a Divorce from _________
___________ which Releases - and Dissolves - him / her from all his / her
Biblical Responsibilities and Obligations towards his / her ex-husband /
ex-wife.
We as a church stand behind her/ him in his/her
decision and grant him / her the right to remarry if he / she so chooses.
Elders Names
Date of Annulment
(Again you can type this out without the “his/her”)
______
“Brethren, one of the things that
being under law did was to lead one to desire higher things and a higher way of
living. However because the Holy Spirit had not been given yet (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:13), one needed to wait until
that day came.” - from conscience
Appendix N
A Note to Non-Christians Reading this Work
(and please note I am not Catholic nor Protestant just a
Christian)
While this work is intended for
Christians and is public domain it is not intended to be published (released) publicly
and if published, published privately and passed along (sold) privately as
well. The reason being is that it deals with maturity as well as a common topic
handled in a very non-traditional way. While the lifestyle portrayed in this
book may be no different on the surface than lifestyles in the non-Christian
world it is dramatically different in that it treats people with mature respect
and mature dignity and does not use nor abuse people. It also does not factor
lust into any of its arrangements – only love and again mutual respect and most
of all sees lifelong friendship as a goal of intimacy. For Non – Christian’s to
have their desires under control and at the same time not let the emotional
ties (which can result from intimacy) lead to ‘a ownership mentality’ of
another person (that is they are mine and only mine) as well as not judge
others in regards to expanded relationships (which can include spouses) is not
something that people who do not know God can easily do.
The thing about sex outside a
covenant situation is that even though it is traditionally frowned upon by the
church, the angels do in fact partake in this lifestyle and Jesus said
believers too will someday partake in this as well. The thing that is different
here is that it is also a Christian tradition to press ahead into what is coming
down the road in faith, and so this book is written.
The word “fornication” in scripture
can mean a variety of things and in regards to its use with the angels it is used when they go outside their relationship
with one another and have sex with mankind (in other words they went outside
certain boundaries - apparently lustful driven boundaries). However, it is
important to remember that non-covenanted
sex is within their boundaries (but it is “the who with” that is
defined). Therefore in regards to the actual definition of the word, that is
its final (and ultimate) definition, it’s not sex outside a covenant but “the
who with.” As a result of this there is nothing inherently wrong with
uncovenanted sex – as long as it stays
within certain boundaries - and if one takes all the verses together in the
bible regarding fornication (of whose definition is wide and debatable) and combine that with a believers right to
press ahead into what is coming next, you are basically left with leaving
lust out of a relationship and basing all relationships on love and mutual
respect. While a lifestyle of this type is not unheard of in the Non- Christian
world, possession and control of another person is. Also the ability for Non –
Christians to truly live this kind of life and have relationships based on
faith, hope and selfless love (and not lust) is questionable as well.
There is a difference between the
way Christians see things and the world sees things otherwise there would be
no need for Christianity or Christian teaching and practice. At the end
of the age scripture tell us there will be an apostasy from these truths (2
Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1), and peoples love will grow cold [that is:
things will basically be back to “normal” (Mathew 24:12)]. This book attempts
to head that off (hopefully for the long term).
When the author of this book was 16
years old someone came up to him and told him how Jesus changed her life and
made everything new and all you have to do is go to Him and ask Him to do that
and He will do the same for you. I knew this person and her life had change
dramatically and was happy, alive and not the same person she used to be. She
was my mother and invited me to go to her meetings – which I did - and I felt the
presence of God come upon me as I walked into those meetings and one night when
I was in my bed that presence came upon me again and change me into the person
I am today (and I have been walking with God ever since). Now while there are
many different testimonies out there regarding this life changing experience,
most people will say that if you yourself turn to God, He will meet you half
way and do the rest. The only thing I can tell you in regards to all that is
written here is that if you are not a Christian and reading this, if you want
the power to live the life that can lead to this non-self -centered,
non-lustful type of lifestyle you have to go to God first. However you must
remember you are not going to God to
live this lifestyle per say, this lifestyle is in actually only the result of a
knowing God and having an ongoing leading
relationship with Him. You are primarily going to God to be saved from the
consequences of your old unsaved lifestyle - and sins - and as you turn to God
He will extend to you a hand and change you. This experience is usually called
a born again experience and is the promise of the new covenant (that is: to
have a new heart and mind) and you will have that - if you turn to God through Jesus Christ.
Once again the lifestyle portrayed
in this book is a mature lifestyle for mature people. If you happen to come
across this book in your travels I ask you to begin to manifest that mature
responsibility and not pass it along, nor its advise to anyone but the mature.
May God Bless you on this side of
eternity.
______
Footnotes
1) 1 Corinthians 7:11
2) Galatians 3:15-19
3) 1 Corinthians 11:25
4) Revelation 11:19
5) “For if the first covenant had been
faultless, there would have been no occasion ought for a second. For finding
fault with… (it) He says, “Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I
will affect a New Covenant with the house of Israel…” (Hebrews 8:7,8).
6) Which is what a covenant is a pact
(the Hebrew word means “to cut” or berith).
7) Note Revelation 11:19 is speaking of
the ark of the NEW Covenant (see Luke 22:20).
7A) Based on the teaching of 1 Corinthians 7:15.
8) In other words the concept
‘covenant’ is not necessarily a concept that is locked into cement.
9) Sisters and brothers, illegitimate
marital covenants (or covenants that become illegitimate) and the grounds for
ending both of them center around the following questions…
all of which can be found in
scripture (and are also done in the scriptures) and take into account a wide
variety of thinking depending on what you are talking about, that factors in
the Jewish understanding of the word “wife”; God’s treatment of Israel and
Judah (that is: under what grounds He did the things that He did), as well as
factors in how God treated slavery (servants) under the law (which is directly
related to the topic of
See Chapter ____ and Footnote ____ for more on this.
10) Which if you continue reading was a
divorce law that God acquiesced to.
Note: while it is commendable for society to desire to go back to the law of
God it is also naïve for it would bring back the divorce by writ law – as well
as quite a few other hard and harsh things [and note once again that it was a
law found in ‘the (Mosaic) law of God’ that God didn’t even want (verses needed)].
11) Which is a big thing and very
important to understand in regards to some of these issues and exceptions (keep
reading).
12) Brothers and sisters,
while marriage is held in high regard in many scriptures (Hebrews 13:4), in
some it is secondary to the purposes of God (Luke 18:29; 1 Corinthians
7:29). The epistles (see 12a) speak of marriage
particularly in regards to the responsibilities of both partners. While one can
write volumes on all the aspects of marriage I am only interested in this
footnote in addressing the aspect of it in the New Testament that has to do
with the idea of law (see 12b)
itself and note the following verses
“Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking
to those who know the law), that the law has
jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound
by law to her husband… but now we have been released from the law,
having died to that which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of
the Spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:1,2, 6)
“Brethren, I speak in terms of HUMAN RELATIONS
(that is how humans view covenants), even though (the human covenants we
know about are)… only… mans covenant, yet when (they or) it has been ratified,
no one (1) sets it aside or (2) adds conditions to it…why then the law? (which
was added to God’s covenant with Abraham after it
had been ratified), it was added because of transgressions (bad
behavior) (Galatians 3:15,19)
Brethren, Romans 7 speaks
of the concept of marriage in terms of “law”, Galatians speaks of covenants as
something that - according to humans terms - cannot be changed (which is still
how a lot of humans view them). What I find interesting about the
above verses (particularly Galatians) is how little support there
is concerning the idea that a marriage covenant is rock solid unchangeable
agreements (law). Look at Galatians. God’s view of covenants is different than
man’s view in that something can be added to it.
“though it is only a man’s covenant (that is man‘s
view of covenants), yet when (the covenant)… has been ratified, no one (1) sets
it aside or (2) adds conditions to it” [but yet God added something to His
covenant with Abraham, the law (Galatians 3:15,19)]
For God, the definition of
a covenant can be something that stands (however note the changing from the old covenant to the new), but is also in its definition
something that can be altered, depending on circumstances, and parties
(Gentiles) even added (or engrafted into) it (Romans 11:17). Particularly in
regards to unbelief (Romans 11:20) (see 12c)
where it can be dissolved (see 1 Corinthians 7:15 which just happens to speak
of a marriage covenant).
The thing is this, if God
could alter a covenant why can’t man? Whether it’s a ‘big altered thing’ or a
‘little altered thing’ what is the difference? Especially in regards to changed
circumstances. Hence inherent in the concept of covenant (or the law of
marriage) is the concept of changeability for reason.
12a)
‘Epistle’
is just the Greek word for ‘writing’ which was ‘transliterated’ into the
English (that is literally translated: for example angelos in Greek is
translated into English as angel) in other words when the word “epistles” is
used by Christians it just means apostolic writings.
12b) That is
the law of marriage itself.
12c) In regards
to Israel note the word “partial” in Romans 11:25 (as well as note Romans 11:1
on the subject).
13) and note in regards to that garden
intention we are not commanded to go back to that unchangeable garden situation
either (once again keep reading).
13A) as in the
unchangeable law of gravity.
19A makes mention of this
footnote
14) Note in regards to Jesus quote
unquote “iron clad” statements on divorce (see Luke 16:18) even Jesus granted a
divorce exception in Matthew 19:9* [and please note that the word ‘commandment’
can be interchangeable with the word “law” (depending on what you are talking
about) and thus handled the same way (again depending on what you are talking
about)]. Also note in regards to this “law” / commandment issue (and
particularly issues that surround it) that there are also pleas (not commandments) in bible (1
Corinthians 7:6); personal opinions
(1 Corinthians 7:40), temporary judgments
(Titus 1:12), and even possibly
localized gender opinions or commandments concerning other things as well
(compare 1 Timothy 5:13 with Luke 2:36,37). Also note the word traditions
concerning women [which the New Testament church was encouraged to follow (1
Corinthians 11:2)], in other words… not everything spoken in scripture is in
the form of a command; nor even a universal command for
that matter).
Note the issue of New Testament
commandments, injunctions and teachings on divorce will be dealt with
throughout this book particularly in Chapter _____ on Problem Verses.
*Note Chapter ____ regarding the likelihood of why Jesus
gave this exemption (however also read “Jesus between the Covenants” in ____ for more on this).
15) As in more than just “a wish” or
“hope” (not some “distant hope” something may happen)
16) That is: the Mosaic (or Old) Covenant (See Deuteronomy 24:4)
16A) as indicated by the phrase going back
to her “first husband.”
17) See David with Michal also on this (Verse Needed), as well as God pursuing Israel (that is: the northern kingdom) after
He actually divorce her (Jeremiah 3:8,12). Also note “it’s impossible” new
covenant spouse staying with an unbeliever in the hope of their salvation
(which Ezra and Nehemiah would have forbidden) (1 Corinthians 7:12-16).
17A) as the
scriptures say…
for You did purchase for God with
Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation and You have
made them to be a kingdom (that is: a large group called out from the world) and
priests to our God… (Revelation 5:9,10)
Footnote 21 makes mention of this
footnote
17B) So so far
that three old covenant marriage laws (as in the law of marriage) that are overridden in both the old and the
new covenants, and again they are…
1) A believer can take back a divorced and remarried spouse
(Hosea 2:5-7)
2) A believer can marry a widow (1 Timothy 5:14)
3) A believer can marry a divorced person (1 Corinthians 7:15)
18) Therefore brethren the “iron clad”
law of marriage as found in (old covenant) scripture already turns out to be
flexible – especially in the new covenant [also note that in regards to the
concept of grace, grace is not given to line oneself up with old
covenant law (for example if that was so not only would we go back to the
forbidding God’s people from marrying divorce persons, but we would also be
wearing clothes made of one material, putting ourselves under dietary laws
etc.)].
Footnote 19A makes mention of
this footnote
19) Which believe it or not is the
contrast he is illustrating in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12, not the contrast between
‘I and the Lord’…
“But to the married… I give
instructions, not (really) I but the Lord [Jesus (which also concurs with what
Jesus says “in the Gospels”)]. But to the rest (what I have to say is)… not
(found in) the Lord (s) (teachings or in the Gospels) (1 Corinthians 7:10-12).
Note: if you study 1 Corinthians
7:12,13 in relation to the Gospels (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18) the apostle is
altering (or qualifying) a direct “rock hard” commandment of the Lord here
which is and will be of interest in regards to certain positions this book
takes (See Footnotes ___ for more on this).
19A) Again see Footnote 14 and Footnote 19. Also in
regards to the issue of commandments or “commandments” see ____ & _____ and Footnotes ____ & _____ as well as the warnings found in _______
20) Brethren, in regards to the issue of
absolute moral concepts (for example: the question of abortion), as moral as
Christians say they are most will allow for abortions in cases of rape and
incest. Therefore in regards to most of Christendom there is already an
acknowledgement that the concept of morality or moral law needs to be qualified
(in other words it’s not always an absolute black and white concept).
20A) everyone
except for “old time” and possibly current Roman Catholic’s (note I think every
Orthodox church allows for divorce and remarriage and all Orthodox churches
were part of that church at one time).
Footnote 58 makes mention of this
footnote
21) Which would be number 4 in the growing list of exceptions in Footnote 17 B and that is: if an
unbeliever leaves, the abandoned spouse is free to remarry.
Brothers and sisters this discussion
about “being under law” happens to be a big debate in the book of Acts (Acts
15), as well as in most of the epistles of the new testament, and the contrast
(or debate) of living one’s life by faith, hope and love vs. living ones life
by law - wherever it’s from (civil / biblical) - is found throughout Apostolic
teaching (see 21a). Without getting
into a big thing here Christians are just not under “the (biblical) law” and
according to Acts 15 there were only a
handful of “legal” issues the Apostles were concerned about (with some
being regulated to matters of conscience is subsequent epistles).
Sisters and brothers, living ones
life by faith, hope and love as mature parameters guiding our relationships
with one another as well as living life by the Christian principle / standard
of ‘leading a selfless life’ in regards to making our life
choices or decisions and listening to a still speaking God (of
whose application in regards to relationships is obvious) is the way Christians
ought to live their lives - not law.
[Brothers and sisters please note
that we really don’t want to go back “the law,” for the law was basic (verse needed) - for the immature (verse
needed) - and not given to adult situations
where faith and trust would allow one to transcend them [Note: it would
probably be more correct for a Christian today to talk about the ways
of God, rather than the law of God (for example once again the living of one’s
life by the principles of faith, hope and love,
rather than living by something written in concrete per say {for example in
regards to relationships see the previous? footnote for an exception outside
of Jesus teaching (or “rock hard” statement) on divorce})].
See Appendix ? for more on “the law” in regards to
relationships.
21a) Brethren in regards to the errant
viewpoint that following law is supreme over faith and trust let me give you an
illustration. Suppose you lived in a country where coffee (because of it
caffeine content) was regulated and only those to whom a pharmacists prescribed
it to could drink it (of whose only
concern factored in the age, weight and allergies of the person who wanted to
buy it). Now suppose you lived in that far away country and were pulling an
“all nighter” for an upcoming test and needed a cup to see you through the
night and your wife had some instant around - but not you. For those who
feel law is supreme there is no debate here, however if one were to factor in
the factors of age weight and allergies (which were the only factors here) and
see that they match up with the person to whom the coffee was prescribed, what
would be the problem if they took it? - especially in private and especially
with the other persons permission? There is none.
Brothers
and sisters, law is not to be worshiped which was the problem Jesus
confronted when He debated people who basically thought that God made man for
the Sabbath rather than the Sabbath for man. Law is a guide and if you can see
your way through it’s intent there
ought to be no problem with the personal modification of law [as in the coffee
example (hypothetically speaking now)].
21A) and we will talk some more on Jesus teaching regarding
divorce and remarriage later in this book
22) or a “filling in the blank” in
regards to circumstances that the bible does not cover.
23) See Chapter ______ on
annulment (in other words… why would there be laws on annulments if mistakes
were not anticipated in the area of vows ?)
23A) Which is
talked about in Chapter ___ of this book.
24) Note that in the old covenant there
were all kinds of offerings listed for all kinds of sins some of which sins
were the sins of ignorance, omission and presumption (which can
be a common sin in this area), and even the penalty for adultery was forgiven
(and negated) by Jesus Himself.
24A) Which can include a marriage.
25) For example:
“Again, the Lord spoke to Moses
saying, speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man makes a
difficult vow…” (Leviticus 27:1 and following)
And if you continue to read the
chapter concerning the making of difficult vows, it expressly says that
if a person who made a vow considered it too hard to fulfill (unless the vow
concerned something dedicated to the Lord), the person could pay a fine and be
released from it. Now the verse just mentioned in Leviticus is part of the
quote unquote “rock hard” laws of Moses, and even though it’s true that you
will find more grace under the New Covenant then under the old there is still
grace found here (and as you can see even the old covenant was not as rock hard
as one might think and offered people some leeway).
26) As the following verse illustrates…
“Do not be bound together with
unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what
harmony has Christ with Belial?, or what has a believer in common
with an unbeliever? Or what agreement (covenant) has the temple of God
with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God has said... Therefore,
come out from their midst and separate, says the Lord... And I will welcome
you...(2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
Note even though the apostle in 1
Corinthians 7:12-14,16 allows for the believer to stay with an unbeliever [and
who knows how God can lead here (See Footnote
128B as well as Footnote 269)],
he does basically agree with where Nehemiah and Ezra were coming from (see Footnote 26A as well as Footnote ____)
Footnote 26 makes mention of this
footnote
26A) (verses needed) which would be number 5 in our growing list of exceptions and that
is if a person made an illegitimate covenant the “law” of marriage does not apply (note our growing list of
exceptions will be handled exclusively in Chapters ___ and _____ form this point on).
This
footnote is mentioned in Footnote 50E, 128Ba
27) note once again marriage law (or
commandments) is not an absolute concept (27a)
for example, in the new covenant we see a spouse staying with an unbeliever in
the hope of their salvation [which Ezra and Nehemiah would have forbidden (1
Corinthians 7:12-16)]. Brethren, individual circumstances - particularly those
that benefit God (1 Corinthians 7:29) - can and do ‘carry weight’ in our
decision making process and as a result we can adjust and expand
our thinking in regards to the restrictive, black and white narrow thinking in
regards to this issue [note also Esters marriage to the more than likely pagan
king in the book of Ester for a different kind of example on this (also see Footnote ____ on this)].
27a) For
another example of this compare 1 Corinthians 7:17 with verse 15 of that
chapter.
27A) especially
if it has to do with my ______ said this
or that about this or my priest / minister said that _____. You need to think
things through for yourself.
28) While one can go back and forth in
regards to certain points surrounding this issue, God did eventually “move on”
to the gentiles (while not forgetting believing Jews) as
demonstrated by both history and new testament theology on the matter (See Romans_____)
29) which is probably a better word to
use to understand what was happening here.
30) Which is basically (that is ‘the
reasons’) where we get “grounds for divorce” from.
31) with an implicit (or explicit)
appeal to Him to help keep the parties of the agreement in line (“so help me
God”) and - if the covenant is violated - for Him to do what is necessary to
bring the agreement back into line… or bring judgment.
32) Leviticus 27:28
32A) See Leviticus 27:1 and following
32B) Leviticus
22:23
32C) Numbers
30:3-5
32D) Judges
11:30-40; Judges 21:1-25
32E) and even with God (because we are
imperfect), covenants can be adjusted or added to (Galatians 3:19).
33) However see Chapter _____ on “the Issue of Vows” regarding this point as well.
43D, 45Ca, 49A makes mention of
this footnote as well as Chapter 6 itself
34) which again is basically what
(sacred) vows traditionally are (see 34a)
[that is: promises that bring in a third party God (as in you are either saying
your promises before God {that is: having or invoking God to oversee the
arrangement – whatever it is} and / or actually bringing God into an actual
promise {vow or oath} itself (as in swearing on the bible in a court of law),
both of which activities “up’s” a promise {see Chapter ____ on Vows})].
Note: In regards to the differing words: Vows, Oaths and Swearing are in actually three different words that
define basically the same activity (or different aspects of it); that is giving
ones word in such a way that it usually locks or “locks” one in to the
statement (promise) that was made, and if the statement (or act) is not
preformed, or turns out not to be true, it tends to say something highly
negative about the person (See Herod regrettably following through with his
oath regarding John the Baptist only because of his dinner guests (Verse Needed)]. For many vows, oaths and swearing operate on a higher level than
‘a promise’ by itself (although it need not be). In scripture the words “Vow,”
“Oath” and “Swear” are used interchangeably and are interchangeable. (See
Judges 21:1-5 where “sworn” and “oath” are used interchangeably; also see
Matthew 5:33-37 where “vows” and “oath” are also used interchangeably).
Thus, as far as the words
usage goes… a person will usually swear an oath (or vow), however a person can
also swear that something is true and swear to do something as well. Again they
are three different words defining basically the same activity (or differing
aspects of it).
34a) and this is their
traditional (modern) definition.
35) Which only common sense dictates
[for example: two business associates who agree on a deal can change it if they
both agree upon it (even if they made it
before God)].
36) Now although we are speaking of
covenants, the errant idea that one cannot change (alter) a bad or wrong vow
– particularly the not changing “of the letter” concept - because it
either reflects on one’s imperfection or because it has been stated before God
is also something that is both brought out - and come against - in scripture
[See both the hesitancy to change (alter) a bad or wrong vow and the creative
way in which it was changed (altered) in the following biblical stories….___________
Note: once again even promises (or
vows) directed to God could be ended under
certain conditions under the Mosaic law as well.
Note once again the
following exceptions:
*
Difficult vows could be repented over (Leviticus 27:1 and following)
*
Vows could also be annulled under certain circumstances (Numbers 30:3-5)
*
Vows could be also not be accepted under certain circumstances (Leviticus 22:23
*
Vows could be (or were allowed to be) adjusted (Judges 11:30-40; Judges 21:1-25)
See Chapter ______ “The Issue
of Vows” for more on this.
36B makes mention of this
footnote
36A) with Joshua saying to Israel that
they can’t serve a perfect being [(God) that is: their end of the
(altered) covenant], on their own (or by their own power) which, to the
prophets means that God will institute another
(or new) covenant with Israel in which they will be given a new heart and
mind and God’s Spirit will be given individuals so that they can properly serve
Him [or a perfect being (and not so much obedience to iron clad immature law (see 36Aa) {see and compare Joshua 24:19; Jeremiah 31:31 and Ezekiel 36:26,27})].
36Aa) Which according to the book of Galatians was immature (verse needed) Note: In Regards to the Use of the
Term “Law” regarding the New Covenant in Jeremiah
“I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will
write it…” (Jeremiah 31:33)
Brothers and sisters, in regards to the new
covenant verses in the prophet’s Jeremiah (31:31-33) and Ezekiel (36:26,27)
writings in regards to the use of the
term “law” (statutes, ordinances in Ezekiel) for many Christians since we are
not under law [again Acts 15:10, as well as many other verses (See Appendix Footnote C:2 as well as Appendix
C in Sustaining Revival)] even
though it is written on our hearts (See Appendix Footnotes I:46; I:38 and I:41 in Sustaining
Revival) they - when referring to
any biblical Mosaic law in a positive sense - may be more
comfortable using the terms “principles” or “ways of the Lord” or even the term
“teachings” that are written on our hearts rather than the use of the term
“law” (See Appendix C in Sustaining Revival).
However the term “law” (as
in the use of the term biblical law) can also be used in positive
sense when it is properly qualified to include New Covenant teachings or
commandments which not only refer to how to view old covenant law, but also
refer to the new and mature parameters of our lives (as in loving God and one
another by living a life of faith, hope and love).
[however in regards to the term “Mosaic law”
compare Jeremiah 31:33 with Ezekiel 36:27 and Ezekiel 44:23 and note the
progression as well as the exception (see Appendix L in Sustaining Revival) found to one (“iron clad”) “law” in Ezekiel 44:25
(and again there are plenty of other exceptions to “laws” {teachings /
principles} in the bible especially in regards to maturity of conscience issues
{read about the details of the New Covenant as outlined in Sustaining Revival (note that Christians are not
Orthodox Jewish people) and again see Appendix L in
regards to the issue of exceptions})].
[and please note once again that it would be more
proper when using the word law (if you are going to use it in a non
mosaic sense) to be speaking of (and include) New Covenant teachings (revelation) that we know today (which
excludes Sabbath observance, dietary regulations etc. as well as includes Jesus
common sense teaching of life over law {Matthew 12:1-13}), and with
the exception of obvious still relevant Moasic laws (for example don’t worship
idols) when and if one uses the term ‘law’ in the new covenant (of today) to
know and realize that one is not necessarily speaking of old
Mosaic teachings or Mosaic law [which was in place until a newer covenant
came along which enabled people to serve God in Spirit and not “of the letter”
(which would eventually encounter circumstances which would in effect kill (see 36Ab))].
“Behold the days are
coming declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and the house of Judah… (and) I will put My (New
Covenant) law [which it is speaking of - in context – the new
covenant (law) not the old Mosaic
covenant which has been done away with})] within them, and on their hearts
I will write it…” (Jeremiah 31:31,33) (See also Sustaining Revival Appendix Footnote
I:30 on this)
[also please note that the ceremonial verses in
Ezekiel 44 are not talking of the New Covenant as we know it now and is
speaking of the New Covenant during the new Temple period in the millennium
Kingdom where object lessons of greater spiritual truths are once again in play
(See the book of Hebrews in regards to the topic of object lessons and Sustaining Revival Footnote 37 for more
on this}) of whose lessons will once
again will have bearing in regards to the outward manifestations of inner
truths (or outward holiness). The Mosaic covenant is not being
resurrected in the book of Ezekiel but some Mosaic ceremonial laws
(because of the existence of the temple) will apparently once again be in play
(and some changed {Ezekiel 44:20} which is a tough thing to deal with for those
who want to go back the to Mosaic law as in its an unchangeable forever
covenant. The covenant does in fact change in a number of ways].
Brethren once again, in regards to the issue of
using the term “law” can be a “tough nut” in regards to definitions under the
new covenant especially since we are not under law and the defining of one’s
terms is needed, especially since when one uses the term “law” most
automatically think of some old covenant (which again has been done away with)
written in stone law which cannot be changed [which is not necessarily true
even in the old (see David getting off the hook in regards to adultery)] (see 36Ac).
36Ab) note the event that helped sparked the Maccabee
rebellion of faith [a group that is prophesied to come with (mature) insight in
the book of Daniel (which was actually new covenant mature insight away
from law that locked people in until faith (and trust) came {see
the book of Galatians on this {verses
needed})]
36Ac) a possible solution could be found in the New
Jewish Publication Society 2008 translation of Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel
36:27 it uses the word “teachings” in place of law in Jeremiah 31:33 and the
word “rules” in place of ordinances in Ezekiel 36:27 (which for the believer
would again include overriding new covenant teaching - especially Jesus
teaching regarding life)]. Therefore…
“… I will put My (NEW covenant) Teaching into their innermost
being and inscribe it upon their hearts…” (Jeremiah 31:33 NJPS)
would be the more correct way to look at the
verse.
[And once again remember that there are exceptions
to these old covenant teachings (36Ad)
even found within the Mosaic covenant itself (See also Appendix L in Sustaining Revival in regards to
exceptions).
36Ad) Note for “champions of Mosaic law”
please note that no one feels society is to be under them and even for those
who do when they break them down into the common threefold category [that the
law does not break itself down into (and that is civil, ceremonial and moral)]
and say that we must follow the civil and moral does leads to all sorts of
problems when one – in effect – ends up picking and choosing among all three
categories [with Sabbath regulations (the third usually excluded group)
actually being brought into the amazingly “still in play” ceremonial].
Brethren, while this subject is handled thoroughly in the authors book Sustaining
Revival (“Dealing with Teachings of the Past”) remember that if one desires to
go in this direction one is going to have problems with such moral mosaic violations as stoning for
adultery (which is a commandment that Jesus writes in the dirt over), a man siring
children for his deceased brother so on, as well as many mosaic civil laws that no one in no society
follows. Brothers and sisters the point of the law was to keep us under bondage
[think marshal law curfew (see 36Ae)],
until faith or a life of faith and trust came along (along with the ability to
truly live that mature kind of life). Faith and trust more than blind obedience
to law is where the emphasis is for the new covenant believer and one ought not
stop, nor judge, anyone moving in faith. However sisters and brothers because
God has a direction towards His Best that direction does carry weight and does
in fact follow some laws so we also
need discernment here (Brethren, don’t read the old covenant unless you know what
you are doing).
36Ae) It’s debatable whether Israel would
have even received to law if they were behaving properly (and living a life of
faith like Abraham) on exit from Egypt and before when they went to the
mountain of God to worship
Note: When Israel left Egypt they were called a
“horde” by Moab (Numbers 22:4) and were actually a mixed group (Exodus 12:38),
of mostly Hebrew slaves (but probably some gentile ones too) which added up to
more than half a million people (Exodus 12:37) which had - as a group - a
propensity towards idolatry [that is: encouraging the influence of spirits
(remember the golden calf?)] without any civil authorities to watch over them
and no police to keep any bad behavior in check. The question of how to
maintain control over such a large – ill-behaved group [which according to
scripture they were (see Exodus 32:15 for an example)] was solved by the giving
of - or the laying down of - the
law [or a rule book (or actually riot act)] which was enforced by God
and eventually the elders of the group. Violation of the rule book - the
law (that is: what we know today as “the laws of
Moses”) was punishment on the spot (for example immediate stoning for quite
a few things). The group of over half a million people were in (or under) a
marshal law type of situation and where things were punished immediately and
behavior extremely restricted. They were not in the type of situation
that a mature and responsible person would find themselves in and it
was not enjoyable.
36B) Again see Footnote
36A.
36C) In regards to Israel proper some verses in Romans
give some addition insight into what happened…
“What shall we say then?
That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness attained righteousness…but
Israel did not… Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith [in other words
they did not realize that Abraham was justified by faith before the law of
Moses was given (see Genesis 15:6 as well as Galatians 3:6-9 and the following
argument in the book)]. For I bear them
witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.
For not knowing about (how to obtain) God’s righteousness and seeking to
establish their own [through obedience to law (they failed)…]” (Romans 9:30-32;
10:2,3)
Note: this was the direction (that is
the following of rules and regulations for justification) the Christian church
started to go in and was the major contention that a Roman Catholic Monk named
Martin Luther had with the well-established Roman Catholic Church (or the
Universal Church in Rome) in regards to - not the use of the Mosaic law for
justification - but the use of church dogma (teaching) and practice [both of
which concerned works and the earning of gracious favor from God (or earning
grace)]. The thing is the Roman Catholic Church turned out to be right in regards to an addition to faith
alone (see 36Ca) [which actually
concerns a (singular)
co-joining work of faith (see Romans 10:9-11 for - at the minimum - the
confession of one’s faith which is something I myself would like to add to
Protestantism)] (see 36Cc) however
they were wrong about almost everything else that Martin Luther spoke out
against (all of which was not taken care of at the time, nor by the Second
Vatican council in 1962 all of which ought to be reexamined with
and by both groups (see 36Cd)
for the sake of church unity) (see 36Ce).
36Ca) Which in
the Book of James is brought out (James 2:20-26) and contrasted with false
faith (James 2:19) (see 36Cb) (a
book that Martin Luther wanted to throw out of the bible).
36Cb) Which is
the only point that
Protestantism brings forth out of the two point argument in the passage [and
that is: the demons (also) “believe” and it doesn’t do them any good].
36Cc) See the
thief on the crosses confession and Jesus subsequent response (Luke 23:42,43)
[and in regards to Joseph of Arimathea who was a secret disciple (John 19:38),
he was obviously not so secret that some people didn’t know about his belief
(Matthew 27:57)].
36Cd) Inviting the new influx of Jewish
Christians to contribute to the (actually their) meetings too [of whom I
recommend, for the sake of Jewish outreach, remain in their (renewed)
synagogues].
36Ce) which can
be done - if the hierarchy of the Catholic Church changes [which is the
argument that the rest of Protestantism - including Lutherans (and myself) -
have with the Roman Catholic Church (and that is: why is there a head of the church?
And why is there a city {actually a church in one location} in charge of all
the others ones as well? Not scriptural)].
Note: any residual differences can be
divided up into what would be called the conservative (orthodox?) and liberal
branches of the (as in one) church [and in regards to any ‘orthodoxy
in service’ I suggest that - to begin
with - all trappings be tossed in favor of at least an evangelical
type of service in which the preaching of the word is central (not “the
performance”), and in regards to old Catholic churches I suggest “the
Dominicans” lead the way here (who are usually more focused on preaching than
the Franciscans - or probably anyone else in what will become that old
denomination). Also in regards to the text that is preached on I suggest the
Jesuits help out here and get rid of the writings that are not sacred to
Judaism nor Protestantism (nor particularly Catholicism) with possibly a new
joint translation and start teaching from the
word and not St. “so and so” and / or philosophy - both of which has
steered the church in the wrong direction for years – and start saying things
like “the word of God says…”].
Also note: any theological
differences between the old eastern and western branches of the church can also
be settled by the one church as well
(as in a new church council).
36D) and
although oaths, swearing and vows describe basically the same activities (and
we’re actually dealing with semantics here) biblically (see 36Da) and ceremonially speaking (see 36Db) you are dealing with contractual promises (which
have been upped to “taking your vows” in post biblical culture) (see 36Dc) and as a result it would be
more biblically correct to make or say promises to one another (which turn
out to be contractual) rather than actual vows (see 36Dd) which does have
implication in regards to matters of consience issues here (see 36De).
36Da) in
biblical Judaism people made wedding contracts
with one another.
36Db) that is between the actual two
parties involved (including modern culture).
A footnote in 45Ba and in “the
92’s” makes mention of this footnote
36Dc) That is usually by the preacher or priest. Note: I can’t ever
remember being at a modern wedding ceremony where the actual script that was said to one another
used the words “vow” or “swear” (or for that matter “oath”). It was always all
along the lines of “do you promise…” and the “taking your vows” was something
that may have been said before-hand by the preacher / priest etc.
before the promises were said. However in either case you are still dealing
with one’s word.
36Dd) ask the
preacher / priest not to use the term “vows” in your ceremony (and write your
own script if possible). Even though it’s more a technical point (with for some
a debatable definition and application) they ought not use that word (Matthew
5:33,34).
36De) as in:
listen I only made a promise (I didn’t swear, vow or take an oath).
37) Which can include (biblical)
engagement covenants (See __________).
37A) that is it’s not resolvable.
38) Note: In regards to legitimate
marital agreements (covenants) unless you are saying that certain types of
legitimate arrangements are in fact illegitimate in nature (see 38a) and can be overruled by one or both parties (for example
again, a closed two party marriage)
there are issues here. Now this is not
saying that God can’t override an agreement or lead an individual differently,
however speaking from a position of law (and only
law) there are again legitimate questions as to whether this can
actually be done [However you may want to skip ahead and read the chapter on Maturity______ and begin to factor that – maturity - into this
issue as well, especially in regards to ‘life over law’ issues (or {new}
arrangements {for example: what do you do with an agreement (covenant) with
someone who refuses to grow (mature)})].
Note: in regards to marital
arrangements that were illegitimate see Michals (David’s wife) second
marital arrangement that was broken up (Verse Needed), as well
as believers
being unequally yoked [2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (See
________ for more on that)]. Also note the
negation of vows in the case of an unbeliever leaving in 1 Corinthians
7:15.
38a) that is a man does not have the right to give up his rights in this
area (that is to have more than one wife)
39) again God’s treatment of Israel (the
northern kingdom). Therefore we can say because of that that covenants are not
immutable (that is: unchangeable) and can be treated more like an every-day
contract that can be ended.
40) for example the term “concubine”
which was not a sex toy but just a term used for a wife that had no rights over
the estate (see Appendix ___).
40A) which
appears to be talking about the pre-marital / post engagement stage of a
relationship [in other words the reason (or ground) to break an engagement not
a marriage (Matthew 5:31,32; 19:9)], (note under biblical Judaism a woman is
called a wife once she is engaged which does have bearing on the
interpretation of those verses).
40B) as in what ever happened to those old
agreements? Were they ended on biblical grounds? or are they actually still
“hanging out there” biblically legally? (which can be the case)
40C) For example: supposed you’re looking for grounds
for one of those three things and it just so happens that you promised to marry
someone else and for no biblical reason (both of) you didn’t follow through.
Now, if you are now married to someone else would the person you are married to
now (biblically speaking) be in a legitimate marital relationship? (that is:
legally - biblically legally engagement covenant wise – can you end it?) [and
in regards to a man, the possibility of a man having two wives (that is:
biblically legally speaking married to a current one and {a promised} one still
being out there) could also have a bearing on a current relationship in regards to a legitimate divorce, annulling
and / or altering a current covenant (and note: we are talking strictly
biblically legally {for those who are of that mindset (see The Non-Acceptance of Vows in Chapter 6)}, however if you have a concerned here you may want to skip
ahead and factor in such
concepts as a new relationship with God overriding all previous – even
legitimate – promises, contracts, covenants and understandings {See the section in Biblical Grounds for Divorce:
Believer / Believer Relations (Chapter
___), as well as Romans 7:1,2,4, & 6 in Chapter ___ in the Problem Verses section of
this book (and also note 1 Corinthians 7:29 on this
overriding concept as well)})].
40D) Note contracts can be a verbal thing.
40E) which are pretty much apparent in general society at large as well
Footnotes 73, 117 makes mention
of this footnote
41) which for Abraham seemed to be a difficult thing (that is the
wait). Note the progression (steps or parts) of the (marriage) covenant with
Abraham
The Proposal
“Now the Lord said to Abraham, “Go forth from your country, And from
your relatives and from your father’s house (see Genesis 2:24), to the land I
will show you; And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, And
Make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those
who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the
families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:1-3)
“And He (God) took him (Abraham) outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens,
and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him. “So
shall your descendants be.” (Genesis 15:6)
The Parties in the
Relationship
“I am the Lord….” (Genesis 15:7)
The History of the
Relationship
“I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you
this land to possess it.” (Genesis 15:7)
The Ceremony
“So He (God) said to him, Bring Me a three year old heifer…and he
brought all these to Him and cut them in two…And it came about… that… there
appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.
On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, “To your descendants I
have given this land…” (Genesis 15:9-21)
The Words of the Covenant
Genesis 17
The Sign of the Covenant (i.e.
ring)
Circumcision (Genesis 17)
The Oath
“By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this
thing… indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed
as the stars of heaven…” (Genesis 22:16-18)
The Pronouncement of Curses
and Blessings
Which actually goes back to Genesis 12:2,3
The Consummation
which can go back to Genesis 15:9-21 [think of the old “blood brothers
/sisters” cut of the thumbs (with the mingling of blood) as a simplistic
example].
Notice that there is a gap between the initial promise (engagement) and the
actual closing and sealing of the promise (the oath). When Abraham actually
received the (engagement) promise he was 75 years old (Genesis 12:4), the oath
that sealed the promise happened many years later when Isaac was a young man.
The initial promise contained a promise of there being many offspring, and this
is repeated during the Oath “phase” of the relationship (as if it wasn’t
“certain” the first time it was said). All of this parallels the marriage
covenant and covenants of the day as well (see Footnote 117
on this).
41A) which is an exemption found only in the gospel of Matthew (Matthew 5:31,32; 19:9) which seems to have been written to Jews at the time (see 41Aa) [with the gospel of Luke
(Luke 16:18), a gentile author (having a more gentile understanding on things)
who does not include that exception
in his writings (in other words the thinking here for Luke is that a {full /
complete} marriage {proposal} is a permanent thing {and gentiles may not have
understood this exemption if he came across it, so why include it?}) (see 41Ab)].
41Aa) It starts off with a genealogy (which would be of interest to the
Jews at the time), and was rumored to have been originally written in Aramaic
(the language of the Jews at the time).
41Ab) Brethren, what Luke did, if you read the first verses of his
gospel, is to read even other gospel out there [probably Matthew and Mark based
on the use of the word “many” in the first verse of his gospel (John was
written much later)], and investigated everything himself through eye witness
accounts (see 41Ac) for the
Christian who would be reading his gospel (see
41Ad) and in regards to his section on divorce chose to leave Matthews
exemption out.
41Ac) note: he includes things in his gospel that are not found in any
other gospel [for example: the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus
whom he probably talked to or whose story he picked up along the way (Luke
24:13-35) as well as a lot about Mary (Luke 1:26-58), whom he may have talked
to based on verses 1:46-58.
41Ad) the gospel of Luke is actually set up as a letter written to a
person named Theophilus (see 41Ae)
which can be properly translated as lover or friend of God (in other words Luke
was actually writing to those who wanted to know, not particularly a person per
say)
41Ae) as is the Book of Acts in Acts 1:1 another account he thoroughly
investigated for believers (that is what happened to the disciples / apostles
and the believers (church) after Jesus had left)]
Note Luke (a gentile physician
convert) did witness things first hand in the book of Acts from the “we”
passages on [as in “we” went here and there (first verse needed) and was someone who was loved by the apostle (verse needed)].
41A-1) in the gospel of Matthew which is the only gospel that
mentions it.
41B) which again in regards to biblical Judaism is a term used for a
woman once she is engaged (verse needed)
41C) and I’m not sure that any translation out there ever uses the term adultery
in the translation of the passages in Matthew 5:31,32 & 19:9 and is usually
translated something along the lines of “immorality” which the translators of
the NASV (a good and accurate translation) seemed to be greatly divided over
(realizing the implications on gentile divorce?) and split the difference in
the two verses in the gospel of Matthew with one actually using unchastity
(Matthew 5:32) and the second using immorality (Matthew 19:9) for the exact same Greek word [note
unchasteness is an old word that has pretty much lost its meaning today but
denoted something that happened during the engagement period (which again lends
weight to the interpretation of Jesus’s divorce exemption as speaking of
something that happened during the engagement period as grounds for ending the
agreement {that is divorced or being put away})].
Note: for those who are adamant and
head strong about the use of adultery for divorce ought to cool their heels for
once again God did pursue the northern kingdom (verse needed), as well
as the harlot church in Revelation (verses needed) even when they were (or in fact are) in that adulterous
state [also note Jesus giving people time to repent who are in that state as
well (Revelation 2:21)].
41D) Note the gospel of Mark (who was also Jewish) (see 41Da) does not mention the divorce exemption either in Mark
10:11,12. However Mark was the earliest gospel and does actually end with the
commission to go to all the world and preach the gospel (see 41Db) which Matthew also mentions (see 41Dc) however Matthew’s emphasis was on Jewish people so that
may explain the difference (which Luke does pick up on and as a result leaves
the exemption out of his writing).
41Da) Mark was a disciple (not a chosen apostle) that followed Jesus and
the original apostles and many feel was in the garden of Gethsemane during the
arrest based on Mark 14:51. He was also found ‘useful for ministry’ by another
apostle probably because of his being with Jesus and the apostles [that is he
witnessed how Jesus ministered (2 Timothy 4:11)].
41Db) the verses that follow the commission (Mark 16:15) seem to have
been added innocently by some monk as a footnote in some early manuscript (just
like we do when writing in the bible) and
incorporated in subsequent copings.
41Dc) Matthew 28:19.
Note: if you want to make the case
that unchasteness means anything (but actual sex) happening
during a marriage you would still have to explain why Mark and Luke leave that
“anything” exemption out (it’s more than likely speaking of the Jewish
understanding of a relationship during the engagement period and not post
marriage).
41E) which is in line with Josephs dealing with Mary [see Matthew (not
Luke) in Matthew 1:19], as well as God’s covenant with Israel (see Footnotes 123A & 137).
41F) which is also in line with Jesus statements on Moses (not God’s)
exception (verse needed), and divorce not being the way that God intended relationships to be (verse needed).
Also see 1 Corinthians 7:10.
41G) which He has not rejected (Romans 11:1)
42) Who got the kingship but who missed out on the conformation of his
kingdom lineage.
“for… the Lord would have established
your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not endure…” (1
Samuel 13:13,14)
42A) See the (engagement) promise (see
42Aa) of 1 Kings 11:29-38 of whose (10 tribe) kingdom line was obviously
rejected [1 Kings 14:10 (see 42Ab)].
42Aa) Which is kind of unreal when one kind of expects that David’s
line would always rule over all of Israel.
42Ab) It was in this atmosphere that Elijah and Elisha worked (see 42Ac) trying to get the 10 tribes
back in line (and correct the damage that Jeroboam did), working not to
reconnect the 10 tribes with Judah and Benjamin, but to establish the king and
people rightly before God as a “separate” people (see 2 Kings 5:8 as a peaceful
example and 1 Kings 17:1 as a more powerful one). Note under of Ezra and
Nehemiah they [that is Judah and the scattering that survived (verse needed)] were one nation, are at present
still and will again be (in a permanent sense with no longer any divisions) according
to Ezekiel 37:21,22].
42Ac) which is what the prophetic (as well as all of God’s people) do (and
usually do well) and that is working where they are at in God’s purposes (which
is not always peaceful nor tranquil) and doing the work that needs to be done
(1 Chronicles 12:32).
42B) Brethren, there were all kinds of sins in the bible, omission (see 42Ba), ignorance (see 42Bb), purposeful [or willful (see
42Bc)] as well as some others. All sin is not the same, but it is usually
the overt continual kinds [as in known (contemplative) rebellion (se 42Bd)] that are the worst.
42Ba) verse needed
42Bb) Luke 23:34
42Bc) which is usually put in terms
of a continuing thing (Hebrews 10:26)
42Bd) which biblically speaking,
if you study it, it’s sin ‘with the arm (or hand) raised high’ [that is: outright,
knowing (Hebrews 1026), rebellion].
42C) which is a very relative issue that factors in lifelong hopes,
expectations as well as anything personal and not subject to outside judgment.
42D) in other words the person may not mean as much to an injured party
as they did before [and the question of ‘continued trust’ might still be an
issue (which is what is needed for building a life-long joint relationship)]. However
confession of sin can mean a lot too – as in total restoration [which is
usually how God handles things (like with David), especially with mitigating
circumstances (Acts 17:30)].
43) See Footnote 117
43A) verse needed and note: most people are probably not forthcoming about their
entire past (that is every detail of every event) unless asked so if one in a
current marriage is looking for “reason” one might (or might not) find it [but
note for the ‘victims’ of such attacks the problem may not be that there isn’t
some sort of “reason” out there as much as the problem is why all of a sudden is
one party looking for it now – possibly years after a marriage (in other words
what’s going on in the inquirers life that can be addressed (or circumvented)
since most people [including “the other” person if so involved (see 43Aa)] will probably not be
forthcoming about their entire past - event and detail - either? (see Footnote 642 & 643 for more on
this)].
43Aa) which may
be what is going on here (that is the motivation behind the inquirer).
43B) verse needed
43C) In other
words once an agreement is entered into – even if it is faulty – that’s it (“buyer
beware” sort of thing).
43D) Although Footnote 34
makes the case that its vows that are in fact being said during a wedding
ceremony (see 43Da) the word “vow”
is not included in the actual exchange of promises (as in a court of law “Do
you swear to tell the truth?”), thus it is possible to by-pass the
tradition definition of the word and state that they are actually only promises
that people have upped to vows without being accurate because the term vow is
not used in the script between the parties [in other words when
one says their promises before God {that
is: having or invoking God to oversee the arrangement – whatever it is} it does
not constitute a vow (strictly speaking) because the word is not used]. It’s a
technical point (see 43Db) that will
be brought up again but may have bearing on matter of conscience issues.
43Da) and note this book will approach the subject as if vows are
being said.
43Db) as is a civil marriage were no religious representative
presides [or a secret marriage where no authority is present (keep reading)].
43E) not only matter of conscience issues but it may be one of the reasons behind why - legally speaking - the
divorce exemption of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is allowable (however see Chapter ___ “Biblical Grounds for Divorce: Believer / Unbeliever
Relations” for the more likely reason behind that exemption).
43F) which is basically what an engagement
covenant is (and that is no authority present)
43G) for example: a missionary in the
field who finds love and wants to make a covenant before God [and no preacher
is present (they don’t have to wait)]. Note: marriage pre-dates civil law and
civil law [which can perform it on its own (see
43Ga)] just validates the churches route legally (as in civilly), without
permission of the church [as in who has the more, the higher, and pre-dating
authority here?] but will cave in to public common law marriages (done without
permission of the state) and possibly a host of other types too [as in the
missionary example who comes back to a home country – married or even possibly
even a super-secret marriage (just register it?). Check local laws (as in call
town hall) if it’s of concern to you].
43Ga) and can be
unrealistically ridged in regards to its own criteria [I personally know of a
couple that was told their civil law marriage was invalid (years later after they had a child)
because the judge for some reason or another was not certified or lost his
certification].
43H) as well as
qualify for annulment by the second husband if it was done without the fathers
permission [as too the father if she is living under his roof (see Chapter ___ regarding annulments)].
44) as in grounds for annulling a current marriage or altering a current
marital covenant to include another spouse [Remember: Altering a marital covenant is not
divorce (or divorcing a spouse {for those who are concerned over the issue of
divorce}) and remember that there is also a biblical marital divorce (that is: post marriage)
exemption found even in the New Testament (that is after the quote unquote
“iron clad” statement of Jesus) and probably even more (which will be talked
about later)].
44A) which is usually verbal and sealed with a kiss (note in a court of
law a simple handshake will seal a deal).
44B) which again regards unfaithfulness (‘cheating’ to put it simply).
44C) Note: Due to the way (multiple
spousal) relationships (usually) work a man can incorporate another woman into
his life easier than a woman can a man therefore allowing the laps (or
breaking) of a legitimate ex-“spouse” agreement (see 44Ca) not lead to an ending of a current one, but an amending
of it to allow for (that is: make room for) an ex-promised “spouse” into the
current relationship (see 44Cb) -
especially if the man (see 44Cc) is
still open to it [as in “you promised and I am holding you to it” (which could
possibly stand up in a court of law)].
44Ca) which is a
contract on its way to ratification (that is: oath & consummation) - unless
“something” stops it.
44Cb) which is kind of what happened with the gentiles being grafted in
[which according to the book of Galatians and Romans was always promised to be
part of (or included) in the Covenant with Abraham (compare Galatians 3:8 with
Genesis 12:3 as well as see Romans 11:24 on this)].
44Cc) and of course current spouse.
44D) that is one party couldn’t wait or just outright cheated
during the testing period (which is one of the reasons behind the wait to test
the parties).
44E) and we need to be careful here especially if no one has said
anything about ending the agreement especially if there are no grounds
[which can lead to a number of legitimate “soap opera” scenarios however if a
woman is looking for a way out of a previous engagement agreement and happen to
be living under your father’s roof, biblically legally – even from the vow
/oath (non-promise) angle - it can be done (Numbers 30:3-5) (See Chapter ___ for more on this)].
45) that is there was an actual exchange of unequivocal unambiguous words
with no legitimate grounds to end the previous agreement.
45A) again Footnote 117 (see
also Chapter
__ regarding
annulling a covenant).
45B) which would be subject to the ex-promised “spouse” [note
there are people out there who have been not only been left at the altar but
left before they ever got there and have legitimate biblical legal grounds to
pursue action (as in you can’t just walk out {Matthew 5:31,32 & 19:9})].
Note once again God’s covenant with Abraham, once started unless there are
grounds (as with Saul and Jeroboam) it’s going “to the finish” [However note Footnote 45Da in regards to an
exception (the “salvation exemption”) which will be brought up again later in
regards to covenants made before salvation)].
45C) Note: again while there is legitimate debate about this given again
how Joshua was bound by his agreement with the Gibeonites who had purposely lied when they entered
into their (sworn) (see 45Ca)
covenant with Israel, he was still allowed to alter it
[from which we get the slave clause argument in in regards to inequities
(between parties {for example: believer / unbeliever} in covenantal
arrangements (1 Corinthians 7:15 {See Chapter ___ for more on this}) and as a result will allow for at the
minimum the amending of a current agreement].
45Ca) which is a weak point in the argument for using Joshua and the
Gibeonites as an example of what can’t be done and that is: once again marriages
are not based on sworn statements (or even oaths for that matter) but promises
(see footnote
___ for more on
the interchange between the words, swearing and oath, as well as see Footnote 36Dc regarding the nature of a
marriage service itself [as in the word
vow again may be used by the person conducting the service [and may
actually be what is happening (see 45Cb)],
but (and again this is a technical point) is not in the actual script that is
said (do you promise is what is actually said). Also see again Footnote 34 and keep reading regarding
the altering of vows itself].
45Cb) that is as traditionally understood (and sometimes stated by the
preacher).
45D) Regarding Jesus statement on not divorcing one would think He is
speaking of a legitimate marriage and not covenants (marriages) that become
illegitimate or in fact are. Even for those who agree that a marriage is a
marriage and one ought not divorce would probably call Micals (David’s wife)
second marriage (relationship) illegitimate and would allow for not only the
dissolving of it but also her return to her husband [as well as Philips wife
from Herod (Mark 6:17,18)]. Therefore given this, that there are in fact
illegitimate relationships out there that can be dissolved, we need to be
careful about a universal application of Jesus no divorce statement (see 45Da) [in other words since there
are illegitimate marriages (or marriages that become illegitimate) that not
only revolve around current arrangements but also revolve (legally speaking)
around the previous issues that surround this chapter we need to be careful in
regards to a blanket application of Jesus statement [see again Chapter ___ and Footnote ___ regarding not only the divorce from
an illegitimate arrangement but also reasons for a legitimate remarriage
(see also 1 Corinthians 7:15)].
45B mentions this footnote
45Da) which can also apply to 1 Corinthians 7:17 [note 1 Corinthians 7:17
can be used by some to state that you stay in the relationship you are in when
you get saved (which may in fact be true {see Chapter ___ and Footnote ___ regarding the breaking of all
ex-agreements when on gets saved (or a “salvation exemption”)}), however once
one is saved - and making agreements - the subject of legitimate and
illegitimate can still come up [note the point is that if marital covenants are
not written in stone (a point which will be brought up again and again
throughout this book) engagement covenants are more than likely not written in
stone either so we need to be careful about approaching these two issues with
any “iron clad” (that it!) attitude for we may be dealing with issues of
legitimacy and / or exceptions and / or mitigating circumstances (with the
issue of mitigating circumstances effecting a number of things here)].
48) or for many promise.
49) Again see Herod regrettably following through with his oath
regarding John the Baptist only because of his dinner guests (Verse Needed)].
49A) as in you will never do
that and always do this
49B) which
for many who are examining (that is: studying) this issue is a key point to
consider and factor into the debate [as in the possibility that a party did
something wrong in moving up their word to this level, especially since
all three concepts (vow, swear and oath) are basically the same thing (again see
Footnote 34 and see Matthew 5:34-37
regarding the possibility of sin {that is: actual evil} in regards to this
concept {that is: a person vowing, swearing and / or taking an oath})].
Note: I do want to say up
front here that there is nothing
wrong with marriage (or marital promises) and marriage ought not be forbidden [which is a sign of wrong thinking at
the end of the age 1 Timothy 4:3 (or the apostasy {1 Timothy 4:1; 2
Thessalonians 2:3})]. However what I am going to do here (and this is getting
ahead of myself) is to make the case that all new marriages be based on honest promises
(see 49Ba) rather than vows (and the
word vow not be used at all in the ceremony).
Brothers and sisters as
you read this book remember that it is not
a “marriage book” nor a book that talks about the benefits of marriage, or even
reasons why people ought to stay together, but as said in the introduction of this book it is a book that deals
with divorce [or the ending a traditional marriage covenant (completely)] and
in doing so gives some Christian’s - particularly those who cannot see their
way through certain viewpoints (or verses) - new - or expanded - options for
their lives. The issue of vows in regards this issue (which turn out to be flexible and then some) does
and will have implications in regards to the issue of divorce (and even
altering a covenant) and as a result they will be examined not only in this
chapter, but throughout the book itself.
49Ba) that is: on the level.
50) and as a side point, for
those who happen to be in a court of law and take the biblical injunction
seriously not to swear (Matthew 5:33-37), there is another option which the
court can administer, which is called ‘the affirmation’ (or affirmation oath)… “do you affirm to tell the truth”
[which is in effect a solemn ‘yes’ (or you can just not cooperate at all and be
in contempt of court)].
50A) See Judges 21:1-5 where “sworn” and “oath” are used interchangeably;
also see Matthew 5:33-37 where “vows” and “oath” are also used
interchangeably.
50B) Leviticus 27:28
(see verse 26 as an example).
50C) which
you would assume in regards to its teaching on vows means they are unchangeable
– not true.
50D) Numbers 30:3
This
footnote is mentioned in chapter 11
50E) I
think the idea behind the annulling is that the person who was head of the
household (Father or Husband) needed to keep control of the household and could
not have people doing things independent of their authority (for the men - as
head - have responsibility in this area and would be held responsible).
Therefore God - for the sake of the head of household - allowed grace and
latitude in this area. Therefore the head of the household had much authority
and could override even vows [Brethren, keep this in mind when reading such
verses as 1 Corinthians 7:29 (also see Footnotes
27, 90 & 138 in regards to the possibility of
applying this {head of household} principle more broadly{as in: head of
household is God therefore He too can override vows})].
50F) which may be applicable in regards to some issues brought up in Chapter ___ regarding the reasons behind the nullification of engagement (and possibly
some marriage) covenants.
51) Sisters and
brothers, there are different ways to view the concept of sacrifice here, some
take it simply as it is, others - if you
read the account - view it as a sacrificial vow concerning the life-long virgin
hood of his daughter [Judges 11:37 see also verse 39 (her line was basically cut off].
Brethren, this is a (or the) classic example of a vow to do a stupid thing people
(51a) [and people do vow stupid
things in scripture (1 Samuel 14:24), but because this vow concerned something
that was to be set apart for the Lord (see Leviticus 27) he was afraid to touch
it [once again I want to remind you that we are dealing with people “under law”
here and even though there was latitude here in regards to some things, other
things seemed to be iron clad. Remember law was not a happy thing to be under
(Galatians 3:23; Acts 15:10)], Therefore what you have here is a small – yet
proper – example of a creative type of adjusting going on
only let me alone for two
months” (and he did as she requested) Judges 11:37
Note: if you take the
story at face value and are of the mindset that “a vow is a vow is a vow” what
would you do if you were Jephthah’s daughter in this situation? [Request more
than two months I’m sure (as in: DAD, two months before I die do this thing!
{note David with Joab regarding this type of delayed judgment (verse needed)})] Keep reading and notice the next example of a creative vow
adjustment.
51a) as in what else did he think was going to walk
through the doors of his house? A sacrificial cow? [note there is an ongoing
theory regarding this account that states that the human sacrifices of the
surrounding nations (that Israel was supposed to have destroyed by now {Judges
1:18-2:3}) influenced his thoughts here]. Also note in regards to this account you
have to see the bible as an accurate record of what happened (and what was
said) not necessarily what God approved of (see Footnote 112a as another probable example)
51A) which
along with the three points raised in the previous section regarding the repentance,
annulling and non-acceptance of vows can have implication in regards to Roman
Catholic clergy [whom of all clergy can lock themselves into situations that
many feel are not proper (they are “into” vows - with {questionable} steps mind
you - the culminate in ‘final vows’)].
51B) And as a side point - since this section deals with vows in
relation to marriage - for those who are of the persuasion that we are under
some kind of locked solid - air tight - with no way out law of vows today (as
in: forget about anything to do with the marriage contract) - this creative use of the concepts of Give
and Take you just read can more than likely still be used today,
especially with people who are locked into this unbiblical concept that vows
are unchangeable. In other words if you as a man vowed to your wife “you and
you alone” or “forsaking all others” and for the sake of argument, let’s say
you lived in a country where multiple spouses were allowed and you wanted to
alter your covenant, what you could do is say to the potentially new wife…
“listen, I made this vow about whatever, therefore
I can’t take on another wife, however you can give yourself to me...
which in effect kept the
letter of the (original marriage) vow, but - like Israel - violates it’s spirit
[and believe it or not, doing this kind of thing was OK. No one in Israel
condemned Israel concerning this because I think everyone in Israel realized
that they made a vow over something that just wasn‘t right (which is how some
view a vowed {as in: closed} marriage with only one spouse)]. Read the authors
book on Altering a Marital Covenant
that deals with the issue of taking on another spouse.
51C) Brethren for those among us that want to follow any of the old
covenant laws regarding the use of vows (that is they would sacrifice
Jephthah’s daughter) or happen to straddle the line in regards to this issue it
would be important to note that we are not under law anymore (and that includes
the law of vows) and if you read Acts 15 the issue of law and the Christian has
been dealt with at the quote unquote “first church council” and if you read the
account nothing about keeping vows (as well as the keeping of many other laws)
is mentioned (Brethren, more about Acts 15 in conjunction with the idea that we
as believers must keep the law will be mentioned throughout this book).
51D) which
could mean the negating, amending or altering a marital covenant.
51E) and while you are at it work on the following three issues…
*your “law mentality.”
*why it is you don’t believe it’s evil to make
them (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12)?
*and why it is you don’t believe evil can be
repented of? (See Chapter ___ on Problem
Verses the section on James 5:12 and read the accompanying footnotes regarding
this issue).
52) In other words, don’t move things up a notch (as in “swearing
to tell the truth” a court of law) simply let your ‘yes be yes’ and your ‘no be
no’ (which again is equivalent to affirmation “oath” in a court of law,
that is you are affirming to tell the truth, anything else (that is: putting
someone under something in addition to the “Yes or No” - a vow or
swearing) is again actually evil (Matthew 5:33-37).
53) and you can repent of the
evil in making them. For example: let’s say you made a vow not to eat or drink
until such and such happened (that a circle will have four corners or some
sort) and in the midst of your vow realized that such and such is never going
to happen no matter what you did for it was an impossible thing to wish for
(you couldn’t do it or God is not helping you) and you made a mistake, what do
you do?
Well if you are of the
(unchristian) mindset that one cannot repent from evil (the evil in this case
would be ignorance or in the case of many bad vows the sin of presuming or
presumption), and feel that sin cannot be repented over then your path is set,
however if you are of the mindset that there is such a thing as repentance (or
even creative adjustment) your path can change.
Also remember brethren if
you are going to be legalistic about things (that is you believe we are still
under the law) – remember again according to the law people could get out of
(annul) vows, particularly women, and again there are also examples in
scripture regarding how they could be creatively adjusted as well.
54) Brothers and sisters,
there is nothing wrong with marriage [1Timothy 4:3 (see 54a)], however the question remains can one change ones
(wedding) words in regards to the question of unforeseen circumstances? Brethren,
even though we as Christians are to be people of our word, few of us seem to be
perfect, and even though we are to be perfect (or moving towards perfection) in
regards to many - if not all things (Matthew 5:48), we will probably never be
so perfect that we will be all knowing.
Because of this -
especially while imperfect - we are to function not on the level of vows, but
on the level of only ones word and the reason why we are to function on the
level of one’s word is because on this level, unlike the other level, things
are able to be change (see 54b).
However sisters and
brothers I think we need to be realistic about things here and say in regards
to the issue at hand that while we need to take our word seriously,
generally speaking, it’s almost always socially acceptable to change ones
word (that is a promise) in regards to unforeseen circumstances, because
one is only dealing with one’s word (again we are imperfect). This is
especially so if it’s mutually agreed upon by all parties, whether
business and personal (see 54c).
If this is so, why
shouldn’t it be also true in regards to wedding situations where vows, or
promises over what was said had been repented over? (see 54d) and now we are only dealing with (or on) the level of
ones word.
Brethren, remember that
the new covenant is not about putting people under that higher level concept of
vows that locks them into an agreement no matter what. The new
covenant is about putting people under a more acceptable realistic level (where
ones word counts, and that is, in my opinion, ones word as far as one sees it
at the time). Jesus did not want to put people under that higher level of
functioning (at least not until they mature or become perfect), but to put them
under a more realistic way of doing things.
Again according to Jesus
to vow in regards to anything - which includes marriage - is evil, and evil can
be and ought to be repented over.
54a) which is a wrong conclusion people can draw when
reading this book and needs to be watched out for (brethren according to
scripture that conclusion is errant viewpoint (again 1 Timothy 4:3)
54b) and yes some of God’s creation can function on
this vow level (Revelation 10:5,6), but I think it’s because they have clearly
heard directly from God on a particular issue and are functioning with 100%
certainty [read the “note” in regards to James 5:12 in the Chapter on Problem Verses (Chapter ___)].
Footnote 56 mentions
this footnote
54c)
Note: In regards to personal issues when dealing with
complex things where things are intermingled between people - such as marriage
- unless God says different - it’s probably best for Christians (and I know I
am jumping ahead, but read ahead to chapter _______
) to mutually agree on ending (or
altering) a marriage covenant before one does it. People’s lives can be so
intertwined and interdependent on one another that any ending (altering)
without talking it over first can be destructive (Genesis 44:30). Therefore if
‘life’ is leading one party to see things differently in regards to their
relationship - if God is behind it, it ought to be something that is seen, or
will eventually be seen by both parties (especially if they are jointly seeking
God on the matter).
Brethren, when dealing with these life issues, if
they are individual issues that only effect the individual, ending (or
altering) of one’s lifestyle is not a problem, but when they affect others
(such as altering a marriage covenant), the responsibility for ones actions (as
well as the actions outcome) becomes a little more weighty - even if things are
just on the “promise” level - and it would be best to exercise caution.
Brothers and sisters, if God at this time is leading you in the direction of
ending (or altering) a marriage covenant (however read ahead to Chapters ____ and ____ on Maturity and the
Conclusion of this book), seek the Lords leading
on how
to bring about this new “flow of life.” Once again, if God is behind it, it
ought to be something that is seen, or will be seen by both parties and it may
just be a matter of patience and prayer before it actually comes about (but
again read The Conclusion in Chapter
____).
Brethren, mutually agreeing on major decisions
that were prearranged (unless God says different) is pretty much common sense
(and you don‘t have to be religious to see that either).
Talk.
54d) In regards to vowed marriage how many people
actually remember what was said at the wedding ceremony? and even what it was
they vowed to one other? Brothers and sisters realistically speaking even
though Christian couples may plow through every hardship in life together - and
stay together until kingdom comes - most
will have probably broken their vows at one time or another, possibly multiple
times (for example if a husband promised to love his wife… did he always love
her? And if a wife promised to obey her husband did she always obey him?). Most people don’t even remember what was said
(See Footnote 402g on this as well).
55) However if the new covenant wedding ceremony was
done incorrectly and the words that were stated were
understood as vows and stated as such one might rightly think that a person is
in danger and had better follow through with everything they vowed (again see Footnote
402g). However since according to Jesus to vow is evil
(that is to enforce ones word in the sense of binding, irrevocable vow; Matthew
5:33-37), one would also be right in assuming that since evil can be repented
over, and vows are evil, to alter a vow (or even not fulfill it), particularly
in regards to changed circumstances is not as bad as one might think - particularly
if agreed on mutually by the parties.
Brethren, almost all Churches
will allow for repentance (or renouncing, nullifying or annulling) of marriage
vows in the case of an unbeliever leaving (1 Corinthians 7:15), and some in
regards to believer being unequally yoked [as in I made a mistake and I’m
leaving (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) see Chapter ___ regarding
Believer / Unbeliever relations which would allow for the renouncing,
nullifying or annulling of marriage vows in cases of believers who had married as unbelievers
(that is they made a covenant as unbelievers), as well as other things
too (again Chapter ____ and see the following chapter as well). Whatever your
view of these cases may be, biblically vows in relation to marriage
covenants do not seem to be as binding as one might think (see 1
Corinthians 7:29 as an example), especially in regards to changed circumstances
(the main question here).
56) that is “Promises or pledges” - as best as you can honestly (on the level) see
it before God, and if you want, rewrite them (current ones or new ones) as you
would like them to be. Brothers and sisters, I’m a big fan of talking things
out. If you are married and have reached
the point of where your relationship has changed, talk things over regarding
the new parameters of your lives. In regards to modern marriage today
brethren, people write out their vows all the time, however in regards to us
(or those among the cutting edge), since we are dealing with things on the
level of promises we - if getting in a spousal relationship (or taking on
another spouse) don‘t write out vows (or repeat them), but if we
write out anything we are to write out (or repeat) promises [and again don’t
let the preacher mention anything the word “vow” in the ceremony (again Matthew
5:33-37)].
Brethren, in regards to
all these things, unless you have the kind of relationship where you don’t need
to talk things out it might be beneficial to air things out in regards to all
these issues before you go forward (again Footnote
54c) - so that there would be no misunderstandings.
Again Jesus equates the
taking of vows as something that is evil. We as Christians need to consider and
factor that into any kind of hesitancy in regards to spousal relationships
decisions.
57) Note: In regards to being
joined together by ones word, I am not saying that just because (modern day
Christian’s) are (or should be) married on the basis of one’s word only
- that if so “vowed” married that they not married or linked together, nor am I
saying that Christian marriage is to be held together by ones word, period (in
the sense of finality) either, but in the sense of ‘only.’
Remember brothers and
sisters, if you see the words you exchange as promises, not vows,
you are still linked or “linked” together and the marriage ceremony (which is
still legitimate) will still stand as it is.
What changes [or does
change here in regards to the ceremony (see
57a)], would be the understanding that one is not taking binding,
irrevocable vows (or exchanging wedding vows), but are exchanging words on the
level of promises (or pledges) to each other (that is “wedding promises”).
Therefore, because of this the implication in regards to marriage is that
because you are dealing with a “Yes, yes” situation (again promises), the
linking is there but it would not be as strong as it would be if you vowed
(which again is in the same league as swearing or taking an oath). It’s just
not on the same level as an oath.
Therefore if one wanted to
end (or alter or amend) their marriage covenant, it would not be as bad of a
thing as if one vowed to uphold what was said no matter what and did not follow
through.
Now brothers and sisters…,
this is not to minimize the concept of seeing things through (and there is
another side to this, for example learning patience by persevering
through life together no matter what; commitment; really learning about
what love is truly about, that is loving someone no matter what etc, but
these things can be learn outside of marriage too) However in regards to a
commitment based on vows, and the issue raised by Jesus not to make them, this
“not making them” does have implications in regards to an changes in a marriage).
Therefore brethren, it’s
helpful - before one gets married - to realize what is going on here (especially taking into account maturity and the
conclusion here) just in
case you have to deal with a situation of “changed circumstances” in the
future. [In other words breaking your word (which hopefully would be mutually
agreed on) and is a much lesser infraction than breaking a vow (which again can
be repented over due to the evil nature of making them) so make promises
instead of vows].
However in regards to the
issue of Christians who have already vowed and face life changing situations
(which are indeed personal situations) they should also realize
something as well and that is if we have sinned in regards to taking a vow [again
think about Jesus admonition not to have added anything (vows), to one’s word
(for it is evil)], and their marital situation were to change [for example:
divorce or an additional spouse is on the horizon, again a personal
reason - (which are not subject to outside opinion) - and once
again, a life changing situation (for example: See Maturity in Chapter _____)], it would therefore be an option for the
original couple to adjust to…
1) Repent of their old situation (that is: the vows - if their
circumstances were to change). Just confess to God that you have sinned in
making them.
2) Forget about all those rules and regulations governing the use of
vows under the old covenant we are not
under the law anymore and that includes the laws of vows (Numbers 30).
Also in regards to the implications of vowing - and not following through -
brethren, because it was not a correct thing to do to begin with (“evil”
according to Jesus), it (evil) can be repented over. Therefore, once again,
repent.
3) and move on].
Brothers and sisters, once
again we are not under law anymore and once again that includes the law of
vows.
57a) which can actually be held privately [as in
stating things privately and then going to the town hall (of which, at least,
modern - cutting edge - town halls ought to recognize {however they may want to
see a blood test before they give you a certificate of recognition})]. Note:
common law marriages are recognized in most states (as in: if a couple lives
together for such and such a period of time it is recognized by the state as a
marriage even if they never formally went before a minister and
even if nothing was said between them).
57A) which,
because of our imperfections is more than likely why we are told not to do
anything other than use ones word to function (in other words what happens if –
because you are imperfect - you need to change it? With this you can), thus we
are to function on a more realistic
(as in we are on our way to perfection) level [all of which has even more
implication in regards to this issue (but you have to keep reading)].
58) and
by the way if you - as a Christian - are reading this and still have this idea that
vows are solid as solid can be, I think by now you have to realize that that is
not true [and you could probably talk to any knowledgeable Jewish person (who
are usually very familiar with the old testament) about this as well].
Also, once again as a
Christian you should realize that since we - as Christians - are not “under
law” anymore that would again include all this talk about vows (again see Footnote
402).*
*Once again without getting into a whole bunch of
things brothers and sisters as said in a number of footnotes before this we are
just not under these biblical laws, especially the ones that lock people in,
hold them in bondage or shut them up to a life of faith and trust (see Footnote 21). We as Christians we are
to live a life of faith and trust (look again at the appeal of an
apostle in Acts 15:10).
Brothers and sisters, if
you trust someone you don’t need rules and regulations to regulate every aspect
of the relationship, and if you are living on a level of faith and trust you
may not need many if any rules (per say) at all.
Brethren, think of it this
way. There are two houses, both have six people living in them. The first house
has 2 parents and 4 very young children. There are tons of rules in that house to regulate
behavior and make everything run smoothly and cannot be changed. In the second
house there 2 parents and 4 adult children. There are
practically no rules except the rule of love and consideration of one another
because everyone is an adult (the “kids” come home whenever they want, etc.). If
there are problems in the household they try to fix them and they do their best
to mutually agree on the best course of action. There is a lot of leeway in
that house, leeway that you don’t find in the “first” house because life
(particularly adult life) does not neatly fit into the rules and regulations of
a child’s life (or a not full grown house).
Sisters and brothers, this
illustration very much illustrates life under the new covenant (the gospel). If
people are living a life of faith and trust with one another, are considerate (and
talk things over) - who needs a bunch of unchangeable rules and regulations to
regulate every aspect of one’s behavior? (However see ____ regarding some basic warnings here) Especially iron clad rules that
lock people in, it’s as simple as that. You really don’t want to live under
that kind of situation (Galatians 3:23,; 4:1-3).
Brethren law was given in
large part because people were not living this kind of lifestyle with one
another to begin with, therefore like the house with very young children (who
may have trouble even listening to their own consciences) an extra source of
the same kind of guidance was needed to enforce correct behavior with
one another (sort of like a “Here look!” kind of thing “Obey or else!”).
However a life of faith, trust and consideration (which the second household
had) overrides a lot of law governing relationships between people. This is
what the new covenant is about.
Note: in regards to the simple
subject of altering or amending a marriage covenant, as long as you realize
that we are not under law anymore, but are to live a life of faith and trust,
especially if one mutually agrees upon the arrangement -
what is the problem? (see altering footnote14?).
58A) not that there aren’t people who
don’t deserve to be “condemned” in regards to the way they approach these
issues however note: annulling a covenant, as well
as questions and issues that surround changes in both believer / unbeliever
covenants and changes in believer / believer covenants (for example 1
Corinthians 7:29) will be handled later in chapters __, __ & __ respectively [Note: questions that surround altering a marriage
covenant are handled in the author’s book Altering
a Marriage Covenant].
59) Brethren, remember in the
Garden of Eden there were two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil [it was not the tree of life vs. the tree of death,
but the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or
right and wrong (which also Christian “philosophy” wise has implications in
regards to this issue). Brothers and sisters, not flowing with the flow of life
but being concerned about “right” and “wrong” (per say) does not lead to life,
but something else. Be wary of discussions that revolve around the right thing
or wrong thing to do in a situation, and not the “life” thing to do.
70) note the time frame (old covenant) and topic (law).
71) an example of which being David regarding
his wife Mical
“ (and)… David… (said to Saul’s son) Give
me my wife Mical… and..(they) sent and took her from her (second) husband (and
gave her to David)…” (2 Samuel 3:14,15)
Footnote 934 makes
mention of this footnote
72) as in they were still legally (as in
lawfully)
attached [note: in regards to those who are ready to jump all over this think
of the issue of grounds (see Chapters ___ and
____ ) as well as see Chapter ___ regarding The Law of
Marriage itself].
Also Note: although I am getting
ahead of myself here I need to point out that in regards to any final answer or
direction an individual ought to go in is very relative to a person reading
this work – which at the minimum regards maturity of conscience issues. For
some the answer (for their level of maturity is), at least for now, found somewhere
in old law [or teaching (see 72a)]
and for now that’s where they will remain (on the law / legal side of things),
and as for others the answer is found somewhere in a new legitimate multiple
spousal relationship or even better, the concept of life – or a
lifestyle of faith, and what I try to do is move people logically from
one point (position) to another, moving everyone unto maturity (but I can’t
help where people are at).
Brethren, as will be mentioned again
this is an exhaustive work behind which is years of research and its intention
is to examine every possible issue and possible angle that can possibly be
raise biblically in regards to the issue of divorce. The “pro’s and
con’s” if you will and come to an honest conclusions about each point. I
realize that people’s lives may hang on what is written here, but I encourage everyone to read the book
through. If for some reason you started this book in the Appendix’s (which
deals with faith) it’s helpful to know ‘the other end’ of how you should have
gotten there (which was working your way through law), but it’s not really
necessary (see 72b), and can be done
right ‘off the bat’ so to speak.
As said in the introduction, this
book is like (building) a bridge from one point to another, a bridge that has
many entrance and exit ramps. Where a person enters and exits that bridge is
where they “are at” in their thinking, experience and conscience [and again my
goal here is to move (usher) people along - logically - across that bridge from one point to another hoping they catch on
to the concept of maturity and mature along the way], but remember in regards to a final answer here as to
what a person “ought to do” - there
is “none” for again if you read the book through you’ll find out that it’s
very relative to where a person is at reading this book [and in regards to the
first part of this book (the law end) some people may need to (because of where
they are at) fall back on some of the reasoning found in some of these chapters
to do what they are about to do so that is - in part - why the first part of
this book is written (see 72c)].
72a) or
possibly leaning on the excuses of old law or even old teaching (for example
see the creative use of vows in chapter __).
72b) you could
have just arrived in faith and choose to stay there in a walk of faith (but
keep the book around in case you need it).
72c) Brethren,
I picture the book as a bridge [which again is about ending or “ending” a
marital covenant (not marriage, or “a marriage book”)] that starts off in law
and ends in faith with major pillars that support the structure such as grounds
for annulments; believer / unbeliever covenants and believer / believer
covenants. It’s tough if for some reason you “entered the bridge” in the middle
[somewhere with faith (as if you were just plopped in)] and look back (see Footnote 72d) and wonder about all
the stuff is that may have got you to where you are at (things you may never
have even considered – which you don’t have to), but again
it’s an exhaustive work and has to cover everything (see Footnote 72e). Therefore start off and end this book where you wish
[but again keep it around in case you or a friend might need to - for some
sound reason – “look back” at some ‘foundational reasoning’ someday (maybe to
help a friend through some law / legal point)], however it’s better to just be
in faith, teach faith and have a walk in
faith then spend a bunch of time reasoning through law and legal principles.
72d) which
scripturally speaking is usually a problem (Genesis 19:26) and probably ought
not be done (Philippians 3:13).
72e) especially
for those who are at the beginning of the bridge looking to cross
73) which in the old days used to
surround issues of sex and children (as in the refusal to have or do)
Note: this thing with lack of
children still goes on today, can be ‘up front’ but doesn’t have to be and
exists in various willful forms (as in only one {or two} and that’s it!). Also
note this point regarding sex has bearing on Homosexual Marriages (not covenants
per say) [see Footnote ____ in regards to a faulty foundation of a contract; also see Footnotes
41, 117 in regards to the necessity of at
least consummation of a covenant {biblically speaking (see also 73a})].
73a) note a
person (let’s say a single woman) who had sex is not as a result married, for
the words of the covenant have not transpired (see more than likely John 4:18
in regards to this point).
73A) even if it was sealed with a might oath or an exchange of mighty
vows due to what is seen as the illegal foundation of the marriage [as in one
cannot vow to something illegal (or impossible - a technical matter, but to
enforce the point)].
74) for example:
74A) that is
decisions made in full knowledge of what you are doing.
74B) as in
marriage to Christians divorced from other Christians.
74B-1) which can actually include bringing an old spouse back into a
current spousal relationship (as in making a multiple spousal relationship).
74C) which usually follows predictable stages for the abandoned
spouse paralleling the grieving process [denial, bargaining (pleading), anger
then at some point acceptance] and in regards to the spouse that left regret
can hover overhead for years, especially if they were “snatched away” and
didn’t get a chance to think things through properly (it takes about 5 years to
get past unexpected loss in a proper way).
74D) which can be summed up as thinking with one’s heart and not
one’s head [note: the brain is made for thought (much more than the heart is)].
74E) as in single or divorced [and in regards to multiple spousal
relationships: single or divorced - for the woman (a man can have unresolved
relationships out there)].
74F) which turns out to be the grounds of legitimate divorce in a
number of areas which can mean anything from stating a faulty history of the
parties to a violation of the details of the new relationship [as in promises
(see Footnote 117 for more on this)].
74G) or unstable to say the least.
74H) all of which is basically the thinking behind such verses as
1 Corinthians 7:15 where an unbeliever / unbeliever covenant has become
unstable and 2 Corinthians 6:14 ff (“ff” means the following verses) where a
believer / unbeliever covenant is inherently illegitimate (see also Footnote ____ for more on this).
75) which can be true in regards to multiple spousal relationship if
you feel that it’s wrong for a man to commit to one woman [when the bible allows
for more (that is: a close covenant is illegal a man does not have the right to
give up his rights in this area {that is the right to have more than one wife})].
Note the unexpected circumstances in this case would be the legitimate (as in
there is nothing “wrong” or wrong with it) attraction of another woman (for one
reason or another).
75A) and why not? Reread Covenant or Contract? Which one is it? (Chapter ___) and The Issue of
Vows (in Chapter ___ )
Footnotes 80, 83A makes mention
of this footnote
75B) and again why not? Reread Covenant or Contract? Which one is
it? (Chapter ___) and The Issue of Vows (in Chapter ___ ) as well as some of the coming chapters.
Again Note: this is not a marriage
book [and at this point if it were a marriage book it would go in a different -
nothing wrong with it - direction (see 75Ba)], but again it’s a book that
examines (unfortunately or fortunately) the
other direction: divorce [which can also include again amending or altering
a covenant (which the book does not really go into either {see the authors book
“Altering a Marital Covenant” for more on that type of an arrangement (or
agreement)})].
Also Note: from a strictly legal
perspective as said in a previous footnote the question of whether an
individual (believer) can unilaterally - without ground, or sound reason, or
the leading of God – alter or end a legitimate (believer / believer) covenant
without the consent of the other party may and can be an issue for some
individuals (or in regards to certain circumstances) and is a question - and
issue - that may in fact always be there [that is: from the position of only
law]. In other words if a person
holds to a strict viewpoint here an individual would hold the contractor to the
deal (and go to court if necessary to enforce it) and at the same time hope for
the best [as in: good work (which in real life such courses usually do not
happen and although people that hire contractors need to be careful of people
playing games here {which they sometimes do} most big contracts {which are
written out and signed} will allow
for adjustments in the price of material)].
75Ba) note the
author of this book is not unfamiliar with that direction, has lived it and is
living it for almost 35 years and could write volumes on it. The problem is that
there is nothing comprehensively written about the other direction - anywhere
(not comprehensive, nor exhaustive) and after seeing more than a few marriages
that needed help and guidance – and given the fact that the first thing Israel
did upon return from captivity (before walls even went up) was to deal with
their marriages – it was determined that such a work was needed [so that is why
this work is written (consider the times) it is not a “marriage book”].
76) With “homo” meaning not “man” but
“same” as in “same love” or “the same type of love.”
77) which is basically just loving
someone of the same sex.
Footnote 934 makes
mention of this footnote
78) Note: although homosexual love is not
really an issue in society, nor the fact that people can actually make an
agreement with each other that reflects that love (for example: domestic
partnerships), the actual sexual act itself can and is usually called into
question by some due to a number of issues [For example: in regards to the
basic act itself, the question for the male of… “Does it go there?” or in
regards to questions for both genders…What actually feels better? Rectum or
vagina? (for the male), or for female? Finger or something inside?]. Therefore
because of the obvious answers to these questions the actual honesty (or integrity) behind the act
is called into question. Therefore as a result ‘the sexual covenant’ itself is
ruled improper by some - to many,
thus affecting its ‘properness’.
Brethren, all lifestyles
are at a cost to something, especially questionable ones - for example Homosexuality.
Brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters homosexuality is in its purest
form is at a cost - a tremendous cost - to its participants [that
is: at the cost of children (or lineage)]. Lifestyles - whatever they are -
ought to be weighed out before hand before going ‘head long’ into
any of them, and some ought not be ‘marketed’ (even if only as ‘enlightened awareness’)
as directions people ought to go in - or even consider (see 78a) without much much thought, particularly since God has a direction - towards His very best which is
not without meaning [and there does seem to be a way that things were meant
to be here (see 78b) (even just
cold-hard non-religious biologically speaking (see 78c))].
78a) which is what ‘marketing’ usually does.
78b) Physically speaking: I cannot
imagine that the actual physical feeling the male gets if he does the
act is as high as the feeling he would get if he had sex with the
opposite sex (for which the penis is made for), and in regards to the woman /
woman homosexual act I would think that having something inside her (a penis)
would have a higher feeling than just finger manipulation. And
although I am inexperienced in this, I do know that whenever I have had
something inserted in my rear end by a doctor, it did not feel good.
[and I have heard that when heterosexuals
have sex in a non-missionary style it will eventually hurt the female for
she is made (designed) to have sex “front wise” [which may also be a
suggestion by God about direction (and another point in favor of the way things
‘ought to be’) however due to circumstances I’m sure God can override this.
Sociologically speaking: notice the ‘role
reversals’ in these sexually same type of relationships (where one plays the
role of the man or woman) is another point in favor for the difference between
the genders as well as way things ought to be done as well - when in intimate
relationships [in other words intimate relationships will produce the normal
pattern of things (as in “Who is “the
man” in this relationship?”)].
78c) Note:
I see homosexuality more like ‘temporary allowances (or
exceptions) until one gets their ‘act together’ - which
can be a while due to sincere emotional loving attachments (as well as some
other things) - but there is a final
no pass boundary in regards to this activity and once one is able emotionally
to stop (as well as getting the other things in order) and does not they may be
in trouble.
79) as in one party had no intention of
having sex.
79A) which most everyone (with few
exceptions) would agree with.
79B) which for some churches
means sex and if not done leads to annulment (or another reason to dissolve the
covenant a reason which could possible continue throughout the relationship).
80) Reread Footnote 75B.
81) which quite
honestly in regards to reasons for altering or amending a marriage are often
overlooked - especially by the immature (again keep reading).
82) See Chapter ___ on Believer / Unbeliever
Covenants and Chapter
___ on Believer / Believer Covenants.
82A) For
example:
* My spouse backslid
* My spouse is hypocrite (talks the
talk, but does not walk the walk)
* My spouse lost their salvation
* My spouse was never saved to begin
with (and I and everyone else thought they were)
83) which can be different for
individuals in the same circumstances
due to maturity of conscience issues (keep reading).
83A) See again Footnote
75B.
83B) that is if
these are the directions they are going to take.
83C) Note a
group of people who became very hungry and thirsty (and probably repented)…
“and… (they) formed a conspiracy and
bound themselves under an oath saying that they would not eat nor drink until
they had killed… (an apostle) and there were more than forty who formed this
plot.” (Acts 23:12,13)
Brothers and sisters, while the
question of following through on one’s word is a minefield (see 83Ca), common sense as well as scripture speaks of - at the minimum - adjusting it (and certainly
more) so it can be done (see 83Cb). Also
in regards to staying in relationships that are an absolute wreck ask any cop
or social worker about the properness in regards to that, or examine the lives
of people you may know regarding that choice as well (see 83Cc) [and again note people can get separated in scripture
without problems (1 Corinthians 7:11), and again note Chapter ___ which deals with the creative use of “ones word” [if adjusting ones
word becomes an issue (which again ought to always be on the level of ‘as best
as you honestly see things at the time’(see 83Cd))] as well as Chapters ___ regarding
the question of being under the law of vows.
83Ca) with most everyone at some point at
least fudging it (is your wife fat? Yes or no?).
83Cb) and with the divorce rate at 50% and no judgment from God coming upon
people for doing it there is at least grace here in regards to the issue of negating
one’s word [which is proven by second marriages and children from them which
God allows to live (which would probably not be permitted according to a strict
hard view here in regards to blatant sin {2 Samuel 12:14} which divorce and remarriage is not)].
83Cc) Which can
lead to a lot of inappropriate compromises (and bad choices) that could have be
avoided if people did the correct thing and at the minimum separated [I have a
personal theory that female homosexuality among married women can be rooted in
staying in such bad relationships (feeling trapped and going with friends) rather
than choosing a much more sensible option].
83Cd) note in
regards to giving ones word one cannot be a game player here, for it is the
basis of much agreement and a reputation may result that would not be favorable
to the one who word is “iffy.” Sisters and brothers, in regards to this issue keep
its best to keep things on the level of promises (which can almost always be adjusted
socially for cause), not vows etc. (again see Chapter ___ in regards to the issues involved here, as well as the authors
book “Altering a Marriage Covenant” which deals with the issue of one’s word).
83D) which is an interesting point to
remember for those who feel that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage period
[and that is that there is a mechanism involved here that allows for the
adjustment and negation of one’s word, vow, oath etc. (as again it’s illegal or
improperly made)]. Again, (according to this chapter) a person is either…
*not available to be married.
*or something has become
foundationally wrong with the covenant (as in the foundation has cracked,
shifted and / or fell apart).
Appendix G; Footnote 89A makes
mention of this footnote
84) especially in regards to women in
the dissolving of a covenant who do give the best years of their lives to
relationships and can find it difficult to find other ones as they get older
(which ought to cause men to stop and think about things here), and because of
this, if spousal relationships are in fact dissolved for men to be extremely
generous to make up for any inequity here (which can be considerable on quite a
number of levels). It’s just not the same for men and women here in spite of
equality of rights.
P.S. there is nothing wrong with some
type of societal penalty (and it would be a penalty) that changes exponentially
in regards to settlements according to the age of women involved in divorce [a
quote unquote “terminator” tax (even though they are not really terminated) no
matter who files (and in regards to legislation {and the press} “terminator”
ought to always be put in quotes - even in regards to social
conversation with the use of the fingers - seriously)].
85) Which I encourage people to make sure of in regards to any “something has become foundationally wrong with the covenant” choices here, for although one can
always go back and forgive and forget usually one person feels justified in
what they did so unless the other party is willing to overlook that (that is
their own belief that the other party is not
justified) it’s going to be a continuing source of tension in any
reconciliation (see 85a) – so think
twice before making such a move and then think again to be sure.
85a) which can be solved by an “I’m sorry, I
was wrong.”
89A) As in you brought something from the
store and for one (legitimate) reason or another decided to return it and were
given full credit as if you never brought it, or even owned it (even though you
may have “used” it). Think of a store with a very liberal return policy (Also
see Footnote 84 in regards to some
likely societal penalties that may be coming “down the pike” as well).
89A-1) as in legitimate (fine foundation)
marriages, of which reasons for ending (not dissolving) regard reasons that
happened after the legitimate marriage [which is divorce not annulment (keep reading)].
89B) for example: David regaining Mical
from her second husband (verse needed); or an Apostle telling believers to come out from their
marriage covenants with unbelievers (verse needed).
89C) which can be semantics [but quite honestly (at least in the
commonly understood definition of the word) is something people have banged
their heads against the wall about for ages].
89D) as in a group of guys
and /or one guy (the Pope) probably under tremendous pressure from
political rulers
89E) causes which grew and
grew until they because a body (cannon) of about a dozen to two dozen reasons
(which I think includes being drunk as well as not being of a sound mind).
89F) in other words if you destroy the
foundation (of a building) the building (marriage) will fall down (or apart). Again
one cannot vow to something illegal.
89G) (again) think
of voiding a transaction at a retail store. You made it, but because of
whatever, it was as it never happened (Void).
This footnote is
mentioned in Footnote 50E
90) that is the heavenly Father (also) forgiving
a vow because He and His purposes would be negatively
affected by it (which seem to be the case in such passages as 1 Corinthians
7:29 where obligations can be suspended for God’s purposes). Note: in regards
to 1 Corinthians 7:29 the “on the day he hears of it” of Numbers 30:5 is not in
play here and the suspension of the vow can happen any time (see also Footnote ___ regarding the gospel verses on this).
91A, 106 makes mention of this
footnote
91) and biblically (depending on how you view Chapter ______ in this book) he can (ceremonially) cancel that vow (however note the wife
can just walk out on her own) and note this is talking about
marriage (vows) as well so again the concept of cancelling it is valid (see and
compare Numbers 30:13 with Deuteronomy 21:14).
91A) again see
the previous footnote.
92) which is basically
what you are doing too.
92A) which can mean (biblically legally
speaking) cancelling (annulling) an engagement (see 92Aa) (again biblically legally speaking)
or possibly even a subsequent marriage [that is: post engagement and post marriage (see 92Ab)].
92Aa) note this is the (post engagement) ground Joseph was using in
regards to Mary’s pregnancy until an angel talked to him in a dream (and being
a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her wanted to do it privately
without anyone knowing the details etc.)
92Ab) again (as a previous footnote mentioned) while there is
legitimate debate about this (see 92Ac)
given how Joshua was bound by his agreement with the Gibeonites who had purposely lied when they entered
into their (sworn) (see 92Ad)
covenant with Israel, he was still allowed to alter it [from which we get the
slave clause argument in in regards to inequities (between parties {for
example: believer / unbeliever} in covenantal arrangements (1 Corinthians 7:15
{See chapter ___ for more on this})]. So at the minimum such arrangements as a
faulty foundation of a marriage is not without recourse
[that is biblically legally speaking (see
92Ae)].
92Ac) which is talking about the dissolving of a current marriage
(not post engagement, but post marriage) if something happened to any spouse
during the engagement period (see Footnote ___ regarding the foundation of a covenant and well as Footnotes __ ___ & ___).
92Ad) which is an issue by itself and
possible in regards to marital arrangements due to the fact that they are
usually based on promises not sworn statements, oaths and the word “vow” may
not even be mentioned (see Footnote 36Dc as well as ___ and footnotes in engagement covenants )
Note: this may be more of an issue with
some churches than others [watch the rehearsals and if they skip the “do you
promise…” part find out why? (as in not wanting to say binding vows {as in:
“whoops! why have a ceremony?”} or just skipping words that are not “real”)].
92Ae) as in if you do that… I am no longer bound [which was the out in
Joshua’s agreement with the Gibeonites (verses needed)].
92B) in other
words that one didn’t know what they were doing [as in being rash for the woman
(keep reading)].
92C) with the exception
of a wife who did not know (ignorance) that closed covenants may be illegal [that
is: for a man to promise to only one spouse may not be valid which can
destabilize the current agreement (and can fall under the being rash exemption {which
could include other things})].
Footnote 924 and 934 make mention
of this footnote
93A) which according to law is - in part -
defined by age [as in if you get married before a certain age it’s not valid
due to the idea that you’re not responsible enough to make that kind of
decision (see 93Aa)]. Note: just for
the sake of information a person wasn’t held personally responsible for
decisions they made until they were 20 years old in scripture [Numbers 14:29 (see 93Ac)], and were not responsible
to fulfill certain societal obligations until that age as well ((Numbers 1:26).
93Aa) and will
vary according to the local understandings (and / or needs) of countries and
states, etc. [note in the United States it can be as low as 12 or 13 years old (see 93Ab) and is subject to the states
(as in ‘states rights’) and not the Federal government.
[and thus being the case all other
state laws (except those agreed upon by all
the states) ought to fall in line here – including pornography and criminal
(which would mean nothing before any grand jury that has to do
with ages inclusive of age of 12 through 18 {which would also mean the vacating
all like sentences, probations with the destruction of all records})].
[In other words there is nothing inherently,
nor necessarily wrong with a male looking at, nor talking to, a female who is
able (or quite honestly visa-versa), certainly
nothing criminal].
93Ab) which is
usually done (or at least laws kept) in regards to the rights of the (mature) woman
(who may even need a home) because, since she is physically ready [being that
menstruation has usually started (see
93Ad) and the breasts are developed enough to nurse children (which can
happen immediately if needed) she is afforded (or allowed) that right by at
least some consciousness states [Note: people used to go to grade school - waited a year (?) - and then got
married (see 93Ae) and it is only in
modern times that things have changed (all of which can bring about unnecessary
tension in a modern home (see 93Af) which
a voice vote without fanfare of the countries legislators can change (see 93Ag))].
93Ac) which
ought to help individuals…
·
get past any ‘guilty conscience’
issues that they may have regarding their youth,
·
as well as not judging people - including spouses - for anything they may
have done in their youth (see Footnote
643),
·
and answer questions regarding how
youths are judged on the other side of eternity (that is: that is they are not
or may not be held responsible).
93Ad) which
could be before 12 (see Footnote 925-i).
925i mentions this footnote
93Ae) Let me
quote a family bio of my grandmother (she’s speaking)
“My mother was only 13 when she got
married. That was not uncommon in those days. My father and mother loved to
dance and so when they didn’t have any children right away they didn’t mind
because they could go to every single dance. But after a while, when most of
their friends were having babies, they began to wish that they would have some
too and so they did…I (myself) got married young – most everyone did in those
days” (to a man 7 years older).
93Af) which
tends to build upon itself with the addition today of a solid career before
marriage [that’s after college (8 years after grade school), not including
career time or 10 + years (of chastity mind you) after
grade school, with also possibly a home (or at least a mortgage going on
something)].
93Ag) as 12 or menstruation
(again see Footnote 925-i).
93B) which is
something that a court of law establishes before anyone stands trial for a
crime and speaks (or gives testimony) and that is: is the defendant of a sound
mind? [and some defense attorneys will go back farther and argue the point that
they are of sound mind now, but weren’t when the crime was committed (which is
basically one of the possible points we are arguing here (see 93Ba))]
Note: age is not an absolute concept in
scripture for in regards to the widows support list in 1 Timothy 5:9 the age of
60 is set [which by that time menstruation has stopped and because of lack of
childbearing, marriage (that is: a woman’s support) may be out]. Brethren,
however you want to argue the passage it does beg the question of what happens
if menstruation (along with support) stops before that?
Again age is not an absolute concept.
93B-1) which
along with not being of a sound mind (for a number of sound reasons) could be
arranged marriages, pressure from adults as well as just plain old foolishness
(as in being rash and not thinking things through).
“…then he shall annul her
vow which she is under and the rash
statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the Lord will
forgive her” (Numbers 30:8)
Therefore, so far…
Biblically speaking
and the Biblically Inferred
and the Legally Inferred
Note: continue on for still more reasons
(all of which will be summed up in the conclusion of this chapter).
93C) that is annulling or canceling a vow.
93C -1) again see the previous chapter as
well as chapter ____ .
93C-2) see again Chapter ____ and Footnotes ____ & ____ regarding this point of changing
things by mutual agreement [and again note the discussion on Contract vs.
Covenant and what a covenant is not (as in sealed in cement) in Chapter ____].
93D) which ought to cool some heels of people who criticize those
who say no to this from strictly a legal perspective (as in: if someone says “you
can’t do that” this may be what they are talking about).
93E) and it’s not that it can’t be done, as said before marriage
obligations can certainly be suspended (as in separation) unilaterally and this
isn’t factoring in such things as the leading of God. However outside that
leading - from a strict law
perspective - again the question of whether it can be done (as in annulled
or ended) without cause and unilaterally will probably remain unanswerd [See Footnote ___ & ___ for more on this, also continue
reading regarding the role of faith in decision making (Chapter ___ ).
Note: in regards to this issue David
chose to ignore the grounds of adultery (of Mical) as grounds and took her back
(and David was strong enough to deal with any residual fallout as well).
93F) if you are
dealing with without ground post marriage (See
93Fa) it is probably an annulment [of which definition can also contain
pre-marital ground in regards to a primary marriage (for example)], divorce
always deals with post marital (that is: a legitimate marriage) grounds. Annulment: pre-marriage grounds [for dissolving
a marriage (See 93Fb)]; Divorce: post-marriage grounds [for ending
a marriage (See 93Fc)].
93Fa) as in
negating a second illegitimate marriage covenant (which is what David
did).
93Fb) which for
David was that his wife (Mical) was already married [and unilaterally {by
Saul’s hand {verse needed}) and without grounds married to a second husband – Paltiel).
93Fc) See 1
Corinthians 7:15 in regards to a believer no longer being bound (or a marriage ending).
93G) which were both expressly forbidden in the 1st legitimate
covenant and can be AND WERE repented over (also see Footnote 122A on this concept
as well).
93H) a marital
example of this again would be Mical returning to David (Verse Needed); or
better yet, God waiting for Israel to return to her “first husband”
(Hosea 2:7)
93 I) which again is from a strict legal (law) perspective.
94) Again see Chapter ____ on this
Note: footnote 138B makes mention
of 94A, B and C
94A) which is what is operating behind the
negation of the covenant in 1 Corinthians 7:15 (also see 2 Corinthians 6:11-18
on this)
94B) Verses Needed Note: If people get married as unbelievers and both become
Christians - because the original covenant was originally made while they were
unbelievers (that is in a different state) it in effect became null and void
when the new reality sets in (2 Corinthians 5:17). [Think of it in terms of
when you got saved all previous “agreements” with darkness (and whatever they
entailed) were broken and a new life and new reality set in for you]. Thus both
spouses are able to explore new or even different options for their lives.
Brethren, there can be variants of
this view, for example if people got married as non-Christians (unbelievers)
and one party became a Christian the marital covenant becomes illegitimate.
However let’s say - for the sake of argument - that the party that became a
Christian (a man in this case) decided to explore his option and asked another
woman to marry him - and then his (first) wife got saved you have the
possibility a man with two wives (Also see Chapter ___ on this subject)
94C) which usually is not the case thus qualifying one spouse for
divorce, even - once again - during any (or the) transition of the other party
from unsaved to saved (again see Chapter ___ on this subject), which can and does include dating while
married.
94C-1) we are speaking from strictly a legal perspective, not a
testimony perspective (which is where Christians are usually coming from with
this issue). Note in regards to this
point Chapter ___ regarding unbelievers and
covenants where believers can just walk out on them due to - not only the
improperness of them - but also once again this “joining up with another - God”
aspect as well
94D) see 2 Corinthians 5:17 as well as
note the discussion on Romans 7:1,2,4, & 6 in Chapter
___ as well as see Chapter ____ and Footnotes ___ & ___ regarding this as well.
94D-1) again the example of a missionary in the field who finds love and wants to
make a FULL covenant before God [and no preacher is present (they don’t have to
wait)].
Footnotes 94F and 643 makes
mention of this footnote
94E) which cutting edge town halls ought to also let people file for (along
with divorce) at the people’s word [also the legal profession too… “Marriages
Annulled” (also see Appendix ___ regarding the churches role in this as well {which ought to be primary for Christians})].
Note: such a thing can “up” the
“value” of an “ex-spouse” in some people’s eyes [as in: “Oh, you wish you
didn’t” (as in: I see you made a mistake and repented (see 94Ea)) or “now I understand… your life makes perfect sense now – poor thing].
93Ea) note: if present children are a product of an annulled marriage I
would not say your marriage was a mistake –even if you think it was. Whatever
it was… just don’t ever mention that word.
94F) a new job for churches – as well as the legal profession [“upping”
the “value” of members and patrons (see Footnote
94E)].
95) Which can be a very happy “victim”
in some cases (as in I am finally free of the bull crap)
95A) Verses needed
95B) which is usually put upon the woman
95C) and in this day and
age can quite honestly counter things and fight back by talking about how
unstable the guy was [which would go to undermining the ‘man’s’ reputation in a large way (as in he could not
handle this…), which does balance things out (see Footnote 96).
95C-1) and women more so annulments (keep
reading).
95D) Note Appendix C
and D on women.
95E) and men who innate such actions
without permission of their wives (that is: unilaterally) can almost count on
at some point a trashing (privately) of their reputation (note to men: such an
action can send out messages to other women regarding oneself).
95F) hold that thought.
96) even though an annulment does make a major correction in things - on
a number of levels - and corrects the lopsidedness of things we ought to be
careful in regards to any negative attitude here [therefore in regards to a “getting
even” we mean evening up the sides (in a positive sense), as in: “I was fine,
OK - on the level - marriage material, but because of ___ I didn’t see,
therefore I filled for an annulment
- and got one - to save my fine, OK - on the level - marriage material
reputation})]. Thus the motivation is one of saving one’s own reputation not trashing someone else’s.
Note: just as men need to be careful
about filing for divorce, women need to be careful about filing for annulments
for just as divorce can be damaging to some women’s reputation, annulments can
be damaging to some men’s.
97) which ought to lead the way here not society.
98) and note that they can steer people in other ways that they may not
have considered as well.
99) which something carries a sigma.
100)
101) However once again
note that the issue of a new covenant spouse falling back on old covenant law
when dealing with a new covenant spouse is questionable - particularly since we
and not under that old covenant anymore and are maturing.
102) In modern language (or concept):
Mental cruelty: Divorce (post marriage); Mental impairment: Annulment (pre
marriage).
103) as in the being rash excuse for women.
104) which
along with being female include…
(1) if the vow was said in her youth,
(2) and she was living in her father’s house,
(3) and he annulled it on the day he heard about
it - which could be quite some time from the actual date of the vow [and note
in regards to her husband (her second house) he could also annul it as well
(without the youth criteria {however “on the day” criteria still applies)].
Again see Numbers 30, and again see Chapter
___ regarding the ‘regardless of sex’ criteria for
the negation of vows (which can possibly include being rash for the male as
well).
(105) A courting man really should ask the
father’s permission first before he proposes to his daughter.
Otherwise eloping, marrying secretly or just going to the justice of the peace
may be invalid.
(106) see Footnote 91.
110) That is for everyone except Orthodox
churches who see everyone in their (usually ethnic) area (domain) as saved
[more so Catholicism who see everyone who has been baptized as an infant (who
made no conscious choice) as saved as well (in regards to this note that a
future apostle of great religious learning was not saved until he encountered Christ)].
111) Brethren
there will be more on this in “The Question on the Progression of Apostolic
Thought in Regards to Divorce” in Chapter ____ of this
book.
Footnotes 128Ba, 140, 263 makes
mention of this footnote
112) Which they
can be under certain conditions. Brethren, in regards to this remember what Ester did
marrying the (pagan) King. If you look at the reforms of the marriage covenant
under Ezra and Nehemiah which went back to the law (compare Deuteronomy 7:1-6 with Ezra 9:1 - 10:44 and Nehemiah 13:23-30) (see 112a), Esther was not supposed to
have done what she did in regards to marriage (Ester 2:17, 20), but Mordecai
from the beginning saw the possibility of something else going on when he told
Ester not to tell what group of people she was from (again Ester 2:20), which
parallels what you find in the New Testament concerning the conscience [that
is: if someone puts something before you to eat don’t ask if it was part of an
offering to idols… (1 Corinthians 10:27) (sort of like a don’t ask or don’t
even tell kind of thing)].
If you read the story in
the book of Ester, Mordecai was operating on the level of faith not law,
for he saw the possibility of something
else going on - which turned out to be the deliverance of God’s people,
life over law.
Just think about it.
Overriding law (which in this case were old covenant commandments) for the sake
of life?
Brothers and sisters, it’s
not only a story found in the bible, but it gets its own book.
Also please note that
there is a Mordecai listed in the roles of the people that come out of
captivity. God granted Mordecai favor (Ezra 2:2).
Also, note Judges 14:4 in
regards to this same issue - with a little bit of a different slant (or reason)
regarding the Lord’s leading (or allowing) Samson to marry (in the sense of an
engagement contract) a philistine woman (Judges 14:3). Also see 1 Corinthians
7:12-16 in the New Covenant in regards to the possibilities with an ongoing
marital relationship with an unbeliever.
51a makes mention of this
footnote
112a) Note: in
regards to Ester marrying a pagan king, if you take Deuteronomy 7:1-6 by
itself it seems to say that it was only the people ‘within the land’ that
Israelites could not marry (and seemingly everyone else they could). However if
you look at Ezra 9:1,2 under the reforms of Ezra it mentions the Egyptians (who
were not in the land) as people the Israelites were marrying and uses the
phrase “holy race” in regards to Jewish people [in other words keeping
things pure (which does happen to parallel New Covenant thinking {1 Peter
2:9})]. Now it could be that the passage in the book of Ezra is just a record
of what was said and felt about Jewish people - by Jews at the time - and if that is the case what Ester did may
have been proper or “proper” (see 112b)
(Babylon was outside the land), however there still remains the example of
Samson’s relationship with the ‘in the land’ Philistine (which the Lord led him
to do, by the way), as well as possibly Rahab and some others. So in regards to the thinking in this chapter such
relationships can be allowed if proper things (and thinking) are in place.
112b) the
people’s outside the land, particularly where Ester - particularly the rulers (kings) - were noted for their idolatry and
given this it still may have been improper for Ester to do what she did.
113) Brothers and sisters, although not a
perfect example see what God told Abraham to do regarding Hagar (Genesis
21:12-14).
114) In other
words the relationships are inherently unstable (keep reading).
115) Which by
the way is the preeminent New Covenant passage regarding believer / unbeliever
right to divorce and remarry. Note: in regards to the exact meaning of the
Greek words for a believer not being “under bondage” in such cases (that is:
held to his / her marital covenant), the expanded translation of the Greek
reads as follows
“But assuming that the unbelieving husband
departs let him be departing. A [Christian] brother or [Christian] sister is
not in the position of a slave, namely bound to the unbelieving husband or
unbelieving wife in an indissoluble union in such cases as these; but God
has called us [to live] in peace.” (1 Corinthians 7:15 Wuest)
“not under bondage” (or enslaved
1402) is in the 3rd person, singular, perfect, indictavive, passive form of
douloo (1402) [See Moulton’s “The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised]. When
something is in the perfect... well I’ll just quote from Machen’s New Testament
Greek for Beginners” page 188.
“The Greek perfect tense denotes the
present state resultant upon past action...but even if it had a permanent
result (which is possible in the perfect) the verb referring to it (i.e. the
permanent result in the exercises) would be aorist (which
in this case - 7:15- is not), not perfect (like this case in 7:15) UNLESS
the present result rather than merely the past action were specially in view...
the perfect passive (which this is in 7:15) refer(s) to a present state
resultant upon an act...” Therefore this word is being used in a permanent
sense, not temporary.
In other words the relationship is
dissolved and a believer is free to remarry if they wish.
116) which was cast in an unfaithful and /
or unbelievers role (Jeremiah 3:8).
116A) which also has some examples of
dissolving a marital covenant with unbelievers (Ezra 10:2,3 & Nehemiah 13:23).
116B) Brothers
and sisters, although the words slave / servant are translated the same in some
bibles, the words or the way and / or context in which they are used will
determine meaning. The thing about the desertion passage in Exodus 21:9-11 it
apparently refers to a non-Hebrew slave since she is not to go free (Exodus
21:7), and Hebrew slaves were not slaves in the same sense as non-Hebrew slaves
(Leviticus
25:39-42) and could go free (Exodus 21:2). Unless you take the passage
here to mean there was a difference between the way male and females Hebrew
slaves were treated (which is possible, and could change things here depending
on how you see things) (see 116Ba)
that is the way it was.
116Ba) For example in regards to
the Exodus passage, if Hebrew male slaves were treated differently than female
Hebrew slaves they (the females) would fall under the regular slave law and
this fact - when combined with the “slave clause” verses (which will be brought
out more later in this chapter) can have bearing on a relationships that effect
a believer who marries a believer under false pretenses (that is they
lied about something in their past) and if they (the believer) ‘rises up’ they
are out, that, as well as the ground of desertion (as described in Exodus
21:10,11) and abuse (as described in Exodus 21:26,27), would all fall under the
believers right to divorce a believer - if this passage refers to a female
Hebrew slave – and as a result would actually be legal grounds for
ending a believers
covenant.
However for our purposes here [that
is: in the chapter on Believer / Unbeliever Relations (Covenants)] we
are for the most part going to use these verses about slaves in the common way
(or role) that slaves were cast in, and that is in the role of unbelievers
(see Galatians 4:30,31 on this).
116C) Brothers and sisters – specifically
sisters, even though we are looking at exceptions here (with a slant towards
finding them), in regards to the subject of abuse, remember that some people do
in fact stay in hard relationships for the sake of an unsaved spouse and the
abuse is sometimes hard to define for it’s on a personal level [but is
recognized by the person who is experiencing it (even mental / emotional) and
will usually decide on what level to end it (John 10:17,18)]. Sisters remember
that there is such a thing a proper laying down of self
for the sake of someone else - especially when one sees a benefit of laying
down ones (self) life for others
Note that when Peter talks
about a suffering “servant” (1 Peter 2:18-24), as well as suffering wives (1
Peter 2: 1-7) he basically comes up with the doctrine of Redemptive Suffering
(which is what suffering on the cross was about) and is something that
underlines both examples of suffering. Now in regards to the subject of
suffering to the point of physical abuse, if one were to look at Jesus
suffering on the cross one would also note that not a bone of his was broken
(John 19:36), therefore even though one may debate the degree to which one
ought to lay down their lives physically (see the cheek slap in Matthew 5:39),
to suffer abuse to the point of major physical disfigurement [which
scripturally speaking is loss of an eye, tooth (See Exodus 21:26,27) or even a
broken bone (which is what the tooth is)] does not seem to be in the offering (see 116Ca) There was a limit to what
Jesus suffered. There was also a limit to what God would allow, tolerate
and stand for. Jesus suffered, but He did not suffer like that - and in regards
to personal relationships (for example a husband and wife) neither ought
we [for example separation or divorce may be in the offering (again Exodus
21:26,27)].
116Ca) However please note and consider
other examples of suffering: William Booth’s vision that started him on the
track to start the Salvation Army involved people surrounding Jesus (with Jesus
looking at them with love) and then Jesus looking at William Booth (who was
saved and a Church going Sunday school teacher) saying that he would not
find himself in good company with these (whom I assume gave it all - at least
property wise - for Jesus). Also if you read about people who have actually
laid down their lives fully for Jesus (as in gave it all
all) you may find “abuse type things” happening for the sake of
public testimony (or a demonstration of love) but again these are almost always
personal decisions made by the person doing so. Brothers and sisters this is a
tough area in Christian thought [that is: the extent to which one ought to lay
down their lives (for example the German Christians who stayed through the
horrors of WWII helping God’s purposes there looked down on the returning
Christians who had left and came back afterward)], but all of it seems to
involve the issue of personal choice and that - along with God’s leading -
seems to be where things are at here in regards to any issues or controversy.
(note that if you compare the gospel
accounts of the crucifixion you have the thieves on the cross cursing Jesus at
the beginning and at the end of the story one turns to Jesus, why? Redemptive
Suffering, in other words the thief probably saw the way in which Jesus suffered
and it turn him to the truth (once again 1 Peter 2: 1-7).
Again, even though we are looking at exemptions here, there is a place for
suffering and in regards to the issue of abuse an individual has to weigh
things out and in the end it’s a personal decision
116D) Brethren, in regards to the
three-fold grounds of Exodus 21:10,11 if - after taking a slave as a wife (a
big “object lesson” of Ex 21:9-11), one does not provide... Food; Clothing
(that is: provisions); and Sexual relations, then the slave [read unequally
yoked spouse (keep reading)], shall go free (Ex 21:11). This kind of treatment
is tantamount to desertion and even the law of most lands recognizes the
neglect of these things as legitimate grounds for divorce.
Also note that as far as legal grounds go, that it’s all
these three things together and not just talking about one or two of them.
However also note that in 1 Corinthians 7:15 it does not elaborate on
them but just gives the general term “leaves” as the word desertion (in other
words it can be open to interpretation), and could quite honestly ‘the leaving’
can be the case even if the unbeliever stays.
(this footnote is made reference
to in 41, 43, 45A, 73, 74 E, 119A; 120; 123A;127 also conclusion of
Illegitimate Covenants mentions this footnote)
117) Note in regards to the issue of
Covenants and proper Foundation, if one of the 6 building blocks (or steps)
mentioned next was violated in the ancient world, a covenant would be without
proper foundation and something could be done…
1) Mentioning the names of the parties
2) Mentioning the history of the relationship of those entering the covenant
3) A basic declaration about the future relationship of the partners
4) Details of the new relationship
5) An invocation of the respective gods worshipped (on both sides) to act as
witnesses
6) A pronouncement of curse and blessing
and then a Covenant was
sealed (ratified, consummated etc.). Although it will be brought out more later,
in regards to the slave clause verses which legitimately added a condition
(stipulation) to a “without proper foundation” covenant (that is: the thing
that was done), Joshua was allowed to end his covenant with the Gibeonites if
they violated the stipulation and rebelled - because the foundation was false
[they lied (that is: violation of step 2 {Joshua 9:22})]. Therefore, because
the foundation of the covenant was false he was legally allowed to do something
about it [and in his case he added a stipulation to his oath in number
6, which would be like adding a number 7 to the steps)] without violating the
nature (or content) of his oath (Joshua 9:23)].
Again it goes to the question of
foundation in these cases. A
covenant without proper foundation is not without recourse (See Footnote 120 on this and continue
reading). See Footnote 124 A for a
modern example of a stipulation that can be added to such covenants.
See Footnote 41 on how this parallels the Abrahamic Covenant
Footnote 118A, and 122 mentions
this footnote
118) Which
scripturally speaking is done to make an original relationship jealous due to
at least ‘lack of interest’ (Romans 11:11). Note in regards to believers
martial covenants with unbelievers it is important to make a distinction
between the three different types that exist when studying the issue, for that
can make a difference in how one approaches this subject, and they are as
follows…
1) one party entering a relationship as saved (that is: they
purposely married an unbeliever) which is the typical biblical example (See the
book of Ester and Judges
14:4 for positive examples, and see Ezra 10:2,3 & Nehemiah 13:23 for some examples that are
“on the negative”).
2) people who entered their marital relationships unsaved
[and now one is saved (1 Corinthians 7: 12)].
3) and in regards to the concept of unbeliever / unbeliever covenants becoming believer /
believer covenants both parties being saved and now both dealing with the
legitimacy of the old arrangement now that a third party – namely God, has
intervened Himself in the relationship (See the chapter on Annulling a Covenant
for more on this dual ‘unbeliever now believer’ covenant).
Brethren, ‘strength of vow’ issues
(which is important to note for those who are approaching this issue from a
truly legal perspective), will vary in all three cases. Also note some may see
the general “calling out” verses [for example: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers…” (2 Corinthians 6:14)], as
something that applies to Point 1, while those who enter relationships as
unsaved and now one is saved (Point 2) are directed to stay where they are for
reason [that is: the other spouses salvation (in other words you may have known
each other a while and there is benefit to that)]. Sisters and brothers, once
again making a distinction between the three possible types of believer /
unbeliever covenants that exist can make a difference in how one approaches
this subject [however note that even in case (Point) 2 the believers covenant
can end with the unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15) (and note the continuing
rights of a believer in Footnote 122)].
118A) Although
the apostle in 1 Corinthians 7 directs people who have entered their marital
relationships as unsaved [and now one is saved (1 Corinthians 7: 12)
(which note: refers to Point 2 in the previous footnote)], to stay in the
situation (that is: relationship), in which they were called in (1 Corinthians
7: 17), if they have opportunity for their freedom they are to take it (compare
1 Corinthians 7:15 with how he sees verse 21 and remember what he basis both
‘leavings’ on).
This footnote is mentioned in
123A
119) Note today most people have no idea
what these steps are all about and is regulated to tradition – and even frowned
upon – but they were done for sound reason: Courting (for compatibility);
Proposal; Engagement [that is: “the waiting period” (which involved waiting to
see if one another remained faithful)]; and finally an oath with Marriage, most
all of which can be seen in God’s ‘step by step’ covenant with Abraham.
119A) See Footnote 117.
This footnote is mentioned in
footnotes 126, 127
120) for example: as mentioned in Footnote 117 at the minimum Points 3
and 4 of “Contract Foundation Law” are no longer in play, and that is…
3) A basic declaration about the future relationship
of the partners (in other words now they have none or it can now change widely)
And Point 4
4) the details of the relationship have
changed [in other words now since God is involved, He may or may not want to
become party in the relationship (and may want it dissolved)].
Also it’s important to
note in regards to Point 6 in “Contract
Foundation Law”
6) the pronouncement of
curse and blessing
All this stuff is broken
when one becomes a believer (1 Corinthians 5:17), and if not you are dealing
with the potential of major problems [In other words based on the shakiness (or
nullification) of these three points the marital contract (covenant) has become
without proper foundation and has become legally unstable – and can be dealt
with legally].
121) For
example: there is no (longer) compatibility (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). There may
possibly be commonality (for example: children), but unless the unbeliever
is docile [which according to 1 Corinthians 7:12,13 is possible (the word
used is translated as “content” or “consents” )], the tug of war between light
and darkness will continue and a saved party can only expect tension and
friction as God pulls one way and (more than likely) the unbeliever pulls the
other (as in let’s get drunk or some sort).
Footnote 118 mentions this
footnote
122) Again note in regards to the quote unquote “without cause”
ending of a believer / unbeliever covenant (that is none “desertion” or actual
desertion), remember that God does
in fact call people out on the basis of without proper foundation alone (again Footnote 120). Note the following verse
due to incompatibility and compare it to the next verse regarding the “calling
out.”
“When the Lord your God
shall bring you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and shall
clear away many nations before you... seven nations greater and stronger
than you… you shall make no covenant with them and show no
favor to them. FUTHERMORE, you shall not intermarry with them... For
you are a Holy people to the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)
“Do not be bound together with
unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what
harmony has Christ with Belial? (a pagan deity), or what has a believer in
common (even) with an unbeliever? Or what agreement (covenant)
has the temple of God with idols? For we
are the temple of the living God; just as God has said... Therefore,
come
out from their midst and separate, says the Lord... And I will
welcome you...(2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
Although one can debate back and
forth as to which type of believer / unbeliever relationships these verses
refer to (see Footnote 118 again), 2
Corinthians 6:14-18 does draw out a fourfold description of the incompatibility
of the believer /unbeliever marital covenant with the use of the words… (no) partnership; (no) harmony; (nothing) in common;
and (no) agreement. Also if you look
at Joshua 23:11-13 in regards to a
believers marriage to the unsaved some can come to the conclusion that since
God says
“know with certainty that the Lord
your God will not continue to drive these nations (parallel meaning covenants
with the unsaved) out from before you if you marry them”
that that means these relationships -
once ‘entered into’ by covenant (see 122a)
- can be permanent. However, biblically if you are going to go for that point,
that in regards to the peoples intermarriage with the heathen - even though God
did not continue to drive them out – or away [that is: once the believer
married (that is: entered into a marital covenant with the unsaved {read the
beginning of the book of Judges (verse needed)})], that
that is definitely it, for that is not what happened after the return form
Babylon and (that fact) did not stop
Ezra from making (actually forcing) the unbelievers to leave the relationship (Ezra 10:2,3). So even though God did not dissolve these relationships
(that is: in the sense of directly driving them out), that did not stop (nor did God stop) the believers from
doing it themselves - even after they
entered into a covenant with them. In other words the believer’s right to
end it will always be there in one form or another (see 122b).
122a) which
again strictly speaking is speaking of only one of the ways in which they can
be entered into (again see Footnote 118).
122b) which if you continue reading could
mean just telling the unbeliever to leave [even in light of 1 Corinthians
7:13-16, note verse 12 “…I say, not the
Lord…” (please note the difference between commands, requests, etc. in
apostolic writings {see Sustaining Revival
Appendix Footnotes C:45 & C:60 for more on this})].
93 G makes mention of this
footnote
122A) or in modern terms “contract” (note again the term
“pact” may help one understand the concept of covenants). Also note in regards
to the concept of the inverse [and that is: a pre-existing covenant (or pact)
overriding a second] such a thing can depend on what the first one said
[however note in regards to some non-traditional marital (spousal) arrangements
(which will be brought out later) the right for a man to agree on one spouse (a
first pact) – when Gods allows for more than one – is questionable and can
strike at the question of foundation (again see Footnotes 117 and 120 in
regards to the foundation issue). However also note in regards to that
particular issue the author’s book “Altering a Marriage Covenant” allows for
the altering of such a covenant on the basis of mutual agreement alone without
getting into ‘cause’].
Please note we are dealing with all
these issues from the perspective of law and
law alone.
122B) All of which lends weight to the
idea that a covenant CAN BE annulled
or illegitimately made (see 2 Corinthians 5:17 on this).
122C) Again, a
biblical marital example of this
would be Mical returning to David (Verse Needed); or better
yet, God waiting for Israel to return to her “first husband” (Hosea 2:7)].
122D) which at the minimum would be covenants
without (or becoming based on) non-proper foundation - if not the outright
ending of them by believers just walking out (or God just telling them to
leave).
122E) which is what we are dealing with here
(please note there are other chapters in this book that will factor in and
examine the roles of a maturing conscience and faith into some of these
relationship decisions).
123) Which in actuality is where we get
our main teaching on divorce from. Note: Although the name ‘Israel’ in the
bible usually refers to the entire group of Jewish people (depending on what
passages you are looking at) - and can also refer to believing gentiles that
were grafted into the promises of the New Covenant with physical Israel [that
is: spiritual Israel which does not necessarily take after the flesh (see
Galatians 6:16; Romans 1:17 as well as John 1:12,13). When referring to the
divorce of Israel in Jeremiah 3:8 it refers to the northern kingdom (which had
the bulk of the tribes) with Judah being the name of the southern kingdom
(which only had two, with Judah being probably the largest of all the tribes).
In other words not all Jewish people were divorced.
41C1? / 36Aa, 149 makes mention
of this footnote
123A) which scripturally speaking was an ‘engagement covenant’ with
the new covenant actually being a new engagement covenant (for the
first one Israel could not - for the most part - remain faithful to, so God
decided to helped Israel out by putting His Spirit within them so they would
remain faithful to the original Abrahamic agreement). Brethren, although one
will find references to Israel being called a wife and married in the old
covenant (which refers to differing levels of experience to who the prophets
were addressing). The actual marriage ceremony (see 123Aa) does not happen until the last book of the bible
(Revelation 19:7) with a dinner to follow (Revelation 19:9). Understanding the
concept of a “wife” in Judaism (who had the title of wife at the engagement)
would be of help to anyone trying to understand the biblical scriptures
regarding divorce and remarriage in the bible (and is addressed in Chapter ____ of this
book).
[also note in regards to where we as
God’s people are at now in “the experiential timeline” we are post engagement
and pre marriage (again see Footnotes
117 and 119 for more on this and
as you read the footnotes remember to stay
faithful to the new engagement covenant and you will make it to the
marriage! (Revelation 21:7)].
123Aa) with
probably a marriage covenant [not the new covenant (or new engagement covenant)
per say].
123B) It is
usually stated that 10 tribes when
into exile (and did not return) and 2
went into exile (and returned), and all Jews today are descended from those 2
tribes (Judah and Benjamin) but in actuality Levi, the priests (and their
cities) were spread throughout all the tribes [with all Jewish people today
being named “Cohen” or whose last name begin with “Co” or “Ko” {along with some
others}being descended from the priests (with Cohen actually meaning
“priest”)], and in regards to the other 9 tribes representatives from other 9
tribes (except for Dan?) lived within the southern kingdom (also see Jeremiah 39:11,12 on this). In other words in regards to the concept that all Jewish
people today are descended from 2 tribes from the southern kingdom (and all
others were destroyed or absorbed) is false and the only tribe that was
actually destroyed due to bad behavior was the tribe of Dan [Revelation verse needed (see 123Ba)], all others managed to live again
after discipline. In other words God did
not reject (divorce) (all) the tribes (per say, strictly speaking), which can
have bearing on some parts of this issue.
Also it ought to be noted here that
after the southern kingdom returned from Babylon the Jewish people began (once
again) to marry the women from the surrounding peoples (of the Babylonian
empire) which is something they probably picked up on in Babylon who mixed up
all the captives with other peoples in order to take away their identity and
strength as - separate nations - thus making them one with the captive empire.
It’s at this point that the verses on divorce (that is: believers forcing
unbelievers to leave and the subsequent conflict) take place in the books of
Ezra and Nehemiah.
Brethren in regards to both these
points remember that God will always have (or preserve) a remnant of the
faithful and we - as believers (Christians) - are also a separate nation, a
chosen race, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9) all of which lends weight to the
concept of divorcing ones non-Christian spouse (as the returning from captivity
Jews did).
(Read the books of Maccabees in
regards to some of the things that were going on between the Jewish peoples
return from Babylon (that is after Ezra and Nehemiah was written)
and the time of Jesus)
Note to church leaders: in light of
all this there is nothing wrong with asking ourselves if there such a thing as illegitimate marriages
(or for that matter grounds for divorce marriages) in the church of God today,
and if so what can be done about them? [again note 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (as
well as Revelation 18:4)].
123Ba) Dan is a
special case for although they are resurrected in Ezekiel 37 (that is the saved
people within it) and will inherit land (Ezekiel 48:1,2) they seem to have been
cut off during the exile with none remaining according to the book of Revelation.
123C) which in some Christian camps parallels the idea that someone
who married someone who was saved (Israel) and now lost it, is now free from
any obligations [however most people who study the scriptures question whether
a believer can actually lose their salvation (and again with Israel not all
Jewish people were rejected)].
123D) and again is where we get our concept of divorce from.
123E) and at the minimum in regards to
this you are talking about God taking on a second wife even if the first one remains
[However note that all believers are “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16)].
124) In other words if these people - who were
allowed to live among Israel - began to cause trouble and threw off their
shackles, and took up the sword and tried to destroy Israel (See 2 Samuel
21:4). Joshua would not be in a bind in regards to his oath, and because of the
added on stipulation [that is: you are slaves (Joshua 9:23), and you are not
allowed to kill anyone (2 Samuel 21:4)], if they (the Gibeonites) violated that
particular stipulation (to remain slaves), Joshua would not be legally bound by
his covenant / oath with the Gibeonites to let them live and could destroy them
if he wished.
This is mentioned in
footnote 117
124A) for example: if you so much as do this I am out! [see the spies with Rahab on a
condition added to a vow or oath (verse needed)].
125) Which
could mean calling the cops and / or signing a complaint thereby having a court
order in hand to have them removed.
And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the
sons of Elam answered and said to Ezra, “We have been unfaithful to our God, and
have married foreign woman from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope
for Israel in spite of this. So now let us make a covenant with our God to put
away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord
(Lord?) and of those who tremble at the command of our God; and let it be done
according to the law.” (Ezra 10:2,3)
Also once again consider what God
said to Abraham regarding Hagar in regards to this too (verse needed) [also, please note a believer can just ask an unbeliever
nicely to leave as well (as in “hey, it’s just not going to work out”).
125A) without
going into particulars [note in regards to this once you make up your mind –
unless there is some reasoned thing you did not consider (as in God saying not
to) – you probably ought to follow through].
126)
In
other words believers and unbelievers have no real future together. They are
both going to different places (again Footnote
120).
This
footnote is mentioned in footnote 128
127) which is the “binding ‘no
- matter – what’ vow view,” and for some may be one of the reasons behind why there seems to be a difference
between the different ways to approach this issue (as in the necessity of
grounds).
Brothers
and sisters although the issue of negation of oaths (vows) was covered in Chapter _____ of this book it ought to
again be pointed out here in regards to this point that the ‘quote unquote’
“binding strength” of vows (if that is where you are coming from) actually
would applies to only one of the types of believer / unbeliever relationships
and that is: one party entering the relationship
as saved (that is: they purposely married an unbeliever) and not necessarily
the other two situations of…
In
the last two situations (legally speaking) the oath (or vow) is extremely
questionable since the situation (that is the foundation of the
original agreement) has changed. Again see Footnotes
117 & 120.
Therefore the idea of unless God is
calling you out (as in you heard from God), the believer still cannot leave
because of the strength of his or her oath vow I would suggest you spend a
little more time looking for grounds (or reexamining the issue of foundation)
to ease your conscience for that
seems to be where the real problem is [note Chapter ____ of this book covers this
issue (also see the authors book “Altering
a Marriage Covenant” which contains a chapter called “Understanding Ones Conscience in Regards to the Law of Marriage”)].
Sisters and brothers, there is such a thing
as the annulling or ending of vows and either grounds (which includes ‘foundation’), and / or listening to
God will
suffice (both being perfectly legal and proper).
128) Brothers, although we are
dealing with legal grounds here, biblically they do seem to be slanted in favor
of the default way relationships work (and that is mostly directed to and
slanted “in favor” of women). Now in regards to the Mosaic (slave) law on the
subject, in regards to the issue of abuse (which is strictly defined), but in
regards to its loose definition it’s not like men can’t get abused [and can get
abused (at least emotionally) as much as women], and in regards to sex (another
ground) it can be withheld by women as much as men (and usually is), however in
regards to the issue of ‘provision’ (denial of food and clothing) it has
traditionally fallen on the male, which when combined with lack of sex {which
is basically what the verse is talking about}) makes up one of the two (slave
law) reasons (or grounds to leave) with again the other one being abuse. Now
although it is legally possible (in the sense of inequality of the relationship
using the ‘slave clause’ concept and 1 Corinthians 7:15) for a male believer to
use the inverse here with some of these grounds, it is not traditionally done. So a
brother who is hung up on grounds [(which in actuality ought to be involved in
only one of the types of believer / unbeliever marital covenants (again Footnote 127)], he will probably have
to rely on the general leaving scripture of 1 Corinthians 7:15 (which can and
does include asking the unbeliever to leave if they are not content) or just
listening to God [or the scriptures regarding this issue (which are many)], and
/ or walk out of the relationship himself.
Brothers,
just because one walks out of a situation does not mean one loses, in fact they
can win.
128A) as in the “binding ‘no - matter –
what’ vow view” also brethren remember there is such a thing as ‘grounds’ and
‘covenants without proper foundation’ as well as the annulment of ones vows too
(Again see Chapter _______ on Annulments).
Footnote
26 makes mention of this footnote
128B) and I do want to be careful here and caution
believers not to judge any believer /
unbeliever relationship (see 128Ba)
unless God has given you insight and told you to do so (as in judge
it) for it’s possible there’s more behind the relationship than meets the eye,
especially for the mature who usually know what they are doing and can handle
any issues involved (in regards to this note the “left hand / right hand”
discussion in Footnote 269)].
128Ba) which people can blanketly do [especially after reading this
chapter (again think of Ester {see Footnotes
27 & 112)].
128C) Brethren, note that after the great
victories recorded in the book of Joshua, the next book (Judges) historically
follows and take a look what it says near the beginning of the book
(Judges 3:1-6, especially verse 6). Those verses do a lot to explain what
happened to Israel regarding their ups and downs in the coming years (that is:
marrying unbelievers), see also Deuteronomy 7:1-6 on this.
128D) which can even mean they have “left” even
if they stay.
128E) again compare 1 Corinthians 7:21 with verse
15 (and think of the slave law basis of verse 15).
128F) Note: if the unbelieving spouse leaves,
that could very well be the green light from God for a believer to go on with
their lives and find someone who would be good for them (and they for them).
Maybe someone a lot better, A LOT, if one can believe that.
128G) See Chapter ____ regarding “Problem
Verses” and note the explanation of Romans 7:1,2,4 & 6.
128H) see Footnote 91.
128 I) see Footnote 276L (and
the related discussion) for more on this reason (exemption)
129) and in regards to a “twist” on the
term “positive relationship changes” if you look at the reforms under Ezra and
Nehemiah it was not the solidifying of vows that was done (as in the restating
or the renewing of them as some churches do), but the negation of them due to
the illegitimacy of the spousal arrangements (which is something for church
leadership to think about).
129A) which ought not be
downplayed
130A) We are not necessarily talking about…
* A Spouse who backslid
* A Spouse who is hypocrite (that is:
they talk the talk, but do not walk the walk)
* Nor a Spouse who lost their
salvation (which is debatable)
* Nor a Spouse who was never saved to
begin with (and I and everyone else thought they were)
But a saved – on the level
– relationship.
131) which is not really fully
brought out in this book (However see the authors book “Altering a Marriage
Covenant” for more on this)
132) for
annulment of believer marriages see (Verse
Needed); for separation see (Verse Needed)
133) Again, see the authors
book “Altering a Marriage Covenant” for more on this
133A) See God’s divorce for
discipline in (Verse Needed).
133B) as in when the event occurred.
134) Which in the English are translated as
“unchastity” (porniah) and “adultery” (moykhaho) respectively. Which quite honestly does “a number”
on those who just go to the New Testament to back up their claim or right to
divorce a believer (see Joseph wishing to “put away” Mary before the actual
marriage took place). Note there may be some that view the word “unchastity” to
mean (or cover) pre-engagement
activities as well (see verse
needed).
See
Chapter
_____ regarding the Jewish understanding of the word “wife” for more on
this.
135) which are used usually
along the lines of using adultery (moykhaoh) as ground when uncasitity
(porniah) is actually the word used [and note in regards to this issue 1
Corinthians 7:15 does expand on the gospel verses (which seem iron clad), and
is written afterward and is more properly called a new covenant writing than a
new testament writing per say, which the gospels are (a record of)].
136) and that is annul (void,
cancel) a marriage.
41C1 makes
mention of this footnote
137) As in if it’s legitimately made how strong is it? Note: there is an argument
based on the order of the Abramhamic covenant (which actually goes through
stages that build on each other), that lends itself to the permanency of a
legitimately made covenant (review
concept). Also note that God did divorce the Northern Kingdom for judgment, while still
calling her back and still remaining faithful to her, and He was separated from
the southern kingdom for a season, again still remaining faithful to her, but
only during HIS engagement period, remember He is not yet fully married to his
Israel (Revelation).
137A) check out the Gibeonites who actually lied before
entering a covenant and nothing could be done (verse needed).
This footnote is
mentioned in Footnote 50E
138) check out some of the
non-tradition reasons for Christian separation: irreconcilable differences (1 Corinthians 7:11); no time (1
Corinthians 7:29) and of course God’s calling
(Luke 14:26). Note: Jesus and the apostle are
not saying that a believer can’t leave a relationship (the phrase
“should not” in regards to the apostle’s writings is not the phrase “must
not”). In other words according to both Jesus and an apostle it’s ok for
believers to at the minimum separate from one another, and as a result
believers can walk out on a multitude of vowed responsibilities.
138A) at the very least in the sense of separate.
138B) which is something
brought out in footnotes 94A, B, C regarding the thing that is operating behind the annulling
of certain types of covenants (also see Chapter ______
on this – altering a covenant
chapter).
139) verse needed.
140) and so He was with again
1 Corinthians 7:15 bringing out a new condition for divorce that is not
mentioned in Jesus’s ‘iron clad’ statements (See the end of Footnote 112 regarding the possibility
of some scriptures just being a record of what was said) .
141) which is a huge thing with Jesus speaking to those under the law in
the gospels [note the New Testament gospels are a record of what was said in
the “tween time” to people in both groups (that is: people under the law and
people entering into what was coming next)].
142) for example
once
again 1 Corinthians 7:15 bringing out a new condition for divorce that is
not mentioned in Jesus ‘iron clad’ statements. Also in regards to this point it
is important to remember the following New Covenant principles…
1)
Life over law
2)
There is a progression of
understanding in scripture (Exodus 6:3)
3)
The conscience does mature
4)
and God can say something
to “the group” and something different to “the individual.”
Footnote
154, 262 & 262D make mention of this footnote
142A) For example: Regarding a weak
conscience (immature) vs. a strong one (or mature). One can see this contrast
clearly in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, where the topic concerns eating meat
sacrificed to idols (which by the way is forbidden in the “newer” “mature”
“progression” of Islamic thought). Anyway, in regards to this issue if you read
Acts 15:19,20 the Apostles write a letter to the Gentiles (in a group setting)
saying that
“it seemed good to the Holy Spirit (God) and to us... that
you (plural - as to the group) abstain from things sacrificed to idols;”
However if you read 1
Corinthians 8 :1-13 the eating of meat sacrificed to idols is something that is
in reality regulated by a person’s (individual) conscience (which factors in
the proper knowledge that there is no God but God).
In other words the faith
and the proper knowledge of an individual can override a commandment given to a
group.
Brothers and sisters, in
regards to God’s mature purposes let me say that there are individual leadings
that may be different than mainstream leadings that an individual may be accountable before God to do
(leadings that mainstream “law” / teachings / people may in fact frown upon).
These individual (or personal) leadings I have found do, and usually will often
times center around the divorce and remarriage issues found in this book [for
example issues surrounding believer / unbeliever marriages; grounds for
annulments; reasons for separations; grounds for divorce (adultery? desertion?
anything?) etc.] and / or the personal reasons behind taking such actions [for
example: my spouse backslid; or my spouse is hypocrite (that is: they talk the
talk, but do not walk the walk); or my spouse lost their salvation (which is a
debatable point, but a point is made regarding the question of the spouses
salvation); and / or my spouse was never saved to begin with (and I, and
everyone else thought they were); or they just won‘t “move on” with God, etc.
and so forth].
Sisters and brothers, in
regards to the subject of grace in personal leadings within the issues of
divorce and remarriage, after 35 years of being a Christian (and during this
whole period watching more than a few believer marriages end) I have found out
that there are indeed legitimate - on the level - “gray areas” out there that
only God can sort out, hence the personal gracious leadings that some
Christians talk about in regards to not only divorcing their (Christian or
“christian”), spouses, but in fact remarrying other Christians.
However I do want to
emphasize quite strongly that in regards to all believer /
believer marriages that unless God is showing one different it is
better to stay together than to separate (and / or divorce) if only for the
sake of public testimony of what God can do in a situation (which is where
God ‘is at’ on this side of eternity, demonstrating His power over all
situations), for really, what problem is there among
Christians that God can’t sort out? Brethren in my own personal opinion the
only grounds I see for believer / believer divorce and remarriage
is if one party is not walking with God anymore [that is if God actually led
the couple together to something - and one refused to follow (that is they
refused to go on) and the other one needs the support that comes from that kind
of relationship] - but that’s my personal opinion.
143) again hold that though on
maturity.
143A) even if you hold to a view that ‘a covenant is a covenant is a
covenant.’
144) hold that thought too.
145)
146) for example: the Amish as
with other Christian groups still hold the shunning scripture valid and do
practice it (verse needed).
147) which
is basically what happened here with the northern kingdom being in “the
unbeliever role” [or becoming “the unbeliever” in the relationship (see Chapter _______)].
148) at the minimum an unbeliever.
Footnotes 174, 175g, 253Ba and 603
mentions this footnote.
Also Chapter
___ on Problems Verses (1 Corinthians 6:15-17,19) mentions this footnote
149) which is an interesting point raise by the apostle in that since
(basically) the Jewish people of the day rejected Jesus that they were as a
result still under the law [(see 149a)
even though they actually were not], but basically had once again put
themselves under it [which would probably explain (in part) what happened
during the last 2000 years (see Deuteronomy 28 in regards to this, also
Galatians 3:10; 5:3 on this as well)].
149a) Note: in regards to this issue of being ‘under
law’ in Galatians the apostle is speaking of being justified by law (Galatians
5:4) not throwing everything out the window. Now although Acts 15 asks
believers to be under only a handful of laws, the direction of God towards His
best as well as the issue of holiness will more than likely enlarge that pool [in
the sense of being mindful of the difference between the holy and the
profane (which may be reflected in some of the laws of the old covenant)].
Also Note: the issue of holiness (not
justification) in regards to the laws of the old covenant has cause a lot of tension in Christianity with most all who study
the issue saying that we are positionally holy before God in spite of them, but
from there everyone (that is: on the level denominations) breaks into different
experiencial
camps that either go full force into the laws of the old covenant, dabble in
them or ignore them completely (that is: don’t consciously think about them)
with even the approach, if there is an approach towards them being a debatable
thing (See Sustaining Revival Appendix D).
The thing is in God’s time line (see 149b),
as said before we are in the engagement covenant stage of the relationship (see 149c). He is going to bring us “to
that altar” and once there [that is after the exchange of words? and then being under a
married covenant (see Footnote
123A)] I’m sure things will
change again.
149b)
we are pre kingdom, then
comes the kingdom, then comes the new heaven and new earth where everything is
recreated.
149c) which will continue during the promised kingdom
part of God’s time line with God still reaching out - with teaching - to the
nations (see 149d) with the center
of the coming kingdom being in Jerusalem.
Note: according to the book of Ezekiel (during
this kingdom period) the new (engagement) covenant will be different in that a
lot of ceremonial laws will be in play (see
149e). Also teaching (the immature and possibly others) the difference
between the holy and the profane (which again may be reflected in some of the
Mosaic laws) will be in play again too. However even though this is true
remember we as believers are in the state of maturing (or are mature) moving
towards the age of marriage and as a result we are no longer under the childish laws (if you will) of the
old covenant which is important
[Galatians 3:23 (a principle which will continue after the marriage)].
Footnote 934 makes mention of this footnote
149d) which ought to be interesting being that there
will be both resurrected (or mature) people as well as regular people (and
people still being born) walking around together [and it’s not like different
types (kinds) of people being together hasn’t happened before (Matthew
27:52,53)].
149e) Again, we are pre kingdom [under a new engagement
covenant (whereas the old one didn’t work)], then comes the kingdom [where we
are still engaged with - some ceremony and still reaching out to the nations
(Ezekiel 40 -48)], then after the final acceptance or rejection of God [or
final purge (Revelation 20:7-9)] of the nation’s comes the new heaven and new
earth where everything is recreated, after of which comes the marriage - of
everyone whoever believed (Revelation 21)].
Brothers and sisters as
said before the issue of experiencial holiness (not positional) has cause a lot
of tension in Christianity with people going into the law as well as adding
things too (no drinking, no dancing etc.) and it would probably take another
book to sort out all the issues involve. However a lot of things can be boiled
down to whether a Christian (believer / child of God) would do such and such a
thing, and in regards to the error of Judaism, even though they made a mistake
2000 years ago in regards to justification, in regards to the issue of experiencial
(not positional) holiness I’m sure they can help out today (at least for the
immature).
“Moreover, they (the sons
of Zadok of the Levitical priests) shall teach My people the difference between
(not right and wrong or good or evil per say, but between) the holy and the
profane and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean” [or the
proper, the appropriate, etc. (Ezekiel 14:23)].
The mature (or a mature
life) can sort their way through these issues (which also includes mature
Jewish people), especially issues or questions relating to the individual and /
or unique (or mature) situations where faith and trust rule and / or are needed
[that is: life under the new covenant (Galatians 3:23) or life].
Note: because the church
is greatly divided over the issue of experiencial holiness and we have insight
into the future sons of Zadok here, that insight combined with the believers
right to press ahead can mean much in regards to the actual (saved) sons of
Zadok today (if Judaism could separate them from the Levites and they speak on
their own). Their words - just because of who they are (combined
again with the believers right to press ahead) will carry a lot of weight in
regards to issues here – especially in regards to God’s Best (which He has for
Israel proper) and the listening world would take note.
The church (made up of both
Jews and Gentiles) await.
150) for example: vows (and again read Acts 15 in regards to this issue)
150A) However note the new guidelines of 1 Corinthians 9:21 (and see Footnote ___ on this as well)
151) for example: anywhere from: ‘the other party is not really saved
(wake up)’ to ‘the time is short, get your priorities straight, get out and to
work’ (1 Corinthians 7:29)
152) “hate” in this verse is usually defined as “preferring God over
everyone else” in most peoples interpretation, however it does not change the
point being made that God and His purposes can get in the way of covenantal
relations [even if you swore (vowed or took an oath) to prefer a spouse over
God’s purposes it doesn’t matter].
152A) again Acts 15 and then some.
153) Note: for those who see Jesus’s “forbidding” remarriage as applying to new covenant life (see 153a) or forbidding it without
exception to this life (see 153b) even
there, if you look at the verses there is lee way for it’s not the divorce [which
you can still get (1 Corinthians 7:11)] that defines adultery, but
remarriage (as in don’t get married again)]. However (and I am getting ahead of
myself here) see appendix ___ and ___ in regards to other believe it or not, on the level non-marriage possibilities here
in regards to relationships. Also in regards to this entire issue (and again I
am getting ahead of myself here), think back to the creative use of vows in chapter ___ in regards to some of these options, as well as issues that may
surround them)].
153a)
which is the usually (and
possibly correct) way to view those verses, the other way (view 2) being that
Jesus was only correcting (in the sense of making a statement) of what God’s
original intention was in regards to marriage before the mosaic exemption (see
Mathew 19:3-8 only), and not necessarily stating it was still in effect (See
also “Jesus Between the Covenants”
in Sustaining Revival Appendix
C)].
153b)
which is a view
contradicted by 1 Corinthians 7:15 (see Footnotes
____ on this point as well).
154) for an example of God allowing something different for the
individual (because of maturity), and not allowing it for the group
(because of immaturity) see Footnote
142A which can have implications in regards to this issue.
155) again
I thought my spouse was saved…
156) not to be harsh here but if God is truly calling an individual out
of a situation He will probably take care of any “fallout” of a breakup
[remember God did take case of Hagar (who is cast in scripture as an
unbeliever) how much more a believer].
157) that
is again for those who take Jesus “forbidding” remarriage as applying to new covenant life or forbidding it
without exception to this life.
157A) In
other words, according to the harshest interpretation of those verses,
believers can divorce - and suspend obligations for God’s purposes just as long
as they don’t get remarried (again, if there is a problem here it’s the remarriage,
not the divorce or separation).
157 A-1) See Footnotes ___ & ___.
157 A-2) Which has already been mentioned in this book (also note the relevant discussion on this
in Appendix ___ regarding Previous Marriages as well once again Appendix ____
regarding Problem Verses).
157B) if you break down the different groups (that is:
if it’s equally distributed) it’s 25% (75 % heard and believed) that fall
(wither) away which would mean at a 50% divorce rate among Christian marriages
a little less than half of all Christian divorces will happen to fall within
this ‘believer became unbeliever’ category [and as a result believers would be
free to legitimately remarry again (again see Luke 8:4-15)].
157C) see Footnotes 217F and 276L
(and their related
discussion) for more on this exemption.
158) and again the covenant
can be ended in the sense of ‘suspension of obligations’ [that is: separation
(1 Corinthians 7:11)].
159) remember altering (a
covenant) and (the concept of) divorce are not one in the same thing.
160) Brothers and sisters as said before it is possible that for a man
to vow to one wife is wrong (as in maybe
a man made a “mistake” taking a ‘you and only you’ vow) for a man is
allowed to have more than one wife in scripture.
161) see Revelation 2:15 regarding an addition to the teachings of Jesus
not found in the gospels regarding giving people time to repent
161A) although this is covered extensively in the
authors book “The New Reformation” the different callings (or offices) a
Christian can have are as follows…
“ And God has appointed in the church, first apostles,
second prophets, third (pastor-) teachers, then miracles (4th), then
gifts of healings (5th), helps (6th) administration (7th),
various kinds of tongues (8th). (1 Corinthians 12:28)
And with those callings
comes giftings (or “tools”) that help (note “The New Reformation” in regards to
the discussion on Evangelists and where they fit into this list).
161B) which are still (supernaturally) in operation today. Note according
to scripture every believer has at least one supernatural gift (1 Corinthians
12:7, 11) (or supernatural “talent”) they are accountable to God for the sake
of spiritual profit to use (Matthew 25:14ff) and can get more (1 Corinthians 12:31,
14:1) and they are as follows…
1 Corinthians 12:4-11 / 1 Corinthians 13:2
1) The word of wisdom
2) The word of knowledge
3) Faith
4) Gifts of healing (plural)
5) The effecting of miracles (separate from the gifts of healing)
6) Prophecy - “if I have the gift of
prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge” (1 Corinthians 13:2)
7) Distinguishing of spirits (1 John
4:1-6 the spirit of truth vs. the spirit of error)
8) Various kinds of tongues
9) Interpretation of tongues
Romans 12:6-8
10) Service
11) Teaches
12) Exhorts
13) Gives - “in liberality”
14) Leads - “with diligence”
15) Shows Mercy - “with Cheerfulness”
And note in regards to the
gift of prophecy it is a gift the apostle encourages everyone to seek
“Therefore my brethren,
desire earnestly to prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:29)
Therefore, unless you go
to a church that frowns on spiritual truths for a believer (or anyone) to go to
someone who has any of these supernatural gifts (again, Prophecy,
the Word of Knowledge, Faith, Wisdom and Exhortation) for any kind of advice or
answer would not only be wise, but also the smart thing to do.
Note: in regards to the related footnote references the apostle was
probably operating in both his apostolic authority and giftings in regards to
advise (rulings) on the issue at hand.
162) see Luke 14:26 in regards to the tension that preference can bring in any
relationship (more
gospel scriptures)
163) that is
revelation with a direction is supernaturally given [for example: I see
(according to the scriptures and revelation) that God has called you,
and also I see (according to the scriptures and revelation) that you are to
suspend your marriage (separate) for that very reason (which is the
direction)].
164) for example: your spouse is actually
a hypocrite (talks the talk, but does not walk the walk) and there is no
reality there [or your spouse was never saved to begin with (and everyone
including you honestly thought they were)] therefore treat them like an
unbeliever etc.
164A) and another to be added later in regards to maturity.
165A) and that is if a believer themselves can’t sort through them reasons
(options) on their own.
166) Brethren there is an assumption that one
reading this work not only knows what the gifts are but also how they operate.
The authors book “the New Reformation” as well as “Sustaining Revival”
mentions them and their use in detail.
167) as 1 Corinthians 7:29 also illustrates
167A) some marriages are or have become more of a partnership (in “a cause”
per say) than they are a romantic relationship.
168) to stay or not to say and if not how to leave
168A) which can be among the two dozen in this book – or not (or
some sort of combo’s).
168B) for we already examined what the bible says about this [6
directions and probably over 2 dozen reasons to go to 5 of them (and in regards
to the “1st” ‘stay married direction’ once again this is not a book about that
issue (or reasons to stay) but examines the other direction (however the
reasons for that direction can be found in that kind of book)]
168C) especially
if you are dealing with some sort of combination of things.
168D) not
particularly, quote unquote, where Philip wanted to be (which is a key thing in
regards to the spiritual life and that is: let God direct you and make you into
the vessel of His choosing not yours).
168E) as in they are not saved or other things [and note we need to be
careful here for many are fruitful in ways that may not be obvious (and note:
not everyone sees the fruit of their labor on this side of eternity, some
plant, some water and some harvest, so again we need to be careful)].
168F) even while together (which might lead to “exploring” among ‘the
fruitful’).
168 F-1) and are as follows (and note some of these
will be elaborated on later in the book)…
and sisters and
brothers with prayer don’t forget about fasting.
168G) as in get ‘a word’ from a person with the gifts and stay
or move on (see Footnote
___ regarding “the bridge” we are on)
169) and that is go to God with it in prayer considering it along with the
things mentioned in this book (and well as things yet to come). Note: in
regards to the topic of “conformation of a word” (which is basically a second
witness of some sort that it is true) sometimes people will use the phrase “My
spirit does or does not bear witness to that word” and what they mean by that
is that something about it rings true or not in their spirit (or
inner being). Now while there can be other witnesses out there to confirm that
word [as in a second person (See Nathan confirming Bathsheba’s word to David
{verse needed})] ones spirit bearing witness to it is usually good enough. An example
of which would be if someone in the giftings said to you “Something needs to
change” you would probably “bear witness” to that in your spirit and say that’s
true, but if they said to stay or leave a relationship if that same
confirmation is not there then that word is probably off or needs
to be taken to God in prayer [which most people do, which would probably need
to be done in regards to getting a word from someone you trust [as in maybe
there’s resistance to it you need to
sort through (as in a spirit or law issues, etc)].
169A) of which most people concede (but for some reason feel that God has
kept and must keep quite since the last scripture was written)
170) which quite honestly are exhaustive and ought to give you at least some
idea of a direction and reason to go there.
170A) Sisters and brothers, many people
will acknowledge God answering prayer (as in God is not distant but still
actively involved in people’s lives and intervenes), as well as
many people also testifying concerning how God has guided them (See 170Aa)
so why is it so difficult to believe that He still opens His mouth? What’s
stopping Him?
170Aa) Note: most sessions of congress are open with an appeal for
guidance (whether they listen is another matter), and most presidents look to
God for the same thing as well (and nobody thinks it’s strange and for that
matter encourages it).
171) and sisters and brothers for those of you who are not familiar with
extra- biblical revelation (that is once again: outside the bible revelation equal
to scripture in certainty) this is not as spooky as you might think.
Consider the following – in the bible – verse…
“Indeed God speaks once or twice, yet no one notices it. In a dream,
a vision of the night, when sound sleep falls on men, while they slumber in
their beds, then He opens the ears of men, and seals their instruction.” (Job
33:14-16)
And in regards to that think of Missionaries and their callings that
you have heard about (See Appendix B in Sustaining Revival for
more on the topic of revelation).
172) which can be done brethren. Note: in regards to this in the last
days Jesus tells those who stand before authorities to make up their mind not
to consider what you are going to say ahead of time for the words will be given
them (verse needed). This being the case (that God still speaks to people), the prevalent theory
that God stopped speaking 2000 years ago (except for guiding and answering
prayer?) and is only going to start up again at the end of the age makes
no logical sense. There is no reason for it (and aside from that there are just
too many testimonies out there from sane and sensible people that are to the
contrary). And note you don’t have to hear a voice that sounds like a
combination of trumpets and a mighty waterfall spoken in a thundering voice
[which is what He sounds like (verse
needed)], but God also
speaks in a still small (that is: soft) voice as well (verse needed). Again
see Appendix B in Sustaining Revival for more on the topic of
revelation [which regards still other ways He can speak to us today as well
(for example dreams)].
173) again the gifts being word of (as in: a
given supernatural revelation) of wisdom, knowledge, exhortation and prophecy –
the speaking gifts (see 2 Kings 22:14 as an example of someone going to the
gifted) [note the gift of wisdom and knowledge is not going to a wise or
knowledgeable person per say, but is something (as in: “a word”) given
that is supernatural (or supernaturally given through the gifts)]. A wise and
knowledgeable person can have this gift, but they may not and
rely on personal wisdom and experience for their advice.
Footnote 934 makes
mention of this footnote
174) which can involve points
and issues raised in Footnotes 149;
253B; 266 and 268C of this book [and in regards to civil government
they can charter studies before giving updated recommendations (about “walls”)
to legislators].
Note: in regards to the
issues raised about sex in the footnotes new and accurate studies need to be
done with hard first hand data and unbiased research (unlike the Kinsey and
Hite reports of 50 years ago which were criticized in regards to accuracy) of
which I would encourage enlightened civil governments to (pool together) and do
(sponsor) [and note it may take years].
Footnote 934 makes
mention of this footnote
175) Note if you in fact
belong to a church that will center around this issue (see 175a) I would not be afraid to give people who are ministered
to certificates of divorce and annulments - if the gifts say such. Also in
regards to your church’s investigation into claims [which can be, and ought to
be done by churches that again will center around this issue (that is: if no
word is given)], I would advise you to also do the same and give certificates (wits)
of divorce and annulments if so warranted (See Appendix ___ for some examples)].
175a) which I expect some
churches (see 175b) to do before
things “stabilize” and after “the correction” here (in straightening out
peoples relationships) for these churches to come back to a more sound middle
in God’s purposes [note relationships are to support the work of God
and are never the main focus of it unless there is a problem, thus because
there are problems here I expect relationships - of all kinds - to be
front and center - especially in cutting edge churches - for a period of time (see 175f) and after all kinds of relationships
are straightened out (see 175g) for
things in these churches to (while keeping these things in mind) to start
moving on (again) to God’s continuing purposes in the earth].
175b) or new churches or ministries (see 175c) which may start up or
center around an area that is ripe and ready for God to work here [note in
regards to ministries unless you are dealing with the apostolic, prophetic or
evangelistic they really ought to be part of or sent out from a church (and with the exception of those three (see 175d) I would be careful of accepting
ministries that are not under the oversight of some church somewhere {see the
authors book Sustaining Revival for
some other suggestions here (as in ministries that revolve around people’s
names, etc.)})].
175c) which I believe is an
American phenomena that started (or took off) in the 1940’s with faith healers
not being accepted by the local church having their own tent meetings – outside
the church (and outside their authority) – eventually setting up like a business.
Brothers and sisters some of this stuff is on the level [for example: evangelists
(which also took off around this time) are strictly an outside the church gift
[and note: apostles and prophets were sent out long before America existed (See
Acts 11:27; Acts 13:2)], and I’m not judging faith healers and their reasons
either (although now most are accepted within
the churches)], but sisters and brothers the lack of oversight of many of these
ministries [especially those with tons of money (why?)] and the pumping up of
personal names (rather than the name of Jesus) is enough to turn most people
off. Now in regards to what may happen in regards to all this we don’t want to
throw the baby out with the bath water here, but we also want to be cautious (and
smart) as too, unless ministries come recommended (or) are under authority of a
church (or) are under oversight [even if it’s just in regards to revelation of
their finances (see 175e)], and have
a name that is not the person’s name I would think - and pray - about them twice
- especially
before giving to any of them.
175d) with pastor – teacher
being a possible forth (the four-fold beginning / establishing a work of God
ministries).
175e) note: if an accepted
church has a speaker (who also has his own ministry) it is to be assumed that
these things have been checked out - and although an individual can ask - one
ought not expect the speaker to give forth evidence of such (ask the church).
175f) I think it’s going to take
about 5 years.
175g) of which the church [which
is inclusive of (and includes) the Levitical sons of Zadok (see Footnote 149)] can help out civil authorities during
this time period (see Footnote 174)
176) Matthew 5:31,32; Matthew
19:9; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18 see also 1 Corinthians 7:10,11.
176A) which concerns many different
types of relationships.
176B) which may or may not only refer to his
statement regarding the state of a single woman (1 Corinthians 7:40), however
the point is made.
176C) and this is probably one of the most
important points in this book, and that is: there can be and is a progression
of New Covenant revelation (in scripture) that builds upon (or adds) to the
teachings of Jesus [also see Revelation 2:21 concerning a progressing of
revelation (in the sense of a new) teaching of Jesus that is not found in the
Gospels regarding giving people time to repent].
Note
in regards to individuals at present doing such a thing (as in the prophetic),
remember that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever and what He has
done in the past (the granting of revelation) He still does today [see Extra - Biblical Grounds for Divorce: Hearing from God (and the
Gifts) in Chapter ____ for more on this (also
note Footnote ______ regarding Jesus
Between the Covenants
which sees
the gospels {that is some gospel verses} as more the new testament account
of what happened than the new covenant {life} per say {which can influence ones
interpretation of some of things that Jesus said (for example: tithing)})].
176D)
In other words if you were a Christian living in the city of Corinth after the
time of Jesus and were married to an unbeliever who left and only read the
gospels you would think that that was it, I’m stuck – that is: until the letter
of an apostle to the city of Corinth came along with an elaboration on Jesus
(gospel) teaching [note: one can also see a progression of apostolic thought on
the gift of teaching and the role of women in the church (See Footnote______)].
177) Again? Mentioned in
footnote 12 ‘Epistle’ is just the Greek word for
‘writing’ which was ‘transliterated’ into the English (that is literally
translated: for example angelos in Greek is translated into English as angel)
in other words when the word “epistles” is used by Christians it just means
apostolic writings.
178) Sisters and brothers, most
people might understand where he was coming from since he did not have the
other apostles privilege of having been with and heard the teachings of Jesus
first hand. He was working through things on his own (including revelation) and
for a moment doubt came into his mind. Also note he did not – at that point –
know the other apostles [with the exception of Peter and James, Galatians
1:18,19 (the later of which could have steered him in a wrong direction which
could have influenced his doubt regarding his faith slant on things {keep
reading}).
This
footnote is mentioned again in the chapter
179) In case you missed it I’m
talking about a character trait (impetuousness?), and yes, Galatians is probably the first
book that he wrote so one can argue that everything he wrote subsequent to that
doubt he is confident about [and Jesus did promise Him revelation (Acts 26:16)
so we need to be careful here and not “hog wild“ with this thinking], however
the fact that he may have went around preaching something he may have had
doubts about… brethren, when this apostle writes something in an epistle I have
questions about, it causes me to wonder…
For example, in regards to
a comment this apostle wrote about forbidding women to teach men (1 Timothy
2:12), how do you explain (my experience now) the Holy Spirit using and
actually speaking through women who teach - while men are present (that
is they are “teaching men”) - when I can make a “slam dunk” argument - based on
1 Timothy 2:13 - as to why it shouldn’t happen?
Note also the apostles
possible impetuous (as in I’m going to do it) in the book of Acts regarding not
going to Jerusalem even when told not too (verse needed).
180) There were two main
James: James the brother of John [who was martyred early (Acts 12:2)]; and
James the Lords brother [who for some reason became very influential and if you
read the book of Acts became a, or the leader at the church in Jerusalem [note
that Jesus did appear to him specially (1 Corinthians 15:7) and he is called an
apostle (Galatians 1:19)]. Brethren, most people go with “the later
(non-martyred) James” for the authorship of the book because of the early
martyrdom of James, John’s brother [however it could still be written by James,
Johns brother because it is a very early book, however I think (early?) church
tradition says not (note the real name of the “book of James” in Greek (as well
as all those named “James” in scripture) is (the book of) Jacob which was
changed to ‘James’ due to anit-Semitism of King James translators].
181) Those two books (James
and Galatians) are probably the first epistles to be written, with James being
the very first written who wrote exclusively to Jewish Christians [unlike Peter
and Paul who wrote later - much after gentiles started coming into the church -
to either Gentile churches or mixed Gentile / Jewish churches (however note in
regards to ‘epistles authorship’ the letter to the Hebrews {which was also
exclusively written to Jewish people} is in dispute (see 181a). However in regards to the question of the earliness of
the book (or letter) of James if you read it it’s almost like he is writing to
a synagogue at the time which had converted [for example: compare James 2:2,3
with Jesus statement on the Pharisees wanting the best seats (Matthew 23:6)],
which may help to explain the contradictory message which came from James [that
is the comment in Galatians reflects very early thinking (Galatians 2:12)] (see 181b) as well as the problem some
people have with the book itself (keep reading).
181a) no name is mentioned as its author, but the
writer knew Timothy (Verse
needed),
with some scholars siding with Paul (who was on the outs with Hebrews of the
day and may have wanted to be anonymous) and others with siding with Barnabas
(note in regards to non-apostolic authorship Mark, Luke, Jude and Acts were not
written by the apostles, with the book of James author possibly not being the
original apostle James).
181b) note the issue (or place) of the law in the
life of a believer is not settled by the apostles until Acts 15.
181A) He thought the book of James was good as a
guideline for basic Christian practice, but could not resolve James emphasis on
works in regards to salvation [which is actually resolved by James (Verses Needed) as well as Christian
thought by combining the two passages (Verses Needed) to bring out the “works
of faith” doctrine].
181B) That is the later James.
181C) Note: James (the Lord’s
brother) probably watched Jesus growing up, and although Jesus was a
regular at the synagogue (Luke 4:16) and well spoken of (Luke
4:22) did not believe Him when he started His public ministry (compare
Mark 6:3 with John 7:5; also see Matthew 12:47) and would not believe in him until
much later [possibly after Jesus appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:7)]. If this
be the case that the only experience James had of Jesus was watching
Him, hence that would explain the works slant of the epistle he wrote which
accounts for such passages as James 2:18-26.
Also note that Jude
“brother of James” (Jude 1: 1) [another brother of the Lord (Mark 6:3)], who
also didn’t believe at first (again compare Mark 6:3 with John 7:5; and again
see Matthew 12:47) and converted later in life to write an epistle] is also -
like his (physical) brother James - very heavy into the behavior aspect of
Christianity.
181D) Note: law and being zealous
for the law is something the apostle comes down
against in his writings [in other words we see a progression here too, but this
time in regards to the place of law in the life of a believer (see 181Da). Which again seems to be
what ‘the contradictory message’ in Galatians 2:12 was about as well as the
problem some people have with the book of James itself. Also note the following
verses in Acts..
“and
some men came down from Judea (the
province Jerusalem was in) and began teaching the brethren, “unless you are
circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved… and when
they (left to see what was going on and)… arrived at Jerusalem certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had
believed stood up saying “it is necessary to (be) circumcised and…observe
the Law of Moses.” (Acts 15:1,5)
181Da) note again Footnote
____
regarding a progression of apostolic
thought regarding the gift of teaching and the role of women in the church.
181E) Who was an apostle at this time (James
1:19), presumably after meeting the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:7), and being
commissioned like another apostle who met the risen Lord (with again both James
being called apostles).
*note: the word “apostle”
just means “one sent.” There were 12 original and more were added (see Romans
16:7).
181F) or at the minimum a
certain waffling back and forth in regards to certain things at first…
“but when Cephas (Peter)
came to Antioch, I opposed him…” (Galatians 2:11)
Brethren the true nature
of the gospel wasn’t really nailed down - group wise - until the first “church
council” (if you will) in Acts 15. The incidents in Galatians 2 may have
preceded that, however there does still seem to be a progression of
understanding in regards to the gospel that really isn’t hammered out - group
wise - until then (although most obviously already had it right {Galatians
2:6})].
181G) At the end of the day James still sums up
proper Christian behavior in terms of law [See his speech in Acts 15,
specifically Acts 15:20 (but note the issue of law may be more a ‘matter of
conscience’ issue for him personally if you factor in the reason why he
mentions these three things {that is: eating food sacrificed to idols and meat
strangled (non-kosher), and abstaining from fornication} which is to not cause
Jews in (Gentile) foreign cities – with their converts to stumble (Acts
15:21)].
181H) that is: if we are not
under law how does one “measure themselves?”
181-I) and is handled in the
authors book Sustaining Revival (See
Appendix D of that book)
181J) the word buffet believe it or not means to
beat or treat harshly (1 Corinthians 9:27), which in my opinion can including
fasting for reason. [Note the idea behind this is that the body and its desires
what to control you (think of a dog on a leash leading), whereas scripturally
you are to control (or be in control) of them (as in “I have an urge to…” Why
do you have an “urge to?” Where is it coming from? Should it be
suppressed? or is it legitimate? Brethren, these are all questions believers
ought to ask themselves in regards to this issue)].
624f makes mention of
this footnote
181K) which is a huge concept with him that can
and does make a difference in a believers life [that is reckon or consider it
done (see Romans 6:6,9 & 22)].
181L)
I see John so caught up in the revelation of Jesus that his mind probably
doesn’t even go to ‘questionable fleshly satisfactions’ and to him just
focusing on Jesus makes one pure (that is: that is the net effect of it).
182) hold that thought for it is important, for
a person to progress in their understanding of things means he or she does not
have full knowledge. Look at the following verses for a confession and preview of what is coming in this chapter (book?
Meaning faith hope and love guiding us, Maturity section?) and again remember to hold
that thought regarding the progression of understanding about things in
scripture.
“love
never fails; but if there are gifts… they will (someday) be done away (with)… for we know in part.. But when
the perfect comes the partial (knowledge) will be done away with. When I was a
child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a
child; when I became a man (that is reached a mature state), I did away
with childish things (which again includes childish thinking and reasoning). For now we see in a mirror dimly,
but then face to face, now a I know
in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been known.
But now abide faith, hope and love, these three; but the
greatest of these is love (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)
182A) In regards to the idea of
Christians reaching a place or level or state where one does not need the gifts
(that is in essence a level of maturity). Once again there does seem to be a
progression of apostolic understanding in regards to another issue.
If
you read 1 John [who doesn’t mention anything about the gifts in any of his
letters (which also happen to be the last letters {or epistles} written
chronological wise in the bible)] you will see that the gift of teaching seems
to have “replaced” or actually replaced by an individual’s (mature)
understanding that one has an anointing that teaches them all things
[and not only that, but he explicitly says that you have no need for a man to teach you because of that anointing
(in other words you – as you mature- may not need the gift of teaching)
(1 John 2:27)].
Brethren, this kind of
progression of understanding regarding the gifts – in general - is confirmed in
1 Corinthians (which was written at least 30 years earlier) but says that one
will someday reach a state where gifts are no longer needed (1
Corinthians 13:8-11) [which for the writer was when “the perfect” (or when
perfection comes)]
and brethren in regards to
reaching a relative perfection or perfection on this side of eternity look at
the following verse,
“Therefore you are to be
perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48)
And
before you reject this notion know that most orthodox churches do believe this
- and that is one can achieve perfection on this side or eternity with their
doctrine (that needs much overhauling) of ‘the saints’ [Again see 1 Corinthians
13 on the relation between reaching perfection and the gifts being done away
with (which seem to have been the case with the Apostle John)].
A
Word of Warning
In regards to the view
that one can reach a level of maturity (perfection) where the gifts are not
needed (1 Corinthians 13:8-11) we need to be sober about this viewpoint. A test
(at least in one area) might be if one was healed of something by ones faith in
Gods ability alone without the use of giftings from any other individual. This
test would be a continual test that would - at the very least - carry you right
through to the 120 years mentioned in Genesis 6:3 at the minimum
(that is: unless God has revealed to you some other reason why you are being
called home early). Brethren, gifts are important and this
test is just one of many areas one would have to excel in to get to a point
where one has reached the level of the “mature man” and would be evidence that
things are going right (or you are going in a right direction).
and again Jesus does
exhort people to be perfect [and we are talking about perfection on this side
of eternity (and again see 1 Corinthians 13:8-11 regarding the link between
perfection and the gifts being done away with)]
However brethren, all
these things aside, once again I would not downplay the use of gifts (giftings)
in the church because of this and I’m not sure I know anyone who has “arrived”.
Gift are important and the acceptance and use of gifts in a church is
only the equivalent of a group of individuals saying that they can’t do it on
their “own” (at least at this point) and need help from someone in the church
in regards to some area). Thus someone who is “above” them, or have excelled in
a particular area of need extends a helping
hand and pulls them up to the level (or area) they need help in until they
can do it on their own and what ought to happen is after a need is
fulfilled in this way both individuals (and everyone for that matter) goes on
helping one another by pulling each other up until everyone reaches the
perfect level (or level of perfection) together.
“but speaking the truth in
love, we are to grow up in all aspect of Him, who is the head, even Christ from
whom the whole body, being fitted and held together, by that which every
joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual
part, causes the growth of the body for the building up
of itself in love.” Ephesians 4:15,16
“until
WE ALL attain to the unity of the faith… to
a mature man” (Ephesians 4:13)
Brethren, I only expounded
on this viewpoint [which again is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13: 8-11 and
Ephesians 4:13 (that is the use of gifts “…until we all attain to
the unity of the faith…a mature man (or a mature level where “the
unity of the faith” leads all individuals to the faith necessary to overcome
all and receive what they need - again maturity), again I only expound on this
viewpoint to show you that there is a wonderful end result or a goal to
Christian living on this side of eternity (and personally I do
believe this perfection {it is scriptural and such a state ought to have
consequences in the here and now}, Brothers and sisters it’s not just ‘a pipe
dream’ and can be accomplished {Matthew 5:48}).
Once again brethren, there
does seem to be a progression of understanding of things in scripture and it is
reflected in the reading of the epistles in the chronological order they were
written in (start with the book of James and Galatians).
However brethren, even
though this is so, the gifts again are important and again they are of great
use (if you are sick or have physical problems and can’t do anything about it
on your “own” by faith, you have not reached this mature state and still
have need of the gifts. Do not downplay their importance),
and again they (the gifts) can be viewed as “stepping stones” (or helps, or
helping hands) in various areas until we all - together - reach that
mature state
[Brothers and sisters
there is no need for pride here and there is no shame in asking for help if
needed (James 5:14). I never met anyone who has been able to do everything on
their own and hasn’t needed help at some point (and you don‘t want something as
silly as pride to stop you from getting what you need, for example healing).
Sisters and brothers Jesus probably never would have made it to the cross if
someone didn’t help Him carry it and if you read the epistles ‘the cross’ has
to do with - among other things - the crucifixion of self (which includes pride
etc.). In other words revealing yourself open and bare (which He did do) and
then laying yourself down (which is humility, or the humility of asking)
is part of the process (See 2 Kings 2:10-12 in regards to the linking of
humility to healing)].
Also brothers and sisters
remember that you have giftings that others need too. It is a two way street.
Once again brethren in
regards to the subject at hand…
“But to each one of us
grace was given, according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says
“When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts
to men” … and He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as
evangelists, and some as pastors - teachers for the equipping of the saints for
the work of service to the building up of the Body of Christ, until
we all attain to the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the son of God to
a mature man, to the measure of the statue which belongs to the
fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:7,8,11-13)
Again, there is more to
life than just waiting for Jesus to take you home.
405B; 405C, 684D makes
mention of this footnote
183) Brethren, most people don’t realize this
about some of his writings on women and that is he is basing his arguments on
tradition too (See 1 Corinthians 11:2 which talks about “holding firmly to the
traditions” right before Paul talks about women).
Note: in regards to this and other issues it is
important to make a scriptural
distinction between…
* “urges” (1 Timothy 1:3)
* “commands” [“now we command you brethren…
(2 Thessalonians 3:6) (also see 1 Timothy 1:18 and 2 Thessalonians 3:12)].
* “concessions” (1 Corinthians 7:6)
* The “I want (s)” (1 Timothy 2:8,9; 5:14);
“I beg (s)” (Galatians 4:12);
“I
entreat (s)” (Ephesians 4:1); and “appeals” (Philemon 1:9)
* The “I do not allow
(s)” [1 Timothy 2:12 (which by the way may have some
bearing on this issue compare with 1
Corinthians 11:2 which again talks about
“holding firmly to the traditions” right before
Paul talks about women {see
the next footnote})]
* again “traditions” (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2
Thessalonians 2:15)
* “charges” (1 Timothy 6:13)
* “opinions” (1 Corinthians 7:25)
* generalized (temporary)
opinions [Cretans are always liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons (Titus 1:12)]
*and things received from the Lord (1
Corinthians 11:23)
And
although there may be some sound advice here [again the Apostles were promised
revelation (which is an important thing to note)], learn to distinguish
all these things from actual commands [that is: younger women do not
have to get remarried (as in the sense of a command {note
Luke 2:36,37}) which once again many if not all of these things can be dealt
with to varying degrees by at the minimum
1) certain (life and / or circumstance)
exceptions to them
2) by the understanding we are not under the
law anymore
3) ‘matters of conscience’ and a maturing
faith (that is maturity)
[however brethren, even
though all this is true realize that we are also under something and that is:
heavy direction towards God’s Best, which is His Desire for us as well as under
God’s Preference (in some cases)]. Also remember that in regards to all this
that life is not a “free for all” and that there are again certain things out
there that no one is going to violate no matter what (for example: the worship
of idols).
Footnote 183 makes mention of this footnote
183A) Brothers and sisters,
183B) (1 Corinthians 14:37) It
ought to be pointed out here that even within the apostles own letter he gives
an exception to women opening their mouths – as long as they have a (symbol)
head covering and are prophesying (which
is something the unwavering legalist among us ought to take note of - that is,
once again - there is such a thing as an exception - even to a specific
command or commandment from the Lord).
Also note your children are sanctified - if you stay together in
1 Corinthians 7: (verse needed) caves in (or is out-weighted) to another state for the
believer if the unbeliever leaves [in other words don’t be so overly worried
about your children’s sanctification, you’re free (and at peace) and that is
important too (verse needed)].
183C) Verse Needed
183D) Verse Needed
183E) Verse Needed
183F) Verse Needed
183G) Verse Needed
183H) Verse Needed
183-I) with one even being a
deaconess in a church (verse
needed), which
is actually a church office.
183J) there is hardly a woman who
reads his injunctions today who don’t end up wondering about a thing or two (as
well as some - to most men). For example: young widows
going from house to house gossiping; busybodies; and talking about things not
proper to mention (1 Timothy 5:13; compare his statement with Luke 2:36,37);
also a comment on old women (1 Timothy 4:7).
183K) Also note that God calls
women to the mission field which can once again go to the related issue of
women teaching men [especially if there are no (competent) men present] or even
ruling in regards to church government [which again, just because of gender,
women can be restricted by various congregations in “outside the mission field”
settings - even if they have the appropriate gifting (as in God can only do
those particular kinds of a callings for women on or for the mission field and
not at a home church)].
184) Deborah Footnote
184A)
and in order to go from one step to another (think of God’s people throughout
the ages) one must learn a few things
(which from our perspective is what old revelation is - in part - about) and
also as one learns - and matures - one
leave a few things behind as well.
Note: We as Christians are
not at the beginning of God’s purposes on the earth, but at the end
looking forward. When (and if) we look back (at older revelation) we are
looking at the steps that got us where we are today [and part of those steps do
seem to include where the Apostles were at in regards to some things [once
again the gift of teaching (1 John 2:27)].
184B) and
it’s not that the Apostles were in error about anything it’s just that what
they wrote was in part an accurate reflection as to where they
were not only at, at the time, but also probably was an accurate
reflection of the measure of what the Spirit of God wanted to reveal at
the time concerning a particular issue (in a particular situation).
Also
note again there is a lot of revelation of old that has been “done away with”
due to new revelation and circumstances (new heart and new mind for one).
185) certainly this was the thrust of Jesus
teaching for the covenant to come. A covenant that was not going to be based on
law (or again a relationship with a bunch of rules and regulations) but on
life…
“What man shall there be among
you, who shall have one sheep and if it falls into a pit (that is possible
death) on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it, and lift it out (for the
sake of life) ?” (Matthew 12:11)
and
an active, living, ongoing relationship with God - who still speaks as well as
living a life of faith, hope, love and trust with one another.
186) and if you are “doing things” it’s how
these three or four just mentioned things of faith (trust), hope and love are
demonstrated in your actions of the things you do indeed do.
186A) Brothers and sisters,
once again that I do emphasize that I understand this “progression of
understanding” view of scripture (most notably of the epistles) smacks right up
against the common views of inerrancy (most notably the high view of
inerrancy), but again in regards to this issue consider the following verse…
“love never fails; but if
there are gifts… they will (someday) be done away (with)… for we know in
part.. but when the perfect comes the partial will be done away with. When
I was a child (using the gifts etc. the parallel he is drawing), I used to
speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man
[that is reaching a mature (perfect) state, again the parallel he is drawing],
I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly (that
is not in a perfectly clear or full way), but then face to face (that is
someday you can’t get any more, or see anymore clearer then you will be for you
are seeing not an image or reflection of something but the actual thing
itself), now a I know in part [a progression of (apostolic)
understanding], but then I shall know fully just as I also have
been known. (1 Corinthians 13:8-12)
As you can see from the
just mentioned verse there is an admission from the apostle that he only knows in
part therefore there is a progression of (apostolic) understanding
in regards to things, however I do want to point out that many things written
in the epistles are indeed solid, particularly such major doctrines as
salvation, the Godhead, the divinity - as well as the humanity of Christ, and
the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit. These four issues (or doctrines)
are testified all over the place in the new testament and have also been
confirmed by many church councils throughout the ages as well.
Brethren, the Apostle Paul
(who wrote about the gift of teaching) was martyred about 20-25 years before
the Apostle John wrote about teaching by saying that you have no need for a
person to teach you for you have an anointing (and the epistle of 1
Corinthians which mentions this gift of teaching was written even earlier).
What I am saying here is that if Paul had lived another 30 years he probably
would have been where John ended up in regards to that gift [which again goes
to “a progression of apostolic understanding” about things - which - by the way
- happened on this side of eternity, not when the perfect
comes (1 Corinthians 13: 10).
186B) in other words one can under
the inspiration of the Spirit elaborate on something Jesus said (that is: kind
of “fill in the blank” to a “what about this?” kind of thing) which is not
found in the gospels - and still be correct [in other words there can be and is
a progression of New Covenant revelation that builds upon (or adds) to the
teachings of Jesus (also see Revelation 2:21 concerning a {progressing of
revelation} teaching of Jesus that is not found in the Gospels about
giving people time to repent].
187) For example: God told me to divorce (and
remarry) because my old Christian spouse
1) backslid;
2) lost their salvation;
3) is a hypocrite (that is they talk the
talk, but do not walk the walk);
4) or my spouse was never saved to begin
with (and I, and everyone else
thought they were).
Among
other possibilities.
188) Brethren since there does
seem to be a progression of (apostolic) understanding in scripture why can’t it
continue to unfold on this side of eternity? Even if for the sake of argument one does not achieve
perfection (or maturity) (mentionedtoo soon?) on this side of eternity they can still
increase in their understanding and knowledge of things (you
don’t have to be an apostle to experience an increase (or this maturing) in the
understanding of things).
“His
anointing teaches you about all things, and is true
and is not a lie…” (1 John 2:27)
190) as “on the outside looking in” or as
in “the train left the station and you aren’t on board – but it’s OK.”
191) which can also be inclusive of mature
relationships (keep reading)
200) even “God’s my priority”
reasons (1 Corinthians 7:29)
201) which could possibly mean
forever
202) Once again…
* Spouse backslid
* Spouse is hypocrite (talks the
talk, but does not walk the walk)
* Spouse lost their salvation
* Spouse was never saved to begin
with (and I and everyone else thought they were)
203) Again
* There is a progression of
understanding in scripture; there are (and this is) an issue of conscience; the
issue in question really boils down to the principle of life over law [that is:
since we are not under any law anymore which includes the law of
relationships go with the flow of life (or wherever life
leads)].
* Unique circumstances [that is: what
is (or may be) said to “the group” (in scripture) is not what is said to me
because…]
* Married as unbelievers turn
believers…
*more
204) That is:
* God told me (directly or through
the gifts of others)
204A) Note:
in American Christian culture marriage is held up so high as to make never
married singles feel that something is wrong with them and separated believers
(from believers) are usually shunned Also divorced Christians are almost
equated with having some kind of disease and none of the three groups are
usually invited nor welcomed in Christian married homes. Brethren, once again
there are biblically approved reasons for divorce (and separation) and in
regards to believer / believer marriages – since they can be suspended for a
number of biblical reasons [which again are not only legitimate but acceptable
(1 Corinthians 7:29)] – one wonder how high one ought to raise that particular
option for one’s life (American Christian culture is a little off balanced
here) (See Footnotes ____ & ____ for more on all this).
205) Brothers and sisters,
this idea that people are to just sit around waiting for the rapture, or for
Jesus to take them home is pure non-sense. People are to press unto maturity –
and perfection – on this side of eternity.
Footnote 934 makes
mention of this footnote
206) and if you read the
Chapter on Maturity and the Conclusion of this book I do discourage it in favor of a new way of looking at one’s life
Note: and although I am
jumping ahead here in regards to the
mature solution(s) offered in those chapters remember that there is
nothing wrong with living a private life that may seem hypocritically
and even at odds with ones public life (that is staying together), but in
actuality is either considerate of other peoples consciences or is for other
reasons [Like believers staying together because you do
actually care for one another, or staying together for the kids sake in some
situations (See Chapter
______)]
Sisters and brothers,
since Christians are at differing levels in their understanding of things (and
also because they don’t want to cause other people to stumble) it would be more
than understandable if ones private Christian life [which again is where we are
going with this mature option (or actually Christian Maturity) which I would
not publicly flaunt], does not exactly match up to ones public life [that is
the appearance of ones public life, or public image (which is the common ‘you
and you alone’ view of Marriage)]. Therefore in regards to the issue of
‘Christian testimony’ in relation to ones public marriage, aside from biblical
approved public reasons for changing or suspending the covenant, it’s really more the question of where
observers are at rather than where you are at in regards to things [In
other words there are differing levels of Christian testimony (with some
being higher) all equally valid].
[In other words, to put it
simply (and again I am getting ahead of myself here, but I am assuming most
have read ahead), if you can limit or restrict outside observers access to your
mature private life (and again I want to emphasize maturity here) – why divorce at all? Why not just have
an open mature mutual understanding about things [For example: Tuesdays and Wednesdays are mine, I’ll be coming
back late (or not at all on……) etc.] Note: see Appendix D:
Guidelines for Mature Open Relationships and Appendix E: Mature Considerations for Open (“N” &
“D”) Relationships for more on all these things]. Here???
207) I went to a marriage reception once and all the divorce persons
were seated at one table (and not by choice). One woman who sat there told me
unhappily that it was “the divorce table” (and note: the person who arranged
the seating may not have even given it a second thought as to what they were
doing).
208) which constitutes a large part of the church.
209) which they do when they shun singles. Note: churches will have
their single meetings, but basically shun singles in regards to socializing -
especially outside the church - especially so divorced people (all of which
usually have no place to go and are usually home alone with nobody).
210) verse needed.
211) verse needed
212) See 1 Corinthians 13:4-8; 1 Peter 1:6,7 and James 1:27 for just some
examples. Note: Even among the married rarely do they “testimony”
together and more often than not “testimony” as individuals. So for singles the
(personal) testimony they share with the married is virtually identical with
their “single” testimony and again is the common Christian testimony.
212A) See Footnotes 220 a-d as well as Footnote 223 in regards to possible
answers that can be used here as well as the local churches responsibility in
clearing up any confusion here (which I would advise all local churches to do).
213) an
example of which might be if a first wife would like more freedom (or free
time) and a multiple spousal relationship might give her that since her
husband’s attention would be divided (See
213a). Also if a woman who is entering such an arrangement would like
something of the benefits marriage without the commitment of a traditional wife
[for she wants to devote most of her time to the Lords work and feels that with
that kind of relationship she could serve God better in doing so (which would
be a very acceptable reason for entering a “limited” relationship)], it would
be OK, and as a result the altering or amending of a covenant would give both
more freedom than they would have had otherwise in a traditional relationship
[and the purposes of God which are of a higher preference will most likely benefit
(See 231b)].
213a) note to guys: even if both spouses are living under one roof both
would have more free time than they would have otherwise [also note you will be
dealing with two separate – yet combined – households of whose end result is
more than likely both separate and combined (as in your kids and their future
may yours and hers, but they may not be in “the other hers” plans for she may
have her own, etc.)].
213b) note brethren the idea of what may be God’s best (or “Bestness”) can
be a very personal matter and levels of faith (that is what people can or do
believe God for), how their life has (or is) playing out so far, what kind of
commitment (or paring down of commitment they would like and how God is leading
them in regards to that commitment), along with other things get factored into
that “What is best (or ideal) for one may not be what is best (or ideal) for
another” or visa-versa kind of thing. There are people who genuinely need or
desire this type of relationship for many different types of reasons (and not
just serving God, per say). Thus I think everyone needs to be open here.
213A) again
see Chapter ___ in regards to questions that surround this issue.
214) of
whose public Christian testimony would be much along the lines of being
considerate, fair, selfless, patient, sharing (of goods), being personally content
and of course mature.
215) That
is the public is going to be looking to see if everyone is being considerate,
fair, selfless, patient, sharing (of goods), personally content and
mature.
216) and again since you don’t know how your own life is going to turn out someday (or
family and friends) it would be wise and be on the “enlightened” side here and
realize that the common Christian testimony is more about ‘action’ than ‘the
state’ one finds themselves in.
Special Note: Brothers and sisters in
regards to the issue of tension in marriage aside from wrong assumptions about
it [as in: it’s about me (and not God and His purposes) or it’s all about
romance etc.], when saved Christians are given gifts and one of them may be the
gift of celibacy [(1 Corinthians 7:7) which is usually not mentioned in the
common list of gifts (verses needed)]. If one takes that verse and combines it
with such verses as for one to remain in the state in which they are called (1
Corinthians 7:17) - if called (saved) while single – one may have this gift.
Now although there is nothing wrong with a single person getting married [it’s
not sin (1 Corinthians 7:25-28) (see 216
a)] and the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29) such a thing can
cause tension in some married relationships if one party is prone to the sexual
side of it, or is “needy.” Given this if a single person is content to remain
in the condition they find themselves in [for whatever reason they are there
(which includes reverting back to it if married and then not], I would just
leave them alone for again they are content (and what you may be offering may
not be – at least to them).
216a) which does have bearing on the instructions of 1 Corinthians 7:10 (See
Chapter ___ on Problem Verses in regards to the implication of this on 1
Corinthians 7:10,11.
217) that is: not being passive, but actively believing God and
trusting God for the best (to happen) and handing things over to Him consciously
in prayer.
217A) for example: dealing with and working through issues of
self-esteem, loneliness as well as concerns about bills and
children.
217B) I’ve only heard of three cases where people after divorcing went
back (and with one they divorced again).
217C) that as well as (at least for the woman) maintaining (or going back
to) sexual faithfulness in regards to the original agreement which aside from that
can also involve the continuance of responsibilities, for example: still paying
bills (or letting the other spouse know you are open to it)
217D) see Chapter ___ as well as Footnotes ____
217E) which is a debatable reason among Christian for divorce, but does
encompass two believers who married as unbelievers and now are believers
(See Appendix ___ for more on all this)
157B makes mention of this
footnote
217F) according to scripture is possible [see Luke 8:6,13 regarding
‘losing it’ and Hebrews 6:6 regarding apostacy [also see Footnote 276L
regarding this as well as note that in regards to Hebrews 6:6 if you read
verses 6:1-5 it’s more than just ‘hearing the word with joy’ (Luke 8:13), but it entails people who fully
heard everything and still reject it
{see Judas as an example})].
217G) and unlike divorce there may still be obligations that are jointly
maintained (which can be part of the testimony issue).
218) which needs to be brought out in regards to these relationships and
that is - although it would be nice in regards to Christian testimony - it is
not required for the women to “get along” with each other or even (quote
unquote) like each other and although publically there ought not be any animosity (nor even privately, both for the sake
of Christian testimony and witness) women involved in these kinds of
relationships do not have to live together, nor even see each other if they
don’t want to [also note: if the man passes on to the other side of eternity
before they do the combined relationships are
in fact over for the women since they do not make a covenant with each
other but the man (and I would advise them not to do so either)].
218A) which will be talked about later
218B) which is usually there.
219) which would balance things out for them [which can be personal as
in: who it is they married, and / or
what is on the table in regards to
their (and the {their} children’s) benefit (both of which make it easier in
regards to their standing with other women {See Appendix ___ in regards to Understanding Women} as
well as any personal sacrifices women can make). Note: having an equal share in
the estate will usually ease some of the pain here, especially in regards to
childbearing women.
220) Sisters and brothers aside from the reasons given in the
previous chapters there are usually others more
personal that can propel one to go to those reasons. The very fact that you
as a Christian opened this book (unless you opened it in regards to someone
else’s problems) shows that there is something going on in your life that can
be driving you to look at those reasons in the previous chapters (which is
probably the real reason you are reading this book and the real reason you may want a change in your
relationship). Truth be told all the other reasons mentioned in the previous
chapters may or will probably end up becoming the (public) excuse if there is a
change - and that is fine, our private life and our heart is nobody’s
business but our own, but we also need to be honest with ourselves and see if
there is any way we can address the real reason we may be reading this book.
The thing is in regards to public “excuses” Christians can make
use of the probably two dozen reasons mentioned here for divorce, annulment,
separating, altering, and amending a covenant, but what you tell yourself,
family and friends might be another matter. Brothers and sisters in regards to
being honest with yourself, unless you are dealing with an outright cut and dry
case “unbeliever-itis”, the real reason you may want a change
(that is: unless you’ve been dumped) is probably that you were hurt, or in pain
or need healing of some sort (which we hope to find in another relationship).
Brethren, in regards to this let me warn you that I remember someone who was on
their second or third marriage telling my wife that you will never love anyone
like you did your first husband (spouse). Now if that’s true I don’t know, but
the thing is change in a covenant is no small decision and ought not be taken lightly. Therefore if the real reason one is pursuing such
an option is pain (or disappointment) the solution for both is found in God
(not the reasons found in this book). In regards to divorce as a solution I
myself am not a fan of it, however I do recognize it as a solution for many
things but pain and disappointment can be handled through other means.
Brethren, again in regards to this
point what you tell the public in regards to divorce, annulment, separating,
altering, and amending a covenant - if you do tell the public (see 220a) - may be one thing, but what
you say privately (as to reasons) may be something else (and again that fine), but remember in regards to divorce itself
there are other options for believers which allow them to stay together rather than divorcing [and again
they are: separate (as in just take a break from each other, even if it’s for just
a couple of days every week (See 220b))
as well as altering and of course amending a covenant (which can benefit both)]
and of course the mature option (which
you will discover if you keep reading this book).
220a) Brethren, the public consists of two parts for the Christian: the
church (or our circle) and people who know us outside of that. In regards to
the church saying such things as “the pastor knows all about it” “personal
reasons” or if need be “the board granted me a writ… look (see 220c)” ought to be enough [and if not I would fall back on the
impersonal reasons found in the previous chapters and that’s it (See also Footnote 223). In regards to
the public outside the church I would not say anything personal at all,
possibly fall back on one of the reasons mentioned in this book – if pressed –
but that’s it [you can also say the same things you say to the church but be
short about some as in “my pastor knows all about it and you can ask him / her”
to deflect inquiring minds (but make sure the pastor doesn’t answer inquirers); or say something along the
lines of “my church board investigated it and granted me a writ and I
don’t want to talk about it” (and note: you don’t have to say which writ was granted either {divorce or
annulment})]. Note: in regards to public inquiries you can also just say
“personal reasons” and end it right there.
220b) just stay over a parents, siblings or
friend’s house.
220c) which sample copies are found in the
back of the book [note in regard to this I would advise all churches to - after
investigating (see 220d) - grant
such things to any member who asks so that everyone in the congregation knows
who is available and who isn’t [I’ve been to too many churches where members
were in limbo, ignored and just ended up leaving (or staying single) when it
could have all been settled and their life could have gone on].
220d) which can be formal (as in contacting
the ex-spouse by mail or over the phone with questions), or just taking the
congregant at their word.
221) Note in regards to the arguments and
concerns regarding multiple spousal relationships the church ought to consider
the following points…
Point 1) biblically speaking there are other options for people’s lives than the
traditional one man one woman relationship.
Point 2) this is not be something that is prohibited by God in scripture (God
does allow for multiple spousal
relationships and does recognize these types of relationships
legitimate).
Point 3) we must remember that the biblical model in regards to relationships
between men and women is all over the place. Multiple spousal relationships may be non-traditional but again they
are legitimate and are “on the level.”
Point 4) the church (or Christian culture) ought not be locked into the ‘traditional
family mindset’ regarding this issue at the expense of granting Christians
other options for their lives.
Point 5) just because people who have or desire these types of relationships
would live outside the framework of what most Christians view as a normal
household is not sufficient reason to say no (once again coming against common
Christian culture).
Point 6) note: these types of relationships already do exist in the world (and
even in our society) and it would be wise for the western church to bring
dignity to families who have them by recognizing them so that these families
will be able to bring these relationships out into the open (note: some people
have these relationships and they don’t even realize it).
Point 7) we need to (or we should, or it would be wise to) bring about some
change in the church in regards to this issue.
Point 8) we are allowing / granting women another option for their lives.
Point 9) In regards to the issue of God’s general
direction and God’s preference…
There does seem to be a general direction of God in society (one man
one woman), and it may in fact be God’s preference, but a congregations
disallowance of non-traditional unions based on God’s preference - when
scripturally speaking God does indeed
allow for people to choose this option for their lives - is not right. God
could in fact lead people as individuals to non-traditional options for their lives for a
variety of legitimate reasons.
Point 10) There may be many personal sacrifices one may want to consider before
engaging in these types of relationships as well as personal issues that may
need to be addressed before one does too (and they are
once again): self-esteem issues; questions of loneliness; realizing ones intimacy
will probably be on a schedule; will there be jealousy?; the issue of how all
the women get along with each other may be a question; also will there be other
(or more) spouses later? is something to consider; that and will all wives be
treated the same?; Will there be favorites? Will there be a competitive spirit
among the women? (and can they recognize it if it happens and head it off?) is
more to consider as to… Will there be an expression of affection with one
spouse in the presence of the other (s)? How will the bills be paid?; Will
everyone be living under one roof (and if not will two households be viable?),
How will the estate be handled if there is a break up or if someone moves on to
the other side of eternity? What about the inheritance rights of the children? and
so on.
Point 11) These types of relationships are probably something that is not for
everyone and should be viewed as more the exception rather than the rule.
Point 12) These relationships probably should not be considered as the first
option for people’s lives, however they can be offered by the church as
a possible answer and legitimate option for people’s lives.
Point 13) You don’t know how your own life is going to turn out someday so it
would probably be wise and be merciful here and be open to change.
222) and quite honestly I think probably 90% of Christians can find at
least one that applies to their situation (so unless led we probably ought not
pry).
Footnote 220a makes mention of
this footnote
223) and if a service is performed in a church assume that the
leadership has given a “thumbs up” to those reasons. Also I would advise
Christians entering (or having) multiple spousal relationships to be nice and
if anyone asks - particularly children - just say “personal reasons” to the
church to all who ask as to the reason you are entering (or having) one, and if
anything in addition to this happens to be publicly said it ought always be ‘on
the positive’ [as in: we all love one another therefore… (and it ought to show)]. Note once again that in the back of this book
there are different forms the church can use to address certain situations here
(and again churches ought grant these to congregants at their word if need be).
225) Don’t leave the ship verse (acts)
226)
227) Which also
include multiple spousal relationships
249) which believe it or not the vast majority of this book addresses and
reasons with through different arguments and insight (as in: “oh, now I
understand therefore I can now….). Brethren the conscience is a very powerful
and influential part of our being (keep reading).
250) Brothers and sisters, the best way to deal with this “forever
binding issue” is as stated in Chapter
____ Covenant or Contract? Which one is
it? (make
sure this is stated), the difference between a covenant and a contract is basically
semantics because God oversees both - whether you call upon Him (and / or seal
it in front of Him) or not. The idea that a contract can be “renegotiated” but
a covenant can’t doesn’t make sense – except in regards to the concept of oaths
(which was handled in Chapter ____ of this book). Brothers and sisters if you make a (secular)
contract with someone and they renege on it one can still call upon God who
oversees all. Also if you make a contract with someone and then decided to
mutually agree on changing the terms because of unforeseen circumstances, or in
fact any reason (which happens all the time) one can also do so without fear of
divine wrath as well. If there is a problem here – whether covenant or contract
it’s if one party says no (however see Footnote _____ regarding the proper steps behind the making of a covenant
which - if violated - led to modifications, annulments and even divorce).
250A) again see what the tribes of Israel did to circumvent their oath
(which is the major part of any covenant) which also happened to be the major
part of the agreement (pact) they made with one another – and feared (again see Chapter _____).
251) again there is no real difference between a covenant and a contract
except one is more secular and one is more religious, but again God oversees
both and because He is the righteous judge - who oversees all - He can
intervene in both if He desires (even if we don’t call upon Him for He sees all
aftermaths and all “injustice cries” always end up at His doorstep).
251A) or what causes life – and / or what doesn’t.
251-A1) it’s
not something that is done away with.
251B) as another form of guidance in the absence of Divine leading.
251C) which is a big (Christian) hazard (or pitfall) to watch out for
[and that is for a person to have a hardened and / or bad conscience (See and compare Hebrews 3:13 with Romans ….
verse needed)].
251-C1) or “the internal (basic)
law” which is written on the heart of every man, woman and child (Romans
2:14,15)
251D) as in “since there is one exception, can there be more?”
252-D1) The
whole world has the same basic civil laws.
251E)
Sisters and brothers don’t ever lie to yourself, why
would you want to? if you’re not your best friend who is?
252)
The conscience, like our
soul, is an inherent part of our being.
252A) “…
their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts
alternately accusing or else defending them.” (Romans 2:15)
252-A1)
which is what we are reasoning with as we grow.
256 G makes mention of
this footnote
252B)
One
could say that this is the new good and evil (or right and wrong) for the
mature and that is if a believer is operating in the realms of ‘what causes
life’ they are now operating in the “new good” and if a believer is operating
in the realms of ‘what causes the opposite of life’ they are operating under a
new definition of evil, or the “new evil.” Note (and it’s important to remember
this for its something some people forget) it was not the tree of
good and (or vs.) the tree of evil, but the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil and (or vs.) the tree
of life [or more precisely the tree of death (or the tree
of whose fruit leads to death) vs. the tree of life (or the tree of whose fruit
leads to life)]. This is a big philosophical and theological point here.
252 B-1) in other words in the
midst of possible change one ought to ask themselves whether they are thinking
(or reasoning) like a mature adult would? or thinking (or reasoning) like a
child would? (1 Corinthians 13:11)
252C) as in a little something in our being (our makeup *) that keeps
ourselves “in check” or ‘in line’ (that is: it keeps our behavior “between the
parameters” or “right on the money” so to speak).
*Brothers and sisters
remember we are a complex being that take so much for granted - when we ought
not to - and every once in a while ought to stop and reflect on things
especially when making major life changing decisions and we feel that our
conscience (that is we find ourselves reasoning between ethics, principles,
concepts, whatever) is in play (as in… “What on earth am I reasoning against or
with?, What is it that is bothering me about this or that?”) Brethren your
conscience is part of your own personal
internal make up, and unless it’s God talking to you (as in God overriding it)
it’s good chance that what’s bothering you about any decision is your
conscience (that wants to “chime in” with some input at the level it’s at) and we need to rightly reason with it.
252 C-1)
252 C-2) or even an infantile sense
of right and wrong (as in no “hard love” can’t do that).
252D) Note: The (internal) conscience
(Romans 1:14,15,32), and (external) written law (Galatians 3:23-25), are
virtually identical in regards to being the same “checks” on behavior. Virtual,
except that the (maturing) conscience will factor in special revelation that
the (internal, even external) law does not.
252 D-1)
252E) as in even in places where
civil society is far away a person can still ask the questions of “How could
that person do such a thing!? Don’t they know…? Don’t they realize…? (without a
person ever being taught the societies civil laws).
253A) that is our internal form of guidance.
Footnote 174 and 934
make mention of this footnote
253B) that is it actually goes through non-harden growth stages [which is important to
note in regards to the question (or issue) of new spousal arrangements]. Note
in regards to any discussion on the conscience it is important to define ones
terms…
A person who has a mature
conscience will have a strong soft one whereas as person who is
immature will have a number of other possibilities…
And again the goal of a
mature conscience (where we want to be) is to be strong (not hard), as well as
soft [as in pliable, open to
correction (see 253Ba)].
268Cf mentions this
footnote
253Ba) Brothers and sisters, in regards to being open to
correction (aside from being open to being wrong) maturity also involves not
being open to do anything (per say) but being open to doing the right thing in
a particular situation which can mean going against the grain (of society) –
for sound reason, and although it is debatable whether a Christian should be
open to anything, being open to doing the right thing in a situation – even if it’s against the grain –
is a sign of maturity and mature thinking (See Footnote 266). However in regards to doing the right thing vs.
anything debate the following issues ought to be considered by Christians
before doing anything, and once again they are…
* Holiness (which everyone ought to be moving
towards {see Sustaining Revival Appendix D, also note the relevant debate of Footnote 149}),
* God’s Direction (which unless God or
circumstances say different ought to be moving towards God’s Best {see
Sustaining Revival Appendix F},
which can also mean His mature best),
* again Maturity (which, although inclusive of
self, ought to at the same time be away from self and unto God and others {see
Sustaining Revival Appendix H})
* And Relationships (where what’s best for
others and not ourselves {that is: considering someone else’s
need above our own} is of importance {see Sustaining Revival Appendix E})].
And a lot of remaining questionable issues can be
resolved by whether one feels (as in: a gut feeling) that a child of God ought
to be doing such and such a thing?
Footnote 256 B-1 makes
reference to 254; 624f too
254) that is it starts off as (or “feeds off of”) (see 254A) basic internal law and then moves on to principle (which
is “boiled down” from laws) and then from there moves on to listening to the
leading of a still speaking God more
than anything else (generally speaking here).
Note: there is no question
that man is messed up and in order to understand what happened and what is
going on in the world today read the following, but before you do, understand
the following computer terms
(254A) Brethren, even though man
is not a machine (he’s free and alive!) think of computers. In computers you
are dealing with basic programming of rules [which are on hardware (with some
being basic mathematical logic which cannot be changed)], as well as programming
of knowledge [which is on software (or a software application). Also see RAM
(Random access memory) and ROM (Read only memory) in regards to this issue as
well as the issue of the interjection of divine guidance].
Brothers and sisters the hardware (or possibly the software that is in
between the hardware and the software that tells the computer that there is a
“disk” {or new program} coming on the system - depending on the system)
parallels the conscience that became corrupt and misdirected after the fall in
regards to what it followed or what to focus on [which became the radical views
of (the tree of the) knowledge of good and evil (the new 2nd ‘Black
and White’ disk) which it happens to love], hence the need for the renewing of
the mind (or straightening out the hardware as well as possibly the DOS or disk
on system software that needs to redirect it).
The software (proper) parallels people’s
hearts that
1) in regards to the unredeemed can not only
follow the leading of their corrupt and hardened
conscience (hardware) in regards to the enhanced knowledge of good and evil (see 254 A1a) [which moralists (who are
enhanced), ethicalists (who are enhanced) and ethic driven religions (who are
also enhanced)] love and do not follow the ways (parameters) of life {which
used to be on the 1st system}) but can also follow
after new imprinted basic immature knowledge (software) written on the hearts
for guidance (see 254 A1b) to keep
crazy stuff in check which is “OK“ but is basic and immature (sort of like the
corrective patch {again see moralism} until the more permanent fix (the
4th correction) take place in a later version (see 254 A1c), however the corruption of the mind (hardware) with
its misdirection is still there (see how that plays out in
regards to the flesh in Romans 7:15-25 & 8:1-11 which is a
major thing that likes to run freely and needs control) and that 2nd bad software (the enhanced knowledge of good
and evil) is still “on the system” as well (with only a patch over it) and one can see how that plays out on the
world stage when people harden themselves to the corrective 3rd
patch (again see Romans 1).
2) In regards to the redeemed (unlike the
unredeemed) there is a continuing (experiential) correction in
the corruption of the conscience (hardware or DOS) (see 254 A2a) which is handled in regards to the renewing of the
mind [which also deals with the flesh (Romans 8:12)] as well as new
(covenant) knowledge (the 4th permanent correction) which overwrites
the previous [innate (or old covenant)] knowledge written on their hearts (the
corrective 3rd patch) which includes the consciences slant towards
good and evil rather than life, however some of this new knowledge apparently
still parallels that part of the basic inward moral (inward patch) / Mosaic law
(or the “external” patch) that we might call infantile moral law
(see Revelation 2:14 in regards to the meat unto idol issue)] but will
change, maturely change, through the renewing and
maturing process (which includes divine revelation and understanding) as it
moves onto the ways of life (sort of like a program in flux).
For the redeemed there is correcting and
maturing process for both the hardware and software with “maturing renewal”
being more the correct term for the process of the mind (or conscience) than it
is with the heart (which has the new {rewritten over} disk) and needs a
revelation of that fact [Don’t you know? (Romans 6:2) Consider {reckon}
it so (Romans 6:11)].
Also remember the new knowledge we are given
is not absolute, nor even perfect (1 Corinthians 13:8) because the ways of life (as in the tree of
life) is preeminent and are hard to pin down (think of fractals within certain
parameters).
254
A1a) Which through the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrew ____;
Romans___) one can harden themselves to the new 3rd “corrective
patch” and still go after (keep reading).
254
A1b) The 3rd patch, which eastern religions [who have basically harden themselves to God and righteous (Romans 1: ____ )] love to look within to
find and meditate on in order to be enlighten (as in ‘look what I found’).
254
A1c) Which is what the new covenant is: a promise of a new heart (as in
soft, not a hard {as flint} heart)
and a new mind (as in a sound and stable and a correctly thinking mind).
254
A2a) Sisters
and brothers it’s difficult to explain what happened to man’s conscience as a
result of the fall we do know that what was originally programmed to follow the
ways of life (the tree of life) began to follow the knowledge of good and evil
[which lead to the opposite of the tree of life (Zoe)] which again is
the problem with the world. Now the thing is this, sometimes ‘the knowledge of
good and evil’ may contain the ways of life in a particular
situation but it is not an end all to end all (or the comprehensive
final solution) in regards to the ways of life for if one does not
realize that, for example, there are such a thing as exceptions out there, one
will most likely encounter a situation where they will not make
it if the immature law or even this “enhance” knowledge of
“appropriate” behavior (good and evil) is followed to its “logical” “ethical”
conclusion [and again if they stick to the basic elemental law (which is what
the Mosaic law was and is imprinted on our hearts according to scripture) as an
end all to end all of all things (as do some hopeless religions)].
And in regards to the (new) law written on
believers new hearts that contains appropriate mosaic / internal law
remember that believers minds still need to be renewed, having
been damaged because of the fall (hence the continued renewal which is found in
Romans 12:2 which will also lead to it’s {the consciences} maturity through
among other things faith (Romans 14:1-23).
However sisters and brothers this knowledge
of appropriate behavior (which is actually found
in the tree of life and only sometimes in the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil) became misdirected because of the fall, with the
knowledge of good and evil becoming front and center and the focus
of the conscience [evidence being if you look at some peoples application of
the “moral” even mosaic law in certain situations (as in this is what the
{moral / mosaic} law says, period!) it can look very inappropriate and even
the wrong thing to do that particular situation (John 8:1-11)].
Note that in regards to basic imprinted law
(which can parallel the knowledge of good and evil) like the knowledge of good
and evil it too can also be wrong in its application and not follow the ways of
life (Zoe), for again it is basic and needs to mature.
So
again, in regards to why things are the way they are you have to see history of
mankind as having…
1) The 1st (‘Life’) disk (which basically
got it’s instructions off the Tree of Life)
2) Then having new 2nd
(‘Black and White’ tree of knowledge) disk (which basically got it’s instructions off the tree of the knowledge
of Good and Evil)
3) The necessary (and
temporary) corrective 3rd (Law) patch which actually pre-existed the
external – reminder - law of Moses (which carried additional things regarding
approaching God and how to stay on His good side until…)]
4) The 4th
permanent (re)correction (or reconnection) to the ‘Life’ disk came along [which
also gave people the ability to live a Spirit led non-selfish lifestyle (not a free for all) which an unsaved person
cannot do even if they mentally (as in a philosophy) comprehend life and
will most likely get into trouble and perhaps ruin their life if they try (See
Genesis 3:24 and keep reading)].
Brothers
and sisters when you talk to someone you are either talking to (strictly
speaking) a saved person (#4); and unsaved person who has not harden their
heart to their conscience (#3); or an unsaved person who has (#2) [and note #4
can be “in flux” between #3 & #4 until perfected] .
See also Footnote
256 B-1 on this
254 A-1) which
is again important to note here.
255) or at least be open to start flowing.
255A) and in the absence of divine leading it (that is the level it has
matured to), is a default way of looking at life and the situations around us.
256) which means some sort of boundaries.
256
G makes reference to this footnote
256A) that God can override if circumstances dictate (Genesis 22; Isaiah 20:2,3), or if there is a
change in God’s purposes (Acts 10:10-16), and once again it does mature with
age (an important point).
Note: God did not create
robots, but beings with free will that can choose – sometimes horribly choose –
different options for themselves. I think the proper way to look at life is
that we are fallen and God gives man a basic form of guidance (that is: basic
programing of the conscience) to guide him in the absence of a withdrawing Holy
God due to man’s sin. God does intervene (which is the proper way to see
things) and is forever present and still guides the world - and lives - into
His purposes (which is to redeem mankind and restore ‘paradise lost’ per say),
but it’s up to Him whether He want to give anyone an additional shove (aside
from the conscience) in the right direction and because of that we need to
foster and cherish the conscience guidance for although we as Christians have
the leading of the Holy Spirit to fall back on, the conscience will always be
with us as well as a “default program” of proper behavior if you will, so we
need to see it as a good feature of our being and not harden ourselves to it,
especially by bad (or inappropriate) behavior [which scripturally speaking is
the root cause of a hardened conscience (hardened as in its no longer soft and
functioning)].
Also Note: Philosophically
speaking God relaxes His hand and
sees what happens with man(kind). He doesn’t necessarily cause “it” (an act)
per say, and He is not necessarily responsible for “it” (and act) per say
either (See 2 Thessalonians 2:7 (see 256
A1) as well as 2 Chronicles 32:31). Brethren, this is one of the ways God
remains completely blameless in spite of what happens in the world (Revelation
4:8), especially so since He has given man(kind) at least a conscience to guide
him (us) – if not more. Don’t harden yourself to it.
“…so that they are without
(as in they don’t have an) excuse… on the (future) day when… God will judge the
(secret thoughts and reasonings) of (each and every man) (Romans 1:20; 2:16).
256
A1) Note in regards to the
term “lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, think more along the lines of
“unrighteousness” and see 1 Corinthians 9:20,21 as to levels of understanding -
and parameters of proper behavior [also keep reading regarding the law (or
teaching) of Christ].
Also Note: in regards to the (Mosaic) law it can
be good – if you know how to use [and under what
circumstances – and levels - to apply it - or not
apply it (see 256 A2) (1 Timothy
1:8)]. Brethren, there isn’t anyone who
keeps the entire law, even if you divide it up into the common categories of
civil, moral, and ceremonial [for example, even with moral: Widows having
children by their (newly ex)brother-in-laws? How about stoning an adulterer in
accordance with a Mosaic law that Jesus wrote in the dirt over (John
8:7) or a rebellious child? and there are other outdated moral law examples just
like these (see 1 Timothy 1:5 regarding the non-law goal of the Christian life
{which is the topic of this chapter})].
Also see the authors book
“Sustaining Revival” “Appendix C: Commandments: Dealing with Teachings of the Past” for more on this
entire subject.
256
A2) for example: Children
would probably be under some of it (or some form of it) until they mature.
256 B) that is: if you are of this mindset.
Footnote 934 makes
mention of this footnote
256 B1) In other words don’t do that because you would not done to
you (or treat others as you yourself would want to be treated – the Golden
Rule).
“and their thoughts
alternately accusing (as in you shouldn’t do that because) or else defending
them (as in “why not? everyone else is doing it, so what?” or even “I can see
clearly through this, and I…).” (Romans 2:15).
In other words brethren there
is something there, a
check if you will, regarding proper behavior before one acts [note:
courtroom “procedures” assumes this foundational trait is there as well in the
all the cases that come before it [as in “you (internally) know better… therefore…”].
[Brethren you are in a
real sense talking to “someone” when you reason through a situation and in
regards to court cases if you are drunk, on drugs or mentally handicapped in
regards to a crime (that is: you are impaired) it can affect your standing in a
court case (as in you were not able to listen or hear clearly].
Note this quote unquote
“person” we are reasoning with is such a powerful presence that some people use
this internal makeup of man as an illustration of the trinity (as in God
incarnated this “reasoning part” of Himself in the person of the Son).
624F makes mention of
this footnote
256 B2) Once again in regards to machines [and I
hate to use a machine (computers) to illustrate the point (for while there are
parallels with man again man is not a machine {but there does seem to be some
kind of “mechanical” process})], however to again illustrate this point
regarding the newer correction (which the new covenant is) man
was originally given a Version 1.00 software program for the conscience
to run off of (which was fine for it operated in the ways of life) and because
of the fall the conscience became corrupted and twisted and began to operate
off of a super enhanced black and white only version (lets
say Version BW) where a corrective patch was installed [the basic
internal law (Version BIL) and / or elemental Mosaic law (Version EML)
or both] came to keep things (as in super selfish one sided behavior) in check
until the new fix came along (again see
what the early children of Israel were up to - constantly - in regards to one
sided behavior)
After these versions the
New Covenant came along and restored Version 1.00 to the software part of the computer
which - because of a number of things (for example: damage done to conscience
etc.) needs “time” to mature to that original Version 1.00 (tree of)
life place it was at by the renewing of the mind [which involves
reckoning things so (as in Christ’s work on the cross {which is done by faith
which is a part of the maturing process - faith}) as well as the
consciences ongoing progressive dealing with immature law (which for
some reason is still “in place” {possibly in ROM or RAM or possibly still on
the heart because of life’s experiences?} but still needs to
be worked through in the consciences healing,
restoration and maturing process].
The new disk is on system
(which we need to realize) but it needs time to update things [as in us
becoming consciously aware of new changes in things (as in… ‘don’t you know?
don’t you realize?… you have a new heart and mind {combined verses needed
Romans 6:2; 4,6,11; 12:2; 2 Corinthians 5:17….
})].
See also Footnote 254 on this
Footnote 265 makes
mention of this footnote.
256C) sort
of like a mechanical ‘governor’ on some mechanical engines that keeps an engine
from going out of control (or too fast) – unless, of course one removes it
(which some people do – Nietzsche
for one).
Note: for the modern
disciplines to deconstruct man so that everything is questionable is ripe
thinking for twisted minds (and scholars are not doing themselves any favors in the long run for their
“contributions” in such questionable ventures). Also note in regards to
philosophy: the role of philosophy (and philosophers) is to examine beliefs
(the “pros” and “cons” if you will) and not go around telling people what to believe [also note in
regards to the holocaust there is evidence that there was bottles of (hard?) alcohol
around during the killings which is another thing (besides believing and
hardening oneself with bad philosophy) that suppresses the conscience (that and
outright sin which hardens (seared’s) oneself to it {verses needed} See Footnote ____ regarding alcohol and the conscience {and believe
it or not alcohol can have bearing on grounds for annulment}).
Note: I think ‘hard music’
has the same hardening effect on the conscience as well [listen to the
soundtrack of a violent music video (and because of this I would advise police
approaching a car that happens to be playing {or happens to have had been
playing} hard music to be careful and approach its occupant{s} very cautiously)].
256-C1) Scripture says in regards to this point that
“anyone who competes as an
athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules”
(2 Timothy 2:5)
The “rules” mentioned here
are - at them minimum - the basic parameters of life and if you
read the new covenant many of them (that is New Covenant rules or
“rules”) do not revolve around the law per say, but revolve around the question
of whether the motivation behind a particular word spoken, or deed done, is…
Faith, Hope, and
/ or Love *
…the time of my departure
has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course I
have kept the” Law [no, just testing the legalist among us “I have kept the faith”
(or I have trusted) is the correct statement (2 Timothy 4:6,7)]
“Do you not know that
those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in
such a way that
you may win.” (1 Corinthians 9:24)**
Brethren, outside of
following the leadings of the Holy Spirit, the just mentioned way of living a
life of Faith, Hope and Love is the new way of living and approaching one’s
life (or day), not by rules per say but by parameters, not living in regards to
“the letter” which does not move (that is Do this and Don’t do that) which as a
result (because of inflexibility) kills
“who… made us adequate…
servants of the new (mature)*** covenant, not of the letter… for the
letter kills…” (2 Corinthians 3:6)
but living life according
to “the Spirit” that flows with life and the (and in) the ways of life
“…(however) the Spirit [as
opposed to the just contrasted (inflexible) law] gives life” (2 Corinthians
3:6) (See also John 3:8 on this)
(a way which is
“regulated” again - if you will, by this threefold parameter) and as a result
the follower of this new way of living - actually lives.
“where the Spirit of the
Lord is there is liberty (not bondage).” (2 Corinthians 3:17)
[Note we as believers need
to stay between these parameters of faith, hope and love (not lust) and not harden oneself to them (which
can be an issue)].
*See 1 Thessalonians 1:3
in regards to this threefold division (as other verses that talk about this
threefold aspect {as grouped together (1 Corinthians 13:13; Colossians 1:4,5)
or mentioned individually (1 Corinthians 13:1}) approach toward life. Also if
you read the book on “Altering a Marriage Covenant” you will see a
further discussion on this as well.
**Note that if you continue
to read the rest of the verses in 1 Corinthians 9 the parameters to wining that
prize (not salvation, but distinctions in the sense of a crown), also happen
to do with the Discipleship of the believer as well as Holiness [See the
authors book “Sustaining Revival” for more on those two (crown) parameters].
*** Remember there is in fact a distinction between
the two covenants [one was for the immature and one for the mature (Galatians
3:23-4:11)]
256-C2) as
it reconnects to life.
256D) Not “right or wrong” laws per say (hallmarks of an immature
conscience), but “life” [which uses Faith, Hope and Love as guideposts to stay
within (not necessarily laws or “laws”) - as well as listening to a still
speaking God (which for the sake of argument can tell a person to do something
to someone that they would not want done to them)]. Note: remember it was the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil that led to death (in other words it was
the tree of death (right and wrong per say) vs. the tree of life)].
256E) Brethren, unless you have a revelatory
reasoning about a particular issue (s), you don’t want to harden yourself to
your conscience, particularly the maturing part of it that uses faith, hope and
love in your life - over the use of law - to see yourself through a situation.
Sisters and brothers again you want to maintain a good conscience (again 1
Timothy 1:5, as well as verses 18 & 19), particularly in regards to your life
experiences in those three areas and
you do so, by not going beyond where your reasoning (with
faith) - is at (Romans 14:23).
[Brethren, unless you have
a revelatory reasoning about a situation (as in Divine leading) why harden
yourself to another form of guidance? (see Footnote _____ regarding the different –
and complementary - forms of guidance available to us as Christians)]
256F) Aside from working on the Sabbath (not to
mentioned other feast days) being on the “outs’ see the allowance of eating of
certain forbidden foods (sacrificed to idols as well as other types); the
negation of circumcision, negation of tithing; allowance of inter marriage,
also see Paul’s reverse on the Law regarding the taking of money
(1 Corinthians 9:7,9,12) - even ignoring other laws for the sake of life (Acts
15:28)* all in the New Covenant. Remember again brethren, we are not under law
(Galatians).
*note the phrase
“these essentials” in Acts 15:28 will be handled later in the book.
256G) Sisters and brothers one needs to be careful of our definitions for
good and evil can be used by Christians to mean something that is not
necessarily bad (see Footnote 252B for an example) and the law is not necessarily
bad if one knows how to use it, apply it (Footnote 256A) and separated the concrete (not taking the Lords
name in vain), and the applicable
[not necessarily mandatory) for example laws on how love lays itself out], from
laws regarding immaturity (Galatians 3:23-25; 4:1-3) or an immature lifestyle
(See Galatians 4:9,10 and Colossians 2:20-23 for examples). Also we need to be
careful in our linking of the Mosaic law to the internal conscience law for
again some laws still apply (for example: on the negative: don’t worship
idols*, and on the positive: love the Lord your God with all your mind, heart,
soul and strength, etc).
Note this is why some
people are cast into hell as being absolutely worthless [as in they can’t
(even) follow (their own) non-negotiable “programing” (Revelation 14:9-11)].
257)
or without most brackets…
“Although I myself am not under the old Mosaic law,
I am not without law (or boundaries), but I’m under the law (or teaching) of
Christ.”
Note: in regards to Jesus teaching you may
want to read Chapter ____ and Footnotes ____ & ____
regarding “Jesus Between the Covenants” as well as Chapter ____ and
Footnote ____ regarding leeway
and flexibility in the teaching of Christ in regards to the issue of divorce.
Also note when talking about the teachings of Christ one would also include this
principle established by Jesus in Matthew 12:3,4 regarding life over law
[which will allow one to press through (even in the sense of a permitted
allowance*) into what’s coming down the road next (and hold that “pressing
through” thought)].
*which is one possible way
to interpret Matthew 12 (as in having mercy on someone who violates the law),
but it may be a stretch for Jesus does come down on the justification side of
the act in the passage and establishes the (or His) principle of life over law
(that is: the justification of laws violation – life). Also note: whether
Matthew 12 is talking about a permitted allowance (in the sense of mercy) or
about establishing a (new) biblical principle (the right to ‘press through’)**
the outcome of Matthew 12 is the same thing and that is Jesus establishes a
permitted principle (or allowance, or reason), for a person to violate biblical
law – and that is life (or ‘life over law’).
**Which is basically how
to interpret the passage since the New Covenant was to be a Covenant not based
on law, but based on faith, hope and love [Remember we are not under law
anymore and that is a New Covenant teaching and lifestyle that Jesus was giving
them the right to live even though they were still under the Old (in other
words they were in essences living ‘a next life’ in the present)].
Note C:28 deals with
most of this
258) Also, see Luke 6:9 when
Jesus heals on the Sabbath and asks…
“Is it lawful (to do a work on the Sabbath
that saves)... a life…?”
In
Luke He’s trying to point out - by asking the ridiculous question, it’s very
absurdity (Of course it’s “lawful,” even if it’s against “the law” or more to
the point a persons or groups understanding of it).
259) The issue of “law verses
life” is the central area of debate of any book, class or discussion regarding
ethics and that is:
When (or at what point), does life (or life
issues) override obedience of law, or do they ever?
If
they do all sorts of things come in to play [an individual’s relativity to the
issue at hand as well as their maturity of conscience; in regards to the issue
of society’s at large violation of law the violation’s net effect (or benefit
gained) by the violation of law would be discussed; also what is at stake?].
Brethren,
what usually happens in such discussions is a hypothetical situation (and
argument) is put forth (which has nothing to do with quality of life
issues)*, where someone (or someone’s) is either forced to violate the law or
not live. For the individual - where they are at in regards to issues of
relativity and maturity of conscience is where they will end up (that is:
violate the law or not live)
[Also,
in regards to an individual’s violation of law, even though you can get
pretty close to the line in regards to some issues (2 Kings 5:17-19), this is
not to say that there aren’t absolute either (Daniel 3:1-30; 6:12-17;
Revelation 14:9 - 11). Also some people may opt to not violate (absolute) law and understanding that God may (or may
not) deliver them (Daniel 3:17,18); and others may trust God for
them that God will deliver them (Daniel 6:16), and God may not (note
the dual “testimony turnouts” of Hebrews 11:34 & 37).
In
regards to society at large (which usually contains people at
all levels of conscience), society for the sake of life will violate civil law
- which is not necessarily bad (ask any
ambulance driver) - (or the law will be civilly annulled, or amended) and
because life is more important than law, life will go on [but if a law which
was annulled was beneficial to society, and put there for a reason, the
annulling or amending of it will almost always come back to haunt that
society].
Brethren,
“between life and law” can be in some circumstances like being between a rock
and a hard place depending on what you are talking about. Also sometimes wrong
decisions can be made - especially if the taking of innocent life, for the sake
of saving of one’s own life is on the table [it’s better for one man to perish
that the nation should live (John 11:50)]. However in regards to such huge
‘moral issues’ regarding all the blood that was shed when Israel entered the
promised land see Genesis 15:16 in regards to “the why” [also compare the statement
in 2 Chronicles 36:16 ‘until there was no remedy’ in regards to Gods attitude
about these kinds of issues (which is neutral and came back to haunt most of
Israel later on {as in the land will spit you out (verse
needed see also Daniel 9:12 statement that “under
the whole (of) heaven there…(had) not been done anything like what was done in
Jerusalem”)})]. However in regards to overall violation of law, right decisions
can be made as well (again Matthew 12).
Sisters
and brothers, because we are maturing in regards to things, it is imperative to
have an ongoing relationship with the living God who can guide us
through the tough “ethical” areas of our lives**. We are not to have a
relationship with a rule book, but a relationship with a living still speaking
God.
Also
brethren remember, in regards to individual life choices we ought to - as we
grow and mature - always be weighted more towards going with the flow of life
(that is what causes life to prosper), rather than getting up each morning and
consciously or unconsciously examining the rules and regulations of what one
should do or follow. Brothers and sisters there is nothing wrong with basic
parameters to one’s life but the emphasis ought to be on life (the tree of
life), not “right and wrong” per say (that is: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Children
need a lot of rules, adults - after consideration - often do not.
*Note: “Quality of life” issues are not usually at
play in any kind of actual debate here (although they could be), but usually
debates are framed in a hypothetical “choose life or you will certainly die”
type of situation.
**Especially in regards to
such decisions regarding what is coming next down the road [again hold that
thought (note whatever way you want to look at Matthew 12 there was a principle established {or verified}
there of life over law)].
260) Brothers and sisters
while there may be legitimate debate on how far one can go in regards to
overriding ones conscience in certain matters (outside the leading of the
Spirit of God), in regards to the laws of
marriage… keep reading.
260A) at birth…. (See I:6 in sustaining revival)
261) in other words the Lord to them will be…
‘Law on law, statute on
statute, line (as in don’t cross) on line, line (once again) on line (Isaiah
28:13).
262) See Footnote 142A.
263) However see Footnote 112 for an example.
263A) Again see Chapter 11 on Extra - Biblical Grounds for Divorce: Hearing from God (and the Gifts).
263B) that is: exceptions in
regards to divorce (and don’t forget exceptions in regards to granting
annulments which is another way of looking at the issue).
263C) and I am not necessarily talking about quality of life issues (as in a person
is used to - or desires - a certain standard of living. Brethren we need to
learn the secret of contentment here), but to do the opposite here, issues that
have to do with death (as in there is death in this relationship – nothing good
or helpful, but all bad and destructive and I have to leave).
263D) Brothers and sisters, your
new redeemed conscience is programed for life and will get you to where you
need to be if you let it mature [and note in regards to Christian or
“christian” relationships there can be other reasons for leaving a relationship
too, as mentioned before – the gray areas (for example: a spouse who backslid; a spouse who is hypocrite {that
is: they talk the talk, but do not walk the walk}; a spouse who lost their
salvation {which can be debatable}; a spouse who was never saved to begin with
{and I and everyone else thought they were}; as well as a spouse who is not
listening to God (again Footnote 142A)].
264) that is when you have
done all you can and a decision needs to be made trusting God will not allow
you to make a wrong one and as a result you step into the muck (which He is
famous for getting people out of) [note there are those who believe that if one
knows with 100% certainty (depending on what you are talking about) there is no
need for faith (that is: the concept of faith)].
Note: when making
decisions that regarding entering into relationship with other people, it’s
helpful to remember that few decisions can be made with 100% certainty. There
is always a certain amount of faith and trust involved in every decision. This
is just the way life is [unless of course once again you have direct revelation
from God concerning the matter before you (that is 100% certainty), but even
then you may still have to manifest a certain amount of faith and trust to
bring about the ‘end result’].
Sisters and brothers in regards to decision
making there are four scales of certainly that are used and each level requires
differing amounts of faith and trust as well as differing levels of information in order to help us make correct
‘life decisions’ and they are...
1) Just “tipping the scales” certainty: That is, having just enough information to
tip the scales. 51% vs.49%. This is often a standard we use for decisions that
really don’t matter that much. (it’s also a standard that is used in civil
court regarding cases that involve petty issues).
2) Reasonable certainty: is a standard, when used
(or when we use), any reasonable person would agree with our decisions outcome
[it’s also a standard that is used criminal courts that involves criminal cases
(crime)]. Decision making here (or verdicts in regards to court cases), usually
involves more than 51% certainty (Maybe 75+%).
3) Moral certainty: A standard, when use,
not just any person, - but any ‘moral person’- would agree with the outcome
[it’s a standard that is used in criminal court that involves capital crimes.
In other words are very sure (at least 95%+ certainty).
4) Absolute certainty: A standard used in
mathematics (as well as direct revelation from God). You’re 100% sure. Brothers
and Sisters, unless you’re flowing with the Spirit of God (which is always
desirable, and our goal, in other words God tells you something directly), you
basically don’t function on this level.
Brothers and sisters, in regards to making
major life decisions in our lives, outside of God’s leading (direct revelation)
we can never be 100% sure we are making the right decision [and to tell you the
truth I have not met anyone who functions with 100% certainty in regards to
everyday issues all the time (outside of God‘s leading of course)]. Sisters and
brothers, there is always room for faith and trust in one another and God even
if you do know with 100% certainty about a decision because you will need faith
at least in the “follow through” and who knows what any given day will bring?
264A) which in regards to
personal relationships will start off
as an expansion of support systems [that is: an openness to not be locked down
to only one avenue of support (that is what we support {or get behind} and what
supports us {as in emotional, personal or even financial})].
264B) mentally challenged in
the sense that we have a mental mindset that we will always be ‘dependent’ on
someone for all of our support* not independent and free as adults usually
are.
*brethren,
at the end of the day the only person you are dependent on for support (which
includes self-esteem, and then some) is God.
264C) that deals with an
expanded set of rules as well as a more mature playing field (not “little
league,” per say but “major league”) which ought to help in developing and
keeping an (expandly mature) good conscience [as in when I was a child I used
to… think and reason as a child, but when I became an adult I did away with
childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11)]. Brethren, again we have to expect our
consciences to mature in the situations that come before us and ought not stop
it from doing so.
264D) and again if by chance
you happen to find yourself there [as in you presumed too much about something
(for example you really are not as mature as you think you are – yet, and can’t
handle independence)] you also know that God will get you out of that muck as
well.
265) Brethren, if you are doing something and you need a drink because
something is bothering you about it - stop - for that is a classic warning that
what you are considering doing is going beyond what your conscience will allow
[and you may end up ruining your faith and trust in God (as in “Why didn’t God
stop me… forget God!) Well, believe
it or not He tried, but you suppressed the
way in which He chose to warn you and that’s basically it (1 Timothy 1:19).
Brothers and sisters, for some reason alcohol – among other things, will do
that and suppress right reasoning. Don’t ever make a major decision with a
drink in your hand (see also Footnote 256C on this).
174; 253Ba;
268Ce;
269f;
370E and 934d makes mention of this footnote
266) Brothers and sisters, there are two
legitimate ways to look at the positive “end condition” of “sin” (or the
violation of law), and that is for a person to end up in a temporary (not
great) condition, or for a person to end up in a permanent (better) one, as
well as a third ‘relative’ possibility.
Brethren, to say that
whatever is not done in faith is sin is true [which is the (or a) Christian
definition of sin], but such a “loose” definition does leave open the
possibility of very questionable behavior being accepted as O.K. - if
such behavior is done “in faith” [or more precisely faith, hope and love (not
lust {see Appendix ____ on the difference})].
Sisters and brothers, in
regards to this let me first say that to say that ‘God’s best’ (which is the
direction He is going in and supports) is equal to (or on the
same level as) any action done in faith, hope and love is probably not
correct, however in regards to where people “are at” in their Christian
development (for example: near the beginning) while questionable behavior may
not God’s best, given a multitude of things it may be the best that some
Christians can honestly do (that is: as far as they can honestly see and do at the time).
Also, given the truth that
sins boundaries are expanded for the mature, while very questionable behavior
may still be frowned upon by Christians, traditionally questionable behavior may not be, given
that faith, hope and love are now factored into the equation.
Also, in regards to this
third way (or possibility) of looking at the (positive) end condition of “sin”
(or the violation of law), again given a multitude of things, some Christians -
as far as they can honestly see (and do) - not only at the time, but for all
their time here on earth, can actually create another environ (or
“possible world”) using faith, hope and love as their guidelines that can
encompass the permissibility of all kinds of questionable behavior for just (mostly non-selfish) cause
[note in regards to this the love
decision made by Lot’s daughters in regards to the continuance of their fathers
name reflects this “alternate world” in part {1 Kings 1:1-4}, as well as the
wild behavior of Tamar in regards to getting “a faith promise” {Genesis 38:11-30} (and note the loving
behavior of David’s nurse {1 Kings 1:1-4}) (see 266a)].
Therefore for one to
define sin as ‘whatever is not done in faith is sin’ needs some basic
qualifications, but yet (and still) will remain a basic truism.
[Also please note in regards to the
“ugliness” of some life choices (that is: from the position of an outside
observer), it ought to be noted that some ‘quote unquote’ “ugly” life choices
may be all that some people can afford and do (which does not include the altruistic
reasons for doing questionable things {like Lot’s daughters or even David warmth
nurse}). Also note that some individuals in certain questionable situations may
end up finding someone who is just like them (that is: someone who can also only afford and do
likewise) and as a result both be completely happy with each other (note: in
regards to a plain old dating observation in regards to this point most
“beautiful” people both find and date each other, as too most “plain” people
etc. the same hold true in regards to differing “states” of people’s (joint)
lives {and that is: what may be ugly to an outside observer may in fact be
something that the people in a particular situation may both want and be very happy
with (that is: they found someone who is not only just like them {again outside
any altruistic reasons}, but also likes them too {just as they are})}.
Brothers and sisters if there is concern
about differing “states” of peoples lives, if a questionable state happen to be
due to immaturity people ought to grow out of it, but a present this is where
they are at (and may quite honestly remain for some time {in other words Christians
ought to not only make allowances for peoples differing “states” (for not
everyone is the same {quote unquote “beautiful”}), but also make allowances that
people will also - in time - sort out their {immature} lives - if such be the
case - and at some point move unto maturity as well)].
See Footnotes ___ and the authors book
“Sustaining Revival” for more on David’s warmth nurse as well as Lot’s
daughter’s decisions.
Chapter ___ on
Problems Verses (1 Corinthians 6:15-17,19) mentions this footnote
266a) Note: for another example of this, it’s not
just nurses, but doctors are also allowed to touch the opposite sex (even
untouched virgins) and no one thinks anything of it for the intent (or reason) is just. Thus again a person’s ‘intent’
(or reason) behind an act is part of the definition of sin (as in: what did you
mean by that?), and you don’t need a degree to perform these types of things (see 266b) either, just emotionally
disconnect (both parties) in regards to most of these things (see 266c) and one’s conscience can remain
clear (see 266d).
266b) which are certainly beyond sexual.
Chapter ___ on
Problems Verses (1 Corinthians 6:15-17,19) mentions this footnote
266c) let me give you a
non-sexual “off” example of this. Navy Seals during their training will go
offshore (in the waves I believe) and will have to stay there until they start
to lose warmth and must figure out how to stay warm. As a result they will
huddle together (hug closely) - even urinate on each other - to keep from
losing body heat. Again ‘the intent’ and ‘the emotional disconnect’ allows for
such activities (which quite honestly is difficult {although it could be done}
in regards to a continued sexual relationship {but doing such things very much
tends towards objectifying the person (s) involved which women pick up long
before men do - being more “value conscious” and can produce a reaction as in
“stop…. before we go on, you have to tell me something…”}).
266d) note the problem with some ‘cross the line’
activities is the motivation is mixed and the outcome is muddled and as a
result the conscience is bothered (as in: I ought not to have done that).
Brethren, in regards to such ‘cross the line’ activities it’s not that the
activity is wrong per say (for example there is nothing wrong with sex), but
the approach to it was (is) wrong and that
is what would need to be worked on (depending on what it is you are talking
about).
266A) as in your not lost as to
what to do in any given situation before you [and note: many of the
hypothetical situations (or ethical dilemmas) that are proposed will never come
to pass in reality].
267)
which is a big thing for the unthinking – “doing things by rote” - people among
us to realize [and that is: not realizing that a person matures in a number of
ways – including inner (for example: the saying of something to your parents
that you would never say to them as a child might be a good illustration of
this)].
268) for example the forbidding of the
worshiping of idols.
268A) a point which again is not without meaning,
268B) that is also not without
meaning either.
268 B-1) which we may not have been
able to do under the restrictiveness of the law (for example the black and
white immediate punishment of some laws as well as other things too).
268 B-2) Which again deals with an
expanded set of rules as well as a more mature playing field (not “little
league,” per say, but “major league”), all which ought to help in both the
development and keeping of an expandly mature good conscience in regards to the
dealings that come before us. However again remember in regards to our
relationships with others we must be careful of objectifying others and in regards
to ourselves – along with our new mature outlook remember that such issues as
holiness and Gods direction do get factored into things (see ____ for more on this).
Footnote 174; 370E and
934 makes mention of this footnote
268C) and I will break with
most in saying a wide variety of activities (rather than narrow in scope) as
long as certain criteria are present [as in faith, hope and love (not lust)] (see 268Ca) and things like experiential
holiness and God’s direction are also (at the very least) considered or thought
about (some of which may reflect on eternal distinctions {see _____})]. However note in
regards to some of these things, even though they may be legitimate, they can
be outside what God is doing (and you might find yourself {that is your
personal life, not calling} outside
of what God is doing too {that is: generally speaking}).
268Ca) which can lend itself to a number of
different non - junk activities, as well turning a blind eye to and / or the decriminalization of certain ‘outside the box of
traditional lifestyles’ statutes for the minority of people among us (see 268Cb) - as well as for those who
live on the fringe of life (and possibly the ‘building with wood today (see 268Cc) / building with metal tomorrow’ crowd (see 268Cd)).
268Cb) for example: massages “therapists” (See 268Ce) [which would also include the vacating of
convictions and release (or reduced sentences {possibly as in time served})],
for prisoners (See Footnote 93Aa).
268Cc) wood is not necessarily a bad building
material (remember Jesus may have learned carpentry from Joseph) as long as the
wood used is not (or has not been) infested with (boring) worms (Revelation
8:11). Brethren, in regards to building materials one can only go so low before
there are “structural problems” [again Wormwood (which apparently from the book
of Revelation 1/3 of the earth was using a “building materials” near the time
of the end].
268Cd) note in regards to working
(building) with various kinds of “material” a person’s intent (more than the material) can mean a lot,
and something done in real faith – even if it is quote unquote “low” by most
peoples standards - is still done in faith and accepted (as a child giving a “not
so great” gift to a parent). Also in regards to this issue I urge everyone to
be careful about judging others in regards to things here as well as being
careful about accepting people’s judgment (or assessment) of you too.
“Who
are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls,
and stand he will for the Lord is able
to make him stand.” (Romans 14:4)
Brethren, as long as you
are not intentionally working with shells, junk and basically useless things as
evident that the Lord is still with you guiding you, you ought to be OK since -
because He is with you - He will (eventually) lead you into His Best [otherwise
brethren you can lose a lot - including Him and revival - because
rebellion to His purposes will lead to that (and He will move on to another
location whether it’s to another church, area or even country {I’ve seen people
lose it})].
268Ce) which I would advise
enlightened societies to just “deregulate” as in everyone (the mature) know
what they “are” but they are not obvious “whatever’s” on every corner,
especially ringing a doorbell (see 268Cf) [which would be taking
into account their effect on the immature (note the concerns of an
honest society on all this is addressed in Footnote 266 (see also 268Ci)].
268Cf) Brothers and sisters when
someone gets paid for some kind of sexual service is it usually called
prostitution and although I am not necessarily speaking of that here (see 268Cg), sexual service by itself in not
necessarily bad (that is: there is nothing wrong with sex) it’s how it’s
approached (that is: in what context) and sometimes “the why” that are the
issues.
In regards to money, a
marital relationship that is loveless and is yet kept together - if
the only thing keeping it together is finances (money), and if sex happens,
such a thing is not much different than prostitution except in name (that is
you are married) and is basically a relationship about someone getting paid for
sex.
In regards to the
definition of maturity as mentioned in Footnote
253Ba
maturity
involves what’s best for
others and not ourselves {that is: considering someone else’s
need above our own} and although it ought to be inclusive of self (as in some
sort of self-interest), it ought to at the same time be away from ourselves and
unto God and others. Now although what is done “unto God” can be a real point
of contention here (see 268Ch) David warmth nurse did lay next to him with
presumably little to no clothes on and was of no relation - but got paid in
being taken care of - which no prophet condemned it (1 Kings 1:1-4).
Now the question of what
(other) situations would fit this definition of allowable paid for sex or “sex”
relations is an issue – but is a personal issue as well and although debatable
publically, privately may be no bodies business.
268Cg) as in it can be some type
of medicinal benefit (as in a person just had an operation and needs to test
something) or psychological therapy.
Note: there are different
kinds of therapies that involve sex or “sex” (for example in the old day’s
psychologists used to treat male homosexuality by showing male homosexuals
photos of nude women). Also in regards to the visitation of call people it does not have to be about physical sex
and sometimes someone may just want to lay down next to someone and hug - or be
hugged - for whatever reason as well as other kinds of activities (as
in ‘just look’ {which people do do with sketching and photos} or intimately
talk to someone for whatever reasonable reason). Also in regards to actual sex
its possible one partner can’t have sex anymore, but will allow the other
partner a non-emotional “relationship” as Sarah did with Hagar.
Note: artificial
insemination can also fit in here [as in being artificial no longer (the point
being that there are legitimate gray areas out there that are ‘on the
level’)].
Again remember that maturity involves being open
to doing the right thing in a particular
situation which can mean going against the grain (of society) – for sound
reason [as in a medicinal benefit; personal / private self-therapy; or a spousal allowance] all of which is a sign of individual
maturity as well as a mature thinking society.
268Ch) and again please remember
that in regards to working (building) with various kinds of “material” a person’s intent (more than the
material) can mean a lot, and something done in real faith – even if it is
quote unquote “low” by most peoples standards - is still done in faith and
accepted (as again a child giving a “not so great” gift to a parent).
Also remember that there are unique (or mature) situations out there where
faith and trust rule (over biblical law) and are needed.
268Ci) Sisters and brothers in
regards to the effect of all this on an honest society let me first say that
this already exists in most societies – and those societies still stand in
spite of it. In large societies (cities) it’s usually out in the open [illegal and
legal (Nevada)], but might be pushed to a “bad area” of town (42nd
St. in New York). In most cities (and suburbs) it is also
hidden behind massage
parlors along with “call people” (“cleaning services”) coming to the door. The
point being is that all this already
exists, but since it’s usually hidden (or in a “bad area” of town where few
live) since it doesn’t affect the young and immature most don’t care (which is
something that would always need to be considered and continued in regards
to any type of legislation: maintaining the hidden nature of it). The other
concern is that in life you are dealing with two types of people: saved and
unsaved with various levels of each that could see such a legalized thing as
“salvation” or what would in effect become an avenue of self-destruction (for
you can’t regulate peoples motivation and everything that may go on in a bed
room). The whole issue is a “tough nut” [and the legitimate here my only
constitute 25% (a guess)] however the concern of an honest – and
open enlightened society – is after considering all these things, probably
legalize - and regulate it (see 268C-j)[that is: if they are not
turning a blind eye to it (which also can be done)], however to also keep it
hidden from society (by various ways and means) for the sake of the young and
immature [note: these things usually get by on word alone and in regards to a
society that is just “coming around” it may take a while to get a handle on
everything but it can be done].
Special
note to women:
I remember overhearing a conversation about man getting both himself [and a
friend (who couldn’t believe such a thing went on)] a couple of women to have
sex with (he described what color hair he wanted for both over the phone). He then
said in regards to this that all the women want to do when they lay down is
talk and he wouldn’t kiss any of them and all he wanted them to do was shut up
and turn over. The thing is while there is the legitimate side of this there is
also the seedy side (which is probably
the majority) and it’s not really “a vocation” (or calling) that people
ought to consider going into. The thing to note in regards to women is that
since they are usually the ““object” of worth” behind this (and people are
willing to pay for it) they (that is: all women) ought to see that they have intrinsic
value which can be channeled into a
proposal if done rightly (in other words all women ought to have a good
attitude about themselves - just because they are women - and because of the
“abuse” or even outright abuse in this ‘industry’ there is no real need for
most to go into any of this).
925g mentions this
footnote
268C-j) and in regards to an open
enlightened society and other “vices” or vices their concerns can be dealt with
through regulation [note: I would recommend a 5 year study with people who
major in these “under the radar” areas dividing up things equally (see 268Ck) according to their known investment in
whatever trade (see 268C-l) and in return for honest information
be given a “pass” to operate to see what the effects are on an open enlightened
society (see 286Cm) which would probably be a Christian Utopia (see
286Cn) [in other words: watch “the stats” on
an
enlightened society and see if they differ significantly from
the unenlightened (and if negatively so {during the period?} due to the fact that it’s {that is:
some of it} is out in the “open” will any regulation {during the period?} change things?) The numbers are
everything: What goes up? What goes down? What stays the same?].
See Footnote 925 on this as well.
268Ck) which would result from a
sit down signed agreement.
268C-l) which would also “grandfather”
in those who are already in these areas (keeping their known area).
268Cm) which can be a progressive
thing (or a progressively enlightened society).
Footnotes 925b, 935
mention this footnote
268Cn) ultimately a Christian Utopian
society would be one that would emphasize mature responsible behavior and as a
result would not need law (see 286Co) [enforcement (not that
there wouldn’t be a need for police for one might need one in an emergency)]. However
having said that peripheral concerns of such a society would (again) be in
regards to the immature and unsaved with the mature things (or “vices”) being
hidden from both (from the immature so they wouldn’t stumble and from the
unsaved so they would not get hooked). Brethren in regards to this remember
that such a societal “set up” does in fact happen during the kingdom period
with not only both saved and unsaved present, but also resurrected (perfected)
people and “normal” people (most likely im-perfected) walking around together.
The
thing to remember in regards to any “vice” concerns in a pre-kingdom Christian
Utopian (or mature) society is that a lot of “vice” type things go on with
mature responsible people anyway and doesn’t change things – it’s the immature
(and irresponsible) that are the problem and because of that a mature
Christians in these type of societies ought to always keep certain things -
even lifestyles - hidden from public view.
Brothers
and sisters, a Christian Utopian society is something to more than think about,
but actually give a try (see 268Cp). The idea of
a better society is what many revolutions were fought over and have begun many bold
experiments that are still with us to this very day (namely America).
268Co) no law that is, except the
law of love that would manifest itself in citizens love of one’s neighbor
(others) as themselves (Matthew 7:12; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8).
Note: a really basic
example of this would be at the end of the Jesus 78 festival it was asked of
the stadium attendants to pick up after themselves as a Christian witness to the
clean-up crew who came afterward (in other words not only be
considerate, but show it too).
268Cp) which would also bring in a
change in the social contract in regards to benefits with everyone employed and
no one receiving benefits (except medical care) without contributing - in equal
worth - to society [there can be no drains (or plugging in of “drains”) on it
or else it will collapse]. It would also be a colorblind society accepting and
treating everyone equally.
“
(and) I (saw)… a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation
and all tribes and peoples and tongues standing before the throne…” (Revelation
7:9)
Footnotes
26 and 128 B make mention of this footnote
269) Brethren, remember we have
two hands [left and right (see 269a)],
and although this is more a teaching for the mature (which involves vested
interest for the sake of life – your life), the tamer part of it regards
allowances in questionable areas for just cause [for example: “in order to… one
might…” (and in regards to marriage the “one might” might involve going to the
“questionable” {or even low} reasons for annulments and / or divorce {that is:
questionable and / or low, but yet sound} or even staying with an unbeliever
for reason - or even more)].
269a) which is more brought out
in eastern thought (see
269b) and
is seen in the cultural ‘dance of the cosmos’ (per say) that is performed [note
the left and right hand movement (left being bad, right good)] and is also seen
in Job’s (middle east) (see 269c) statement of accepting both
good and bad from the Lord [for he is Lord and He knows what He is doing (God
has two hands too (see 269d))].
269b) Brethren, there is nothing necessarily wrong with eastern thought (see 269e) however
the dualistic play on (or between) good and evil which gives equal footing to both (which by the way is very trait
common in eastern thought), is not biblical for there is a definite hard
direction here (aside from enlightenment) and good (which is not de-personified
per say) always outweighs evil and will win in the end (that is speaking of
God’s direction). Eastern thought also
tends to see things in in non-concrete (or expanded), blurred line categories
of whose reasoning’s (or view of life) tends to be circular (or go in
circles)], and is very much unlike western thought which tends to see things
more often in straight (forward) line - (cold) hard categories [that is: it’s
this or that period (which has its problems too, but is one of the reasons why
the two cultures developed differently – especially scientifically)]. Also
western thought is more upwardly progressing (if followed) with a real purpose
which tends to be towards “the best” or what’s best, and not result in a
“whatever happens is what happens” (or even live and let live) attitude which
often leads an individual to become very passive about life (which can be seen
very much in eastern culture).
269c) The bible is basically a middle eastern document.
269d) we are not talking about dualism here (an equality between the two) for biblically speaking one “hand” (side
etc.) is better than the other [better
being the key word here (note Jesus sits on the right hand of God {verse needed}, and at
the final judgment there are two groups, one on the left {where you don’t want
to be} and one the right {Matthew 25: verse
needed}]. Note
in regards to the concept of ‘better’ and
ethics you may want to examine the tribe of Benjamin that had 600? left
handed people who could not miss who were up against everyone else(s ethics)
and as a group could only hold out so long [Benjamin (meaning son of my right
hand or strength {Genesis 35:18}) who at the time were holding onto and
defending (with their lives) the “ethical view” of ‘why give someone over for
judgment?’ (as in: even though they were a talented tribe it didn’t matter for
they wasted their talent fighting the wrong battle) and when pressed, ended up
collapsing to the better (or more necessary view at the time {as in: how could
someone defend someone like that? (see
verse needed) (see
269f)}. Brethren, in regards to that particular story God told the other
tribes to keep pressing through {even though it was costly} and they (that is: the
better view) would win and come out on top)]. Special note: physically left handed people are not evil, nor do physically
right handed people have the better view (see Footnote 128 B as an example of a good “left handed” viewpoint),
it’s not the physical realm but spiritual side of it, however scripturally (and
generally) speaking it’s better to have things fall (that is: distribute) on
the right side than it is on the left.
269e) Thomas Merton a Roman Catholic (western
mindset) monk went to eastern culture to pick and choose what was good about it
and incorporated some of its thinking into his book.
269f) Because God has a direction and purpose when
talking about both sides of an issue we are not usually talking about things
that are equal with both sides (of an issue) having an equal chance of winning
(as in the game of checkers). Unless there is sound reason you stay with God’s
purpose and direction (See Footnote 266
for more on this).
269A) as in: they have not yet learned to deal
with the immature (basic) law that is found
inside them (that is within their immature conscience) (note you did not really get into this… refer to
Sustaining Revival?)
From Sustaining
Revival I:19) That
is if an internal (basic) law “comes up” (EXPLAIN see previous
footnotes) in regards to a situation (that is “comes forth” out of our
conscience) we can - through our consciences reasoning process of the situation
(as in are you being honest?) - maybe
derive a general principle from that law to perhaps follow (in most
situations), but as we reason though the situation correctly (that is take into
account what our conscience is saying on a matter before us) maybe we will find
that we don’t have to follow that law in the situation we are in. Brothers and
sisters, honestly listening to and reasoning through our consciences
suggestions is important to the formation of principle (which is an important
step away from law), however remember…
269B) as in a mature
redeemed non-harden viewpoint (note even in regards to the application of civil
law to society at large, activities done between mature adults is almost always left alone).
269C) Sisters and
brothers in regards to this let me say that just as adolescence (the time
between childhood and adulthood) can be a difficult time, so too can the
maturity of a believer be hard as he / she presses on from childhood to a young
adulthood to an actual adult him / herself, which involves a “process” of
feeling your way through spiritual life (or actually life itself) which
involves steps of faith.
Again note the progression
of 1 John
I am writing to you little
children… I am writing to you young men… I am writing to you fathers… (1 John
2:12,13)
And to each one (or level)
he addresses the nature of the individual step that the Christians are on (with
most of his epistle revolving around the concept of love).
269D) Brethren, unless you have a revelatory
reasoning about a particular issue (s), you don’t want to harden yourself to
your conscience, particularly the mature part of it that regards the use of
faith, hope and love in your life - over the use of law - to see yourself
through a mature situation. Sisters and brothers you want to maintain a good
conscience (1 Timothy 1:5, 18, 19), particularly in regards to its use in
those three areas and you do so, by not going beyond where your
conscience - or reasoning (with faith) - is at at the time (Romans 14:23).
(Brethren, unless you have
a revelatory reasoning about a situation why harden yourself to another form of
guidance?, but remember it does mature).
270) Once again in regards to
working ones way through things remember such (New Covenant) principles
as…
1)
Life over law, which
includes the law of relationships [an example of ‘life over law’ being…“Is it lawful (to violate the Sabbath Law
if it saves)... a life…?” (Luke 6:9)]
2)
Also remember that there is a
progression of understanding in scripture (Exodus 6:3), including apostolic
revelation (again see 1 Corinthians 7:15 which brings out a new condition for divorce (remarriage) that is not mentioned in
Jesus ‘iron clad’ statements in the gospels).
3)
Also remember that the
conscience does mature (1 Corinthians 8:1-13; see also Romans 14:1)
4)
and God can say something
to “the group” and something different to “the individual”
particularly regarding the topic of unique circumstances (again compare Acts
15:19,20 with 1 Corinthians 8:1-13).
271) that is
once again trusting God that He will not lead you into the muck [as well as having active faith in regards to making
and following through with a decision which involves handing over a situation
to God to take care of (as in ‘let go and let God’ take control of the
situation – in an active {living} faith)].
275) and make
sure they stick to the point (or “on point”).
275A) Holiness, God’s Direction
and Maturity to name a few.
276) However for her Abigail’s
husband (Nabal), her leading (due to his laziness, selfishness and inability to
grasp the situation) would not work out in his favor.
276A) and can lead to disaster - particularly if the second man is
not the right man that helps a woman fulfill the “If I could only get the right
man I would _____.” (note there are plenty of people who are on their third and
fourth spouses).
276B) However
the first can be understandable [however take not ones self-esteem and
self-worth ought not be tied up in a person’s opinion of a Christian - but what
God thinks of them (at least the mature think this way)].
276C) Now I am
not saying a sister ought not go for grounds for either annulment or divorce,
but the reasons behind the pursuit of those two ought be - at the minimum - the
grounds themselves more than a wish list that may not pan out.
276D) meaning
the man situation.
276E) for example just as fat redistributes
in men in hard to remove places (for example: the “tire around the middle”),
fat will redistribute in places that women don’t like either.
276F) a lot of which comes from what they
pick up in society in regards to their personal value (cloths, cars, etc.).
276G) needs which can come from anywhere.
276H) which in all honesty can – more times than not - be expected
with unsaved women.
276I) especially in cases
where it is just not going to work out.
276J) A word of warning (or “warning”) to the guys here: for one
reason or another there seems to be much more available women in churches then
there are guys and if a saved (available) woman knows that a saved man (who is
attending a church) has an unsaved wife at home it can and does mean
possibilities to her – which God recognizes – whether she is considering them or not and whether you are considering them or not (in other words you are
sending out “signals” even if you don’t want to and saved women do pick upon
them even if they don’t want to as well). Brothers, there is not much you can
do about this and depending on circumstances you may not want to either. It’s
just something to consider and possibly watch out for when you go to church –
even with your unsaved spouse (and that is a woman trying to attract your
attention).
276K) Luke 8:13,14.
128 I; 157C ; 217F makes mention of this footnote
276L) note for some “fallen away” in verse 16 means backslidden
(but saved) and if you believe that then the spouse would fall under the
believer / believer divorce guidelines [and divorce for discipline could be in
play (See Footnote _____)]. However if you look at the phrase “withered away” in Luke
8:16 it doesn’t say “withered” but withered away (as in gone).
Therefore they are more than likely lost (as in dead), not backslidden which
would fall under believer / (became) unbeliever divorce guidelines.
Note: ask any gardener regarding the
difference between “withered” and “withered away.”
276Q) See the
chapter on Problem Verses
276R) see also 1
Corinthians 7:29 on this as well (as well as….)
277) as in “ho-hum”
278) Now this is where there
may be disagreement among people regarding the need ‘for options’ for believers
lives, for people (couples) can be happy where they are. However with the
divorce rate among Christians about 50% (and those who ‘stay’ possibly finding things
wanting), the need for other options is in order – particularly if the word of
God not only allows them, but gives them (you may want to keep reading).
279) Note: while there are other reasons
for believer / believer ‘action’ I do want to point out that most of the reasons mentioned in chapter ________ regarding ‘the action of divorce’ revolve around truly immature
issues [like the inability to forgive a partner of sin etc. (it’s almost like
believers are looking for excuses for not being believers)]. Now while God can
lead individuals differently in regards to that issue ‘the action’ I am
primarily going to be talking about both now and later in this book regards
pressing on to maturity (together or separate) with all that it entails.
280) See _______
281) Brethren once again in my
own personal opinion the only grounds I see for believer / believer
divorce is if one party is not walking with God anymore [that is if God
actually led the couple together to something - and one refused to follow (that
is they refused to go on) and the other one needs the support that comes from
that kind of relationship…
for really, what problem is there among Christians that God can’t
sort out?] - but that’s my personal opinion.
282) Usually disagreements
(which can fester - if not lanced), don’t happen in a vacuum where one person
is “sterile” and all the fault totally lies on the shoulders of other. Usually
both partners share responsibility in regards to major disagreements.
283) For example: The things
that drew people together when they were young may not be present later on when
– for example a “birds of a feather” philosophy ‘kicks in’ and the mingling of
like minds or commonality can cause both a new drawing - and a separation (not
necessarily divorce) - from what is and what was (which is what is usually
going on in regards to believer / believer divorce).
290) Malachi verse
290A) 1 Corinthians 7 verse
290B) putting aside reasons for a moment
290C) which can
be done and if there is concern here could always be hidden from the public eye
(especially if mutually agreed upon)
290D) which
allows them to go on with their personal private life and
maintain the public influence of an original relationship (which is what most couples that this applies to want and that is
to keep their joint public influence (see
290Da) or appearance as well as their public (see 290Db) support network undisturbed and yet among personal
friends (and family) have and maintain a (new) private life that entails a new
relationship [for men this can be played out in regards to hidden or “hidden”
mistresses (note Ex-President of France: Fran. Mitterrand with his mistress)
and for women may involve public or “public” escorts (note: {single} Jackie
Kennedy with Maurice T. (see 290Dc))]
290Da) which can
almost be like “incorporated” for the “high profile”
290Db) and
personal [between the couple that is (as in: friends of the couple)].
290Dc) which is
something the public probably needs to see more of in regards to high profile married
women and that is escorts, and not only escorts, but the same escort repeatedly
[which may be a (legitimate) ‘stand in’ for a spouse who couldn’t make it, or
even a personal friend], which is something
that could also be done in regards to high profile men too. Note to the press:
photos (like those of Jackie Kennedy with Maurice) can be allowed - and
probably welcomed - however without commentary [just names at most (possibly
“personal friend” or “friend of the family” next to name) but that’s it (also note:
you may also be getting a preview of a new spouse {let the people decide})].
290E) which can
be seen as an acquiescement [note in
regards to public votes Roberts Rules of Order states that abstaining from a
vote is counted as a yes when the votes are finally counted
(otherwise “they” would have voted {or said} no)].
291) which
depending on the reason(s) behind the amending can mean a new foundation or understanding
behind the relationship
291A) because
women don’t take on an additional spouse
any altering of a martial covenant (or if a marital covenant is altered) it
will affect (or is primarily for) the man.
291B) as in separated
yet remaining sexually faithful [as
it’s usually put (the “classic” defintion)].
291C) that is: in
regards to altering if there are separate households the husband will be
separated from the “first” wife for a time and in regards to amending, if the
covenant was amended to allow the “first” wife more free time that too is in
effect a separation.
291D) and note in
regards to a relationship becoming ‘‘fully and completely public’ such a thing will
more than likely take into account the desires - and wishes - of a new spouse.
However for some (particularly public figures) the five points just mentioned
may unfortunately reflect an unfolding progression they personally have to go
through before attaining to that public place of presenting a new relationship
(which could be days, months or even years). All of which ought to be pushed by
the new partner.
292) it’s a semantic
difference and although when one hears ‘divorced’ one assumes ‘available’ that
may not be the case (especially among some Christians).
292A) for example: a divorced
person just getting together for diner with the opposite sex for the sake of
male / female companionship (or male / female viewpoint).
292B)
although
this is an issue disputed by churches most churches will allow for believer /
believer divorces (with remarriage) under certain criteria [for example: a
conservative church would say some second marriages are illegitimate and would
allow for divorce and the
remarriage of at least one partner (if so applicable) and may even allow for
believers married as unbelievers - now believers - wanting to move on not together
(both of which are legally speaking issues)]. See Chapter ___ for more on this.
292C)
for
example… See Chapter ___ for more on this.
292D) looking into the word,
seeking God, going to the gifts.
292E) that is: if there are
no other options available (again note separating, altering and amending).
293) See ____ as well as Footnote
_____
293A)
which
can be seen or given and acted upon without consideration to any concerns.
293D mentions this
footnote
293B)
Which
can take time [note: after Saul it took time for everyone to align themselves
up to David even though it was clear even while Saul was alive that he was
rejected and David chosen]
Brothers
and sisters in regards to this entire issue we have to see ourselves as clay in
the potter hand and He is the one that molds us into the vessel of His choosing
not us (Romans 9:23) and although we co-operate with God (2 Timothy 2:21) it is
He who leads us to “that place” and molds us (not us per say).
However
in regards to change in a marital relationship most parties will find blame and
not only blame (or fault) the other party for some things, but will also blame
(or fault) themselves on some matter(s) too, however as believers trusting God
we have to see that change (or molding) is not about blame (or fault) but what God wants for us. In
heaven when the scrolls are about to be opened it is asked who is worthy to
open them and after a silence for a period of time (which I’m sure some
contemplate the matter) it is found that no one is worthy, but the Lamb
of God. The thing is everyone is guilty of something and in regards to the
reasons behind change in a marital relationship probably everyone shares (or is
worthy of) “blame” but we have to remember that God is in control and if He did
not stop something [as in the ‘cause(s)’ or ‘reason(s)’ behind it] it was for
His purposes not ours (see 293Ba). Sisters and brothers I think we need
to approach ‘a change situation’ (that is if we find ourselves in it) as God
meaning and directing everything for not only the best, but His best and
because of that we ought not have an attitude of passivity or resignation “to
the predestined” but have an active living faith that God is at work
in our situation for His purposes
(and not only ours). Especially when there is no other choice but change… Have
faith.
293Ba) and it is possible that
it’s not our fault [note Solomon’s son experiencing the split of the kingdom
when he wasn’t the cause of it (verse needed)]
293C)
however (again?) you may want to read ahead at this point to Chapters ____ and ____ on Maturity as well as read the Conclusion of this book
293D)
again
see Footnote 293B (but again read The
Conclusion in Chapter ____).
300) Brothers and sisters you don’t “have to” do anything in life.
301) I once “met” this man and his
(grand)daughter (who I suspect was actually his daughters daughter father by
him) and I think he had had told the (grand)daughter everything and they still
had a relationship [and he seem perturbed that some thought a relationship
could not still take place [the (grand)daughter seemed fine with everything
(I’m guessing she thought she would not exist if it wasn’t for this thing
happening and she’s right)] .
302) and in regards to those who stay in
(first) marriages some wish there was a better way [note I think I’ve only seen
two couples in my entire life that I thought were absolutely perfect for one
another with everyone other relationship needing some - to a lot - of work,
(and note one of these two relationships were both on their second marriage)].
303) as in certain things they won’t
put up with anymore [and note for those who are devastated by divorce I think
it usually takes about 5 years to get through the personal fall out with
predictable stages that parallel the grieving process (denial, bargaining all the
way to acceptance)].
304)
305)
306) even what
some may see as a judgment usually brings about positive character traits that
were not there previous to an action - if the person(s) involve encounter the
hardship correctly (for example not letting a thing harden you, but break you
so that God and His light can come forth).
307)
308) as in stop blaming people for
everything and own up to at least some responsibility in the situation you are
in. Things usually do not happen in a vacuum.
350) That is does the person examine all the evidence? (or
only some?). Is the person biased? and can’t be convinced?, or is the person an
‘open person’ (that is: open to being
wrong?).
350A) which
people almost categorically never do on this subject.
350B) which
although quite debatable (and we as Christians ought not judge unless we have
insight and leading from God) will lend itself towards divorce if God (or
circumstances) do not say different (see Chapter _____ ).
351) Now this is not to say that to be a
believer is to be totally independent, for believers are interdependent
on one another for a number of things [for example the gifts (however see
Sustaining Revival ____ on this)]. However maturity (which we cannot escape)
does involve growth and as people mature it is a fact that they become less and
less dependent on what was and more and more self- sufficient and independent
(that is not tied down) for their needs - whatever they might be.
352) Verses Needed. Note:
It’s a mistake to think that angels are neuter [as in the use of Michael (the
arch angels) name for women as well]. Angels have sex according to both the
(Old Testament) book of Genesis (Verse needed) as well
as the (New Testament) book of Jude (Verse Needed) and have
a lifestyle which believers - in their maturity - will also have (See Appendix A for more on this).
353) which can be a problem on this side
of eternity with both its financial (as in what a person has faith for?) and sometimes personal (as in “the cost of growth”) cost [note most
believers are not “there” yet, but are somewhere in between (“in motion” so to
speak) and on their way]. Do A B C
here but make it ABC moving towards D (which is independence)
354) Note that Jesus does in fact mention
this angelic lifestyle (three times) in the gospels. It’s no secret that it’s
there, it’s a theological truth that
is to be factored into our outlook and just the thought of that truth (that is:
where maturity leads) can not only create the desire for that mature lifestyle
but can also actually lead to it as one matures (Again see Appendix
A for more).
355) which is not a small thing to
consider (look at the following considerations in Appendix C?)
356) for not maturely “letting go” in
‘maturity’ (that is “cutting spousal leashes”) can lead to all kinds of
hardships, problems and even disasters that may not have been present if a
person (partner) had just done the right thing and maturely let go [for example I firmly believe
that some female (spousal) homosexuality can be linked to the restrictions put
upon spouses by these unflexible commitments (covenants), not to mention abuse,
alcoholism etc.]. Also take note that it is probably not possible for one
person to provide for all the needs of the other spouse in spousal
relationships (note the existence of close friends etc.)
357) that is people living under “one
roof” (or covering) or “the covering of an [even hyphenated (see Footnote 709)] name” per say pulling
together - with mutual support - under a common purpose and direction like a
team (however note that in regards to multiple spousal relationships the
relationship among the women involved is usually more weighted towards the man
than it is with one another).
358) that is people living “under
themselves” per say (which can be a problem - particularly with some women -
who do not see themselves as individuals, but more appendages rather than
‘relationship equals’ in all their personal relationships). Note again in
regards to (basic) multiple spousal relationships even though the individual
financial arrangements can vary widely (and even change) all women are on equal
relationship status with the husband (a wife is a wife is a wife)
359) Which can be relative to the
individuals involved [note: no one can force another to live a mature lifestyle
for there is a process involved on all
sides in this maturing type of relationship (maturity) particularly in
regards to concept of self-worth, however aside from this maturity (or mature
relationships) can also involve levels of
faith, understanding as well the renewal of one’s mind and conscience into the
ways of life (Note: “Tree of life” thinking eventually becomes preeminent in a
person life {Revelation 22:2} as in not letting life slip by {see the authors book Sustaining Revival: Rules
and Christianity in Appendix C and Appendix Footnote C:4} and note a person can be happy at where
they “are at” as too)].
See 353
on first mention of A, B and C
360) which can - and probably will - mean
“N” [or and or plus (+)] in
regards to mostly female spouses moving towards “D” (as in “A-N” “B-N” or even
“C-N”). Note an unattached female is already at “D” and an attached male is – along
with A’s B’s & Cs – moving towards “D” also (that is independence). See Appendix C? Footnote _____ for more on this
370C, 370Db and 370Ga make
mention of this footnote
361) Again ABC always moving towards D
(and note that God can lead individuals involved in such arrangements
differently – even into new arrangements – or even ‘out on their own’ per say -
especially as they mature). Note in regards to mature relationships (that is: “D’s”) if one can reach
a level of maturity (perfection)* where ones emotions are in control
(that is: they are mature enough to handle everything); issues of
comparison and the past are not issues; the understanding that both they
and the people (person) involved are not possessions (that is: there is
an understand that no one ‘own them’ and they don’t ‘own’ another, God does) as
well as ones reputations (dignity) and ones sense of self-worth (or value) is
not threatened in a “D”
relationship (which is a big thing). Also, that there is an
acknowledgement that these relationships can be temporary, “temporary” or even
“staggered” and that there mutual respect present and
necessary boundaries between one another in these type of relationships (as in
the honoring of requests for example) are honored; and the understanding that
people are not objects or things to be used and of course ones
conscience is soft {not hard, or hardened} in this type of relationship
- and most of all faith, hope and love is present in this kind of relationship,
then I would say that the individuals (both male and female) who fit these many
types of descriptions are mature
individuals and have a mature way of looking at things in this
particular area of their lives (that is: in regards to relationships) and can
as a result partake in these mature (“D”) type of relationships [See also the
authors book “Walls (and when they come down) Decision Making Guidelines for
Healthy Christian Relationships].
362) Remember the entire law can be
summed up by doing just two things (love of God and love of neighbor). In other
words if you love, and approach life from that perspective you are not going to
be violating anything.
Brothers and sisters this
whole topic is a very difficult topic because you are dealing (or addressing)
people at many different levels of maturity, understanding and faith. In regards
to the issue of faith…
“But before faith came, we were kept
in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith (or trust) which was later
to be revealed.” (Galatians 3:23)
363) which is
sometimes addressed through counseling or even the restating of vows.
364) especially in an “iron clad” sense.
370C makes mention of this
footnote
365) which does
not include just dumping (legitimately covenanted) people (or one another) –
especially before they are ready, but will allow for a joint altering of the
marital covenant [which can be difficult - especially the ‘letting go’ of one
another into the (joint) “unknown” (see
365a) but that is what (mature) faith and trust in both God and one another
is all about (see 365b) (and in
regards to any “mental ‘letting go’ transition” because all {future} mature
relationships are non-comitial it ought to help out in regards to any
{immature} attachments one still has towards previously committed spouses
{which is: the knowledge that they are going into a temporary relationship –
(which may be in fact be long term) – but for the mature (maturing) such new
relationships are (and / or will be becoming) non-comitial (which again can
help out in regards to any mental transition {and that is: to know that the
person ones previously committed spouse is now involved with may not, or will
become “unfaithful” to an old spouse – especially as they are mature (which
also ought to help out in regards to concern of planning for any long term
financial commitments, etc.)})})].
Note: in regards to any new financial
commitments they must factor in independence [as in: there is or will be a plan
(or understanding) that “states” that at some point the person(s) one is
intimately involved with (see 365c)
will be able to become financially independent and support themselves].
365a) of whose
possibilities ought not to be forced (and for the sake of argument may not even
happen), but only be ‘allowed for’ (as in a mental acquiescence).
365b) which
could mean that in regards to God, God is may allow such a thing to happen
because He has in His plans ‘someone else’ who is going to meet your needs (and
theirs by you) who is coming your way [at least (also) temporarily (keep
reading)].
Note: this could be in regards to
salvation issues as well (see Chapter ___ as well as Acts 16:9,10 specifically verse 10).
365c) which
usually means either women who have had a child in the relationship or people (usually
women) who have left secure means of independence (even if it was just living
at home) to “come aboard” a man’s life.
366) which is basically what the angelic
life involves for whatever reasons [note: in regards to the human situation (as
mentioned before) few people / relationships can provide for every
need].
367) which could in fact mean concurrent
relationships (that is: keeping the old and yet allowing for the new). Note: it
is important to remember that because we are dealing with non-comitial in
maturity one need not trash any relationship in order to have a new one –
especially “killing” an “old” one (see
367a). Brothers and sisters, sisters and brothers there are many options as
well as possibilities for new relationships outside of living
(full-time) with a new person (see 367b)
[See Appendix ___ for more on this (also note Appendixes __ in regards
to the differences between men and women {as well as Appendix ___ & Footnotes __ ___ & ___ which may have bearing in regards to some of these issues too
(especially regarding having relationships with people on different levels {of
maturity and experience})})].
367a) through words or deeds which may be
the temptation of some - especially for those who cannot think “outside the box.”
367b) which is still possible (that is: a
possibility) for whatever reason and would mean at the minimum the altering of
a current relationship (which ought to still be allowed in regards to seeing an
old partner - if desired - for again we are dealing with non-comitial).
368) which can
be tough especially if one was not prepared and did not see change coming, but maturity is inevitable and in
regards to those “caught unaware” the response of a person to Jesus…
“I do believe, help my unbelief (in this situation)” (Mark 9:24)
ought to help.
370C makes mention of this
footnote
370) which
ought not be forced or rushed [note: the danger here is that people can see the
end state of their mature (non-committed) life and rush to it not realizing
that there is usually a process one has to go through to get “there” which
aside from independence involves experiencing life and correctly navigating
through many things (everything from again learning how to provide for yourself
to learning how to deal with unexpected change correctly) and although
most people can probably get ‘there’ and learn these things “on the fly” if
needed (which would also involve actively trusting God for some of them {like
finances}) there is usually a process one has to go through to get to that
mature independent state and because of that we need to be careful in regards
to any mentioning or ‘leading people on’ (see Footnote 370a) as well as the partaking of this mature
(non-committed) lifestyle ourselves for it is not for “dependent” children, but
again for the “independent” mature (again see Footnotes 351 and ___ on the
nature of independence).
Note: in regards to ‘leading people
on’ if you were to get involved with
someone (and / or make promises to someone) who is not ready - especially
financially - for a mature lifestyle (see Footnote
370b) and were to have a relationship with them the concept of ‘commitment’
can come (back) into play (see Footnote
370d) and if one were to disregard a commitment (or a promise) that was
made to a person you got involved with
who happened to be not “ready” (completely) for maturity that person could end
up resorting to “other means” to provide for themselves (due to unexpected
change in their life) of which could also end up being not agreeable to the
person(s) they got involved with - especially so if they happen to be (a)
public figure(s).
370a) which
people on both sides need to be careful of especially because not only do the
genders see things differently (for example: I never said, but yes you did),
but also because people (which means people in both genders) are at different
levels of ‘life experience’ [for example: Who said anything about marriage? and
/ or who (or what) do you think I am? etc.].
370b) which is
not a swipe for there are legitimate ‘on the level’ concerns for people - especially
women - on this side of eternity that may need to be addressed (or may need
help addressing) as they (or before they {people}) mature (Note the following Appendixes ___ ___ & ___ ).
Note: it’s real easy to “be mature”
if everything is provided for you – but are you really mature? is a question. There
does seem to be a process and if you are in or desire a relationship with
someone who is not there compromise here can be expected. Also in regards to
the issue of ‘helping out’ there is nothing inherently wrong with it (see 370c) especially in regards to
helping out a woman with your child. We have to remember that we do live on
this side of eternity in mostly “a man’s world” and while one can “pipe dream”
here (and this is not to excuse not ‘pressing unto maturity’) there are (or can
be) certain issues in regards to certain relationships that may need to be
addressed.
370c) which in some regards is what
(“angelic”) sexual relations involve (women ‘helping out’ men by giving
confidence and comfort to men and men ‘helping out’ women by giving them a
sense of self-worth, self-esteem and value, etc.).
370d) which can be dealt with through a variety of means (see Appendixes ___ ___ )
370A) also see Ephesians 4:13
on this.
370B) that is: productive in
every area (across the spectrum).
370C) at least not in emphasis
Note:
while one can ‘vision’ what mature relationships ought to be like the fact that
most are not perfect in regards to the area of relationships will probably lead
to compromise in that relationship area - especially intimate relationships - until
we as a whole “get there” to that perfected (in relationship) state. Now while
one can legitimately debate whether one ought to partake of these types of intimate
mature relationships before one is perfect in that area [which is a point in
favor of those who don’t want to give (on) anything that smack of dependence
(as in no money or material things coming ones way)] the fact that one can get
close to that area [and / or be perfected in the area of relationships (and not
others which can qualify one to partake in those types of relationships {see Footnote 361 on
the personal criteria needed for perfection in relationships)] can lead people
to give a little in regards to things that
really don’t matter much like material things (for example: money –
especially if needed).
Brothers
and sisters [particularly brothers and “first” wives (370Ca)] for some it’s going to more the principle of the thing
than for others, but until we (all) fully get there compromise (on this
principle) might be needed along the way especially for those who desire to
partake in these types of mature relationships with people who are not ‘fully’
ready (see 370Cb) (again
see previous Footnotes 365 & 370 on this).
370Ca) see Footnote ___
regarding “first” wives.
370Cb) which could be for
reasons that were (or are) beyond their control.
370D) which again can involve
this side of eternity - not yet fully perfected - considerations [note:
whatever the angels do (one at a time? more than one at a time? or moving so
fast between relationships that it’s very hard to tell the difference?)] we are
all not completely there yet and when one factors the (apparent) differences
between (at least immature) men and (“mature” or mature) women in regards to ‘the multiple spousal’ there
will probably be - on this side of eternity - all kinds of observational overlapping
mix in some lives between all these types of relationships – especially since
most people are at differing levels of experience and will remain so until we all
attain to that mature state together.
Special
note: Brothers and sisters, truth be told one of the problems with this book is
that it is was originally written as an on-line progressive work and in regards
to those who are fans of it and progressively read it (and other books written
by the author in the same on – line progressive way) we are not dealing with ‘relationship
situations’ in a vacuum for people were and are ‘in motion’ and in regards to (some)
people (readers) who originally got (or get) “wind” of things like ‘the
multiple spousal’ (which was actually written as an appendix in another book
years before the writing of this book) wanted and went for that and now in
regards to this book people (which
can include people from that group)
who (now) got (or get) “wind” of maturity naturally want to partake of that and
who knows ‘where’ they (or even we) were (relationship wise) previously to this
or where they (or even we) are at (relationship wise) now and / or what they (and
everyone) may want to (or end up) settling for?
We
are dealing with a very mixed - still in motion - group (however
everyone is on our way to maturity together).
Thus
once again because of people being at various levels of life experience and maturity
as well as many other ‘this side of eternity considerations’ until we - as a
group (see 370Da) - fully
get ‘there’ compromise might be needed in regards to some issues (material
things for example) especially again in regards to those who desire to partake
in these mature types of independent relationships with people who are again not
fully
ready (or ‘there’).
Sisters
and brothers (particularly brothers), who knows at what ‘stage of life’ you meet
someone and fall in love. Therefore because of where people are at [and the way
this work has been written (see 370Db)]
there is no condemnation on the readers for being at various levels experience
(which can include multiple spousal) and yet desiring to experience, progress and
cross over into even more mature experiences (but at the same time there is
also no excuse either for the readers to just stay where they are and not press
on to that independent maturity either).
We
(Christians, readers of this work) are in a ‘maturing period’ all
pressing on to maturity together [however the reader is expected to at some
point be able to become maturely independent and although no one is forcing
such a thing (and people can desire to remain in certain conditions for a long
long time), truth be told most people end up that way for one reason or another
so it’s best for everyone to start thinking in ‘that independent way’ (see 370Dd) now.
370Da) with the exception for
those who do not want to ‘give’ (anything material) based on the principle of
the thing (which is understandable).
370Db) which is again a
consideration of the author in regards to the advice written here [a teacher
might say “no if’s ands or but’s” but a pastor would have sympathy on the sheep
(which goes double for those who are in relationship with the sheep {Isaiah
40:11})].
However
note: even though this is so the only ones who will “make it” to maturity in
regards to intimate relationships will be those who approach them angelically
or use combinations of other possible relationships (for example: “A” to “C” to
“D”) to get ‘there’ (see 370Dc).
People who stay at “A” or any other combination will not – in their experience
– cross that finish line and get to the place of experiential maturity in regards to intimate relationships and
will stay basically where they are: immature in regards to experience [see
again Footnote
361 as well as the Conclusion
in Chapter 20
in regards to the issue of (experiential) intimate maturity].
370Dc) which is the important
point: to “get there” or “getting there” [not who gets “there” first (which is
obviously the pure angelic “philosophy” of life), but that you cross that
finish line].
370Dd) see ____ and footnote
___ regarding the issue (and question) of legitimate co-dependency
(write on this).
370Fa
makes mention of this footnote
370E) See Footnotes 266;
268C as
well as note the discussion of 1 Corinthians 6:15-17,19 in Chapter
___ on “Problem Verses” [Note: faith, hope and love can be
present in “distant relationships” but the full potential and possibilities of
those traits are almost never brought out (especially by both sides)].
370F) which allows one not to
feel used (see 370Fa), but to be
‘part of’ what is going on and as a result allows one to be open and honest and
productive to “the max”
370Fa) which (really ought not be
said, but anyway…) involves not
treating each other like lower functioning animals [meaning: how some animals treat each other (wham, bam and
good-bye)]. Unless again the relationship is ‘distant’ for sound reason (note
again the Footnote references mentioned in Footnote 370E on this issue).
370G) meaning sex (see 370Ga) and / or material things
(like money, possessions etc.)
370Ga) note: the sexual act can
be intimate and both intimate and beneficial things can be passed along - if
done rightly. However it can also be distant too – even among spouses and because
scripturally speaking people can get together so they will not “burn” (1
Corinthians 7:9) as well as find something to occupy their time (1 Timothy 5:14)
all relationships can and probably do (see
370Gb) need some work to attain to that mature intimate (higher
functioning) beneficial state [as in: you might have to go through certain
things to learn about “D” or maturity (again see Footnote 361 and note the discussion
in Appendix ___
on mature considerations for open relationships)].
370Gb) that is: because people
can be legitimately mixed in their
motives here [as in: “yes, getting together with you was in part due to having someone
to have sex with” or even “I got together with you because I was a busy body
and as a result was pressured to marry (you)”].
374) which started in law and ended in faith (if you paid attention the
emphasis of the book shifted little by little).
375) which is something Christian can
also consider.
376) Note: you don’t have to hate each other to get a divorce
and sometimes it may be the only option (again divorce for
discipline).
377) Also see Appendix D on this regarding Issues
and Concerns [also note if you picked up this book and read it (and it
wasn’t for someone else’s issues) you may want to consider counseling].
377A) See…(bring in Appendix C
in Sustaining Revival)
377B) Note: when one pick up
the bible and reads it one needs to understand that there is an ongoing story
line (or plot) from beginning to end that deals with the progression of
maturity. If one were to read – let’s say - the middle of that story line and
say that this is what God wants us to do about such and such would not be
proper and is the basic error that the (“christian”) cults enter into all the
time (for example Jehovah Witnesses).
Brothers and sisters there is a progression of revelation in
scripture (see Exodus 6:3).
378) Children are dependent
not Adults.
378A) See Appendixes ____ and ____.
379) Note when people are
children they are usually independent in spirit and for some reason that gets
lost when they enter relationships (boy or girl “interrupted” so to speak).
380) and who knows how angel’s
relationships work – or even progress? [one relationship at a time? and (“N”)?
or loving the one(s) your with?]
381) which can include
dependency especially for women who choose to live this lifestyle in regards
“issues” of pregnancy and the expense of raising children [Brothers, to help
out in this area is more than appropriate (See also _____ regarding Christians dependency on the gifts until we
as Christians mature)].
400) which again is the major problem with the cults over and
over again (and that is going into the old and saying it all either still
applies or pick and choose what does – at random).
400H) which was done at the cross - through Jesus
(which involved Who He in fact was).
400 I) or the common
interpretation thereof [which again according to 1 Corinthians 7:15 is (that
is: remarriage is) allowable even if one
part remains alive].
400J) which for our purposes
include marital and goes to support the “married as unbeliever now believer”
exemption for believer / believer divorce
(See Chapter ___ as well as Footnote ____ again for
more on this) as well as such concepts as Gods (new)
will overriding a previous – even legitimate – marital covenant (See 1
Corinthians 7:29).
400K) which is the point of emphasis [again not to
rake people over the coals for again there is (at least one) exception to this
and because of that we know that this (that is: once married that’s it) is not
his point here].
400M) which is significant.
401) Sisters and brothers,
let’s say you made a vow not to eat or drink until such and such happened (that
a circle will have four corners or some sort) and in the midst of your vow
realized that such and such is never going to happen no matter what you did for
it was an impossible thing to wish for and you made a mistake, what do you do?
Well if you are of the
(unchristian) mindset that one cannot repent from evil (the evil in this case
would be ignorance or in the case of many bad vows the sin of presuming or
presumption), and feel that sin cannot be repented over then your path is set,
however if you are of the mindset that there is such a thing as repentance your
path can change.
Also remember brethren if
you are going to be legalistic about things (that is you believe we are still
under the law) - remember according to the law people could get out of (annul)
vows, particularly women (Chapter
____ ),
and again there are also examples in scripture regarding how they could be
creatively adjusted as well.
Footnote
58 makes mention of this footnote
402) Also brethren it should
be noted here that with the exception of possibly the book of Mark, this verse
comes from a book (James) and as mentioned before is possibly the very first book
(epistle) written in the New Testament and reflects a very early understanding
of Christianity. People who centered around the person of James [who again in this case is not the
brother of John, but the half-brother of Jesus, and although James probably
knew Jesus growing up (depending on the age difference) he did not follow Jesus
during his earthy ministry)], however scripturally people who did indeed follow
(this) James were not without their problems – possibly from him (Galatians
2:12) (Maybe they misunderstood him, or maybe James just didn’t confront them
properly). (see Footnote
___ on
this also)
Again, if you continue to
study the progressive understanding of Christian teaching later in Acts 15 the
Apostles (including this James Acts 15:13), “hash out” all these things and boil the law down to
some essentials (Acts 15:28), and the
keeping of oaths is not mentioned at all (see 402a) and not only that but even one of the things they boil
the law down to (Acts15:29), as Christianity develops (or is progressively
understood) is relegated to a matter of conscience in a later epistle (1
Corinthians 8).
Brethren, law (old
covenant) and life (new covenant) don’t mix.
402a) which means we are either still under that
rule [as in it’s just a basic thing (function / parameter) not worth
mentioning], or it’s part of / included in the laws of Moses that we are not
under, so why mention it? [and remember that the Mosaic law was flexible here
so unless you are saying the “law of swearing” is just a basic obvious “base
law” like gravity (and still applies) or they (swearing) is no longer flexible post
Jesus resurrection (or under the new covenant {see 402b}), remember in regards to the simple “base law” argument
the laws of Moses did not necessarily finalize something by swearing (as it was
the final final word), and one could still get out of them under a number of
criteria in the laws of Moses and again there is nothing in the New Testament
that circumvents that argument either, if anything it’s just the opposite emphasis
(as in thinking about repenting of all of them).
“Again, you have heard that the ancients were
told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but
shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But
I say to you, make no oath at all… (for it) is evil.” (see Matthew
5:33-37)
Also remember that if you believe that the “law
of swearing” is like the law of gravity [as in 2 + 2 always equals 4 and that’s
it (see 402c)], you can’t because again
it was flexible under the old covenant.
[Brethren, in regards to this issue it’s actually
a complicated formula that leads to the answer of any applicableness of vows
(that is: if you see them as forever binding {or you can get to a place where
they will be forever binding}) and is not as simple as one might think (as in
1+1+1+1 = 4 or some sort {see 402d})].
Again the emphasis in the New Testament (New Covenant) is not to make them for
it is evil (see 402 f) and as a
result the implication (or emphasis) is to repent of them more than it is to
fulfill (that is: actually follow through with) them.
Don’t make vows [and repent (in your mind,
and before God) of the ones you did make (see
402g)].
402b) which (the no longer flexible) is not
mentioned in the New Testament and at best is some kind of inference one would
develop.
402c) remember that in regards to even the quote
unquote law of gravity even “overriding” miracles do happen (for example: Jesus
walking on water, or His accession into heaven).
402d) note the complicated five part formula of
Hebrews 6:4-6 as an example of a stepped (or complicated) spiritual formula [as
in: a person who quote unquote just “falls away” (see 402e) may not be impossibly lost].
624F makes mention of this footnote
402e) which is talking about
apostasy (not backsliding, but renunciation of the faith) or else we would all
be lost (note the reason most people backslide is because that they don’t
understand the power (that is step 4 of the Hebrews 6 formula) of the
resurrection life [that is: you are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) and you
don’t have to sin (Romans 6:2) reckon or consider it so (Romans 6:6.11,12)]. Also note the six part definition of immature
teaching in Hebrews 6: 1-3.
402f) most likely due to our imperfection.
54d makes mention of this footnote
402g) for some reason people only emphasize the
sex part of marriage vows rather than the other half a dozen things that are
usually promised (which are almost always broken in all marriages). If you take
the exhortation in the book of James seriously concerning judgment it’s better
to just go to God today and at the minimum move your marriage vows to the level
of promises and not vows so you would not fall under any type of “whammy” (that
is: for those among us who hold to the hard view of vows).
Note this can say something about people
jumping all over adultery as grounds for divorce (what about the other
violations too?), and if you can repent (in the sense of get in line) all the
other violations why not adultery (or a faithful marriage)? Again remember Jesus
did give people time to repent (Revelation 2: 21).
402A) Brethren there is nothing inherently wrong
with swearing except in our imperfection (that is because we are imperfect) we
are told by Jesus not to do it.
402B) which apparently has been going on for quite
some time.
402C) there is debate as to whether angel are
corporal (have a physical body or not) based on Jesus statement that spirits
are not flesh and bone (verse
needed), however since angels did
have physical sex with mankind it would seem that angels either are not spirits
(proper) (see 402Ca); or they go in and out of that state or
can hide themselves physically (as in make themselves invisible). Whatever the
case is here (unless standing in the sun is symbolic of something) the angel
seems to be in a physical state when he is standing in the sun and swears.
402Ca) and Jesus is referring to
not the angels in that verse, but to the state of people now on the other side of
eternity (that is: at present we are now pre-resurrection and they don’t have
flesh and bone).
402D) that is his faith and understanding of what
is about to transpire is so great as to tolerate everything that is involved in
his action (remember Daniel in the
furnace?). Another example of this (let’s say an opposite example) might be…
suppose someone swore to God out loud for everyone to hear something patently
false and did so while standing in the middle of a dangerous battlefield. Most
people would say instinctively that that person might be in a lot of danger (to
say the least) and may or would not be protected (see 402Ca), however if the person swore something that was true in
that same situation and walked away from it most everyone would not only notice
that action - but also consider what he said or swore. The same thing is true
regarding the angel standing in the sun (and the point is: consider what is
being said).
402Da)
which
in the angel’s case would mean that if the angel was lying he would join all
the other disembodied spirits – somewhere.
403) In regards to the issue of adultery let me
say that I think there is the implicit assumption that a man who has two
spouses is not in an adulterous situation. That is he is not defiling his
marriage bed. We are strictly talking about the content of marital vows
in this verse, not how many people they are applied to.
404) particularly since the law does allow for
one than one spouse [VERSE NEEDED (which goes to the question of whether a man
who vows “you and you alone” is taking a valid
vow? {which does have implications in this book})].
405) So in
regards to the question of whether a spouse can separate (divorce), and live
the angelic lifestyle, 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 it does not rule that out [and if
you want to be technical about it if one were to look at this verse at face
value only (…“I give instruction, not I
but the Lord” {however see Footnote 407 regarding this}) one would say such a thing can still
be done - as long as the individuals don’t get remarried {technically
speaking})].
405A) And brethren this
particular type of remarriage is a huge issue for the church to deal
with and churches will split over this issue. However if you follow these
verses a believer can walk out on a multitude of vowed responsibilities and if
you follow the progression of thought in 1 Corinthians 7 one finds that a
believer can also and even consent to accept a whole entire
marital covenant - that is an illegitimate marital covenant (the parties are
“unequally yoked”) - for the sake of an unbelieving spouses exposure to
Christianity (also see 1 Peter 3:1 on this).
Consenting (1 Corinthians
7:12,13) to accept something that is illegitimate for a good cause?
How about consenting to
accept a change in a covenant for a good cause?
“And Jesus said to them,
‘I ask you, is it lawful…(to break a law)… to do good…to save a life..?’”
(Luke 6:9)
405B) see Footnote
183
405C) brethren a lot of the “fault” lies in ones
view of inspiration as in the writers of scripture were taking dictate from the
Lord (as in He was literally dictating everything to them and thus all
instructions were actually commands). Now while it is true that the writers of
scripture were under the inspiration of the Spirit when they were writing if
you notice the next footnote they were also allowed to give personal opinions
(which were sound) but yet still personal viewpoints of a (possibly local)
situation (not universal iron clad commands / statements per say) too [see 1
Corinthians 11:23 which talks about things received from the Lord (and you can
interject ‘as opposed to other things’) and again note Footnote 183 on this].
Footnote 405C mentions
this footnote
405D) For example: in regards to this
"command" issue you will find a "do not" statement that
says "Do not seek a wife" (1 Corinthians 7:27), however if you look
at the rest of the chapter it also says "but if you should marry, you have
not sinned" (1 Corinthians 7:28) which again actually follows a "do
not" statement that also lends weight to the idea that we are dealing more
with a bunch of "asked concessions" or "non-command instructions" in the chapter and not a bunch of outright universal no exception commands with “no if’s and’s or but’s” (1 Coritnhians
7:6).
Note the following phrases
in the chapter
Thus when we read verse 10
“that the wife should not leave her
husband” we are to note that “should not” is not must not, and when we
read verse 11 the phrase “let her
remain unmarried” can be the same intonation as the “let” that is found in
verse 20 (as in: not a command
situation).
405E) as in a four-fold "instruction"
(Acts 15:28,29).
405F) as in "a covenant is a covenant is a
covenant"
405G) as in a “plan B” with another Christian spouse
is all set to go. See Appendix
___
on Issues and Concerns regarding previous marriages (as well as their effect on
the sanctification of children)
405H) for example: note a virgin
following a non-sinful desire to get married in the chapter even after a do not
statement
[reason being that they
would not "burn" (1 Corinthians 7:25,28 and verse 9)].
405 I) as again in some kind of
universal no exception command (“no if’s and’s or but’s”).
405 J) which would mean that it's
not a direct "revelation (quote unquote) command" from the Lord
(which is also an important thing to note).
405K) again see Appendix ___ on Issues and
Concerns regarding previous marriages (and note the discussion of previous
chapters regarding the legitimate and illegitimate).
406) note: the “Christian testimony” issue
[which is the response (or common retort) of today] is not mentioned (as a
reason to stay) at all.
406A) Brethren the authors book “Altering a
Marriage Covenant” goes into this concept in much greater detail, this book
primarily deals with the divorce angle of the believers life.
406B) see Footnote
407 for more on this.
406B-1) if that is where you are coming from [and
note the Appendixes for other relationship options outside of marriage –
especially the mature angelic option which everyone ought to be moving towards
(and note for those who do get married with the angelic “in play” they are not
really married in the traditional sense and their promises to one another ought
to reflect this fact as well {as in promises to love one another forever (but
leave out you and you alone (see 406B1a)}]
Now while it is true that in regards to traditional multiple spousal
relationships the male is always available (and in some forms can even be
limited by the women going into it) in regards to ‘the angelic’ all parties -
including the ladies – in any type of arrangement are always
available (or at least open to non-commitment or change). The reason ‘why’
in regards to any type of commitment (or linkage) if there is one is personal
and defined between the parties themselves and although they don’t have to be
temporary because of the open aspect of the relationship as well as the
possibility of ‘moving on’ or ‘moving in and out’ of the relationship most angelic
based relationships (or mature relationships) are probably temporary in one
form or another (and again although they don’t have to be it’s just the way
life is for the mature {and that is: open to change for the sake of life –
which can be someone elses})].
406B1a) which will be tough on some ladies in a
public ceremony but it’s just one of the gender assigned burdens that the
different genders bear (see Chapter ____ on Christian Testimony - the section
on Maintaining Change in regards to gender assigned burdens) [and note only
those who are “in the know” will probably catch it (see Footnote 406B1b), but since they are mature too (or open to
it) no one ought to say anything about it – including the enlightened press in
regards to any public ceremonies of public figures].
Footnote 406B1b) and some women may be rightfully proud of
that possibility (with everyone knowing that they are mature).
406C) note sex does not make a marriage or make
one married to the individual they have sex with for if that were the case the
angels would be married (and all the female angels would have more than one
husband – which they don’t have for again there is no marriage in heaven).
406 C-1) and one would have to go
somewhere else to argue the point against it – not here.
406D)
See Footnote 407 on this.
406E) What Jesus is doing here
is to link a spirit (attitude or atmosphere) in a particular church to a
historical person in the past that did the same thing (Jezebel). In other words
there is a “spirit of Jezebel” in the church per say (see Revelation 2:14 for
the “commentary” interpretation of this verse).
406F) “kai” in the Greek being a conjunction that
links thoughts.
Footnote 934 makes
mention of this footnote
406F1) Brethren in regards to linking the “doing
away” of fornication to other things mentioned in the bible, you may have a
problem here. Let’s look at another verse…
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators (por-ni-ah), nor idolaters,
nor adulterers (moy-khah-o), nor effeminate (A&G (see406F1a)
p. 489 “persons soft, effeminate, esp, of catamites, men and boys who allow
themselves to be misused homosexually”) nor homosexuals (A&G p.109 “a male homosexual, pederast,
sodomite”)...shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9,10)
What you have is five
character traits (see406F1b) that fit those who are not
making it into the coming kingdom of God and
four of them have to do with sex (or sexual titles). Brothers and sisters,
we have already examined the words (or concepts of) fornication and adultery in
the previous problem verses (as well as throughout this book) and have found –
at the minimum - they need much qualification as to what and who you are
talking about - with both words (or concepts) not being present in certain
contexts or situations (also read the conclusion of this chapter). However the
thing that differentiates fornicators / adulterers from effeminate and
homosexuals (see406F1c) in these verses is that
the former deals with sexual relations that are “on the level” between people
“who’s ‘parts’ go in proper places” whereas the later does not. Brethren in
regards to the latter homosexuality and effeminately titles, the problem is
unlike fornication and adultery there is a
double hurdle that needs to be cleared here which deals with not only the
first hurdle [that is: legitimate reasons behind an act (which “fornicators”
and “adulterers” can clear)], but also sound, stable and reasonable reasons as
well (which the apostle believes are not present).
In other words brethren, I
would not link the “doing away” of fornication (or adultery for that matter)
with the doing away with ‘other’ sexual activities. It is not that easy of a thing to do.
Note: Scripturally
speaking there is a proper way the Christian life ought to unfold (which is
addressed in Appendix D in
“Sustaining Revival”) and while there are allowances [which can be
temporary (see Appendix K in
“Sustaining Revival”)], and while people can choose different
eternal saved distinctions for themselves by what they
(continue) to do and (continue) not do - which is their free choice (see Appendix J in “Sustaining Revival” for
more on this), for me to have someone continue in a “questionable behavior” to
the point where they can be called “a name” (See Revelation 22:15) [which means
enough evidence (about acts or motivation behind an act) has been gathered
together to in effect make a reasoned sound judgment about a person] without
significant reason offered by the person to explain why they are doing the
questionable thing (or continuing to do the questionable thing) they are doing,
that is where I (and scripture) draws the line in regards to appropriate
(Christian) behavior (again Revelation 22:15; and note the warning of verse 19)
Sisters and brothers,
within the Christian life (as opposed to other different life’s or lifestyles
out there) there is wiggle room in regards to things (for example: the subject
matter of this book: relationship options for one’s life / reasons surrounding
divorce and remarriage, etc.) and there is leeway and allowances especially in
regards to the immature among us (as in - until they get their act together)
and believe it allowances and wiggle room for the mature (as in a maturing
conscience) as well (especially again in regards to the issue of mitigating
circumstances or unique situations).
But even though this is
true (in regards to God’s desires or God’s preference) God’s Best
is the direction God is going in and is the direction He is going to throw
His support behind (that is it’s the direction of least resistance - especially publicly) - and is the direction
He wants people to go in (Appendix F).
Brethren, while one can
legitimately argue back and for about things there is a difference between
saved and unsaved lifestyles (Revelation 22;15) and even within the ‘saved
category’ there is a difference between distinctions based on a person’s
individual choices as well as those lifestyles (Appendixes D, J
& K).
The question of whether a
properly unfolding Christian life would unfold in certain ways and the issue of
‘appropriate behavior’ is no small issue. Therefore we - as Christians - need
to watch ourselves in regards to those eternal distinctions and again note the
warning found in Revelation 22:15 in regards to our going too far with things
as well (also see 2 John 2:9 on this).
Brethren, God’s best
is again the direction He wants us to go in (and again is the easiest direction
for us to go in as well).
406F1a)
A&G
stands for Arndt and Gingrich’s (sp?) Greek / English Analytical Lexicon of the
New Testament. Brethren what Arndt and Gingrich did was to take every word in
the New Testament (which was written in Greek) and compare it’s use to how the
same word was used in the everyday Greek of the day [Konie (pronounced “coin –
a” or common Greek)], as well as
examining older classical Greek using non-biblical
Greek documents that used the same words that the New Testament writers did in
order to give New Testament words a fuller, truer and expanded meaning [note:
if you ever read classical Greek authors and they left certain passages
untranslated into English, the words and thoughts of these verses were probably
present (among other similar type of things). That is where Arndt and Gingrich
go to in regards to the words (or titles) in these verses among other Greek
documents].
effeminate (A&G p. 489 “persons soft, effeminate, esp, of
catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually”)
406F1b)
I
think it’s safe to say (for the sake of argument) that a person who let’s say,
commits ‘adultery’ (that is: as it’s commonly understood or interpreted) if
they repent can still - according to common Christian thought – make it into
the coming kingdom. Since this is the case then what we are dealing with is not
a few sexual occurrences of any act per say, but the doing of something (a
particular sex act) enough that it becomes a character trait (that is: someone
can call you ‘a name’ per say and it fits).
406F1c) Note in regards to the
title “homosexual” a person who has had a homosexual experience / encounter (or
maybe more than one), is not necessarily a homosexual (as in a
title).
406G) Let me give you a personal example of this:
One day I was thinking of putting placards on telephone poles that had gospel
verses etc. on them for passing motorist to see and the thought came to me that
I could not do this because the telephone company owned all the telephone
poles. Immediately the thought came
into my spirit that ‘all the world belonged to God and everything in it – including the telephone poles’ and it would
not be a problem for me to do such a thing
(emphasizing “for me”). I had “the
revelation” where as other people may not (and could possibly get into trouble
for doing such a thing - at them minimum for violating their immature
conscience).
This “having the
revelation” is where the “rubber meets the road” here and if you don’t have it
it may not work.
(See Chapter _____ and
Footnote ______
regarding the Conscience – particularly warnings about going too far or
hardening yourself to its influence before it has matured)
Footnotes 405, 406B
makes mention of this footnote
407) There is no need to panic
in regards to this statement and think things are set in stone in regards to
this issue. Such Devine phrasing is found in another place in scripture
regarding the “meat unto idols” issue in Acts 15:28,29...
“For it seemed good to
the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these
essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols…”
And as we know such a
thing is relegated to a matter of conscience in a later epistle.
Brothers and sisters the
reason why you have the phrasing in regards to the remarriage of a Christian
spouse (after leaving a Christian spouse) could also be argued in similar
“matter of conscience” terms and the reason why you have “not I, but the Lord”
in 1 Corinthians 7:10, is because like in Acts 15:28,29 you are dealing with addressing the general
population and not specific individuals [and it should be noted here that he
does in fact relegate this generalized “For it seemed good to the Holy
Spirit…” in Acts 15:28,29 to an individual matter of conscience in the
very next chapter (again reread
Chapter _____ on this).
Sisters and brothers some
may counter all this by saying that you are dealing with a testimony issue here
(that is there is something God is trying to do and accomplish on this side of
eternity - a direction, however this is
another subject all together (again reread Chapter _____ on this).
However in regards to this
particular subject (God’s generalized will vs. God’s specific will) and the
ability for a person to relegate things said (or some things said) in scripture
to matter of conscience issues you can plainly see this done - if you continue
reading 1 Corinthians 7 with similar phrasing in regards to an unbeliever
leaving a covenant.
“but to the rest I say,
(and) not the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:12)
Brethren it’s not so much
that God is not “saying” this to the apostle (and God may not be), but the
apostle is giving an opinion of which the Spirit of God agrees with (and if you
read on to the end of the chapter he does do this again in regards to another
issue and you can plainly see this done and the mechanism behind his reasoning
in regards to being single.
“But in my opinion
she is happier if she… (is single); and I think that I also have the Spirit of
God.” (1 Corinthians 7:40)
Brothers
and sisters apostles (and for that matter people, or any of God’s creation )
can give
opinions - to which the
Spirit of God will agrees with (2 Chronicles 18:19:21).
And this can have relevance (and help) in
regards to such issues as, God told me to divorce and remarry for once again my spouse backslid; or my
spouse is hypocrite (talks the talk, but does not walk the walk); or my spouse
lost their salvation (a debatable point but a point is made regarding the
question of the spouses salvation); and or my spouse was never saved to begin
with (and I, and everyone else thought they were).
Also in regards to issues
of conscience in regards to these matters; life over law (that is we’re not
under law anymore); etc.) such generalized opinions can give way to individual
circumstances.
However one might be more
comfortable with the view that God is not specifically saying this to the
apostle when he writes “I say, not the Lord,”
but is a only deriving a teaching derived from the old covenant and giving
an opinion based on the teaching .
However brethren, if such
things are in fact boiled down to a matter of conscience issues (testimony issues aside) the reason why “not I, but the Lord” is stated in 1
Corinthians 7 has to do with a generalized statement to the generalized
population as in Acts 15:28,29 and not
it’s clarification for that individual as in 1 Corinthians 8 [See again Chapter
______ on this (as
well as Footnotes 17 & 18 in Altering
a Marriage Covenant for more on the conscience)].
407A) and although there may be contention about this issue we will
‘be there’
someday thus for the contentious the question of “how do we get from here to
there?” remains [as in its more than a mere time fame experience something
transpires within one to make it possible (which begs the question as to
whether it can happen on this side
of eternity and what is it within one that changes? {as in a mature faith,
mature conscience, mature parameters etc.)]
Please Note: in regards to this side
of eternity biblically speaking you can get to places by faith alone [or
working your way through law (of which this book is broken into by half’s: 1st
working your way through law {rules / regulations} and 2nd moving in
faith)] but remember you will - and can - get from ‘here to there’
and you can - and will - get from ‘here to there’ someday, it’s “the
how’s” that are the questions, not
that it can’t be done [in other words you can (and will) cross that
bridge].
Note this book was written in two parts with this in
mind that some people are not mature in faith and may need help working through
some issues before they get ‘there’ while others are mature in faith (and not
concerned about the issues that are addressed in the first part of the book)
however may still need a little help with maturity of conscience issues,
parameters etc. before they can cross to the other side of that bridge (which
again remember we both can and will do). Brothers and sisters where you - as an
individual - plug into this book is where you are at in your thinking and experience.
408) see Jude
1:6,7 [Brothers and sisters, if you study scripture regarding the things that
can defile a person (Mark 7:20-23) you may get a hint as to what happened here.
Also note that when fallen spirits are mentioned in scripture they are
sometimes called “unclean spirits” (in other words they defiled {that is they
‘did it to’} themselves {verse needed})].
409) that is
they can only have sex with other angels [note the word for ‘fornication’ in
Jude 1:7 is heightened and translated as “gross immorality” for their (sexual)
pursuit of humans (Jude 1:7)]
410) that can
be without proper foundation and everything else.
411) which -
for the sake of argument - can even break up (permanent) relationships and make
new (permanent) ones.
411A) There is not.
411B) which even
for new believers is difficult being so caught up in physical appearances (see chapter _______ and footnote _____on this), as well as ‘surfacy’ type of things.
412) which does and will include any relationships that are
modified between spouses (that is new spousal arrangements) even relationships
that move on (See Appendix _____ regarding this).
Special note: brothers and
sisters even though we are not under the law of vows anymore, our words – as
Christians - may still trip us up if they prove untrue in regards to some
things. As in the case of the apostles who overrode written law and took the
colt (Matthew 21:2,3), if God’s
purposes aren’t the prevailing thing (as in leaving a spouse for the sake of
the gospel, or more to the point moving towards maturity – and actually being
mature about it), breaking your promises (vows) can still cause trouble [and it
really doesn’t matter whether you feel vows (or even promises) can be broken or
not - and it may be totally irrelevant (for example: you may still ‘on the
hook’ for a (dual) mortgage, (dual) old bills and possibly child support etc.
etc. etc.)].
Also remember that if you
- as mature Christians - do “move on” if done correctly, and maturely, it will
not be done as the world does it for you will still be linked to your old
spouse as a life-long friend, and your children (that you share together) will
probably still bring you together for a number of their special occasions (in other
words you never really leave your spouse, even if you leave and you will always
be part of one another’s life to some degree or another).
412A) Brethren,
how things eventually pan out between people is their own business, however if
anyone has certain ‘committed’ expectations regarding the outcome of any
relationship (fill in the blank here _______ ) it’s probably best that they’re
‘up front’ about it – before the relationship progresses to intimacy [remember
we are talking about mature lifestyles here, not “committed” per
say (See Appendixes ______ and ____ for more on this)].
412B) which
apparently is the thing that tripped up the angels.
412C) which
includes relationships you are leaving.
412D) which I
would advise believers to be cautious about getting involved with (reread
Believer / Unbeliever relations in Chapter ____ of this
book).
413) Note we
are not going to have our bibles in heaven [for if we did we will see how much
what was written was for the immature (again sex only within marriage) and
since there is no marriage between people on the other side of eternity our
bibles would be irrelevant (at least in regards to ‘that concept’)].
414) which is basically a
non-self-centered (or possessive), non-lustful type of lifestyle.
551) As in a whole system
of thought depends on it.
552) As in the key
systematic principle (for example: ‘don’t do anything to anyone you would not
want done to you’ will determine other principles that revolve around a
person’s life)
553) For example:
554) for example: the errant
catch all - everybody is right – phrase “Co-exist.”
555) which could for the sake
of argument could be a systematic principle that could be “on the negative”
(for example: ‘do unto others before they do unto you’).
556) Which actually can
dominate cultural thought (western thought, eastern thought etc.), even the
thoughts and attitudes of individual towns, cities, countries, states and
nations.
Note: the problem with some people [societies and
cultures (which can be a dominate problem with them)], is that that they will
take “wrong” or in fact wrong principles, and even though they may sound good…
556a) others might include… “everybody is doing it (‘always do what everybody
is doing’ or ‘go with the flow’)” or…
556b) Note a lot of mental illness can also be rooted in taking sub principles
and making them into a main principle in life [which is akin to misplacing
priorities (which is something that must be done in order to maintain good
mental health {as in: this is a priority now and this is not and that (whatever it is) can be gotten
back to later})].
However note even though
this is true this does not mean that God does not want a particular thing done at
a particular time or that there aren’t priorities to things or that there
aren’t things (that is: works) of more eternal value and worth than others
557) that is “do unto others
as you would have them do unto you” (or again “don’t do anything to anyone you
would not want done to you”). Note: the reason why this principle is called the
golden rule is that it is the one axiom (principle) that stands the test
of time and will not fall apart under circumstances [like “live and let live”
does which will not hold true across the board and does in fact fall apart
under certain circumstances (the mosquito again, or pest control, or again
eating meat, etc.)], therefore it’s more like a silver, bronze or even false
rule (or axiom) than it is a “golden” rule for someone (and note there are a
lot of “rules” out there like this as well).
557A) hence the term
“systematic” (as in once again: a system of thought is dependent on it).
and note: it might be good
to sit down every once in a while and reflect on what principles (or sub
principles) actually do rule your life [for example: “life over law” would
determine which way you go when confronted by a law (or rule) that gets in the
way of living (and is usually thought of as a sub principle
depending on what you are talking about)]
558)
which is no small point
to consider and is mentioned (probably referring to the same account) three
times in scripture by Jesus which leave open the question of “Why He is
mentioning it?”
Note: although the angelic
reference is in response to a question the fact that Jesus talked about so many
things (see 558a) and this is out of
all the things is one of the things that gets passed on three times (verses needed) does at the minimum have the effect of playing on the mind [for it
is not something that is hidden (see
558b)]. Sisters and brothers, when one takes this ‘playing on the mind’ (see 558c) and combines it with the Christian
right to press ahead into what is coming next (See Footnote ___ ) it does leave open the possibility of living this type of
uncommitted lifestyle in the present.
558a) although John 21:25
mentions that Jesus did so
many other things that aren’t mentioned in His gospel if you read the gospel of
John there are many many things said there that are not found in the other
gospels which makes one think that there are still many words out there that
were not recorded [which again has significance in regards to why these
statements were picked out among the many (in other words: God is not hiding
something)].
558b) that and along with the
fact that angels have sex (Genesis 6:2 / Jude 1:7) all of which is hidden in
contemporary culture (not scripture) by the wrongly believed common view
that angels are sexless [or nuter beings (again note the use of the name Michael {the arch angels} name as women’s
name as well)].
558c) of whose lifestyle I
would be careful about passing on to the immature (that is: not publically
flaunt things) as too being careful in regards to revealing the fact that
angels have sex and… at the same time mentioning the gospel verses in Matthew,
Mark and Luke [which is the combination of things that will play on the mind
(just stick with Genesis especially Jude in regards to the mention of angels
having sex (see 558d){and bring in
Job 1:6 in regards to the question of who the ‘sons of God’ were that are
mentioned in Genesis 6:2 (see 558e)})].
558d) which is (Jude 1:7) the
only reference in scripture that explicitly says that angels have sex (Genesis
6:2 is inferred) and in regards to the actual sin mentioned in Jude (which does
not need to be gotten into in
regards to the reference and is another issue all together) if it does come up
you might want to take note of the debate mentioned in Footnotes 618 & 619B.
558e) note: Jesus was different
(of of a different ‘substance’ than the other sons of God) being the only begotten (or unique) son
of God [John 3: 16 (which is an older word {that is: begotten} but can be seen
at use in the King James Version in such statements as ‘who begot who’ to give
you an idea of who Jesus was (that is: a little different substance than
common man)].
558A) note: while we dealt with a number of law issues in the first half
of this book [some of which people may disagree with in regards to mature
relationship conclusions (see 558Aa)]
there still remains the question of the mechanism used (or “in play”) that gets
us from “here to there” and because of that one ought not get caught up in all the
legal arguments of the first half of the book, but rely more on the things
brought out in the later half, because… we will get from ‘here to
there someday’ and it will (mostly) be because of the things found in the
latter half of the book (maturity, etc.), than to go around saying things like
‘God can break up contracts’ or ‘we can annul this contract and not that’ etc.
[and please note: the concept of maturity trumps a lot if not all (ask any
mature adult)].
558Aa) of whose objections ought to be turned around and
asked of them “How - do - we get from here to there?”
558B)
which in regards to relationships is the angelic
lifestyle. Note: it’s difficult to say how the angels themselves partake in
relationships [and how quickly they go in and out of them (see 558Ba)]. On this side of eternity men seem to be able to have
concurrent ones with women who themselves don’t seem to mind and unless it is
because of the way society is set up it may be because something in the genders
allows such a thing to take place (see
558Bb). However because man and woman was not created that way (multiple
spousal) unless you are talking about people growing up (maturing) into such
things it could also be a result of the fall in one way or another as well. The
thing is brothers and sisters most people want to share intimacy alone with
another individual (and not a group) and although multiple spousal (and “group
things”) are not forbidden in scripture it’s difficult to see how such things
could be done or scheduled and unless one can do so [and / or go in and out of
them quickly (which the angels might do)] there seems to be a duration (and
privacy) not only involved but desired. However in regards to this the thing is
when Jesus comes back the illustration He uses in Matthew 25 just happens to be
a groom taking multiple brides (see
558Bc) which manifest commitment to Him, however the “brides” themself will
not be committed to one another in the same married way and although one can
make multiple points in regards to this illustration the fact remains that the
mature lifestyle does not [necessarily (see
558h)] involve commitment (or dedication to one another in a permanent
sense) but having relationships that revolve around what is best for the
individual(s). Sisters and brothers the upshot of the whole thing is that once
issues and concerns on this side of eternity are addressed (see 558Bi) - if you are mature be
mature (see 558Bj) and enjoy
all that maturity entails.
558Ba) which we on this side of eternity don’t have to
follow (and could go on on the other side for quite some time).
558Bb) that is there is something in the inherent
difference of the genders that carries through into these types of
relationships (note the multiple brides of Christ in Matthew 25).
558Bc) which through the result of the fall or maturity
is done and accepted by the women [note: as far as who they are could be
symbolically (that is two of them) an illustration of Jew and Gentile being
both separate, but yet together in purpose and on the same page (see 558Bd).
558Bd) and possibly other creations of God, even mixed
like the Nephilim [note: there were 5 chosen brides of Christ (however chosen
in the sense of dedication) and there were 5 rejected brides as well (all
rejected for things that had nothing to do with “type” but lack of dedication {and
note: there is such a thing as rejected humans}].
Note: in regards to the Nephilim just as there
will be those who reflect more the human (physically) than the angelic there
will be those who reflect more the angelic (physically) than human and because
some of the angelic do look like animals (see
558 Be) there could be some very mixed types that may even have settled
down into unique categories [in other words don’t be shocked by appearance nor
even behavior (especially in regards to the truism that just as animals and
humans may not get along well {unless on the same intelligent (understanding)
level (which is helpful here) different types of Nephilim (because they are
more intelligent {keep reading}) may have had difficulty getting along with
humans – in the past})]. Remember everyone is fallen (see 558 Bf) and if the Nephilim along the way actually mixed with
animals some might even have reverted to some foundational instinctive nature at
some point [as in not being afraid to eat people (see 558 Bg)].
Note: animals themselves vary in intelligence (compare
Job 39:17 with Genesis 3:1) and are cognitive but seem to be hindered in
speaking their thoughts unless God opens their mouth [note again the serpent in
the garden (see Genesis 3:1 as well as verses 4 & 5) and note Balaam’s
donkey (and note the phrase “and the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey”
{which may be necessary (Numbers 22:28)})] and as far as a modern story goes it
is reported that two Jewish men fishing on the east river in New York caught a
fish that told them “the end” is coming soon.
Also Note: the category of Nephilim is genetically
broad and as far as intelligence goes, because the angels are more superior
than man [which includes intelligent (see Hebrews 1:9 in regards to the
incarnation)], one can expect to not only see differing levels of intelligence
among the group (which will vary according to their mixing with non-angelic /
common man) but also because of residing fallen nature one may encounter
differing levels of pride as well [which might translate into arrogance among
some Nephilim (which might also explain some individual{s} behavior in the
past)].
Also also note: the question as to whether humans
(or common man) ought to accept Nephilims in common society is a moot point
since they already exist in society on multiple levels [it’s the Nephilim that
look different than common man that are the question in regards to Nephilim
acceptance – which is actually stupid given the multi-racial acceptance of most
of our societies (the Baptists who actively excel among Christians with first
contact missionary issues understand all the things involved here - including the
issues behind encountering different cultures with their unique values and
problems - and can help their Christian brethren {and society} tremendously
in regards to understanding all the issues involved here {including Nephilim past acts} before the common
society accepts Nephilim - especially the Nephilim that look angelically
mixed {to one degree or another (Christians ought to accept all of them right
away)})].
558Be)
See the authors book “A
Short essay on the Angels”
558Bf)
which if you look at
Genesis 6 seems to have been carried over into the Nephilim children since the
flood is spoken of soon afterward.
558Bg)
brothers and sisters there
is not much one can do about certain things in life and there are things that
are a ‘given’ [like your existence, your gender even the existence of the
Nephilim (none of which you had a choice in)]. The thing is sisters and
brothers we did not create the world the way it is, but have to accept it even
if one doesn’t like it (which also includes ones gender and the “hand” one was
originally dealt with in life). The problem that one may encounter in regards
to the existence of the Nephilim is that contemporary society has gotten away
from biblical truth and has reject the bible (as well as the spiritual and the
existence of spirits) all of which has had a hand in this and as a result
because society has rejected so much it will be in for quite a shock and
adjustment (which may take time).
However in regards to the children of God [which
can include Nephilim (see 558Bk)]
such things ought not be and not only ought these things confirm our beliefs,
but as God’s children we ought to be (or become) strong and confident and confidently
guide society and the social circles we both live and mix in (in other words:
everyone goes back to the bible together).
558Bh) speaking of this side of eternity (see Appendix
___ regarding Issues and Concerns).
558Bi) again see Issues and Concerns in Appendix ___.
558Bj) See Guidelines for Mature Relationships in
Appendix ___.
558Bk) I can’t tell the difference between common man
and the Nephilim that look like man except when they act in their spirit, or
turn on “the stars” (twinkle) in their eyes (which angels apparently have) or
are sometimes revealed by their tall height (but nowhere near all are tall and
not all tall people are Nephilim).
And note: because there are various levels of
acting in spirit (which includes revealing the stars in one’s eyes) who knows
what they believe about themselves (as in Dracula or voodoo type stuff),
however because they (see 558 – m)
are called men in scripture, not only can they be saved (that is: according to
the common theological view of Christ dying for mankind thus - at the
minimum - anything with “human” in it is redeemable), but you will also find
that some are actually saved.
558B-m)
and we need to be careful
with the term “they” for some may not consider themselves as “they’s” (and who
knows if you yourself are not part Nephilim).
Note: there is a difference between gifts and
innate spiritual abilities.
(See
also Footnotes 618c; 619B; 619D and 923 in regards to the Nephilim).
559) Note: once one sees that
maturity is the key ingredient that is factored into life (that is there is a
goal and it is to mature), everything written in this book falls into place,
especially the viewpoint concerning the angels [or angelic lifestyle (again see
Chapter ____ “Moving on to Maturity” which dealt with this
issue in detail)].
585) which again was forbidden
in the Old Covenant (allowable in the new) but was a permitable thing in the
Old because again Jesus - “the Lord of the Sabbath” (as well as other things)
was with them.
586) as in it ought never be
made a controlling systematic principle.
587) not the key
593) and if there is a problem
with this Appendix it’s not that it’s not biblical in its approach, but it’s a
problem with not only who is reading it? (for example: a child, young adult,
full adult etc.), and why? [that is: are they trying to
justify some aberrant behavior? or are they actually (and sincerely) looking
for the direction and goal of life (which is maturity)]. Brothers and sister’s
maturity (or perfection) is a major goal of life (and actually the
goal if properly qualified), and there is nothing wrong, nor unbiblical with
what is written here (again the angels) and again if Jesus said “be ye perfect”
(which is possible on this side of eternity) why can’t this angelic lifestyle
be available for those who have matured?
[however the real problem (if
there is any problem here) is probably the definition of mature behavior [that is:
would a mature person who is not under the law (that is: “life over
law”) do ‘such and such’?], is probably more where the ‘issues’ lie
here (that is: with the “we’re free to do anything” attitude) than once again
it is with what is written here [for once again what is written here is not
unbiblical, the logic (theology) is sound and once again the mature perfect
angels live this kind of lifestyles (and please take note in regards to this
issue: a free person who is not under the law would not do anything {unless - for the sake of argument - God is asking him
to do so}, but instead always do the right thing)]
(bring in sustaining
revival on maturity)
600) When Jesus talks about the
type of relationships that go on between humans (the genders) on the other side
of eternity He speaks of them in terms of in the resurrection
For in the resurrection
they (that is men and women) neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are
like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29,30)
(which happens immediately
after He comes back (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Therefore there is a gap between
the two events (that is the entering the new life and the getting of a new
resurrected body).
Brothers and sisters in
regards to our new bodies if you look at all the relevant verses, after we
depart from this life there first seems to be purely spiritual body that we
have (which may be what is commonly referred to as our soul or our very
substance or essence) and after the second coming the resurrection takes place
and we will get a physical one which is as physical as the one we have now [a
new heavenly body if you will (1 Corinthians 15:40)] Our old body is
resurrected and changed into a new physical body and it’s this new body that
has bearing on future relationships between the genders.
601) For one children can
result (and I’m not sure what goes on on the other side of eternity with this,
but there is a verse in Revelation that talk about myriads and myriads of
angels before the Lord (Revelation 5:11), and there are families there
(Ephesians 3:15). Also brethren, people on this side of eternity can be very
judgmental in regards to this issues, especially of women [which most women
(and mature men) rightly see as a double standard].
602) In regards to some of these scriptures it might be
helpful to look at the book of Acts for in it you will find a joint ruling by
the apostles on the issue of sex outside of marriage and in verse 15:23 you
have a statement that it should be refrained from - not for salvations sake,
but that “you will do well.” Brothers and sisters, if you follow the general guideline in Appendix C (which by
the way are very considerate of the issue of “doing well”) there ought to be no
problem with the issue.
Also remember that Jesus Himself
said that all the old covenant law (some of which is reiterated in the new
covenant which is an important point in regards to the teaching of scripture
on this issue) - as well as all of what the prophets said (that is their
basic thrust and goal) hung on just two commandments (VERSES NEEDED). In
other words if you are worried about following commandments, just do these two
(love of God and love of and towards ones neighbor) and you do fulfill the law
(and the guidelines in this Appendix C
are an elaboration on one of those laws).
Also in regards to this
issue you may want to keep in mind that sex without marriage is something that is
going to happen on the other side of this life and the reason it’s going to
happen is because we have been perfected and have reached a matured state.
Therefore if you can be perfect and mature about at least this issue (and
all its related issues, which again are mentioned in the guidelines of Appendix C) there ought to again be no
problem with it on this side of eternity.
Really, what’s the
problem? Except that one hasn’t though things through.
For example if you lived
in a country where coffee was regulated by prescription because of its caffeine
content and you needed some, but had none, however your spouse had some - and
you fit the requirements of the prescription - what is the problem in taking some?
Another thing to note is
that one of the other things the apostles ask Christians to abstain from in
Acts 15:29 (an “essential” thing by the way which also seemed “good to the Holy
Spirit”) is “things sacrificed to idols.” However in 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 this
particular issue is directly regulated to a matter of conscience as well as
seeing things through correctly on the matter [in other words since there is no
other Gods it’s OK (1 Corinthians 8:4-7)]. Therefore that which was written as
an “essential” thing which also seemed “good to the Holy Spirit” is in reality
a matter of conscience. Brothers and sisters a maturing conscience that gains
insight through knowledge (1 Corinthians 8:7) is something that is necessary on
the road to maturity (See the authors book Sustainng Revival for more on those
two things).
Brothers and sisters the
ruling by the apostles in regards to the issue of eating things sacrificed to
idols was just given to the church in “a general sense.” Since this is so about
this issue why can’t it be so about the issue mentioned in the same letter as
well? (There were only 4 essential things mentioned in Acts 15:29 which also
happened to include this particular sexual issue), the only concern I see
scripturally is that we need to be mindful of where other people are at in
regards to certain things and be careful not to cause other people to stumble
(which, if you read 1 Corinthians 8:7-13 seems to be the main concern behind
the ruling, thus again the “essentials” in Acts 15 were given in just a general
sense and not something that was set in stone).
Sisters and brothers, if
you are mature enough to follow the general guidelines in Appendix C (and you
need to be mature) there should be no problem.
be
perfect ((VERSE NEEDED))
It may take time to see
your way through on some of these issues, but it can be done.
Also brethren remember
that when Jesus talked about law (which just happened to be the issue in Acts
15) His basic thrust was ‘life over law’ and it was this principle that
overrode law (Matthew 12:1-12). Thus , when we speak of following the teachings
of Jesus we also factor in Jesus’ teaching (and the principle) of ‘life over
law’ as well. Brethren, not to factor that in is to not present the full
gospel of Jesus Christ and you are hiding something from people (and believe me
the good news is not about following law anyway. If you read the new testament
- especially the epistles - you will find out that it‘s about the complete
opposite - freedom (from the law) and Christian liberty).
603) Brothers and sisters once again in regards to the
systematic principle at work here not everything is
scripture fits into neat guidelines and there are overlaps. For example even
though the resurrection is to come some people were not only raised from the
dead by Jesus, but also after the cross you had some newly resurrected people
walking around as well. (VERSE NEEDED). Also Jesus was obviously
justifying behavior in Matthew 12 that was at the very least frowned
upon in the old covenant law as something that was OK for it was not only for
the sake of life, but it was part of a new covenant that was coming
(which had not arrived). In other words even though they were under
the dispensation or covenant of law (Romans 7:4,6; Galatians 3:23); , Jesus was
allowing the disciples to “press through” into something that was coming next ,
and this was pre cross / pre resurrection.
John the Baptist was full
of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15), even though the Holy Spirit had not yet been
given (to the general public at least) in an internal sense (VERSE
NEEDED). [David might possibly be an example of this “pressing through” in
regards to the Holy Spirit as well (Matthew 22:43)].
Brothers and sisters,
before the sun rises there is light [the difference between daybreak and dawn
(see 603a)] and this “pressing through” into what is “coming down the road” is
not something new in scripture and has relevance in regards to this issue (and
brethren un-covenanted open sexual relations is something that is coming down
the road).
603a) note this principle in
regards to the sons of Zadok in Footnote
149.
604) In Matthew 12 Jesus justifies the disciples public
violation of the Sabbath (they were picking grain) as something that was OK to
do for it was something that was done for the sake of life (He even offered a
proof text in regard to something King David did as justification that - for
the sake of life - it was OK to publicly violate the law).
This scripture is
something most people overlook in regards to its significance. Jesus was
definitely trying to get people away from living under the law and
moving them to living a life of faith and trust (note the contrast).
Again, even the book of Acts reflect this debate when the Apostles are
wrestling with the issue of the law. As mentioned before in a letter they wrote
to the churches they mentioned - literally - only a handful of
things a Christian “should” do, and they should do them - not for salvation’s
sake - but so that they - as Christians - should “do well” (VERSE NEEDED)(and
again if you read 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 some of these things directly
relate to other peoples consciences).
Therefore brethren,
because of immaturity and other peoples immature consciences (See the authors book “Sustaining Revival” on
both these issues) we as Christians still need to be mindful
of where other people are at especially in regards to this issue. If for
example a person we “are with” starts asking questions about our intent, it’s
best to be considerate and back off and talk the situation over.
However brethren there
is nothing wrong with living a private life that on the surface may
seem hypocritically and even at odds with ones public life, but in actuality is
just considerate of other peoples consciences. Since people are at
differing levels in their understanding of things and we don’t want to cause
other people to stumble it‘s more than understandable.
Again, consideration of
where others are at is something one may want to consider when dealing with
this issue especially since it concerns other peoples private behavior. Thus it
may be best to keep all maters in regards to this issue private (and if you
have to “condemn it” in a blanket way, think about condemning it in the terms
of what will be mentioned in the guidelines of Appendix C. Don’t just condemn
it totally for that would be hypocritical (that is if you feel different
on the issue), but if one has to deal with it publicly (and you feel different
about where people are coming from) just talk about (or ask) why it is frowned
upon in scripture [again think of the basic guidelines in this appendix or - if
bold enough - and it looks like the person (or people) are relatively mature -
ask what the difference is between life on this side of eternity and the other
side in regards to this issue and let the people themselves think about and
possibly answer the question themselves [and then possibly talk about people
following basic rules of consideration in their lives (which in actuality is
the real problem)].
However it also
might be best - if the issue is raised publicly - because of the different
levels conscience in regards to this issue - that unless you are able to
discern where people ‘are at’ in regards to this, to not address the issue at
all or to ask the person who asked the question to speak with you in private
afterward (Again see the authors book
“Sustaining Revival” in regards to the issue of maturity and
conscience).
614) putting aside psychological and sociological reasons [psychological
(as in: wanting closeness, therefore…); sociological (as in: wanting to start
up a new relationship or the desire to get out under a parent{s} authority and
start a new home)].
621D mentions this
footnote
615) men as youths can undress in front of each other and almost
categorically will not get sexually stimulated by it, but if you put men in a
locker room full of women all doing the same thing it would be a different
story.
616) and because of that women ought to be careful about encouraging men
in such activity.
616A) unless it’s to show off a catch [or muscular posing is done towards
them (and the “done towards them” is what they catch)], guys generally speaking
are wasting their time building muscles [although exercising to looking trim
might help with some ladies (as in it may reveal something about a man {especially
since a man might be laying on top of a woman})].
617) as in why did they do that? What does it mean? (in other words:
attention).
Note: society used to be a
lot more interesting (and fun) with men going out of their way to give
preference to women in social situations (take my seat on the bus, holding the
door open, etc., even tipping a hat or standing up to greet a woman), but the women
lib movement of the 1970’s began to have (unintended?) effect on things –
especially at the work place – with such attention even being seen as
harassment by some – especially among those who were not (work) equals.
Brothers if women can still dress up to attract men (see 617a), men can still give “preference” or preference to women
in social situations (but be careful in the workplace).
617a) and men need to be careful here for there is a
difference between a woman dressing up to flirt and dressing up to look nice
(although she might flirt when she looks nice too).
617A) which is possibly the thing that tripped up the angels [or at least
started things going in that direction (keep reading)].
617B) which is normal and is something people who are intimate with one
another need to be careful of [and
can blindside one or both parties if they happen to enter into an intimate
relationship needy (or without understanding) and all of a sudden discover that
they have a hard time letting go (which quite honestly goes on all the time and
is the bane, caution and tension behind almost every teenage {immature}
relationships)]. See Genesis 2:21-24 ‘and a man shall cleave [as in: glue
(which again is just a normal phenomenon and also can be a result of intimacy (see 617Ba))] to his wife’ (also see
Matthew 19:4-6 and Ephesians 5:28-32 on this as well)
617Ba) note: people
really need to be careful when intimate [as to: who (see 617Bb)] for such a bonding is only natural and it’s not funny
(in the sense of a person thinking highly of themselves) to have the phone
ringing off the hook all the time (or leaving a trail of broken hearts behind).
617Bb)
note: it’s desirable to be in a relationship with a mature person who will not only not treat
someone like an object, but also understands the (possible) temporary nature of
a mature relationship (see Appendix ___ Guidelines for Mature Open
Relationships for more on what’s involved here).
617C) as in the case of marriage the two now becomes (or crosses over
into) one.
621D makes mention of
this footnote
617D) which goes on all the time in regards to homosexuality and is more
often than not the reason behind female homosexuality (see 617Da) [that is: emotional sharing leads to emotional bonding
which can also lead to emotional cleaving and then some (note: it’s the “and
then some” that is the problem, not the shared emotions {however caution needs
to be expressed when doing so for such a thing can lead to the other quite
easily and a line can be [sincerely (see
617Db)] crossed})].
617Da)
note: it’s a mistake for
women to get together (or have conversations around) “men are horrible” for
it’s not only not true (of all men) but what alternative does it leave the
women involved in the conversation - but other women? (note: women need to
understand men and go where the good men
are).
617Db)
note: the old expression
of just because someone is sincere doesn’t make what they did right, might and
can (depending on reason) apply in this area as well (see Footnotes ______ )
617E) not
to be fanatical about this for there are many close friendships between the
same sex that don’t cross any line, however when shared emotions become long -
drawn out - heart felt empathy (see
617Ea), or ones inner defenses have been damaged (see 617Eb) the possibility of a further breakdown [of defenses (or
walls)] is possible (see 617Ec).
617Ea)
which can involve touching
for long periods of time.
617Eb)
especially by someone of
the opposite sex through outright hurt or especially ignoring (or being
ignored) [also note: insecurity (which is: the
lack of defenses) can bring about the same vulnerability].
617Ec)
Note: while these are some
avenues that homosexual relations can begin with according to the book of
Romans suppressing the innate truth about God (that’s within one self) can
start a chain of events [which factors in residing lust (Romans 1:24)] that
can lead to the same thing (Romans 1:18-32).
617F) see
Jude 1:6,7 that compares homosexuality with what the angels did and note the
phrase “in the same way.”
558d; 619A; 619B; 620F;
621 mentions this footnote
618) what
actually happened remains a mystery but it may just be as simple as some male
angels [who watched over mankind (Daniel 4:23)] saw the daughters of humanity
were beautiful (Genesis 6:2) and their beauty captivated (or more likely
clouded) their thinking.
“And angels who did not keep their own domain, but
abandoned their proper abode… Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around
them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross
immorality (Greek: extreme fornication) and went after strange flesh,
…” (Jude 1:6-7)
Note: while one might
speculate that because some angels reflect a mixture of beings [including man
in “the mix” (see 618a)] that if
faith, hope and love happen to be present (see
618b) any sexual relationship is permissible (see 618c), however one would still have to get past the verses in
Jude regarding different body types [“strange flesh” (see 1 Timothy 4:4,5 for a
possible theological {not biological (see
618d)} out].
618a) See Ezekiel 1:10, also note the apparently mixed
being in Ezekiel 41:18,19.
618b) not
lust.
558B mentions this footnote
618c) that is: if the different types of angels (see 618e) were not created that way
[that is according to species (which note is how earths creation began –
according to species {“after their (own) kind” Genesis 1:21,24,25})]. However
in regards to the Nephilim one can see the result of cross species breeding
[which may only take place (or be allowed?
(see 618f)) with higher level “intellectual” beings (who are basically the
same) for in regards to lower “intellectual” beings no species are able to
propagate with other species that we know about [a horse and a donkey make a
mule, but it’s still basically “a horse” of some type (same thing with dog
breeding – still a dog)]. Note: in regards to this issue the Nephilim [a
“product” of mixed “breeding” (which can be more human than anything else)],
will take on a variety of looks, even mixed (see 618f) [see a Platypus as an example of (an apparent) mixed
being (mammal with eggs, duck bill and webbed feet), however most likely still
being created after kind (of which is an example of a mixed being created as
mixed on one level {which is in favor of the angles being created as they are}
but not an example on another level {of which the Nephilims may be an example
of as either an allowance or right to do among similar intelligent beings
(namely between man and the angels - if certain things are present {faith, hope
and love – not lust (see 618g)})})].
(See
also Footnotes 619B; 619D and 923 for more in regards to the Nephilim).
618d) biological in the sense of “why would someone do
that (to the same sex)?” [which is a question that still remains
and is biologically pertinent to male homosexuality (and female in the sense of
no offspring – again strictly biologically speaking)].
618e) scripture reveals two types of angels [seraphim
and cherubim (or cherubs)] with different types of cherubim [which seem to
reflect not only man but also reflect the animal kingdom (or actually
visa-versa) in differing measures].
618f) and ought not be treated differently [for like
man they are intelligent beings and may even identify more with humanity (and
be more human) than the angelic]. Note they were considered men in scripture
[men of renown (Genesis 6:4)] and it’s possible (actually probable) that they
were considered ‘men’ just because they were flesh no matter what they looked like [note: angels seem to go in and out
of a physical state (note demon possession as a possible example of a spiritual
state)].
619B, 621D mentions this footnote
618g) which if allowed would be a point in favor of
interpreting the problem with the fallen angels as one of lust not love [and
another point in favor of this would be that it (angels mixing with
‘intelligent’ mankind) was biologically allowed and offspring
permitted to go to term]. So again the problem with the angels may have been…
· Lust: as in lust (not love)
And
· Lust: as in going after strange flesh that could have been dealt with
through prayer since it was biologically allowed [again see 1 Timothy 4:4,5 for
a possible theological “out” (“strange flesh” meaning either unsanctified flesh
or approaching flesh wrongly or improperly {see the “strange fire” reference in
Leviticus 10:1 as a possible example})], but again such an explanation will
still leave open some biological
questions in regards to human homosexuality [as in: since it makes no biological sense it may be more
than improper (again see Sodom and Gomorrah (see 618h) as mentioned in Jude 1:6,7)].
Note: if you take the scriptural reason behind
homosexual sex [and wrong thinking (both found in Romans 1:18-32)] and apply it
to the angels what you may have had happen (in no particular order) is that
some angels for some reason…
· Suppressed the innate truth about God (Romans
1:18-27) and…
· Did not see it fit to acknowledge God any longer
(Romans 1:28)
· which lead to (?) the abandoning of their place
(Jude 1:6) and that combined with
· Being attracted to the looks of the women (Genesis
6:2) but (probably) not attracted to their physical bodies [“which is strange
flesh” (Jude 1:8)]
· brought about (residing) lust (Romans 1:24)
which started a chain of events that led to their
downfall (now what line that lust made them cross which led to their downfall is
an issue).
618h) which if you look at the biblical account seems
to have been forced [as in rape (Genesis 19:4,5)] which leaves open the
question of non-forced homosexuality, but still possibly leaves unresolved the
mention of “strange flesh” in Jude 1:7 [in other words: angels (or cross
breeding) a maybe, man (or human homosexuality) probably not (except possibly
as an allowance until people get their ‘act together’ {see Footnote ___ for more on this})].
619) which again goes to the point that men seem to be attracted by the
physical which women are not.
619A) and unless you understand the section as allowing for ‘emotional
bonding’ of faith, hope and love (not lust) to lead to a legitimate crossing of
the forbidden line [which is possible (see Footnote
618 on this)] which would mean the forbidden line was actually one of
(cross species) lust (not love) and lust apparently clouded their thinking.
Note:
regarding Chapter ___ on “the Progression of Apostolic Thought” one needs to be careful in
regards to the application of that concept on Genesis 6 (and the interpretation
thereof in the books of Jude and 2 Peter) for something did in fact happen to
those angels and they did in fact cross some forbidden line (that is: do something
forbidden).
558d; 558B mentions
this footnote
619B) which again was either unallowable cross species breeding (however
again see Footnote 618 on this) or
possibly approaching a relationship with lust [that is: the motivation
(or state) was the thing that was actually wrong (see Footnote 618g on this)]. Note the angels do not appear to have had
sex in a unfallen state (as in it wasn’t ‘demons’ that had sex with fallen man).
(See
also Footnotes 618c; 619D and 923 for more in regards to the Nephilim).
619C) Scripture says they are reserved for judgment (2 Peter 2:4).
558B mentions this
footnote
619D) apparently God waited a bit for scripture says that they live
(co-habited) with the women and were their long enough to have children with
them. The thing about ‘God waiting’ is that sometimes He lets things go on a
bit to bring about a great object lesson for everyone to see so they won’t do
the same thing (see 619Da) and
apparently with the angels, even if they went into this thing sincerely the
outcome was because man was fallen the children also became tainted and corrupt
and probably ‘higher levelly’ out of control [maybe to the angels surprise (see 619Db)] and one can only surmise
here, but it may have been at this point
that the higher level angels knew that they erred and those kind of beings just
don’t error (see 619Dc) and
‘judgment’ followed (see 619Dd).
619Da) It’s just one of the many ways (or methods) He
uses to teach us things (see 1 Corinthians 10:6). Note God is more apt to let
things go on for a while then not [and it could be for good reasons too (see
Jesus ‘giving people time to repent’ scripture in Revelation 2:21).
619Db) scripture says the offspring were men of renown
(in other words they were children on a level higher than common man), however
if you read the scriptures they apparently were not like what we think other
angelic children would be like [and were mixed in more way then one (that is: a
residing fallen nature {like the rest of mankind} as well as abilities {for
example: they weren’t spirits, but a mix between the two})].
Note the phrase right after the mention of what
the angels did [“My Spirit shall not strive with man forever” (Genesis 6:3)] as
a possible reference to new tension (also see Zechariah 5:3 in regards to any
concern that God is not continuing to watch over His earth).
619Dc) the angels (and children) were tested just like
man and were continued to be tested and unless some Nephilim escaped the
judgment of the flood what happened in Genesis 6 happened again later on (see a
later mention of the Nephilim in verse needed)
619Dd) However my experience with the higher level ones
of today (that is: their continued offspring or the Nephilim) definitely manifest
the traits of honesty, integrity as well as extreme ‘pro-bono’ helpfulness (as
well as true offence if people were to think otherwise), and although the total
picture remains to be seen what seems to be coming out is that there are
different levels of ‘Nephilim’ (experience) with the superior ones (that
continued to mix only within the “original” group and as a result manifest
superior abilities) basically running off on their own (some exploring other
worlds) with some (due to genetic variations) looking very different than
common man (see 619De), as well as
the existence of “watered down” Nephilim (who mixed more with humanity over the
years) remaining mostly on earth looking like everyone else [and just like with
everyone else manifesting both good and bad behavior (which can be in the
spiritual plane as well (see 619Df))].
619De) and because they are called men in scripture ‘mankind’ can
have sexual relations with them - without fear of judgment - once an
“outing” happens (that is: if that is of concern) and they (as well as any
continued mixed children) ought to be able to mix among common society
(especially enlightened societies) without any fear as well.
619Df) of whose abilities are basically no different
than spirits do except in smaller measure [so there is no need for common
society to “freak out” here for not only are they part of common society, but
this stuff goes on all the time anyway {and has on the watered down level too (see 619Dg)}) just continue to be
focused in life, that’s all].
619Dg) and I think some of these people will be found as
shamans and voodoo people not knowing where they got their abilities from (it’s
that kind of stuff, no need to fear just be focused).
(See
also Footnotes 618c; 619B and 923 for more in regards to the Nephilim).
619E) of which I will throw homosexuality (as well as masturbation) into (until
people get their “act together”).
619F) which
no matter how you look at it seems to have been involved (or part of) the fall
of the angels in Genesis 6 (that is: whatever line they crossed lust seems to have been part of the
equation).
620) now this is not to say that sex does not have anything to do with “the
physical” - it does and what we “are” as a gender is in part that [in other
words we are approaching the other person (or being approached) as either a
woman or man not a ‘neuter persona’ and are using (or allowing to be used) what
we gender-ly “have” or are in fact are].
620A) which is different than lust in that actions (acts) will fall more
on the romantic side of things (see
620Aa) and actually feel “romantic” especially foreplay.
620Aa) which is inclusive of a number of (outside of
self) things [which includes being soft (not hard (see 620Ab)), sensitive and especially being considerate.
620Ab) note: a romantic atmosphere is usually describe
in terms of soft music and soft lighting (with ‘soft’ being the operative word)
and is almost never described - if ever - as an atmosphere of harsh strobe
lights and / or hard drum beat music (which would probably be more indicative
{and fitting} of an atmosphere surrounding lust more than a romantic one)].
620B) as in: do the deed and that’s it.
620B-1) and is described in 1 Corinthians 13 which is held up as the classic
definition of love [which involves actions and attitudes (not feelings
per say) (and note: all Christian spouses are usually told to do these things
whether they “feel” like it or
not)].
620B-2) and although lust can be involved here I would advise men to take a
moment and go in any book store that contains the paperbacks and look at the
covers to see how ideal women’s relationships are “pictured” [note the guys are not naked (as in guys magazines) but
are usually holding a woman in certain tender ways (not grabbing the breasts, etc.)].
620C) which might involve…
All of which
can stop things cold.
620D) and in regards to women usually conversation before and
during (see 620Da) is important to
be released from uncertainties (which leads to release of inhibitions and would
be helpful for the male).
620Da) of which guys need to understand (as to what is
going on here) and partake in to a point for there comes a point where guys
become focused on other things during sex and one has to know when to stop as
well.
620E) which
is not passionate love and another tip off that lust is on play (that is: besides
the acted upon person sensing they are an object) and that
is if the person acting upon them actually feels and acts
as the other person is an object too [and note this can go both ways in regards
to the genders, and can be picked up by both genders as well (as in: nothing
is going to stop them)].
620F) which can be at the beginning of the sexual act [which again was at
least part of “the stop” or “line” that tripped up the angels (as in the very
least one ought not go {lustfully?} there {again see Footnote 618})]
“And the sons of God saw
that the (fallen) daughters of men
were beautiful, and they took… for themselves
whomever they chose” (Genesis 6:2)
620G) and
women particularly need to make feelings known here to slow things down (see 620Ga), even if it comes down to
saying “stop!” (and guys need to be sensitive to what going on too) which for
some reason (not making feeling known and insensitivity) seems to be the bane
of both sexes [and note in regards to birth control the weight of the burden
usually falls on the woman (and if anyone disagrees ask any women who had an
unplanned child who it was that was ultimately
responsible {or at “fault”} for the pregnancy? (see 620Gb){Except for
exceptional circumstances what you will probably here is “I ought to have (or have not) done something.”})].
620Ga) I think women (and guys) need to understand that arousement
is different for a male than a female and if one were to graph it out guys
would be “graphing up” a lot more before organism - and after a joint organism (of
which women will also graph up to) women would drop off slower with guys
dropping off sharply [in other words because of the difference in men and women
here women if truly uncertain need to slow things down (or not getting started
what one won’t finish) and romantic guys needing to continue talking afterward
too {for she is still very interested in what is going on and her dropping off
is a lot slower})].
620Gb) and note to guys: it’s kind of rude and
insensitive to assume things too (as in: she wants an 18 year commitment with
your child) – talk.
621) or possibly “crossed
species” lines (again see Footnote 618).
621A) which again according to
the book of Jude is paralleled (in the sense of crossing the forbidden) to the
activity of the angels in Genesis 6
621B) aside from what the book
of Romans says about it (Romans 1:18-27).
621C) and although I do not want
to be dogmatic in regards to this “sameness” concept and apply it universally in
every situation [for at the minimum there may be some sort of medicinal or personal / private self-therapy going on in regards to
homosexual sex – even cultural (see
621Ca)] there does seems to be ‘levels’ in scripture and in life with pleasing
oneself (sameness) at the bottom and pleasing others at the top (see 621Cb) (also see Footnote ___ (its in Sustaining Revival) in regards to the concept
of sameness).
621Ca) some cultures have
inanition rites of passage (which while debatable do reflect some aspects of
homosexual sex).
621Cb) note the verse that
states that Jesus never pleased himself (verse needed).
621D) which again is probably (at some point) lust even if innocently started [as in
emotional bonding, etc. (again see Footnote 617D, also see Footnote 615 and remember the point
that men are normally attracted to women and women are not normally attracted
by “the physical” (men or women) “at all” (see Footnote 618g on this is regards to the angels)].
621E) however personally I would treat it like masturbation in that it’s
an allowance until people learn to “get their act together” (see 621Ea).
Note:
I’m not so sure faith, hope and love will allow one to transcend homosexuality
in the sense of a permanent sexual relationship (or sexual lifestyle), for
although one can make a logical case here (factoring in faith, hope and love),
the weight (and reasons) in scripture - and (Christian) philosophy - seem to be
against it (as in the ultimate self / same expression of pleasing).
621Ea) as in I’m going out with
my girlfriend tonight (and I don’t want to be tempted, nor tempt her) so I’ll
release my hormones before-hand.
621F) which is frowned upon for similar philosophical reasons [same
family (however see Appendix L in Sustaining Revival on an allowance that
factored in honest intent {or love (concern) over the family line})].
621G) which is one of the scriptural arguments against homosexuality
(Romans 1:26,27)
621H) as in the mouth (for whose
purpose “biologically speaking” is for eating, etc. not kissing)
621-I) keep reading.
621J) which is ‘Christian
philosophically speaking’ why masturbation is probably improper (and that is:
pleasing of self with not only self but with something that is meant for
another).
621K) which is something that may need to be thought through (and worked
out) in regards to heterosexual relations (again keep reading).
622) which was written by King
Solomon (David’s son) and is the most sexual book in scripture.
622A) that is: familiar with having
sex [for example there is a lot in the chapters about fragrance and the human
body (particularly a part of the woman’s body) will give off a fragrant aroma
if she is (or becomes) sexually aroused)].
622B) see Song of Solomon 5:1 as
an example [note: the imagery at play behind the metaphor of a garden is that
not only does a garden bear fruit (which is brought out in the book), but it
will also (according to the metaphor) take seed (as in: its planted {don’t
think to hard})].
* note another
metaphorical (double meaning) passage in Ecclesiastes 12:3-5
622E
mentions this Footnote
622C) note in regards to the partners in the Song of Solomon,
particularly the woman, it would be a mistake to think that the woman Solomon
is involved with is unaware (or blindly innocent) of what is going on. Quite
contrary she is actively aware and “playing” the role of a lover who has
not only taken off her clothes (Song of Solomon 5:3) but has opened to her
beloved (Song of Solomon 5:6).
Now
although she may be un-experienced (Song of Solomon 4:12) she is not a
prude (see Footnote 622a) as
well as uninhibited sexually and does things (or behaves in a certain way) as
well as allows (un-prudish) things to be “done” to her (see Footnote 622b)].
Footnote
a) “…our couch is luxuriant!” (Song of Solomon 1:16) “…wind… make my
garden breathe out fragrance… (and) may my beloved come into his garden and eat
its choice fruits” (Song of Solomon 4:16) “I was a wall, and my breasts (nipples?)
were like towers” (see Footnote 622c)
(Song of Solomon 8:10)
Footnote
b) keep reading
Footnote
c) Note: she was not “well endowed” (Song of Solomon 4:5) and may have
actually thought of herself as a wall (or “stick”?) but something on her chest rose
to “tower status” and unless she is talking about her “wall time” before
puberty (or a change in her breast size during sex) she is probably (also) speaking
of her (towering) nipples.
622D) as in allowed (and / or desired
by) by the partners
622E) which can be an issue for
if one looks at the book with the eyeglasses of lust one will see things that a
person with the eyeglasses of passionate love will not see [for example: Song
of Solomon 7:9 (however note Footnote 622C on this as well)].
622E-1) which can be as sensually
stimulating to a woman as touch is for a man during sex (in other words if a
man can be stimulated by something during sex, why can’t a woman?)
622F) note the old traditional laws forbidding such an act will refer to
it as sodomy [taking the name from Sodom which was destroyed in part for what
had happened there (Genesis 19)]. Brethren this concept (oral sex) is read into
the text from outside presuppositions and is not part of it, nor is it talked
about any place other in the bible – except positively in the Song of Solomon.
622G) note another (parallel?) metaphorical
passage regarding male sex organ (possibly reflecting old age) by the same
author…
“the almond (nut) tree (outer
vagina? erection?) blossoms, the grasshopper (again don’t think too hard) drags
himself along (the man loses it?) and the caperberry is ineffective [as in: she
can’t conceive or possibly he’s just too pooped to (or can’t) “pop” to make it
happen? (caperberry being something that helps something along)]” (Ecclesiastes
12:5)
622H) verses of which seems to be much more explicit (see Footnote 622Ha) than the male
passages (possibly due to who was writing the work) also note such phrases as
“your belly is like a heap of wheat” allows for the “kissing” of the
belly (Song of Solomon 7:2), and because of that one can ask what’s the
difference between “kissing” that and “kissing” something else?].
622Ha) note: if you read the book there is no question as to oral sex
towards the woman (both upper and lower parts) and although weaker evidence
exists in the book regarding the man the question remains “why not?”
622- I) which not including
looking and touching are… kissing; “kissing” the
belly; oral stimulation of the breast as well as oral sex between the man and
woman [note: in regards to looking and touching women need to see that this is
part of male stimulation and for one to forbid it for lack of care (as in weight)
can effect things].
622J) as in: lust vs. love. Note: just because certain things are allowed
between the sexes does not mean one has to do them and if one is uncomfortable
with any aspect of this for any reason (especially if one partner senses
it during sex) I encourage you to talk.
623) and that is: all women are like this and like this (hot and ready)
all the time.
623A) see Colossians 3:5 (being dead to passion) Also see Footnote 624-I.
623B) which again is a state of mind and is defined in 1 Corinthians 13.
623C) which is probably a basic type of passionate love.
623D)
the “feeling”
623E) which can be a sorrowful thing in regards to some relationships but
as long as all parties still love according to the definition of love as found
in 1 Corinthians 13 they are fulfilling the definition of love.
624) See Song of Solomon 2:9; 4:9
624A) compare 1 Timothy 5:11 with verse 14 (also see 1 Corinthians 7:28).
624B) which is a wrong way to take the verse (as in: don’t hear, speak,
see. smell or even touch)
624C) Note: John pretty much roughed it wearing a garment of non-soft
camel hair and eating a diet of locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:4).
624D) it’s difficult to see what was going on in these verses for it may
be that it was not a local
phenomenon that happened, but that apostle thought ‘the pledge (for Christ)’
was something that was understood as underlying all relationships [in other
words once a relationship was dissolved (through widowhood in this case) Christ
becomes the primary one]. The thing is because of these widows (or women’s)
feelings of ‘sensual desires’ [that is his experience with widows (women) up to
this point (see 624Da)], he just
gives up and states for widows to get remarried (see 624Db).
624Da) note: even though men and women have hormones to
deal with it may just be that because women are looked at all the time (and
attention can trigger them) that they have a harder time dealing with them
(that plus whatever happens during the monthly cycle). Note: the apostle
doesn’t ‘condemn’ widows (women) for getting remarried in the sense of loss of
salvation [for to get married again is not sin (1 Corinthians 7:28 {see also 1
Corinthians 7:8,9 and note a widows marital
allowance on this as well})] but given what Christ has done for them it
seems that he’s disappointed in their choice (of wanting to get married again)
hence quote unquote “condemnation” (see Galatians 2:11 on being “condemned”
also).
624Da) that is: in the sense of general instructions to the church [that is: if they cannot control
sensual feelings (1 Corinthians 7:8,9)]. Note: in theory if a young widow could
control those feelings (as well as the things mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:13) she could be put on the widows list
since this was his only concern [note: read the end of some of the epistles and
note the names of women who dedicated
themselves to the gospel (and again note these instructions are just
general things {based on his experience} and are not meant to apply to all
women {which the historically both the church and men seem to have done and
still do})].
And again note there is nothing wrong with sex,
marriage or sexual feelings (in regards to both men and women) as long as they…
1) don’t get in the way,
2) are not a continual mindset (as in “burn”),
3) and are not present all the time (as in a
lifestyle of sensuality).
Also note some parallel concerns and warnings
about “the other end” [taste buds (and think of the other other
end of the body while reading the next verses too)] concerns being: not going to far (as in gluttony) and warnings
about asceticism (as in: the error of the views of ‘don’t do {eat} this and
don’t do {eat} that’).
Asceticism
“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later
times some will…(pay) attention to deceitful spirits… and advocate abstaining
from foods (or certain sexual things) which God (had)… created (for)... those
who… know the truth. “ (1 Timothy 4:1,3)
“If you have died with Christ to the elementary
principles of the world why… do you submit yourself to decrees such as... do
not taste (as in sexual things too)…” (Colossians 2:20,21)
“Let no one keep defrauding you… by (their)
delighting in self-abasement [and trying to make you live like a monk (my
interpretation)]…” (Colossians 2:18)
and Gluttony
“For many walk (as)… enemies of the cross of
Christ… whose God is their appetite (or sensuality, sensuality, and more sensuality)…” (Philippians 3:18,19)
624E) as in the phrase “sensualities” [Galatians 5:19 (think if
gluttonies)] (see also Footnote 624I).
624-Oa mentions this
footnote
624F) please note: although we are not supposed to live like monks (even
John the Baptist ate honey) in scripture the flesh and the Spirit (or
spiritual) are usually opposed to one another and actually can fight each other
for dominance. In the epistles it is taught that ‘the flesh’ (which means all
our bodily desires) are to be under our (or the Spirits) control and ‘under our
feet’ at all times. Such a thing can be a struggle for new Christians but as
one gets older it gets easier – especially when one reckons the cross of Christ
(or considers the work of Christ on the cross) finished (see Footnotes 181k; 254; 256B2, 402e).
624G) brothers and sisters lust involves selfishness and because of that
it ought to also be cautioned here that a sensual life without bounds can also
be a selfish life (which again is part of the definition of lust: selfishness)
and because sensuality can also view people as objects (again, as to lust) one
needs to also be careful in regards extreme sensuality for people have their
own feelings and are not objects (or things) but actual people - especially
women (who tend to get the brunt of this “object status”).
624H) which basically views people as again an object [note: while there
is also an “objectifying” in regards to passionate sex (as in one is {also} attracted
to some aspect {or part} of a female or male regardless of who they are)
extreme hard motivation behind an act is not passionate love and again views
people as objects or things - not people - which again is not what Love is all about nor fits into the definition of love].
“Love is patient (not rushed), kind… does not act unbecomingly… does
not seek its own (way)…” (1 Corinthians 13:4,5)
624H-1) Brethren,
it’s not just extreme sensuality one needs to be careful of, but also a
continual mindset of it as well.
623A, 624E mentions
this footnote
624 -I) as in set [like set in
cement (see Philippians 3:19 where after mentioning that there are enemies of
the cross describes them as setting their minds on earthy
things)].
Note: Brothers and sisters
in regards to this entire motivational issue [(passionate) love vs. lust] if
you study it what you are probably going to find out is that “sensualities”
(which again is not being sensual per say) is (once again?) not
just a one-time act [especially for the immature (see Footnote 624 I a)] but (again?) more a continual thing
that gets on the mind, gets set in the mind and manifests itself in choices
continually. To equate sensuality with senses (or enjoying ones senses) is
wrong and in regards to the act of sex if one rules out sensuality all together
you are left with everyone always under the covers [no looking (Song of Solomon
7:1,3), or touching (Song of Solomon 7:8)] “do the act” and that’s it,
so in regards to the definition of sensuality we are not forbidding stimulating
the (or each other’s) senses during sex (or even during foreplay).
Also if you study the
issue (definition) what you are probably also going to find out is that there
are levels to this entire sensuality issue with John the Baptist at one end and
possibly Solomon at the other – all within the permissible and then
when you get a statement like Jesus talking about the lifestyle of the kings
you have someone like Herod (the king at the time) as an example of someone who
lives (lived) outside the level of the permissible [which can explain why he
took his brother’s wife (that is: he lived for sensuality no matter what {verse needed})].
As said before the flesh
and the Spirit (spiritual) are usually in opposition to one another (which
explain’s some verses that seem on the contrary in scripture) and again the
flesh needs to be under the control of the Spirit. Brethren, there is lots of
experiential teaching regarding the cross of Christ and discipleship ‘out
there’ in regards to issues of flesh and spirit with all kinds of levels of
experience, however having said that in regards to the particular matter before
us once again there is nothing wrong
with using (and enjoying) ones senses during sex just like
there is nothing wrong with enjoying a good tasty meal (that is:
having ones senses stimulated) as long as ones mindset and lifestyle does not
revolve around sensuality (or gluttony for that matter) continually.
624 I a) it is very possible for a mature person (see Footnote
624 I b) to have a one-time act of sensuality and end up defiled and need
cleansing [which in part may have been what happened to the angels in Genesis 6
(except scripturally speaking it was an unallowable one {verse needed})].
624 I b) See Hebrews 6:1-5 for a definition of not only
mature teaching, but mature responsibility (also see Footnote ___ regarding this too).
624J) and for some who go ‘all the way’ with the male it can actually
substitute as a form of birth control [or be a substitute in certain situations
where sex can’t happen (as too ‘the hand’)].
624K) which
usually means the primary meaning of the various parts [as in: oral sex is
secondary compared to the primary (or first or best) reason for the
parts (as is: put it in already)].
624L)
for example: a woman can’t (or can find it difficult to) have sex every day of
the month, what to do? [especially if one views the ‘two week window of
uncleanliness’ (that is: according to the law of Moses {Leviticus 12:5 more?}) as something still relevant and applicable today (which might be
one of the reasons behind why a sexually active observant man of old took on
another spouse {that is: if he could afford it})].
624M) which includes stimulating each other’s senses (see 624Ma) (and for those who disagree with the sensual aspect of
sex one can ask themselves… why is there a sent (as in: God ordained sent) of
the female during sex that is pleasing to the man? [not to mention the sight sensuality
for the man (or the hearing sensuality for the woman regarding the man’s
deep voice) as well].
624Ma) which can be asked of one another (or just stated
during the act).
624N) which some women unfortunately limit due to concerns (as in turn
out the light).
624-O) and to turn things around why would there be? [brothers and
sisters, sisters and brothers to read ‘the cross’ (see 624-Oa) into the bedroom (unless you are talking about
unbelievable things) is not particularly where the teaching of the cross is
at].
624-Oa)
which involves putting the
desires of flesh under (divine) control rather than eliminating it
(as in: killing its desires) which is one of the mistakes of Monastic (Monk)
thinking.
Note: as the church went on it unfortunately
became more orthodox (formal) and got caught up in wrong teachings [as in
bringing in parts of the old covenant Levitical, mixing it with teaching of the
last supper and making it into “the service” of the saints (see 624-Ob)]. Also unfortunately there were more Christians in
this type of church system than outside it and as the church went further into
error (other than the service) they got caught up into other wrong (or extreme)
teachings (or viewpoints) as well (such as monastism). As a result one will
find that there are a lot of writings out there written by Christians
regarding what became known as ‘crucifying the flesh’ and if you can separate
the orthodox references [which was all the Christians knew (orthodoxy) for
example you will see them writing about the crucifix, etc (see 624-Oc)], from what they were struggling with (or writing
about: the flesh) you come up with a variety of viewpoints on how victory ‘over
the flesh’ was accomplished (see 624-Od).
However the mistake of the Christian church when it went into monastism [which
was a mistaken phase the church went into that basically took Christians out of
the world (and is still with it to some degree with the orthodox)] was that it tended
to view the flesh as evil and its desires needed to be suppressed [which is not
biblical teaching and can still be a trap that Christians can fall into (see 624-Oe)]. Again putting the
desires of flesh under (divine) control rather than eliminating them
is where things at with Christians and that is done by considering (reckoning)
the finished work of the cross finished or done (see again Footnote 624F).
624-Ob)
of whose service (or
“platform” set up) actually contains a tabernacle (holy of holies) under the
crucifix to which the priest bows the knee to when he crosses in front of it.
624-Oc)
see Thomas Kempis and note
his liturgical / orthodox references.
624-Od)
if you read Brother
Lawrence work (Practicing His Presence) I don’t even think he cares about the
flesh being so caught up in the presence of God.
624-Oe) this teaching originally entered
the church through Gnosticism toward the end of the first century and was
fought off successfully (except in the Arab east) however seemed to come back
in various forms and degrees later on (with people actually punishing the flesh
either because of its desires or to suppress help them).
624P) and
in Puritan writings (who are usually brought out as classic examples of prudes).
624Q) which again is mentioned negatively (Colossians 3:5) but when looked at in the context of the
bible is allowed within criteria (and note: to take
Colossians 3:5 as saying the flesh is evil and it’s desires need to be
suppressed is not what the verse is saying, but rather consider it dead to
certain directions).
624R) except possibly in regards to personal masturbation [which is
another issue altogether and I see as a temporary allowance until people learn
to get their flesh under control (or find a partner)].
624S) and again if God allows the sexes to please one another just
normally during sex (with sight, hearing, smell stimulation) why not touch? [which
is really where the issue is at (that is: touch with what?)] and once again you
may be talking about the primary and secondary reasons for things (as in the
use of the mouth in touching) but the intent (of pleasing) is the important
thing [and note: the mouth is used for other things besides talking and eating
{for example: kissing} which is part of the act of sex of which biologically
speaking ‘kissing’ makes no sense (see
624Sa) (and that isn’t taking into account the other uses of the mouth {as
we are talking about here} as found in the Song of Solomon)].
624Sa) as in the proper (biologically speaking) use of
the mouth.
624T) and again is in part why some angels lost their wings.
624U) and note that in regards to lust vs. love due to the fact that a
woman could probably always find someone to have sex with her (and a man - if
he pays for it) and the motivation behind both would probably not be love, love (over lust) would
therefore be the higher thing to pursue in regards to all relationships because
not only do you get sex without looking (around for it) but you also get more
(as in possible commitment, lifelong friendship etc.). Love wins hands down
over lust.
625) Once their breasts develops (that
is: to nurse children), they are physically ready and no longer “daddy’s baby
girl” anymore.
626) Seven years is probably ideal (but
of course it may not – and usually does not - always turn out that way).
627) Who by this time have noticed men
looking at them.
628) for example: a serious prospect can
“sweep them away” from whatever - whenever.
629) and if dwelt on may actually lead to
something meaningful.
630) There seems to be a definite
difference between the sexes when leaving the other partner with women having
things planned out ahead of time and ready to go, and men more “spur of the
moment.”
631) as if they send out “Wi – Fi”
signals to each other – and believe it or not they actually do signal each
other (intentionally or not) with men usually not understanding the source of
many women’s comments to each other.
632) as if they succeeded or failed in
life by what they have (or more exactly and precisely what their beauty and /
or personality achieved) all of which can cause unnecessary friction and
tension in the home with the male in the relationship not knowing the source of
some wives aggravation (for example: she may have just talked to her sister on
the phone who just moved up a notch in regards to some sort of “social
standing”).
633) Whether it is there at the front end
of a relationship or not is debatable but as relationships progress and people
get older women do notice that most women end up alone (like 10 – 20 years
alone) with varying degrees of mobility and that does play on their decisions –
and attitudes (however also note that in the age of modern medicine men are
truly closing the gap).
634) In its strictest form (leaving
children aside): savings first, what I (the wife) need or “need” second and at
the end of the line some spending money for the spouse [Note: women do notice
wealth more than men do (expensive haircut?) – and can be attracted to it – and
factor it into their choice of men if they have a choice].
634A) Along with basic respect and dignity and just plain old treating
women nice.
“you…(men)…likewise live with…(women)
in an
understanding way...”(1 Peter 3:7)
634B) which can be relative term however
most women who have lived their lives to middle age have seen enough about life
to want at least some sort of ‘financial security blanket’ when entering into a
(new) relationship with a man [for example: mom and grandma ended up alone with nothing (or grandma had to live
with us) and I do not want that for me].
635) even their children from a previous
relationship.
636) Note: I have rarely met an
unattractive woman (and even what some people may consider unattractive can
usually be fixed by a little make up and a nice dress). I have found that all
women have a least one attractive feature about themselves that can be “used”
to open a door to conversation (even if it’s “just” a personality thing).
Note: Walk (and talk) gracefully,
smile and be sweet…
636A) Although both genders seem to enjoy
sex the same, there seems to be debate about the sex drives of both genders and
while society (environment) does influence things here, because sex has more to
do with ‘the physical’ and men are more attracted by the physical than women
are (see 636Aa) it would not be
uncommon for men to continue to think about ‘the physical’ throughout their
life (which women do note as they continue to see men look at them throughout
theirs).
636Aa) which is a
fact (see the sons of God in Genesis 6), which is why men are usually
“the initiators” in any contact between the genders with women dressing up
sometimes to help things (as in conversation, which is important - especially
to women, for a number of sound reasons) along.
Note to guys: if the woman you
associate with dresses up, it could mean something, but it may not, but then
again it may and the only way to find out (that is: if you are interested) is
to start talking to her about anything (and she will pick up
the difference and clue you in as to whether to go further with the
conversation or not). Also remember she could be dressing up for a number of
different reasons that have nothing to do with you.
637) as in the sometimes seen woman’s tee
shirts says “Hey, My Eyes are Up Here” with an arrow pointing up.
638) and if not careful can become a
serious prospect – or answer – to a woman who just wants to “get out.”
639) Men seem to go into relationships
with certain assumptions regarding provision (that is: if I work and provide)
combined with “the greatness of themselves” (which can be very debatable) are
all the things that are necessary to keep a relationship going (and it usually
is not the case). At the minimum continued maintenance and ongoing
communication is needed in regards to all relationships.
640) which depending on a number of
things can be rooted purely social standing
641) because men are usually “in charge”
here (with women concerned more about the issue of being comfortable).
43A makes mention of this footnote
642) (Immature) men in this situation (or
any situation with a woman who already has had a relationship) ought to be
satisfied with the probable fact that if a woman’s previous relationship (s)
were so good, what on earth is the woman doing here with you? [in other words
for one reason or another the previous (or current) relationship (s) just
didn’t (fully) work out, so now she’s coming to you - be happy (especially if
she had or is going to have children with you)].
43A, 93Ab, 684Di makes mention of
this footnote
643) and I would advise women to keep all past information to themselves
(including numbers) (see 643a) and
for all here to be satisfied with the question of whether the other partner is
a virgin or not - and that is it (as in “Are you a virgin? Well neither am I, or
I am too, let’s go do something together). Note: if the person you are with has
their own children – unless you are concerned about STD’s - you probably ought
to skip this talk entirely if you are not a virgin. Also note: The woman
(or for that matter man) can be the “product” of many relationships. In other
words the person you love may not be the person he or she is if it were not for
(all) those (bad) relationship (s).
643a) If you as
a husband do not know how many people your wife has been with, now is NOT
the time to ask too late [or even ask anything about it (again too
late)], and if a wife is pressed about it now, unless she has the
wherewithal to ride out an immature male, I would advise her to warn her
husband not to ask again, and if he
does, seriously think of leaving (How many woman have you been with guys?
Should she care?). Also note in regards to this issue, most all have sinned here in one way or another and once sin is recognized it can be
repented over and forgotten. Most people want to forget their past
(especially women in this boat) and most everyone who’s “had a past” goes on to
live healthy productive lives.
Special note to women: because guys are usually more concerned about performance issues,
men (immature men) in this insecure situation would probably be more concerned
about what happened than with who (or even where “who” is now). In other words
‘wham bam thank you mam’ means nothing really happened [In other words… if the
previous partner didn’t make you achieve organism and they themselves did -
they win (and in regards to the issue of “fooling around” it’s not like most of
them didn’t fool around themselves in the past too - so tell insecure males to
grow up and / or bug off)].
Also note ladies because the mature
life involves non-commitment one ought to and needs to be confident in
themselves as a person and as a woman (which involves sight of the mature female gender)
and there is probably no better place to start than right now on this side of
eternity. Sisters, it’s nice if someone likes you and pays attention to you but
you cannot find your self worth or self-esteem in what others (men) think of
you, but what God thinks of you [and you especially cannot find your self
worth in what the immature male (see
643Ab) thinks of you (if you have problems here wait things out or move on)].
Special note to insecure guys (already in relationships): Just like with the ladies you cannot find your self worth or
self esteem in what others (women) think of you, but what God thinks of you.
Also in regards issues over ones wife’s past, I find it hard to believe that
one’s wife didn’t say anything about her past to her
husband – at least hint at it – and if a husband let it go then they let it go now. There is to be no revisiting of
old conversations! Also remember that your wife (if so
applicable) may not have even known you before she “fooled around” (that is: if
she did fool around) so what was she suppose to do? She chose you, be happy.
Ladies, it usually boils down to a winning thing with guys – watch sports (that is: watch guys watch sports).
See Footnote
93Ac on this as well regarding the age of responsibility in scripture being
20 years old.
Also see Footnote 94 E regarding a way for an
ex-spouse to up their reputation.
643b) note the immature male may have more than performance issues
to get past and may also see a woman whose had previous relationships as of
less value than one who has not. Now although there is a certain value (in
regards to the insecure male) of a virgin (see
643c), with the mature male there is no difference however female women who desire relations with
an immature (insecure) male must either be abrupt about things (as in: possibly
“it was sin and in the past”) or possibly get ready to be treated differently
until the male matures [and in regards to women who have had (a) previous sexual
relationship(s) it might be best to find someone who has had (a) previous
relationship(s) too].
643c) which ought not be played down and taught all women in youth
[see Footnote ___ for more on this (and note: young women can also be insecure
about things as well – especially multiple spousal relationships)].
644) that is the things that trigger and sustain it.
645) Note: for some men that is “all”
they want, and because of that it is one of many things a woman can “use” to
get what she needs in - and out of - a relationship (and it’s not like it
unenjoyable – unless the man needs a bath or basic guidance, both of which can
be helped).
646) Usually in between periods – right
in the middle - a woman will feel a pain on the side of the abdomen she is
ovulating from for about two days. It’s in those two days that she will become
pregnant.
647) that is what you - in - essence -
are
648) that is: without the man even
knowing anything about the woman.
649) and when feeling down about
themselves may “catch eyes” just to feel better [Note: watch the reflection of
women - especially young women - when they “window shop” especially if they
pass a group of guys, you might see them looking behind them in the window to
see who is looking at them (Note: a woman with sunglasses in a dark place may
be feeling down about herself and might be doing the same thing)].
650) Which is basically the thrust behind
every soap opera plot and / or romantic novel. Note in regards to the angelic
here that may be something behind why one female angel moves on to another
relationship [in other words they want to go - and be - where they are wanted
and / or needed (where they can help). Also Note: they can be on the forefront
of things here too].
651) which can be “high maintenance” for
some.
652) men in relationships seem to notice
no matter what – or who, and because of that, women (the “who’s”) – across the
board - may in fact unconsciously develop a “Plan B” in the background in case
things don’t work out (in other words people are looking and thinking outside
the primary relationship whether they
realize it or not).
675) which may be surprising to some
people who read this book looking for answers [that is there is no definitive –
across – the - board – answer. Only “a” or ‘an answer’ for a person in a
particular situation (and note for some people they have to go forward with
what they got {that is where they or people are at now} in regards to some of
these solutions or answers for a maturing lifestyle)].
676) which can complicate things between
people. In other words is the person reading this book a newborn baby, an
actual baby, toddler, child, junior, young adult or an actual full mature
grown up? (and more importantly where is the person they want a
relationship at as well?)
Brethren, because there are levels of
growth and experience out there and with that growth and experience usually come
knowledge and with that experiential growth and knowledge can
come certain expectations, minds between people on different levels may not
meet [which can lead to even more problems between people who desire a
relationship with each other and whose solution or final (relationship) answer
may end up being found in some sort of compromise “between levels of faith and
understanding” (keep reading regarding the various options that people on
different levels {can at least temporarily} opt out for as they move on to
maturity)].
677) Note: in regards to “N”
relationships guys must be prepared for the fact that they are not the center
of all things here and a woman may (also) only be looking for an “N”
relationship and be basically ‘satisfied’ with where she is at as an A (or a B,
C for that matter). Also remember maturity involves moving towards independence
and for a women (as well as a man) already in a relationship to
move towards “N” is the first step (In other words… men – mature
men - ought not be looking at all women as their – or potential - A,B
&C’s for men can be on the other end of ‘this thing’ as well – we are all
‘in process’).
677A) Brothers and sisters, for the
immature to get hold of this work ought not be of concern – if they read it in
its entirety. If they are selective in what they choose to act upon (for
example SEX!), they did not get that idea from this book, nor from anyone who
“read it.” Maturity (or moving on to maturity) is the goal here and I would
expect most young people to not truly desire any of these types of
relationships for reasons that have to do with self-esteem issues (as in “I’m
not sharing my bed with anyone”) and practicality (that is: “if I want a family
and a home someone has to pay the bills”).
Sisters and brothers, if an immature
person happens to read this work, they will see “an end” to life, but not the
way (nor experiential steps) to get there. Most people get to maturity through
experiencing life with its ups and downs. The young are not there yet,
but will be. However the old who have experienced life and are secure in
themselves - and housing - would probably say “why not?” to this mature
lifestyle. Thus because I expect most young people to not fully get, nor be
able to handle maturity, most of the young who get a hold of this work would
probably not be able to live the lifestyle portrayed between its pages (so the
mature ought not be overly worried here), however also realize that since
maturity is “the young’s” inheritance too, such knowledge ought not be denied
them when needed (husbands and wives take note of this and remember it too as
you mature together).
678) Not “trampient”
679) there have been too many serious
issues that have resulted from emotional ties with people that were
unexpectantly broken – even suicides.
680) Brethren, for the unsaved to get
ahold of this mature theology might be tantamount to using “a line” to get
somewhere with the opposite sex. Also there would be no mature understanding –
nor mature coping, therefore because of this believers ought to be careful with
any contact with unsaved and this teaching for the possibility of abuse,
obsessive ties and the use of people – especially of women - is great [note to
women you have intrinsic value and worth (for example: children,
giving confidence to men, etc.) and ought to see yourself in a valuable
way].
681) Which is not hypocritical (and
includes a right to privacy).
682) which – in regards to this issue -
involves not using people and treating them like objects.
683) As in “e gads” How could you do
that!? In other words faith, hope and love are not present in a particular
situation. Please note that when Elijah comes back (as well as Moses in some
peoples book) he (or they) come back with content – along with fire coming out
of their mouths to destroy their enemies (Verses Needed) In other words they
cut down opposition arguments (and arguers) with their words. Brothers and
sisters, God has a direction.
684) or way too fast, as in “pregnant by
12 with no childhood,” a saying which
could be symbolic or in fact literal in regards to some peoples thinking [In
other words a person reading this may in fact be too immature for a mature
lifestyle (which includes any ‘budding O.J’s’ as well).
684A) Sisters and Brothers there are only
two types of people in this world, people who know God and people who don’t.
Redeemed and unredeemed hearts. Because of this it would not be wise to have
this book – or this philosophy – or theology - fall into the hands - or
thinking - of those whose hearts are immature and are more bent on
relationships based more on lust, than relationships based on faith, hope and
love which would lead to – at the minimum - lifelong mature friendships.
Also in regards to new Christians
they may not have the necessary understanding of the new creation within and
because of that can be more driven by things that are not spiritual or of the
spirit, thereby falling into the same thinking of the unsaved.
Now while it is possible to have an
‘on the level’ relationship with the unsaved (Ester being a possible example)
it is most likely not wise to go down this path for down the line major – deal
- breaking - disagreements are likely.
Brothers and sisters, sisters and
brothers, once again cautioness with this books context (theology) is wise for
believe it or not – even though we as Christians are not under law – people,
especially unbelievers may need the law as a basic form of guidance until they
mature. Even though ones faith can transcend things, for a believer to just
break ‘law’ (depending on what you are talking about) and tell everyone it is OK may not be wise,
especially in front of Christians of a weak conscience - who witness the
action.
The mature among us will keep this
books theology among themselves and discuss it among themselves – and not
children. Brothers and sisters we don’t want blood on our hands (Verse Needed).
684B) which also supports the unbelievers becoming believers exemption
(See Chapter ___ )
684C) the verses that talk about believers staying where they are
(note all these verses are in the same chapter)
684D) note the statement regarding a judgment on the Cretans (verse needed) and yet Titus being told to basically
get this opinion off of them (verse needed) [also you may want to include verses regarding women teaching men
(and only asking questions at home) in this category as well. Brothers and
sisters if one looks at the times in which those prohibitions were written
women either got married or stayed at home and that was it. If you take all the
verses regarding restricting women - and why - in scripture and put them
together what apparently was going on was that because it was a man’s world
(and they couldn’t do anything as smart as many can be (see 684Da)) they were apparently going house to house trying to “get
ahead” (my opinion) and part of it seemed to involve gossiping (as to who was
available and who wasn’t? saying things they ought not, etc).
In regards to the biological reason
why [sensuality (verse needed), not anything else], truth be told since both sexes
seem to have the same doses of hormones and enjoy sex the same it’s a wonder
what exactly the apostle is talking about. To say that women can’t do a job (or
focus even long term) because of ‘sensual feelings’ would be a slap in the face
of many women who do [and begs the question of what about women who may be past
them (see 684Db)]. What apparently
was going on was women (that is: widows) were bailing out on gospel ministry once
‘an opportunity’ presented itself (see
684Dc) and he just bailed out too and told Timothy to tell them to get
married again (generally speaking now). And please note: it wasn’t a command
from the Lord that they get married but it was just a general way to see “the
issue” at the times in which they lived [and note the ‘weaker sex’ comment in
Peter can mean a variety of things but
no restrictions are given because of it (see 684Dd)].
In regards to the theological reason
why [the woman was not created first and it was the woman that was deceived not
Adam (1 Timothy 2:12-14)], in regards to prohibitions because of being created
second it would keep people like Deborah from arising and in regards to
deception one could turn that whole thing around and say that men are forever wimps
because Adam didn’t stop Eve (and / or couldn’t resist the temptation to sin). Also
to say that - if female one (has the propensity to) listens to Satan - would be
a slap in the face of all women (and all the female unfallen angels as
well). I think those who think along these ‘deception lines’ need to
see the right to press ahead into what is coming next (perfection – which also includes
being no longer deceived and / or listening to Satan) carries weight in regards
to ‘nixing’ this issue (or reason) and in regards to being created second (if a
true argument) can very much be a default way of looking at life and one ought
not prohibit women from arising (or limiting them) because of it (see 684De).
Sisters and brothers while the bible
is inspired by God one needs to be careful with that definition and explain
what one means [as in “I do not allow…” (1 Timothy
2:12)]. Also to say that everything written there is it period (not comma) is
to say that Cretans were, are and always will be lazy gluttons and liars as
well as some other things too. The bible is accurate in the sense that it is
what God wanted written (to a group or for a time), but again to say there are
no commas in what was related (see 684Df)
is not only not inaccurate but also not true (see 684Dh).
684Da) which would mean women who were smart enough to become brain
surgeons and lawyers today were restricted only to home
life back then (as in ‘keeping house’).
684Db) although I have no first-hand knowledge of this it is said that
women can lose sexual drive after menopause (which they can supplement with
estrogen) which may be why the apostle gave the arbitrary age of 60 as
eligibility for the ‘widows list.’
684Dc) and it may have been a local thing (backed up by the apostles
developing - not-set-in-stone – opinion, because if you continue reading the
coming advice was not what he told the Corinthian church (verse needed)
684Dd) (verse needed) I think guys need to see that it is very much a man’s world and
women (who are physically weaker) can not only be intimated by it physically
but possibly “weakened” by other things as well (for example: the constant psychological
pressure to be and look whatever because men are continually looking at them). If you look at the verse it
encourages guys (husbands) to be understanding
of what is going on (as in they are under constant pressure to conform, etc (see 684Dg))].
684De) which “church speaking” - at the minimum - might keep women from not
being open to being called to the mission field (or would keep them from
teaching men there if no man was present) Also note in regards to this that
many teaching hymns (or hymns that teach truth) were written by women (all of
which could no longer be sung under the strict interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 {and no more singing “Jesus Loves Me This I Know” in a mixed
gender Sunday School children’s meeting either - Anna B. Warner}) .
684Df) a basic example of a “comma” situation (which would fit the half of
this book) would be the commandment “…you shall not covet your neighbors wife (which
is actually a comma, not a period) for
it’s true - unless (comma) he rightfully (that is: legitimately) divorces
or annuls her covenant (note there are lots of “however’s” and “but’s” in
scripture).
684Dg) which can concern keeping up with clothing styles, hairdos, even
societies expectations [like weight, walking gracefully (don’t run), etc.] not
to mention all that is involved in getting noticed and getting a proposal if
one desires to do so (see 684Di) [in
other words conform to guys expectations with time set aside for makeup etc.
(which is usually a daily chore anyway)]. Pressure, pressure, pressure [Guys
just work, possibly dress nicely (usually only wearing suits of dark or one
color), but really don’t worry about any of this stuff – why? Because it’s a
man’s world {check out the movies, old women almost never have parts (except as
moms) but old guys have all kinds of parts (and always have the younger
women too, why? men run Hollywood)})].
684Dh) and note: because we are probably not going to be walking around with
bibles in heaven what does that say concerning the (temporary or to a group)
things that are written in there now? (as in: if one can press ahead into what
is involved in living in that realm one might and can live the difference in
the here and now).
684Di) and what to do if one is not a virgin? (is the male mature or
immature?) (again see Footnote 643
for more on how to handle that).
Again see Footnote 183 in regards to this issue.
684E) again read the explanation of these verses in Chapter ___ on
Problem Verses
684F) as in it may not be a legitimate remarriage (note 1
Corinthians 7:15 does talk about legitimate
remarriages for Christians)
Note: in
regards to this issue, as mentioned previously in this book there will always
be a question as to whether a unilateral - without sound reason - cancelation
of a covenant can be done and that may be the concern here [as in it reflects
in the relationship as an un-protective covering (and another one on top of
that may be illegitimate)]. The point I’d like to make in regards to that is
that after going through about 2 dozen reasons to legitimately cancel annul,
amend or alter a covenant there remains some Christian marriages that no one
can touch and although most (as opposed to some) can find reason to either
divorce, separate, annul, amend or alter a covenant there are those (some) who
cannot. The thing is for those who are in that small group they would have to
realize that they are dealing with law not faith and that maturity in and of
itself opens the door to that area. Now if one party in that type of
relationship says no, well according to law they may have a point, but
according to maturity their point may be mute (see 684Fa). Brothers and sisters this whole issue can be though,
but one has to remember that we are dealing with life and as it grows it
matures. If there is a law at work here it is that law - the law of (a maturing)
life and not the law of chains or bounds of which life - as it grows - does not
like (see 684Fb). Also in regards to
all this remember that we are dealing with faith as opposed to law as well and
for those who fall within that group of untouchable marriages and want to
change I would suggest that they look upon the fact that someday one’s life
will be like the angels and ponder not only what changes within one self that makes it possible, but also to change within one’s self the
things that need to be changed to make it so [see Appendix ___: Guidelines for Mature Open
Relationships for more on this (and a piece of advice: don’t even read the first half of this book anymore)].
684Fa) as in telling someone they can’t grow up [note how some tribal
communities will bind up (as in chain up) appendages to keep them from their
mature appearance (and will even deform them)].
684Fa) plants may look good in a container but if you unpot them and look
at the roots the roots don’t like it very much (they are usually all bunched up
and twisted). Brothers and sisters life likes to spread out (and spread itself
out too).
684G) as in making sure there is another (legitimate) “protective covering”
[which note: even an unbeliever can do (see verse 14 {see Chapter ___ regarding the Question of Children (and their “Sanctification”) for
more on this)]
684H) in other words a peaceful home is more important than a home with a
covering over the children (1 Corinthians 7:15).
684-I) and if that is where you (or the party you are with) “is at”
that is where you go (law)
685A) which probably take most men (who are in committed relationships
with them), by surprise due to the fact that many men see them (women who they
are in relationship with) as ‘a part of themselves’ to the point of
“ownership.”
686) especially if they have children and
can’t work (or there is no one to care for them as they get older).
687) which can make it difficult to
occupy certain professions.
688) If 100 men got together and made an ironclad, no argument group decision
as to who would lead them (as well as a ranking of authority underneath that
head - none of which could care less about social acceptability) and all the
leaders turned out to be men, the group had better not go to their wives
afterward and ask permission if
their decision was OK, for the wives would at the very least see things
socially [which is something guys almost never factor into things (an extreme
example {or attitude} here for a wife would be : “now so and so is going to end
up having a ______ husband, this can’t be”)], and the desire for the women
(wives) to modify or possibly negate the group decisions would be great (in
other words they, because they are
social creatures will tend towards picking the {or any} non-socially made
decision{s} apart).
689) the “Can it happen to me?” is
usually unspoken.
690) as if some powerful magnet pulls
everyone into separate areas of the room (or rooms itself)
691) which can mean a variety of different
things for a woman.
691A) Note: as previously mentioned women
tend to live longer than men, and as a result they may eventually be thinking
along the lines of another relationship if the one they are in now ends even
prematurely (especially if the man is not taking care of his health which can
cause them to think this way). Also note that the “old guys like a nurse and a
purse” attitude can be behind the ‘looking for a purse now’ with a few women,
especially middle age women.
692) however socially – especially for
first wives who knew nothing about this going into any new arrangements – some
work and considerations (which can be considerable) can eventually be expected,
especially if they are public figures [which may include “Now I am able to do
things too – and everyone (at least whom I’m socially fiends with) will know
about it as well” (Note: everyone is
maturing here and something like this can only be expected from most, if not
all “first wives” at some point)].
692A) which can be a problem with guys (and
“first” wives) in regards to the angelic option for a second relationship.
693) as in ‘this other guy’ (or ‘this
other arrangement’) can (help) pay the bills and then some [and note: Men ought
not take this personally (as if there is something wrong with them as a person)
it’s just practicality combined with things that are important to a woman’s
nature (or viewpoint) - which men rarely get (for example once again: social
status, standing)].
Note in regards to social standing it
could be something as simple as… ‘if I am with a loser people will see me and
my children as losers and treat us differently’ (or possibly some variation of
this in regards to other things).
694) which again can just mean a better
possibility on the horizon [which once again can mean a variety of different
things (for example: see the title of “wife” in the next section)].
695) which can, and probably will include
women taking time off work, as well as provision (help) in regards to clothing,
food etc.
696) Note while one can (hypothetically)
argue that no one ought to enter into any of these types of relationships
unless they have the faith and provisions to do so, it may not be the complete case
for some - particularly in regards to young women (in the faith) or women
without much means both of whom are maturing.
697) that is: the title of “wife.”
698) With “Wife” being in three possible
modes [and note for a woman to have the “covering” of a title (that is: the
title of wife); possibly with the (mans) last name (Isaiah ____ ) can be a
concern of women in society - regardless of levels of faith].
699) that is according to their level of
faith at the time of entrance, with the man (husband) in the relationship many
times being on the gracious end of
the arrangement for the sake of the wive(s) (that is: women’s or really sisters)
sake.
700) that is: self-sufficiency.
701) which can be solved in a number of
ways, but the reality of the situation (and civil law usually comes down on
this side too) is that all children are included in the woman’s “house” or under her covering (not necessarily the
mans) [and note there is an assumption in regards to these mature type of open
relationships that women eventually may and / or will have other partners -
whether temporary, “temporary” or permanent (once again we are talking about open relationships here, not
closed)].
Note: once again the man or woman you
already love may in fact be “the product” of more than one relationship (note:
there is nothing wrong with relationships as long as they are done rightly and
with respect).
702) which is a concern here in that not
all creation (people) are God’s children (meaning people with both the ability
and foresight to do the ‘right things’ here)
Note: having the ability (not just knowledge) to deal with the issues that may
come up in these mature types of relationships is what the new nature (John
3_____ Corinthians_____) is all about. Brothers and sisters, it’s one thing to
know what to do in a particular situation [that is the correct, proper even
merciful thing (or allowance) to do] it’s another to actually have the ability
(or inward power) to do (or allow) it – particularly other children [note also
it is unlikely that Christians will confuse lust with love as well as abusing
situations / people (which are probably a major problem with entering into
relationships with the unredeemed)].
[See also Covenant vs. Contract footnote: “However a covenant explicitly with (or by) God can be a
very different matter”]
703)There are plenty of mixed (or
blended) “households” in the world today.
704) also ‘life lessons’ and people
experiencing things in “partner” relationships which they may not possibly be
able to experience in “expanded relationships” are a concern as well (note
there are ‘levels’ here).
705) which again is the goal of maturity
(or perfection) - independence.
706) Note there is nothing wrong with
women “in relationships” having their own bank / checking / 401K accounts [and
I would encourage individual bond and stock investments etc. as well (and would
be disappointed to hear that those in relationships who could afford
them did not do so in regards to the other – including insurance (see 706a))], and note brothers
(especially those who are husbands) ought to help out here and make sure such
accounts do not have a “negative flow.”
Note:
In regards to this issue the financial viability of a new household is also a
legitimate question. If you have independent households, and the wife of one
household becomes unemployed, the other household (for example - your
household), may end up helping out her household regardless of any
arrangement. Also if you plan for independent households remember that
someday - for one reason or another - everyone may have to combine under one
roof.
706a) Brethren, I have a feeling that a lot of the
problems these new relationships will face in the church [or more exactly households
will face of which the man is head (See Appendix C as well as Appendix Footnotes C:56; C:57;
C:58 & C:59 in regards to the issue of the sexes - when
in personal relationship)], will be problems with
first wives selfishness - yes
selfishness - particularly among “households with means.” Now this is not to
say that there isn’t a place for a household saving for emergencies or
retirement or even a child’s education (as well as normal personal needs) but
God sees everything and He knows and sees our hearts. If for some reason we happen to find
ourselves as husbands or first (A-N) wives being part of such a B-N; C-N
arrangement and legitimate need (or needs) present themselves in regards to
this issue (however again note some
cautions in J:16) - and if we have
the means to meet them and don’t - not only are we not being
a disciple of Christ, but an
opportunity is lost in regards to our rewards in the hereafter [which is where
our minds and heart ought to be - the
hereafter (Matthew 6:19-21) and not on this life per say, particularly in
regards to new relationships that are God’s will for our situation)].
707) That is if she feels the need to have
that title (particularly because of the way the world is)
708) which probably ought to be more than
just a title - but something that is actually followed through with a husbandly
‘watching over’ if need be – especially of there are children [and they can
also help in regards to footnote (2 previous ______) if need be].
772Ac, 932A makes mention of this
footnote.
709) which could be hyphenated (for
example: She was Miss Smith now she is Mrs. Smith-Jones).
Note: taking on the last name of a
man (or even hyphenating it) can be a two edge sword for a woman who (eventually)
desires full independence. While there can be obvious benefits in regards to
projecting a ‘team image’ (even employment) she may feel trapped to move out in
maturity feeling bound by the “belonging concept” (basically: what would other
men think?) Therefore because of that I recommend that a woman entering a
relationship either choose a new (last) name altogether for herself (at the
beginning of the relationship) and use only that (so she doesn’t have to worry
about the “belonging concept” and what other people think) or at least hyphenates
it so that if someday she chooses to go out on her own (even in maturity) she at
least had already projected an image of independence for herself (Smith
–Jones). [also if she does that it would be ‘easier’ for her to “leave” (temporarily)
or in fact leave a relationship once she matures due to the fact that she had not
only already made a [full (new name) or partial (new hyphenated) name] for
herself under her original – entering - into - the - relationship – name - but
also has now used it to her own advantage (which is independence)].
710) which may mean their contributing
(and adjusting) from the “old school” way the relationship was originally set
up [and note for a current wife to adjust to the possibility of new children by
her husband is to her credit and in a sense any new children by her husband are
in part - “hers” for her mature “allowance” [guys remember it is not as easy
for a current wife to publicly adjust to this as it is for a man to do and
anything you can do to accommodate (help) her during the adjusting period would
be helpful]
711) which can actually be included in
the husbands [and note maturing or mature women (that is: wives / sisters) are
able to enter into relationships - that produce no children - for personal and
/ or relationship reasons].
712) and again note you can enter into
these temporary, “temporary” or permanent relationships without having the
titles of husband and wives, or even a woman taking on a man’s last name at all
[and again you don’t have to divorce to have these type of relationships (and I
would encourage Christian – especially maturing Christian - not to)].
760)
Again from a non-biblical civil legal perspective a child that results
from an unmarried relationship, if the relationship were to end even though the
parents agreed on ahead of time for the wife to support the child(en) as
they grow, the ex-wife could sue for child support in civil court. Also in
regards to the disposition of the estate, if the child does not agree
with the pre-arranged agreement that the parents made in regards to inheritance
they may have some legal rights in regards to the disposition of
an estate.
770) of
which “B” is a really old (as in ancient) way of doing things [as in: treating
(or providing for) a woman who is worth something physically, but nothing else
(as in: a kept {as in pet} woman who has a “sugar daddy” which ought not be
“sold” as a viable option for a
woman’s life {especially public policy})].
However a modified “C” [as in “AC” (or “A’s”
for that matter)] can be allowed privately - possibly publically - if
‘the interest’ of the first wife [which included her reasonable expectations at
the start of the relationship (see 770a)]
is reasonably safe.
770a) which
is basically being provided for in old age (or even throughout the
relationship), and even having a little something left over for the children
[but not
having of gobs and gobs of money (and gobs of everything else)].
771) of
which all pending legislation (for “B’s”) ought to be vetoed and allow for
“C’s” only as “AC’s” which would allow for them (as 2nd wives) to
support themselves (see 771a) but not allow them to give up
their rights over the estate [both them and the children (see 771b)].
771a) which
can address some concerns of the first wife.
771b) and
ought to (the women) have input and continued input in and over the estate (of
which they can invest in as well as too have “a vote” in). Note: in regards to
these types of arrangements it’s probably not wise for a “second wife” to be
standoffish and wait until retirement to see what’s there or left. Both she and
the children have a vested interest in the profit of the estate [also note:
what second wives “come in with” and how that is handled would need to be
sorted out - and probably factored into ‘the estate’ (or estate planning (see 771c)) as well].
771c)
there are people who do this for a living (plan estates or Estate planners).
772) and because of that no public
legislation ought to allow for the categories in the pure biblical form -
especially “B’s”.
772A) both
of which (“A’s” and “C’s”) is a really tough thing in regards to estate
planning if everyone is moving to “D” or independence (see 772Aa), but in regards to any dissovlement of the estate (or
change in estate planning) because people are (were) at different levels of
maturity when they entered the relationship and need(ed) (and may still need)
time to mature the arrangement at the
beginning of the relationship carries weight throughout. Also the existence
of children changes things permanently as well and keeps at
least their (that is: at least the children’s) “hand” in the estate throughout
[too (which could also be looked after by the “2nd wife” regardless
of her status in the estate)].
772Aa) and
can be even a tougher issue in regards to those who enter a relationship as a
“D” or close to a “D” and want to (or are wanted to) be included in the estate (see 772Ab) [in other words they are
(mostly) independent already and there would have to be some kind of “on the
level” reason why they are entering the relationship (estate {as in: need for
support – of all kinds – for children, etc.})].
772Ab) which
is (the estate) in a questionable state
as it is in regards to the
original also maturing parties [basically what I
think what is going on here is everyone is helping out one another in any way
they can (see 772Ac) on this side of
eternity as they mature (see “Understanding Men and Women on this
Side of Eternity” {Appendix___} as well as “Issues and Concerns” {Appendix ___)
and also see Footnotes ___ ___ & ___ on this issues as well)].
772Ac) which
is usually financially [and can include giving a woman a man’s last name (see Footnote 709)].
773)
which in regards to policy usually means the highest.
774) who
percentage wise are a little more than half the population (that is: women) and
when you combine those statistics with men (the other “half” of the population)
who…
you more
than likely left with the majority of the population that would allow for multiple
spousal relationships [but only as “A’s” (or possibly “AC’s”)] which can also
translate into votes (fighting for and allowing for “B’s” probably would not).
776) Note: the relationships mentioned here will have a tendency, because of
what they are, to flow with the flow of life for their existence more than
other types of relationships. Not that there isn’t life in other kinds
relationships (and not that someone is always on the hunt or prowl in these),
but these types of relationships are open for change and that openness here
leaves ‘room to flow’ - and explore opportunities (and that approach to life is
not for the immature who have not considered things).
782) Sisters and brothers the comment “will
lead to something better” can be a relative comment and there is a degree of
relativity here (that is relative to the individual), particularly if an
individual sees ‘acts done’ as something that manifests itself in an upwardly
progressive sense to them. However even though this is so one ought not view
others (nor themselves) as objects, nor ought one view people as a means to an
ends (that is using people). Even in such borderline cases as 1 Kings 1:1-4
permission seems to have been given and seems to have been given to a point.
Again, people are people, not objects or things. There is such a thing as
respect for others and dignity in regards to ourselves. At the minimum these
types of relationships have as their objective a ‘close friendship.’ Brothers
and sisters, sharing intimate things with one another and being intimate will
most likely lead to that - if not more.
783) note with intimacy things
get imparted to one another - intimate beneficial things, intimate experiences
etc.
784) sisters and brothers once
again I want to point out that these type of open relationships are for the
mature (and part of being mature is to be able to handle change), however in
regards to being prepared for change I want to point out that if one party gets
hurt because they expected that this type of relationship would lead to
something more permanent in an exclusive sense (which is understandable) - it’s
not necessarily the other persons fault. Quite honestly if this is what one (or
both) parties want it would probably be wise to say something up front about
their desires so that no one does get hurt (for again ‘exclusivity’ is not
necessarily what these relationships are about).
What one could say [that
is if one desires to be under the covering of name or title (husband / wife)],
could be something as vague as “someday I’d like to be a wife / husband to
someone someday,” and see what kind of response you get [and brothers and
sisters if you read the authors book
“Non-Traditional Spousal Relationships” becoming
someone’s husband or wife is not as hard as it used to be for almost any person
who wants a husband / wife relationship can have one. (However they may have to
consider non-traditional options for their life, but the new relationship would
recognized by God as legitimate)]. These new different options make it easier
all around (However again non-exclusivity would still be factored into these
new types of relationships).
785) in other words it may be of importance to you - or a
certain someone - to say that you saved yourself for them.
790) See the authors book Sustaining Revival Appendix H on
Maturity.
792) and as mentioned in point
5 regarding “The Present” there may be legitimate questions here particularly
regarding unprotected sex which may be of concern for some spouses to
ask if the other spouse or “other person” has not having been “cautious” in
their choice of previous (or current) partners (if applicable) and / or the
possibility of a spouse not considering the impact of (new) children in the
original relationship. Again, we are talking about unprotected sex.
Sisters and brothers “Being Cautious” is a tough area for couples to address
because you are dealing with faith and trust in the other spouse’s wisdom [and
faith and trust happens to be the basis of the new relationship (but you can be
putting peoples health on the line)].
Brethren, if one spouse
happens to be unsure enough to request a test of the new person in the
relationship (before the one they themselves are in has unprotected sex)
everyone ought not be insulted and realize that that is where that person is at
(and unless God says no, this is ridiculous, go for a test).
Once again brothers and
sisters this is a sensitive area because you are dealing with issues of faith
and trust, but there is not much one can do other than to put people’s fears at
ease.
793) and spouses in altered
arrangements need to be prepared for the fact that the information they may
“want” to hear may in fact never be given, and spouses - once unknotted (or
loosely unknotted) - are able (and should be able) to do what they want in
these matters] (and personally I would probably not exchange “outside” intimate
information with a spouse for I fail to see the point in doing so)..
795) in regards to somewhat
permanent relationships where individuals are called husbands and wives (and
again you can have open relationships without title or name), if you follow the
different types of arrangements (“A”, “B” , “C” ), even though the
relationships mentioned here in Appendix C could move
towards a modified form of those types of arrangements for certain individuals
(or situations) [or visa verse, which for the sake of clarity could - in their
milder form - be again be called “N” (or “AND”) relationships meaning
‘in addition to’ the main relationship], the relationships mentioned in
this Appendix are pretty much in their own separate category (“D” if you
will, which means truly independent relationships - which all these
relationships (“A” , “B” , “C” and “N”) ought to
eventually move towards), and again are viewed as such “D” (the self-sufficient individual) which
would be the non-mild
form that “A” , “B” and “C” could move towards (“N” being the milder form).
·
Also
note: there can be overlaps in
“A” “B” “C” arrangements in
regards to issues of provision - and living arrangements - as people mature and are
becoming more and more independent. For example a woman who agrees to provide
for her own needs “C” may receive financial support on occasion [or if
she needs it (whatever may be the case)]. Also, a woman who is dependent on the
estate “B” may desire to have a career (or while receiving finances for
her own support - since she has no rights over the estate {and neither is she a
partner}, - work to save money for other reasons etc.)] (again see Appendix C? for more on these types of
relationships). Note there is nothing necessarily wrong with a woman receiving
financial support [for example a man who has a mistress (which classically
defined is a single woman without much subsistence) may desire to help provide
for her needs].
796) individuals are usually
forever bound in some fashion by their children with possible support,
graduations, weddings, births etc. If you end up having children in these kinds
of relationships you will most likely continue to see each other on occasion
even if these relationships should end (Children usually make relationships
between parents somewhat non-temporary).
797) unless it is something
every once in a while
798) and brethren although I
can make a positive case for “helpful” relationships, in regards to it’s
lasting fruit, it’s a questionable case, and the damage done in regards to some
of these very temporary relationships can cause concerns me,
particularly flings, but I‘ll have to think about it some more)].
849) and if you are not
careful (or the person you are with is not careful) you may have to deal with
the immature jealous spouse of someone else (if applicable).
851) Closed being the usual
definition of a marital arrangement (as in “you and you alone” or “forsaking
all others”)
852) Marriage is defined
[biblical / legally speaking] as a covenant between two (or more) people where…
1)
promises are made both ways
2) and people are called husbands and wives (see 852a)
3) and the woman (full wife, wives) have full rights over
the estate (see 852b)
Again,
this is marriage, and in marriage the estate is a preeminent thing.
852a) In regards to the word ‘wife’ in scripture
biblically speaking a non-estate controlling wife [which were concubines, which
were not ‘sex toys’ but designated their standing in regards to the estate (See
Appendix
C?)],
are viewed as the wives (or a wife) (compare 2 Samuel 12:11 and 2 Samuel
16:21,22); but they are not “full” wives [that is they do not have full rights
over the estate (see Abraham married a concubine after Sarah departed (compare
Genesis 25:1 with 1 Chronicles 1:32)]. Also see that when Abraham split up his
estate, the son of his full wife (Sarah) received the inheritance
and the children of the concubines (that is the non-full wives in the estate)
received gifts (Genesis 25:5,6). Biblically the difference between the
differing types of wives revolve around matters of the estate, however (and
this is from God’s perspective too) all women whom are in a covenanted
relationship with a man are the mans wife (wives) and as far as their
relationship with the man goes are on equal footing and are not to be viewed by
anyone – especially the husband - as inferior to one another. Again their man
made distinction reflects their interest in the estate (controlling /
non-controlling etc).
852b) Again see Abraham married a concubine Keturah;
[that is a non-full wife (see Appendix C?)], after Sarah departed
(compare Genesis 25:1 with 1 Chronicles 1:32)]. Also again note that when
Abraham split up his estate, the son of his full wife (Sarah)
received the inheritance (Genesis 25:5) and the children of non-full wives
(concubines) received gifts (Genesis 25:5,6)
The children of his new wife Keturah were born
to him while she was in a non-full wife or concubine status (1 Chronicles 1:32)
and Abraham gave gifts to his/her children while he was still living (Genesis
25:26), however it is unknown at what point in the relationship that that
transpired.
Note: from a non-biblical civil legal
perspective a child that results from an unmarried (or pre nuptial)
relationship, if the relationship were to end badly even though the parents
agreed on ahead of time on an arrangement, the ex-spouse (wife) could sue for
child support in civil court. Also in regards to the disposition of the
estate, if the child does not agree with the pre arranged agreement that the
parents made in regards to inheritance they may have some legal rights
in regards to the disposition of an estate (consult an attorney, local
laws and particularly the precedents that have been set in regards to this
issue - if this is of concern to you).
Note the contrast between probate and…
853) these are not D
relationships, but A-N
854) The phrase “full rights”
needs qualification for obviously a married wife does not have complete
rights over the estate (that is: depending on what you are talking about) and
from the legal perspective – if push came to shove – she (or he) would
typically have (or get) no more than half (See Ester 5:3 in regards to how some
individuals saw their ‘inherent’ interest). (See Footnote 3 down)
855) which could be a man or
woman
856) in other words they are
offered and refused (waved) [and note: they could be offered in a way like “I’d
like to ask you to marry me, however….]
857) In other words these are
“AB’s” or “AC’s” relationships
Note:
there are ‘degrees of married’ (that is: with rights over the estate) depending
on what you are talking about (and in regards to the see the validity of the
title “married” in ‘waved rights’
marriages one needs to look at the approach to the issue, for
example, note the differences between the following three proposals….
1)
I’d like to ask you to marry me [(A) or H for that matter], however I can’t __________.
2)
I’d like to ask you to become my dependant (B) wife.
3)
I’d like to ask you to become my independent (C) wife.
In
offer 1 there is room to negotiate –
“down” within the title of ‘married’ (A) title itself (that is one can become
an “AB’s” or “AC’s”), however in offers 2
(B) and 3 (C) marriage is not
offered and although one can ask “up” one cannot
negotiate within the offer itself [that is within the marriage proposal (or rights over
the estate)], and in regards to the issue of degrees - as with all titled
positions - one can occupy a position from anywhere to ‘full’ to ‘in name only’
and in regards to this issue (that is: “degrees” within marriage) the same
holds true in regards to marriage or… being married {that is one can be married
from full (see 857a) all the way to
‘in name only’ - and anywhere in between})] (see 857b).
857a) Note: we are not talking about full and
partial wives here, but full or partial marriages [or wives
within marriages (not all wives are within marriages)]. It’s a technical issue
but because marriage was offered it is part of the deal [note the difference
between someone who was asked (offered) to join a company’s board of directors
(marriage) and accepts, but in
reality is “there” in name only and does not actually goes to any of the
meetings {that is they accepted being married
(being on the board), but really negotiated, for example an AB relationship }, and then contrast it (or that) with someone who actually does
all the work of a director (or an A or AA), goes to the meetings and is part of
the company (wife) but does not have
not the position of a director (married)].
In other words (and this is putting it in an extreme form) you can have a
position and not have the responsibilities (or be married in name only).
857b)
Note: the practical difference between being married in name only (not
speaking of a sham marriage) and being, let’s say an independent (C) wife may
be nothing – however the title (married) may mean something (or in fact
everything) to some people.
858) and note, because we are
dealing with A’s (AA’s) and B’s (AB’s) and C’s (AC’), moving to N and then to D
‘status’ we can also leave out the phrase “till death do you part” in the
wedding ceremony as well [however note because the definition of the word
‘part’ in that phrase is muted due to the fact that the goals of all these
relationships are also close lifelong friendships the word (and phrase) could
be used in a qualified sense (and please note no one is forcing anyone to do
anything here)].
859) Note: here are some of the
other promises that are typically made between spouses in regards to some
ceremonies…
*
“for better or worse”
* “in
sickness and in health” (which in this case can also mean {or be inclusive} of
health insurance {meaning that only certain rights were waved by one party (not
all of them)})
*
“for richer or poorer” [which can be used for qualified (or modified) A / H
relations promises to each other (that is: in regards to a spouses possible limited
waving of rights over the estate {note there are ‘degrees’ to all these
relationships with some A’s {or “H” for that matter} hovering very close to B
and C relationships {especially A’s in name only} thus “for richer or poorer”
could be left out depending on the agreement)].
Note:
there is the expectancy that in regards to the term marriage that all
relationships between men and women will end up in that traditional way (that
is the way people traditionally understand it). However biblically speaking
that is just not true (once again B and C relationships). Also note that it is
a somewhat common practice to “bend” or expand definitions in the bible [for
example the word ‘wife’ can mean 4 different things A, B, C and engagement
covenant wives (also note how the word ‘oath’ - or the concept of it - is actually
allowably
bent in the bible)], therefore in regards to the term ‘marriage’ expanding it
or even allowably bending the
definition would be in line with what it done biblically (or in the bible) [In
other words once again you can be married and not really be married (and again
we are not talking about a sham thing, but a relationship that exists but is
creatively augmented to fit a particular situation {for example would anyone
say that the parties in pre-nup marriages (which can parallel
B, C relationship) are not actually married?})].
Once
again creatively augmented, or allowable
bent to fit a particular situation (for example: the extreme case of being
married in name only).
860)
861) that is “N’s” to “D’s”
862) Again it’s not that anyone
is forcing anything (or anyone) here, nor are individuals being forced to grow
up too soon, but the reality of the situation (and life) is that people do in
fact grow up and become less and less dependant on what was in all their relationships
(which seems to be true across the board).
900) Who may be thinking along the
same lines someday.
900A) and as pointed out in old footnote 380 who knows how angels relationships work? – or even progress? One
relationship at a time? and (“N”)? or loving the one(s) your with? Sisters in
regards to the concept of two guys for every girl I think most every woman
knows that when going from one relationship to another there is almost never a
clean break until one is sure. So given this apparent “female fact” at the
minimum there seems to be leeway for women to have at least two on-the-level relationships with men
until they are sure - if not more. Also remember since moving towards “N” is a
first step for a maturing woman (already in a committed relationship) both men
and women can expect at least two relationships for most every maturing woman
for as long as she (and others involved) desire.
Also note since the
concept of marriage (and committed multiple spousal relationships) are not
present on the other side of eternity (that is: the perfect side) one can
expect that whatever takes place on this side – with both genders – is im
perfect, and does not reflects the perfect state. Therefore,
let’s say for the sake of argument there is only one (non-committed)
relationship at a time on the other side of eternity, since we are on this
imperfect side women again have much leeway until they are sure and again men
and women can expect at least two relationships for most every maturing woman
for as long as she (and the others involved) desire them to last (which could
be “forever”).
901) Who may see a place for
themselves in the relationship they are trying to bring forth.
902) and note to guys: in regards to the concept of
reputations (which women are very sensitive over) if a woman comes forward with
such a proposition, and you reject it I would not say anything about it to
anyone.
903) Who may end up being a great “help-meet” (the
old word describing Eve) in regards to the
Lord’s purposes (not so much
yours).
904) Like it or not ‘emotional ties’ can develop as
a result of intimacy (and if any evidence of this is needed just think of the
probable fact that if a marriage falls apart both ex-spouses would probably
want to know what ever became of so and so?)
905) Which is what we want done here [and note to
the insecure: some to many past intimate relationships were actually ‘used
relationships’ especially for women and do desire to be forgotten by
ex-spouses, etc. (and note I wouldn’t doubt that most every man to whom a women
lost their virginity too are thought about quite badly by them to this very day
– unless it was their husband)].
906) and if God could pursue Israel
(the Northern Kingdom) after he divorced her, and David could take back Mical
after she was wed to another, I sure angels can move back and forth among the
same relationships as well.
907) Conversations among the women first can be
expected.
921) and if you are Catholic or Orthodox
you will find that the vocations are also arranged in this way (to one degree
or another).
922) See Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37
922A) Marxism was a radical left wing version of communism where even
“proper” thinking was mandated (which included atheism). Note: there is nothing inherently wrong with
the word “communist” nor anything wrong with the concept and any negativity
towards communism today is usually rooted in its confrontation with the left
wing version of it, which seems to have tainted the whole concept behind it -
including the right wing version of it (which is: sharing what one has voluntarily
with someone in need). With Marxism things were forced, with Christianity
things (sharing) is voluntary and… freedoms are not suppressed.
922B) See also Acts 5:4 where nothing is
forced.
558B mentions this footnote
923) which can mean anything from the
private relationships mentioned in this book to having public relationships
with the Nephilim.
(See
also Footnotes 618c; 619B and 619D for more in regards to the Nephilim).
Footnote 934 makes
mention of this footnote
924) Which can
mean walking down the street and seeing a grown up with a very young wife (who
happens to be still going to school – an enlightened school) or a man with
two wives and many kids [note: the social system as well as schools and local
codes may need to adjust and no one be surprised to see a young pregnant woman
in school (or going for help for some social service (see 924a)) or even more than a few unrelated people living under one roof].
Note: in regards to an enlightened
society let me again quote something from my grandmother bio regarding a
society that was a little different…
“[my aunt (as a girl)] had a baby…
she wasn’t married. In those days, if an unmarried girl became pregnant she was
sent to relatives who lived far away. The baby was put up for adoption and then
the girl might come back home – it was a scandal! (but my enlightened
grandmother)… kept [her (my aunt) at]… home with her…”
Concepts change for the better in an
enlightened society and even though laws can be written regarding certain
things few people follow them in regards
to personal issues, however for enlightened people and an enlightened
society to be open to other possibilities - especially ‘on the level’
possibilities [that is: within the ball park (again see Footnote 93A)], is to those peoples and that societies credit
(churches take note).
924a) as in: we
are seeing some 12 year olds come in for… (so what). Note due to an increase in
certain things the local social contract of an enlightened society may change
and with change can come revenue increase in one form or another (as in: if it
can’t be shifted, someone somewhere is going to have to shoulder it), therefore
I would advise all enlightened
societies to keep an eye out for trends as well as possibly any unique social (that is: societal)
callings to a particular society –
especially the churches in the area (as in: everyone in regards to_____ seems
to be {coming / or is} here), and as a result for all churches (and societies)
to be the best at what God has
called - or is calling you to be.
268 C- j mentions this footnote
925) which can include non-traditional
medical / psychological therapy [as in drugs (see 925a), herbs, etc.]; even non-traditional emotional therapy
[both of which would allow for paid “therapists” (see 925h)].
925a) the
concern over drugs is that there are different classes of them and some are
regulated for reason [as in: too much makes one’s heart stop; don’t operate
machinery / drive while taking some as well as some do not go well with other
drugs – even other things (like foods)]. The thing is once those concerns are
addressed the mature (which also means ‘the informed’) and the responsible [which
also includes the person at the point of sales (see 925b)] can decide who qualifies for what (see 925c) and then mature responsible people can consider how (or
under what circumstances) to use them.
925b) which
depending on how things are set up can mean either a mature ‘dealer’ who
decides to regulate certain classes of drugs to only certain individuals [which
one ought to consider doing to maintain a utopian society (See Footnote 268Cn) (which a mature responsible ‘dealer’ would
have a vested interest in maintaining)] as well as if sold ‘over the counter’ a
responsible standard can be set according to civil regulation.
Note: the “why’s” (as in: personal
reasons) behind taking certain types of “psychological” drugs are a separate
issue, but a good many of these regulated drugs are found in nature anyway - as
is (see 925d), it’s because of the
irresponsible that some were taken off the public market of old (see 925e).
The whole thing is a tough issue, but
in a mature responsible (emphasizing responsible) society it ought not be
a problem all of which could also be regulated and sold over the counter (with
warning labels) if certain criteria were met [especially drugs found in nature
anyway (see 925f)].
925c) which is
also in the vested interest of a private seller in an open society (for example
someone who grows marijuana for medical reasons and decides to sell some) to
keep things from going public in regards to regulation.
And note: in regards to possible
public regulation certain things could still be allowed privately [as in:
growing medicinal plants (of whose benefits could also be sold too)], and if
regulated, I recommend dealers become legitimate and be incorporated into
established supply and demand lines.
925d) Anywhere
from over the counter St. John’s Wort (for treating mild depression) to Cocaine
(for treating more severe depression, suppressing coughs, numbing pain), not to
mention marijuana and like substances.
925e) of whose
reasons included the cost (of the immature’s usage) to society (see the selling
of alcohol for a similar argument). And note: in regards to drugs being “the
cause” of crime (see 925g) unless
you are talking about a habit that needs to be supported (again immature), it’s
usually not drugs that cause crime, but things like desperation that are the
problem - not drugs itself (note the parallel argument: “the only reason for
deaths by shooting is the ownership of guns” for a similar foolish argument).
Also in regards to their effect on education many college student experiment
with them (and may even continue with them recreationally afterward graduation)
and (go on to) live productive lives in society (and nobody even knows).
Note: in regards to dealing with immature
public drug behavior in an enlightened society unless the person needs an
ambulance I recommend it be dealt with the way public drunkenness used to be
dealt with, with either a ride home (or a ride to the station for pick up) or having
someone call the home of the immature to have them pick-up, all of which would
be done without booking. Also an enlightened responsible society ought to find out where such an irresponsible person
got drugs from and have a talk with the seller (as in: sending police to the
door saying “we hear you are selling things to the irresponsible and we will be
keeping an eye on you”), and for such a society to not be afraid to throw such
people out of society (the experiment) after a warning or two [drugs -
especially “hard” (“O.D. ing”) stuff ought not be sold to the immature].
925f) which is
stupid to regulate (for the mature) since God gave them to society to be used
(see possibly Matthew 27:34 as well as Revelation 22:2).
925g) of whose
societies “numbers” would have to be watched out for in regards to any
relaxation of law (or relaxation of law enforcement). Note: if people who took
“drugs” did not take them they would probably be taking other things (like
alcohol) anyway (it’s all the same). Now this is not to downplay a cause and
effect here, but just mentioned to put things in perspective [see Footnote 268 C-j for a possible way to
study the issue (and note: I would not include people from outside the area of
a Utopian experiment {who happen to hear of an experiment and decide to come
and abuse it} in any Utopian stats)].
925h) which
includes yes, those who get paid for things regarding sex [nurse therapists
(see Footnote ___ also note the
independent free lifestyle of the angels as an example of mature perfected
behavior)].
Note: ‘nurse therapists’ would be
inclusive of both genders [as well as people past the age of puberty (see 925-i) and all ought to be hidden
from the (immature) general public [and as for school age therapists they ought
to continue in school but do their best to keep things to themselves (again for
the sake of the immature) which includes possibly dating only mature people
(see Appendix ___ ‘Guidelines for Mature Relationships’ for some sound and
helpful considerations here)].
93Ad, 93Ag mention this footnote
925-i) note:
scripturally there is no age given in regards to readiness of sexual relations.
If you look at 1 Corinthians 7 an apostle writes that he has no command from
the Lord regarding virgins, but he has some opinions (1 Corinthians 7:25), one
of which regards a virgin being of “full age” of whose yearly age is not
mentioned (1 Corinthians 7:36). Now brethren one can go back and forth about
some things in regards to this issue, but biologically a woman is ready to
conceive once she menstruates [so we are talking about a woman being of “full
age” (which is probably what or close to what he is talking about –
menstruation – ability to conceive) being a relatively young age by most
western standards) (see also Footnote 93Ae
as an example of a young age by todays western standard)], and again there is
no command from the Lord (so even the “full age” statement is an opinion). The thing is brothers and
sisters once menstruation starts hormones are in place and women start to
experience the ‘sensual feelings’ that are mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:11 monthly
whether they like it or not (which can cause friction in a home) so unless a
young woman can control herself it’s better for her to have sexual relations -
even at a (very) young age (by todays western standards) - than for her to burn
(1 Corinthians 7:9). Therefore biblically
speaking a ‘nurse therapist’ could be as young as someone just past the age
of puberty (which again is the sexual age based on an opinion, not a command).
925A) not being “under law” [which would also include
the vacating of convictions and release (or reduced sentences {possibly as in
time served}) for prisoners of certain types of crimes or “crimes”].
926) which can also have relevance in
regards to some things written in this book (that is: the letting go).
927) which in regards to living
arrangements could be anywhere from independent (or localized) housing (even in
mixed neighborhoods) to again a few - or many - unrelated people living under
one roof.
928) For example, Christians banding
together for a common work (such as community outreach or witnessing). See
Catholic Rectories or Convents as (segregated by gender) examples of people communally living under one roof
for religious reasons (and note the arrangements do not have to be segregated). Also note Keith Green’s “Last Day’s
Ministry” of the 1970’s and 80’s was set up in a communal way.
929) which can be of help in regards to mutual
aid regarding old age physical dependency - which is not an easy responsibility
to share. Note in regards to
old age: if one does not have willing family
- or money for a care home - most people (or couples) unfortunately find
out they only have enough money to rent a room in a house somewhere - taken care of by strangers (which is not
really desirable for one’s golden years). Living under one roof with
fiends (not strangers) - especially Christian friends - is the more a
desirable option for Christians as they get older – look around.
930) as in every other house is Christian
(which is color and denominational blind by the way).
931) Note: in most countries there are no
laws regulating who it is one can hire (that is: if the employee complement is
under a certain number).
932) Sisters and brothers there is nothing hard about starting up a
business and most towns have resources that can help individuals in this area -
including help over the issue of financing, just do your demographic homework,
secure lines of credit (if applicable) and try to have enough money for about
six months of bills and get going. Especially so if you have a group of
Christians at the ready to chip in or help out (also try to honor fellow
Christian business that have the little fish symbol in the advertisement. They
are doing the same thing). Note in regards to Christian businesses Watchmen Nee
and his little church in China started up what was in effect a Christian health
food business to help out one another in this area.
932A) especially
women in multiple spousal situations who desire to press unto independent
maturity (see Footnote 709 on this).
933) of which
civil society ought to encourage and not hinder in ministry [for example:
possible tax breaks, especially for public ministry (food pantries, etc.)] as
well as not be a hindrance in regards to any “street type” (outside the church)
ministries as well [for example: witnessing booth’s for street evangelism, etc.
(which helps to maintain the public order by preaching the gospel of salvation
which in turn leads to mature responsible Christian living among members of the
community)].
934) which would be a safe port or harbor (see 934a) - without geographic boundaries - which would - because
of its Christian nature and values - protect ones quote unquote “French” garden (see 934c) and life from any storms (in life) that deal with bad intent (see 934d).
934a) for the mature that would tolerate
and allow for many mature things including both the markedly multiple spousal relationships (see 934b) and the warm open loving relationships
found in this book, etc.
934b) which could include the “C” type of
them privately. “B’s” are just too old [See Appendix ___ on “B” and “C” relationships (note: from “A” to “D” or directly to
“D” is where we {the maturing / or mature} want to go)].
934c) that is: because of its Christian nature and
values would be able to sort through - not only spousal issues - but also any issue
that deals with intimate relationships.
934d) see Footnote 266 regarding the relevance of ‘intent’ behind ones actions [and
note in regards to the issue of ‘storms’ and actual weather unless God tells
one why weather related events happen to any area in the world it’s best not to
say why yourself, however… having said that, God does allow certain weather
related things to happen to an area for both good (Deuteronomy 11:13,14; 1
Kings 18:44; Joel 2:23) and bad (2 Samuel 21:1; 2 Chronicles 6:26) reasons and
although some negative events could be a test from God (Job 1:19) such negative
things could also be for discipline (1 Kings 17:1; 2 Kings 8:1). Therefore
given the possibility that both good and bad things can happen for
reason (and it’s not just weather) it’s best for Christians to order
one’s life and one’s community after sound biblical (Christian)
principles.
Note once again just some of the following
footnotes that ought to be factored into Christian communities:
Footnote 149d: that speaks of the different the types of
people in the coming kingdom (saved / unsaved; mature / immature) which has
relevance in regards to planning of Christian (dominated) communities (see also
Footnotes ___ on this as well).
Footnote 256B1: that
assures law enforcement officials that citizens inherently do know better [that
is: inherently do know to do the right and proper thing in spite of any
relaxation of law (of whose relaxation would also allow for citizens to partake
of ‘maturity of conscience’ issues {note the footnotes of this Appendix as well as see the following Footnotes
of ___ })].
Footnote 206: regards the
issue of public vs. private lives [also see Footnotes ___ regarding the maturity of one’s
conscience in relation to this as well (also see “the bridge” of life in Footnote
72)].
Footnote 174: regarding
the need for new studies.
Footnote 268C: regarding
questionable issues (especially things to allow and deregulate for
the mature).
Footnote 175: regarding
the churches role (which ought not be secondary) in all this [that is: defining
relationships (see Footnote 253 B on this, also note Footnotes
___ that outlines the possible tension
between Christians regarding God’s direction, the issue of holiness, ‘God’s
Best’ as well as questions and issues regarding temporary allowances and
exceptions)].
Footnote 924) regarding an
open enlightened
societies public street scene [for example: going down the street and seeing a
grown up with a very young wife and / or a man with many wives or hearing of
(or seeing) a young pregnant girl still in school (also see Footnote
___ in regards to witnessing the Nephilim {the children of the angels}
as they walk down the street {or are even employed by government / business
etc. (even starting up their own business establishments {for example:
restaurants, retail even corporations})} as well)].
Note: they are already here –
and working (at least the Nephilim that look like common man).
Footnote 78: in regards
to domestic partnerships as well as homosexual sex [exceptions and allowances (also
see Footnote 406 F1 regarding this as well)].
Footnote 93A: regarding
the issue of age related questions (also see Footnotes ___ on this as
well).
Footnote 000: regarding
women functioning in non-traditional roles.
Along with the many footnotes dealing
with personal relationships (which may vary widely in such an extended
community) which in general allows for one to get out of, stay in and / or
enter new ones (as well as the many footnotes that deal with the niceties of
life: things like giving preference to women in social situations, allowing for
the enjoyment of good food or even picking up the garbage while on a walk in
regards to quality of life issues).
Note: because we are talking about a
without boundaries extended Christian community there ought to be a blending of
all things in all cities and towns and no one area ought to dominate anything
[in other words no one ought ever say…“go over there for ‘this and that’ (or to
‘do’ this and that)” and especially not add… “for we don’t ‘do’ nor allow ‘this
and that’ here”].
935) Note:
there is a branch of theology that states that society can bring about the true
kingdom of God on earth by being ‘good enough’ and while such a view has been
rejected by many biblical scholars (due to prophecies regarding world-wide
turmoil - with a final purge - before the
kingdom comes) there is no reason why we cannot have more than a taste of
it on this side of the kingdom before it comes (See again Footnote 268Cn).
Behold the Kingdom of God is among you (verse needed)
Note: while there can be considerable
debatable as to whether some of the things mentioned in this appendix will be
part of the coming kingdom of God (or even part of a perfected Christian life),
it is not debatable that mature responsibility is part of a mature Christian
life and will be part of that coming kingdom. The thing is brethren we are not
(all) “there” yet and there are certain things that can be allowed as at
least an allowance [for example: drugs (see 935a)] until we attain to that perfected state [note the
existence of doctors (as in: go to a doctor) while we try to figure out the
gift of healing or try to muster up the faith to receive a healing from God as
a classic example of an allowance (same thing with drug usage, etc. {which is
what doctors will prescribe})].
935a) note in
regards to drugs most people will self-medicate in regards to a sleep aid [for
example taking an allergy / cold medicine if needed or melatonin (all over the
counter and some not being used as not prescribed)], it’s not much different in
regards to other types of self-medication for the informed and responsible.
950A) Note: in regards to
the issue of ‘investigation’ how well a local church investigates a matter will
reflect on the “credibility” of the ruling or writ (a restricted delivery
certified letter with questions is all that is needed with a date of return
requested). However remember that since some couples are amicable and don’t
contest things (with ex-spouses on very good terms) a basic acquiescing to the
divorce (or annulment) may be all that is needed (as in checking off a box on
the form). The letter ought to also state that if it is not returned by a
certain date the divorce (or annulment) will be granted for the sake of the
inquiring spouse so that they will have a church writ in hand (Also note you
may want to befriend a Roman Catholic priest and ask for the investigative
forms they use - and streamline them).
951) for example: going forward with
one’s life (dating).
952) that is availability (however note
annulments and divorce’s are not necessary for going forward with mature
lifestyles).