Pros and cons of distinguishing sacramental/covenant marriage from natural marriage

This is a side topic from the Divorce Part 8 Actual Final where I mention I tend to find the Catholic position on divorce the most Biblically consistent. Although that is the case, there are some pros and cons of this position.

First, we need to distinguish marriage as God created it.

  1. God created marriage (Gen 1-3).
  2. Marriage, per Jesus & thus God, was intended as one man and one woman with no divorce ever (Matt 19, Mark 10)
  3. I think we all agree that covenants in general, at least in the Bible, require full admission of the terms of such a covenant and vows to sustain it. This is true for all covenants in the Bible such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Mosaic Law, Believers in Christ, etc.
  4. Non-believers are going through the motion of “marriage ceremony” of whatever culture they are in but they clearly don’t believe in the specific covenant of marriage that God created. Non-believers have no objective moral grounding because they don’t believe in God and thus only believe in a subjective good and evil. Therefore, they cannot assent to the terms of God’s conditions on marriage.
  5. Thus, we have the possibility of distinguishing God’s covenant of marriage to what both the Catholic and Orthodox term as “natural marriage.” This natural marriage is a general following of God’s principles without actual belief and is generally facilitated by how God created us. For instance, God created men and women to be attracted to thing in the opposite sex that fulfills the creation mandate which I covered in my series on attraction. PSALM+masculine and beauty+LAMPS generally help fulfill dominion and procreation, and it’s clear both unbelievers and believers tend to follow this consciously or unconsciously.

It generally follows, I think, that one must make a distinction between a believer’s marriage and non-believers marriage because one is affirming and establishing a covenant between a man and woman with God as a witness whereas the other is just conforming inadvertently to God’s original Creation.

Now to elaborate a bit more.

I think we all agree that covenants in general, at least in the Bible, require full admission of the terms of such a covenant and vows to sustain it. This is true for all covenants in the Bible such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Mosaic Law, Believers in Christ, etc.

Based on Jesus’ statement on “What God has put together, let no man separate” I believe that most Christians would agree that an actual established covenant marriage between Christians is indissoluble if affirming the following things.

1. All parties are Christian and believe in God through faith in Jesus
2. All parties know the what marriage is and entails and their Biblical roles and responsibilities
3. All parties vow to uphold that and know the permanence of marriage.

This type of marriage cannot be annulled or divorced and thus one would fall into perpetual adultery if they divorced and remarried.

Non-believers are going through the motion of “marriage ceremony” of whatever culture they are in but they clearly don’t believe in the specific covenant of marriage that God created. Non-believers have no objective moral grounding because they don’t believe in God and thus only believe in a subjective good and evil. Therefore, they cannot assent to the terms of God’s conditions on marriage

Sacramental/covenental marriage is somewhat ad hoc, but the other position that the Prots use seems to be less internally consistent.

For instance, unbelievers can partake in “marriage,” sure. But since unbelievers have no objective moral grounding they can also redefine “marriage” to be whatever they want. True Christians all affirm that there is no such thing under God as gay marriage. But oddly if two unbelievers who were a man and woman got married they would generally be considered “married” by most Christians. Sure, they are “married” but they definitely did not enter into that marriage as a covenant with God.

So how can it be the same as a believer’s marriage?

Sacramental/covenant marriage seems to make the best of things. It’s not perfect by any means, but there needs to be a way to distinguish between (I) a covenant marriage in the eyes of God as God intended and (II) one of unbelievers who don’t believe in God and/or possibly also disagree with His definition of marriage.

Unbelievers are married due to God’s natural creation that generally drives them to be married. However, they are not the same as one who has affirmed the sacrament/covenant of marriage and assented to all of God’s terms and conditions.

Thus, we have the possibility of distinguishing God’s covenant of marriage to what both the Catholic and Orthodox term as “natural marriage.” This natural marriage is a general following of God’s principles without actual belief and is generally facilitated by how God created us.

Distinguishing between sacramental/covenant marriage and a natural marriage tends to open up a few cans of worms. The issue then is 3 fold:

  1. What do we do with a supposed 2 believer marriage where 1 person becomes supposedly apostate and possibly treated as an unbeliever?
  2. What do we do with a believer and unbeliever marriage where only the believer assents to the 3 above things?
  3. What do we do with unbeliever marriages who obviously do not consent to the 3 things above?

Let’s explore these.

What do we do with 2 believers where one has supposedly become apostate?

There’s 2 different interpretations of this.

  • The first is that the marriage is dissoluble. Both Christians agreed to that and it’s binding.
  • The second is that the believer turned believer is to be treated in respect to Matthew 18 and should be expelled normally (them leaving also works). This then tends to fall under the camp of #2 where it suddenly becomes a marriage of a believer with a believer to a believer with an unbeliever.

Based on my divorce article, I fall into camp 1 for many different reasons. Not going to elaborate on that here.

The second point obviously opens up another can of worms in that it bleeds into the next section since the believer turned unbeliever now makes the marriage fall under a different category even if they affirmed the permanence of marriage before.

What do we do with a believer and unbeliever marriage where only the believer assents to the covenant?

Again, there is 2 different interpretations of this, but now I can also consider a 3rd.

1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Here’s the 3 different options.

  • The believer is not enslaved is to the covenant of marriage. This seems slightly implausible to me because of the Greek wording for “douluo” servant/slave is not the same as the other wording that refers to the marriage bond earlier in the passage and elsewhere in the NT which is “deo” – to bind together which is reminiscent of Genesis 2 ‘a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave (dabaq Hebrew and translated as deo in Greek) to his wife and they shall be on flesh’ Even later in the passage Paul affirms this wording distinction later in the passage.

1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound (deo) as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

  • The believer is not enslaved to the roles and responsibilities of the marriage anymore. In other words, if the wife leaves then the husband is not required to perform the duties of the husband such as being a protector, provider, headship, and so on. Based on the evidence in my article and some mentioned above, I’ve always considered this point to be most likely which is why generally think it falls in line with the verses prior “stay single or reconcile”
  • In discussion with another brother on RPC, I am potentially considering that it’s possible that the 2nd is the ideal and the 1st point is not ideal but may not be sin either. For instance, in this specific case Paul states “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)” which means this is Paul speaking from his wisdom here and it’s not specifically a command of the Lord. Obviously, the ideal is being like God and Israel where God may have divorced Israel but made a way back for them like the Samaritans & our Ministry of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5.

Prior to the passage of believers married to believers the command is from the Lord:

1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

I still have not decided between point 2 and 3, and I’m still mulling it over.

However, there is a post hoc slippery slope.

A believer-believer marriage which has affirmed God’s standard of permanent marriage can now be altered for annulment or divorce because the “believer” you were with is now an “unbeliever.” Now that this is not a believer-believer marriage but a believer-unbeliever marriage, the believer has some sort of carte blache to which they can choose to stay single or reconcile or choose to be remarried.

This is clearly not what God intends.

I suppose the former point is more reasonable if a Church council decides whether a marriage can be annulled or not and not the spouse(s) in question because of the biased nature of the situation. A council would provide a more objective ruling in theory. This is more in line with the lawsuits among believers passage rather than having them in the world versus the Church. However, the fact of the matter is if that a supposed believer becomes an unbeliever then they aren’t going to go to the Church anyway and rather have the state rule on it, especially since 70%+ divorces are by women (90% among college educated) and they get an advantage (e.g. cash and prizes) by divorce raping their husbands.

I believe US Catholics make up 5% of the worldwide Catholics but have 50% of worldwide annulments. This does not necessarily make this wrong just like because some men abuse headship authority does not make headship bad. But it does at least call into question the poor state of the Church today.

What do we do with unbeliever marriages who obviously do not consent to covenant marriage?

It’s obvious that the 2 unbelievers do not believe in the covenant/sacrament… so do we treat it the same as indissoluble? Or should we just say it is sin for them to divorce but not perpetual adultery?

The former seems more reasonable to me at least given that the Law of Moses allowed divorce for hardness of heart which is what unbelievers have. Not saying that unbelievers are subject to the Law of Moses or anything like that, but the underlying principle is the same. They are clearly in sin, but since they do not know of the permanence of marriage they are not in perpetual sin as they have not assented to such a covenant. Hence, it probably should not be counted as perpetual adultery.

Other thoughts

Orthodox sacramental/covenant marriage is interesting scenario. For those of you not in the know, only the first marriage is considered a happy occasion, but a second and third final marriage are somber affairs done in penitence.

I’m not sure where the the 2nd and 3rd times come from (maybe my Orthodox readers know?), but my guess would be similar to Peter denying Christ 3 times but receiving redemption in the end. Since both Catholic and Orthodox believe Peter is the “rock” upon which the Church is built then that would make sense as it potentially embodies the Christ-Church marriage.

To my estimation this can potentially solve two issues:

  • Men and women are more likely to sexually sin more single than married. This is especially true if an innocent party is divorced or abandoned. It would be difficult on them sexually.
  • Another obvious solution is that children tend to do better with a father and mother, although this can have its cons with previous spouse(s) being involved heavily in their lives.

This has some decent reasoning behind it even if it does not strictly adhere to “what God has put together let no man separate.”

The Protestant assumption that all marriages are the same (believer-believer, believer-unbeliever, unbeliever-unbeliever) seems to be logically inconsistent because no unbelievers will apply Biblical standards to their marriages much less agree to God’s covenant of marriage in the the first place.

It also makes ruling on divorce much harder because we know it’s a sin, but one cannot necessarily rule on the permanence aspect which is what God intended. One could claim that “What God has put together let no man separate” that although God says don’t do it that man can separate. Usually this is argued in the context of the Law of Moses specifying conditions for separation/divorce (which Jesus also calls hardness of heart… so I find that line of thinking dubious) and that man only separating is a sin. But this gets into more muddled waters given the covenant nature of believers marriages.

For example, those that claim it is just a sin and that adultery breaks the covenant point to God divorcing Israel, but they conveniently omit that although Judah committed adultery with idols and foreign nations too God merely separates and reconciles with her. Additionally, they omit the fact that although Israel is divorced, God makes a way through Jesus to be reconciled. Both cases reconciliation is the answer with God, and clearly adultery does not break that bond if the innocent party does not want a divorce.

In any case, divorce in Protestant Churches has just become a free for all, much like my analogy that Protestants are in the time of the book of Judges where “there was no king in Israel and everyone did what is right in their own eyes” — There is nothing new under the sun Christian denominations. I’ve probably studied more about divorce than 99% of Protestant pastors which is probably not a good thing, especially since many went to theology/divinity schools. But the quality of students these schools are pumping out is severely compromised by the culture anyway, so that’s not a surprise.

At the end of the day, however, I suppose earthly rulings on such things are merely best attempts to follow God’s design. God knows everyone’s hearts and knows if they are trying to follow Him or trying to please their own desires. I know — at least for me and my study into such matters — I will follow the permanence line of marriage and live that out by my convictions. Whether someone comes to a different conclusion or not is ultimately between them and God, but I leave my analysis here to hopefully convince people to the path which I find most consistent with Scripture.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Pros and cons of distinguishing sacramental/covenant marriage from natural marriage

  1. Sharkly says:

    “… but they definitely did not enter into that marriage as a covenant with God.”

    Marriage isn’t a covenant with God. It is a life-limited covenant between a man and a woman, and the covenant is over as soon as either one of them dies. Nor will it ever get reinstated in heaven.

    John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    The two become one flesh, not one spirit. So, this union of corruptible flesh is not a union with incorruptible God. Otherwise My wife would have been united with the Holy Spirit within me the first time I cast my seed into her, instead of remaining unregenerate. If consummation was a union of spirit, I could fuck prostitutes into union with God and into salvation by becoming one with them. LOL The Bible even addresses it.

    1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

    We are joined physically with the Son of Man by his flesh and blood, commemorated through communion, we join with the Father only by His Holy Spirit as adopted sons, by becoming flesh and blood brothers with Christ, our mediator with God. We become one body with Christ (the Last Adam) and one Spirit with the Father.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    So, you can become one flesh illicitly and then later be cleansed by Chrit’s blood and become joined to Christ and thereby to the Father, but once joined in Spirit with the Father, you cannot again join illicitly and take God’s Holy Spirit along for that ride. You are either disinherited, or never were adopted. (I’m not getting into the debate of which that is, because either way it doesn’t matter, you get the same end result)

    2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

    You can’t be adopted back a second time, or shed Christ’s lifeblood a second time. Be warned.

    “Unbelievers are married due to God’s natural creation that generally drives them to be married. However, they are not the same as one who has affirmed the sacrament/covenant of marriage and assented to all of God’s terms and conditions.”

    So, you’re saying that God has two different systems of marriage laws, one for Believers and another for Unbelievers? I think God’s natural universal laws concerning marriage apply to everyone, regardless of whether they acknowledge Him and His laws. He that is illicitly joined to a harlot, is still made one flesh with her by God’s natural and unavoidable process. Churchians might not like to call it a “marriage”, but the two flesh are still joined nonetheless, as per the Bible. This idea that today’s whoring churches can make y’all “soulmates”, is actually New-Age heresy. The church joins nothing together in a marriage. Nothing!

    God joins the two into one flesh. People were getting married since four thousand years before there even was a church. Nor did the early church “perform” weddings. Church weddings were a medieval Catholic invention to demonstrate their approval of political unions between various royalty to try to assure that their populace would remain under the control of the Church of Rome. That’s a pretty foul interloping, interjecting an apostate indulgence-selling church in between God’s natural gift of women to men.
    for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
    God made womankind for mankind, not only for churchians. Even unsaved men are born with wedding-tackle, by the gift of God. Don’t presume that the Mother of Harlots and her whoring Daughter churches can contribute a drop to the consummation of any marriage before the eyes of God. Were Israel’s marriages to his wives, which obviously weren’t performed in a church, somehow less fully real to God than your marriage?
    All of God’s terms and conditions apply to any marriage regardless of whether people are aware of them or assented to them. They’re God’s rules, put into effect by God, not ordained by our assent to them. Now we, as People who claim the name of Christ, can bring shame on the Gospel by operating within our marriages contrary to God’s intent, in ways that the heathen wouldn’t, but still, God’s institution of marriage and its rules are universal.

    Believers are only to marry believers, but all married people, by law, should live righteously.

    Romans 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

    So, a woman is only ever to have one living husband. But the Bible doesn’t say the same for all men. And that’s from the New Testament. That’s just a few things to take note of.

  2. @ Sharkly

    “… but they definitely did not enter into that marriage as a covenant with God.”

    Marriage isn’t a covenant with God. It is a life-limited covenant between a man and a woman, and the covenant is over as soon as either one of them dies. Nor will it ever get reinstated in heaven.

    “What God has put together let no man separate” – Matt 19. Mark 10.

    God also commanding two Christians in marriage to “stay single or reconcile” in 1 Cor 7.

    God is involved in marriage claiming to put two together… or at the very least we can say He is involved in Jewish marriage. And by that involvement I would also be confident in making the assumption in Christian marriage.

    Thus, believers have covenant marriage with God, and it should (?) probably be distinguished from God’s created natural marriage in the beginning that all unbelievers go through. After all, Paul commands believers not marry unbelievers so there’s no union between them (1 Cor 6), although the unbeliever can possibly be sanctified by the believer in marriage (1 Cor 7). What about unbelievers who are married then? I don’t think they have the same type of marriage that believers have. Most of the rest seems to flow off this issue.

    I agree that marriage ends in death of a spouse and that there is no marriage in heaven. This is obvious with Jesus talking to the woman married several times and living with another man not her husband.

  3. Lance says:

    Paul states “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)” which means this is Paul speaking from his wisdom here and it’s not specifically a command of the Lord.

    Uh, no. Paul is saying this because he is saying something not directly taught by Christ himself, but it is still Holy Spirit inspired and applicable for us.

  4. Lance says:

    The one thing I agree with Sharkly is that there is only one kind of marriage. The one God ordained.

    I do believe it is a covenant between both parties and God (when they take those kind of vows). Their obedience to that covenant will be one of the things they are judged on.

  5. Sharkly says:

    Deep Strength,
    I didn’t say God wasn’t involved in marriages. (or anything for that matter, since, in Him we live and move and have our being) God is the designer of marriage, a witness to every marriage covenant, and He joins the two into one flesh, but God is not a party to your covenant with your wife. Churchians preach it as though their marriage (sexual union) is a threesome with God. By that logic, unmarried folks must all lack God? It is silly to claim that omnipresent God is now present in your marriage, because He got roped into it by a covenant. When you and your wife both said “I do”, did God also offer His vow to become a covenantal party to that covenant?

    Please read what you cite: “Matt 19. Mark 10.”

    Matthew 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    I don’t see it saying “three”, just “the two” become one flesh. The father is a Spirit, and does not become flesh to join your marriage. And Jesus Christ is engaged to be married, but is currently still single, so He isn’t currently married to you either.

    Maybe we’re talking past each other, but don’t you see that you’re not currently married to God, so God clearly isn’t a party to your marriage covenant? Unless you’re claiming that your wife is a god? 😉

  6. dave sora says:

    Malachi lied when he daid the LORD hates divorce. The LORD gave the Law not merely allowing but endorsing divorce by men only and even for any reason. The whole attempt to limit the causes of divorce is anti-god. Malachi and Jesus were feminists, assuming Jesus really said any of that. Therefore you can’t clean the feminism out of Christianity.

  7. dave sora says:

    Also the naievete of Jesus’ feminism (and the stupidity of his followers) is evident in his dumb argument against the LORD’s authorization of divorce by men only and for any reason. He equivocates on his normal acceptance of the Law as from God to claim this part if merely from Moses. But worse than that he says “from the beginning it was not so.” So when there was literally only one man and one woman on earth there was no divorce and remarriage? Hmm, I wonder why. And they call this mand super wise, greatest teacher, and deify him. By he couldn’t even see this is the worse argument ever. And they are blinded by their idolatry to also not see it. Yes, surely we should ecpect a high divorce rate at the beginning of time when only two people existed.

  8. Lance says:

    Sharkly, it’s right there in the verse you quoted, “What therefore God has joined together”.

  9. dave sora says:

    Guess what else wasn’t so from the beginning for marriage? Marriage ceremonies, records, human ministers. In the beginning marriage resulted merely from them being the only man and woman in existence. Lol at the notion that we have to roll marriage back to how it was in the days of Adam and Eve. its the badest of bad arguments.

    The problem with divorce to an ancient feminist (like Malachi and Jesus) is that the woman doesn’t get the house, the kids, and all the man’s money. No manly man would have bought that a woman should, and these effiminates were outnumbered by real men. So instead they argue for banning divorce.

    In our day the woman cleans up financially in divorce so we must argue not for banning divorce but for going back to the OT rules where she goes out with her clothes and maybe 3 months worth of rent money and that’s it, she has 3 months to either get remarried, move back into her father’s house, or become a servant. That is the fix for the modern divorce problem. And all women already have option 3—they have jobs! Banning divirce is for incels like Malachi and Jesus not for men with any testosterone.

  10. dave sora says:

    And if the LORd hates divorce what do you do with Ezra or Nehemia forcing them to divorce their pagan wives? Say Ezra was wrong? There goes inerrancy. Your only argument against me is inerrancy. But ultimately you also have to throw it out to maintain that the LORD hates divorce. Nay, the LORD mandates divorce in certain instances! But effiminate false prophets more concerned with how whores will fare financially (and themselves financially backed by women who “ministered to him of their substance”) put forth what the special interst group of women paid them to put forth falsely in God’s name.

    Remember also the kids belonged to the man in ancient rules, so divorce was not as hard on the kids as today. The whore did not get to mutilate their genitals to spite the ex-husband. That’s assuming he divorced her for being a nut and not for adultery in ehich case she was no longer among the living anyway.

  11. Sharkly says:

    Lance,
    I’m not sure what you guys are arguing. I didn’t say that God didn’t join the two together. I’m saying that He didn’t join the two with Himself through their marriage covenant. If they are joined into the family of God, it is only by grace through faith in God’s Son. God also joins heathens and harlots into one flesh, but He doesn’t join into their sexual union nor into Christian marriages. Your marriage is not a trinity. (unless you have two wives) Ephesians 5 explains that marriage images Jesus Christ and the church. The husband imaging God the Savior, while the wife images the church in need of cleansing.

    Your marriage is a union of flesh. Period! It is not a union of souls or spirits which would then be eternal. Your marriage was consummated in the flesh, not by a church, nor by a judge. The marriage dies eventually, with the dying of the fleshly body of either spouse. Then the wife is free to remarry, once her husband’s fleshly body is dead, but never before he dies, otherwise she becomes an adulteress, per the Bible. As long as they’re both still alive so is the marriage. Even a divorce, which is the putting away of a wife, does not end her duty under the law. She remains as exiled property of her husband. The husband may take on an additional wife or wives, but her flesh still belongs to him by law, and she cannot have another husband while they both live, without becoming an adulteress.

  12. @ Lance

    Uh, no. Paul is saying this because he is saying something not directly taught by Christ himself, but it is still Holy Spirit inspired and applicable for us.

    So you would agree with the position that a believer shouldn’t remarry and stay single or reconcile with the unbelieving spouse?

    The one thing I agree with Sharkly is that there is only one kind of marriage. The one God ordained.

    I do believe it is a covenant between both parties and God (when they take those kind of vows). Their obedience to that covenant will be one of the things they are judged on.

    Not sure I’m understanding this position.

    So you believe that believers are in God ordained marriage? Covenant? Or just marriage God created from the beginning?

    If there is only “marriage” then by this opinion are you asserting that God joins together two unbelievers in marriage? Or a believer and unbeliever? Even if they don’t believe in Him?

    This wouldn’t make much sense because two unbelievers could both be male or both be female and engaging in “gay marriage” which we know no such thing exists.

  13. @ dave sora

    Malachi lied when he daid the LORD hates divorce. The LORD gave the Law not merely allowing but endorsing divorce by men only and even for any reason. The whole attempt to limit the causes of divorce is anti-god. Malachi and Jesus were feminists, assuming Jesus really said any of that. Therefore you can’t clean the feminism out of Christianity.

    Alright, bye.

    You’re banned for blaspheming Jesus.

  14. @ Sharkly

    Maybe we’re talking past each other, but don’t you see that you’re not currently married to God, so God clearly isn’t a party to your marriage covenant? Unless you’re claiming that your wife is a god?

    Yes, God is not *part* of the marriage covenant, but the point is that He made it and authorized it.

    Hence, when two believers enter a marriage it’s something that God ordained: “What God has put together let no man separate.”

    Are you saying that a believer-believer marriage is the same as a believer-unbeliever or an unbeliever-unbeliever marriage? For instance, God has joined together the unbeliever-unbeliever?

    I don’t think that would be the case, especially since like I said “unbeliever-unbeliever” marriages don’t necessarily have to be male-female. Obviously, male-male and female-female marriages don’t exist before God.

  15. Oscar says:

    Alright, bye.

    You’re banned for blaspheming Jesus.

  16. Lance says:

    Yes, I believe that remarriage after divorce is wrong, and I hang my hat on the betrothal reason.

    I believe all real (between a man and a woman) marriages that say the vows are entering a covenant. If they make up fruity vows that just make fun of God or ignore him, so making themselves their own god, then they don’t have a covenant but are still married in God’s eyes and will still be committing a sin by breaking any of the laws God has established for marriage. Yes, I believe God still joins together heathens, just like God still allows heathens to be birthed and take every breath they take. Marriage is an institution established by God for all men (which means that something called a marriage that doesn’t meet his criteria (same-sex) isn’t one).

  17. johnson phiz says:

    Dave Sora clearly lost his mind recently, but he started out with a point kind of, i.e. that banning divorce is the wrong path and rather the financial problem of men being punished when they aren’t even in the wrong needs to be dealt with. But then he went off the rails against Malachi and Jesus for not tackling the financial problem alimony created despite them living thousands of years before it was even invented.

  18. johnson phiz says:

    One more thing, the distinction you are trying to make here is the exact distinction the government tries to make between ceremonial marriage and common law marriage. Just instead of being related to a ceremony in church, they relate it to a marriage licence. So it has to be remembered that any religious concepts like this will inevitably blow up in your face when they get secularized. The concept of common law marriage is a lot of the modern problem with marriage. Also the double standard always in favor of women. For instance if a boyfriend girlfriend relationship lasts long enough to become common law marriage then when she dumps him he owes alimony. However, when a woman divorces her husband, takes his house, and moves her boyfriend into his ex-house, if she married the boyfriend the alimony would end, but if she lives with the boyfriend in her ex-husband’s house long enough for the boyfriend to become a common law husband, that does NOT end the alimony. These are the kinds of problems that need to be solved.

  19. Sharkly says:

    “Yes, God is not *part* of the marriage covenant…”
    That there is what I was looking for.

    A marriage can, by definition, only occur between a “male and female”. A man buggering the image of God (another man) is an abomination, and a capital crime, not a marriage. And two women vainly bumping their donuts together is just unnatural dykes making fools of themselves, not a capital crime and not a marriage.

    Matthew 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    The pharisees asked Jesus concerning divorce according to Mosaic law, but I believe Jesus took them back to the pre-Abrahamic beginning of time to explain about all marriages there, and that is why He didn’t preface it as being Jewish or Mosaic marriage, nor something new for His followers, but stated that it was always that way, “from the beginning” of humankind.

    1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh.

    By definition a harlot is an unbeliever. So yes, God says there that unbelievers become one flesh. So, God, through nature, even joins unbelievers together into one flesh. And yes, you as a believer can be “unequally yoked” together with an unbeliever. Otherwise, married unbelievers then could not be saved individually, because that would create the very unequal marital yoking which you seem to question whether or not it can exist.

    So, yes, I’m saying that the fleshly union of marriage can be had by believers and unbelievers the same, and also a believer and an unbeliever can be yoked together as one flesh, even as their spirits are likely eventually headed apart. Marriage isn’t a spiritual union of spirits, but a fleshly union of two flesh joining together into one combined flesh. Thus it is only natural, loving, and fitting for the husband to treat the wife like he would his own body.

    Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

    Once you figure out that marriage is a fleshly thing, not persisting into glory, and you realize that the woman was created secondly for the man’s fleshly needs, not for his spiritual edification, then it makes sense why women are not to teach men in the church nor even to speak in church. Adam was created by God and for God as the “son of God” (John 3:38) in God’s own image and after His (masculine Father & Son) likeness. (Genesis 1:26) The woman was not created “for” God, but specifically for the man who is the image of God.

    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

    When you understand things correctly all the pieces start to fit and appear amazingly well ordered. It is Satan’s plan to confuse God’s stated order.

    1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

    The husband is the image of God (Jesus Christ) and he is to love his wife as Christ loves His church, and the wife is to see to it that she reverence her husband, (Ephesians 5:33) lest like Christ the husband be forced to discipline her just as Christ sends terrible persecution to purify His church, when she ceases to obey Him.

    Don’t pedestalize your wife, she is not your equal, she was created firstly to serve your flesh. Women were made so that after men were first defiled by them, then mortal men “might cast seed into them, and, in this way, beget children by them, in order that descendants should never fail them upon the earth.” (from the book of Enoch) She is a weaker vessel, a defiler, not made to carry the image of God, but by the great grace of God she also has been granted access to inherit the same salvation as men. (1 Peter 3:7) So the defiler and the defiled can both be cleansed and return to God’s perfection. That is the good news, the Gospel of Christ.

    And, yes, God made women, who became defilers, just as the Father of all spirits and all flesh also made Lucifer, the devil, and even the now fallen heavenly angels, who also became stained or defiled by the blood of women, who then bore to them evil offspring that were once mortal giants in the flesh, but now deceased, they are merely terrestrial evil spirits. The fallen angels taught women the mysteries of ways of wickedness, which they again defiled the menfolk with, so that men became so evil that in great anger God shortened all our lifespans to a maximum of 120 years. The Bible tells us that women professing godliness should rightly adorn themselves with shamefacedness, (1 Timothy 2:9-15) not seeking further empowerment to defile us men still further.

    Men are the image of God. Women are the devil’s first and favorite tool for the defilement of men. Women even defiled the willful angels which strayed from heaven. Men are to rule over women well, not to serve women’s defiling impulses, but to keep them in their fitting place of subjection to the image of God, not tempting others to defilement, whether terrestrial or celestial.

    1 Corinthians 11:10(Phillips) For this reason a woman ought to bear on her head an outward sign of man’s authority for all the angels to see.

    If you don’t fear God enough to follow the scriptures that you do have, where women are concerned, why would His Holy Spirit reveal to you even more heavenly mysteries for you to disregard?

    Get, a veil, a symbol of your headship covering your woman when she prays, and see if God won’t reward your holy headship with greater power and dominion in His kingdom. Or let your woman run amok in the presence of God and His holy angels, and see if God doesn’t let Feminism defile your decreasing dominion still further. It isn’t my command of head-covering that you’re ignoring for Feminism’s sake, it’s God’s published ordinance. The truth of God is of little use to you if you’re too cowardly to employ it. That’s why the cowardly and faithless end up burning in the lake of fire. (Revelation 21:8)

    I’m not condemning you. I’m warning you. I made that same mistake myself, and my wife’s further defilement of I and my sons’ lives has ensued.

  20. @ johnson phiz

    Dave Sora clearly lost his mind recently, but he started out with a point kind of, i.e. that banning divorce is the wrong path and rather the financial problem of men being punished when they aren’t even in the wrong needs to be dealt with. But then he went off the rails against Malachi and Jesus for not tackling the financial problem alimony created despite them living thousands of years before it was even invented.

    Disagree.

    In other countries that are not feminized, the man/husband keeps the marital assets and the children.

    Obviously, divorce laws in the west are unjust, but that doesn’t mean it should be a reason either against or for acknowledging the covenant of marriage.

    One more thing, the distinction you are trying to make here is the exact distinction the government tries to make between ceremonial marriage and common law marriage.

    This is a moot point. None of us agree with this, and I think every one of us agree that the government should not be in the “marriage business” in the first place.

  21. @ Sharkly

    That there is what I was looking for.

    Alright, agree to disagree then.

    And, yes, God made women, who became defilers, just as the Father of all spirits and all flesh also made Lucifer, the devil, and even the now fallen heavenly angels, who also became stained or defiled by the blood of women, who then bore to them evil offspring that were once mortal giants in the flesh, but now deceased, they are merely terrestrial evil spirits. The fallen angels taught women the mysteries of ways of wickedness, which they again defiled the menfolk with, so that men became so evil that in great anger God shortened all our lifespans to a maximum of 120 years. The Bible tells us that women professing godliness should rightly adorn themselves with shamefacedness, (1 Timothy 2:9-15) not seeking further empowerment to defile us men still further.

    Brother, Christian wives can be sanctifiers as well:

    1 Corinthians 7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    Yes, it’s true that most men and most women are on the wrong path and that women are more easily deceived, but there are women who wholeheartedly follow God and can give a great witness for Christ.

  22. Sharkly says:

    “In other countries that are not feminized, the man/husband keeps the marital assets and the children.”

    Bingo! That’s what would help to stem the tide of the divorce epidemic in the West. Even other false religions can maintain a lower divorce rate than woman-worshipping churchianity, by not offering discontent wives cash and prizes for divorcing a man for no fault. According to Moses law, women could not issue a divorce. She had became the husband’s property (made by God for a man to have and to hold) and only the husband could choose to exile his own property. He could give her a writ of divorce, allowing her to be off by herself.

  23. Sharkly says:

    “Christian wives can be sanctifiers as well:”

    “Can be”, yes, but they are by nature defilers. To be a positive influence women have to be disciplined and trained to deny themselves, to pick up their cross, and do what is not natural for them. Women must give up their natural will to do the will of God.

    It is natural for a man to love his wife as himself, to take care of his own property, so long as she is in submission to him and reverencing him as the image of God, as she ought to do. For typical men, any difficulty loving his wife, comes as a result of her own rebellion, stubbornness, and irreverence. When Adam and Eve were both sinless and in a perfect paradise, it was the woman who desired what was forbidden to her and then chose to listen to the serpent and distrust God and transgress the will of both God and her husband. And then after she had defiled herself by transgressing the command of God, after her eyes were opened to sin, and she saw that she was no longer clothed in righteousness, instead of repenting, she made herself clothes and then went and seduced her husband, who knew no sin, into defiling himself as well. The Genesis account isn’t very specific about all that, but the book of Jubilees and the book of Enoch add those additional details.

    If you only read the book of Genesis it might seem to you as if God is furious with the woman and curses the woman just for being deceived. When you read what remains of additional scriptures that were used in Christ’s time, you realize that although she was at first deceived, she, after realizing her sin, then went and persuaded Adam to sin as well. Her curse was well deserved. And God did not curse His own image, like He cursed the serpent and the woman. But instead God cursed the ground on Adam’s account, since Adam was taken from the ground before he was formed into the image of God.

    Most men, when they are allowed to be the head of the home, will not trouble their own home much unnecessarily. It comes pretty natural for men to want a peaceful home. However women are prone to being restless and discontent, even in paradise, and women naturally will cause trouble and drama. They have to be disciplined to become self-disciplined enough to suppress their own defiling nature to be envious of the man and to create trouble for him.

    Just as men and women are very different form each other, men and women’s sin natures are not the same either. Back before our new woke “political correctness”, Aristotle said that women were “more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive … more compassionate … more easily moved to tears … more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike … more prone to despondency and less hopeful … more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, of more retentive memory [and] … also more wakeful; more shrinking [and] more difficult to rouse to action” than men.

    Don’t presume God wasn’t both righteous and wise for putting mankind categorically as ruler over womankind. That was done in the best interest of everybody.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s