Does a husbands authority wax and wane?

[Pacman]

1. It is often falsely presumed that the husband is the perp.

Sometimes he is the perp. Such as the situation I pointed out.

2. Torpedoing a marriage isn't a solution to a lack of food. It's just an excuse to justify women who want to abandon their men, and to justify the men who want to marry them

No excuse being made here. And to my knowledge no one is in any position to marry her at least not right now. I’m certainly not...

3. "God will provide, through the church or by other means. People don't sit idly by while a child of God goes wanting."

No argument here although im not sure why this impacts weather or not she should seek a divorce...

4. Far more victims will be created than saved by your solution.

Any proof of this claim?

I am not suggesting that a woman divorce her husband for not meeting her every whim. No one here is.

I have described a complete deadbeat who’s family would be starving and homeless except for the intervention of some friends, a church, and some government programs that have help her... she was forced to move out because the house was foreclosed on. He did nothing to help find housing. She and the children ended up living in a camping trailer for months until she did find a house. And he is off doing his own thing with another mans wife. He has completely abandoned her and the children.

You keep pointing out the “most of the time” scenario and on that point I agree with you. I’m trying to find the truth for those times when she is legitimately being neglected.

 

[steve]

At the risk of being considered a light-weight non-Biblical feelings follower, I have the desire to communicate to women who have been divorced that not all of us hold the legalistic position of no-not-never-is-divorce-accepted by the Almighty.
I am not here to argue, their understanding of Scripture is what they need to live by, but not all of us see it that way.

I was ruminating about the issue earlier and Joseph, Mary’s husband, came to mind. Yes, they were married. A betrothal is a contract of marriage, even though it doesn’t seem to qualify as such in our society. Notice that he was going to put her away when he found out that she was with child. That’s simply a form of divorce. He wasn’t going to complete the contract, because he believed that she had violated their contract.
The angel never even chided him for considering the possibility, he just simply informed Joseph that she hadn’t broken the contract, that the child was of the Holy Ghost. That he should stay in the contract.

So we know that divorce was considered without being condemned.
Again, please, this is not an argument. I accept that those of you that do not believe in divorce don’t accept this. We do agree that divorce should be much rarer than it is.
I just want it known that not all of us believe that people absolutely must die in their traces.

Addendum, I guess that I wasn’t following the kerfluffle close enough for my statement to include my entire position:
My belief is that YHWH designed women to be in relationship with males. This is, I believe, born out in Is 4:1. Only in relationship to a man will their shame be removed.
So I don’t know what to do with the “remain single”. There are definitely cases for a separation without moving on, a separation where the focus is rebuilding the relationship.
But I just don’t buy that YHWH requires all divorcees to stay single. I really don’t know what the intention was for those verses.
I strongly doubt that the seven women of the Isaiah passage have no divorcees amongst them.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What constitutes the husband divorcing the wife? And if he does and she isn’t at fault is she then free to remarry?

1 Corinthians 7:15
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases : but God hath called us to peace.

Is he an unbeliever who departed? The situation I’m talking about is a man who has completely neglected her and the children. Not living with them and providing absolutely nothing...

All of the Biblical exceptions apply. If one of those is in play then we don't need to expand the Exodus verse.

 

[The Revolting Man]

At the risk of being considered a light-weight non-Biblical feelings follower, I have the desire to communicate to women who have been divorced that not all of us hold the legalistic position of no-not-never-is-divorce-accepted by the Almighty.
I am not here to argue, their understanding of Scripture is what they need to live by, but not all of us see it that way.

I was ruminating about the issue earlier and Joseph, Mary’s husband, came to mind. Yes, they were married. A betrothal is a contract of marriage, even though it doesn’t seem to qualify as such in our society. Notice that he was going to put her away when he found out that she was with child. That’s simply a form of divorce. He wasn’t going to complete the contract, because he believed that she had violated their contract.
The angel never even chided him for considering the possibility, he just simply informed Joseph that she hadn’t broken the contract, that the child was of the Holy Ghost. That he should stay in the contract.

So we know that divorce was considered without being condemned.
Again, please, this is not an argument. I accept that those of you that do not believe in divorce don’t accept this. We do agree that divorce should be much rarer than it is.
I just want it known that not all of us believe that people absolutely must die in their traces.

I am not trying to debate you at all Steve but as a divorce hawk I don't think any of us say that divorce is completely forbidden it's just mostly forbidden. The real debate is on remarriage.

 

[Phillip]

At the risk of being considered a light-weight non-Biblical feelings follower, I have the desire to communicate to women who have been divorced that not all of us hold the legalistic position of no-not-never-is-divorce-accepted by the Almighty.
I am not here to argue, their understanding of Scripture is what they need to live by, but not all of us see it that way.

I was ruminating about the issue earlier and Joseph, Mary’s husband, came to mind. Yes, they were married. A betrothal is a contract of marriage, even though it doesn’t seem to qualify as such in our society. Notice that he was going to put her away when he found out that she was with child. That’s simply a form of divorce. He wasn’t going to complete the contract, because he believed that she had violated their contract.
The angel never even chided him for considering the possibility, he just simply informed Joseph that she hadn’t broken the contract, that the child was of the Holy Ghost. That he should stay in the contract.

So we know that divorce was considered without being condemned.
Again, please, this is not an argument. I accept that those of you that do not believe in divorce don’t accept this. We do agree that divorce should be much rarer than it is.
I just want it known that not all of us believe that people absolutely must die in their traces.

Nice article. I’ve mentioned before in my texts, about my wife being a survivor of domestic violence. She now works with women that have also survived. By saying survived, one women, after two weeks in the hospital still had the bruising showing of the imprint of a crescent wrench on her cheek. One woman went home to fix her marriage, she’s dead now from her boyfriends hands. My wife had to go to the hospital to begin the couseling on a five on one rape. She’s seen and helped with a lot of domestic violence cases.

In the case of a slave, if you knock out a tooth or cause a slave to lose an eye, the victim is free to go. So the question becomes this, how much more is a daughter of God than a slave?

Many believe the Bible is clear that ONLY adultry is cause for divorce. I have studied this for the last year and had to change my view on the subject. God gave provisions to protect his daughters, probably why He said “even as Christ loved His church and gave his life for it”. (Not an exact quote, but good enough).

Many of us have the opportunity of being the first man to actually show them love. And many on here will be the first to show women, like I described, Godly love.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I see ‘for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, edifying etc. those are a portion of examples of the five offices in the scripture I put on this text.

Let’s go to scripture; “Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18).

If you will, can you fill me in with what you know regarding ‘Biblical requirements’ for these offices? As for me, I know a New Testament prophet is used for confirmation, edification and correction. I’d like know what your studies have revealed. In both of my posts, I quoted scripture, New Testament scripture. Thereby validating these offices. In addition, I know some people who believe Jesus came to change things around even tho he personally said in

Mathew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

But he probably said it in something other than the Kings English.

I definitely agree that Jesus wasn’t speaking English when he said those words haha

Yes the ministry gifts are designed to build up the body of Christ. I’m not disagreeing with that. My point is that the office of Apostle is not held by people who are with us today. Yet, their ministry is still bearing tremendous fruit, world wide.

The biblical requirements for an Apostle (office of Apostle, as apposed to missionaries, “sent ones”) are that they had seen Christ in his glorified body with their own eyes “eye witnesses”and they had received the Gospel from Jesus directly. I don’t know of anyone today who can seriously claim such credentials. The Apostle Paul said, “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” 1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV. If Paul was the last to see him, and as he says he was “as of one born out of due time” anyone claiming to be an Apostle today has some splaining to do . Paul said that he didn’t learn the Gospel from any man but that he learned it directly from God. There is not a list of requirements for the office of Apostle as there is for elders and such, because the office of The Apostles is filled and is not taking applications.

On to prophets. The requirements for prophets are unchanged from the Old Testament, just as plural marriage didn’t change. Nothing in the New Testament makes any changes to those two things. True prophets of God must have 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Also, if they make a prediction that comes true but they are not theologically sound and don’t adhere to the written word of God we are not to listen to them. Do you know anyone who fulfills those requirements? If you do i want to meet them.

You quoted Matthew 5:17, i am assuming that you read it as saying that Jesus didn’t come to get rid of prophets, but I don’t think that is what he is saying at all. When he says “the law and the prophets” he is referring to scripture, as in, the Old Testament. Did I misunderstand what you where getting at there?

The prophecy of Joel that Peter quoted was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, according to Peter. Read a couple verses before and after where you left off and it is clearly a prophecy of about the time of the crucifixion and Pentecost.

In scripture we find miraculous signs and wonders in clusters. They are located around the writing time of large portions of scripture to authenticate, that what was being written is indeed scripture. Even in the New Testament, if you look at it chronologically, the farther you get from the crucifixion the sign gifts and miracles become less and less frequent. Paul, by whom Christ healed people, by them just touching hanker chiefs that had touched him, coming toward the end of his ministry says this, in 2 Timothy 4:20 KJV “Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.” Why didn’t Paul just heal him?

Miracles and signs were given to authenticate that the texts that the Apostles where writing down were, in fact, the very Word of God. We have the Word of God. We don’t need to add to it, therefore we don’t need new Apostles to give us fresh doctrine. We have The Revelation of Jesus Christ, in the book of Revelation, and therefore do not have need of new prophets. What would they prophesy of? The scriptures testify of Christ, as Jesus himself said. The Old Testament prophets foretold the coming of Messiah and the New Testament prophets have prophesied of his return. John, the last living Apostle wrote in Revelation that no one was to add to the prophesies of that book, if you stand up today and give a new prophecy about the return of Christ, you are adding to Revelation, and that is very dangerous ground. We are to remain steadfast in the Apostle’s doctrine i.e. The written Word and preach the Gospel until The Son of God returns! Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

 

[Mage]

I have little faith the synagogue of Satan could make it 500 years and accurately preserve an oral tradition.

I think I may be misunderstanding you, because this is coming across as a logical fallacy of attacking the messenger and not the message.

And to the extent they are accurate, the BT is the very human traditions that Christ condemned.

I think maybe you misunderstood me. I'm pretty sure I didn't say the BT accurately described God's law but that the BT accurately recorded the oral tradition.

The Talmud is useful for understanding their historical understanding at the time of it's creation, and some reasonable time before. But I wouldn't use it to countermand anything I could establish from scripture.

I agree.

I know that by liking his post it got me swept up in the back and forth. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that we are in agreement that marriage is much more permanent than the Jewish traditions allowed.

I just think that it is wise to look at anything including scripture from multiple perspectives. That is how you learn and grow.

 

[rockfox]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that we are in agreement that marriage is much more permanent than the Jewish traditions allowed.

Agreed, if for no other reason than Christ changed things.

I think maybe you misunderstood me. I'm pretty sure I didn't say the BT accurately described God's law but that the BT accurately recorded the oral tradition.

I was probably responding more to VV's use of the BT.

I think I may be misunderstanding you, because this is coming across as a logical fallacy of attacking the messenger and not the message.

Not in the context. The idea being profered was that the BT accurately reflected the historic Jewish understanding of the scriptures. My point was that the Jews themselves were disconnected from the original Hebrew understanding AND the post-Christ Jew's were a bad witness. We already know they modified the scriptures themselves in an attempt to disprove Christ. I have little confidence they were more trustworthy in the commentaries. And we can't trust that the [satanic] post-Christ Jews accurately handed down the oral law when we can't even trust the Christ-following believers to have accurately handed down the lived traditions over a shorter timespan. It is very easy for oral traditions to shift in the retellings.

 

[rockfox]

If I read this right, You and I aren’t that far apart. However, I believe those offices are alive a doing well. I also believe there are plenty of people preferring this offices and building their own little kingdoms. Your lack of optimism will serve you well in that you don’t just accept something without proof. The only problem that creates is that it could also hurt you. Knowing the scripture talks of it is a good thing. Not blindly following some idiot that says he’s an apostle is wise. Then you turn that around and see a true apostle or prophet and ignoring him could cause you to miss something cool God wants for you.

Is there any scriptural precedent for Apostleship over a local church by one who did not found it?

 

[rockfox]

No argument here although im not sure why this impacts weather or not she should seek a divorce...

The justification to divorce is that she is a victim because he won't provide her food needs. A woman will suffer if we don't tear asunder the marriage. I'm saying that suffering can be alleviated other ways without destroying that which God said should not be destroyed. I'm saying we can alleviate her suffering without doing further harm by removing the children's father from their lives.

I’m trying to find the truth for those times when she is legitimately being neglected.

You help her the same way she would be helped if she left him and was struggling to feed and cloth the kids on her own as a single mother; through state or direct assistance. I'm saying the status of the marriage has no bearing on the situation. It only seems to come up if we want to justify the divorce or we have a hammer in our hand and everything looks like a nail. I'm saying, if divorce was really a necessary solution, God would have provided for it in scripture; but He didn't.

Any proof of this claim?

The survey's I've seen on reason's people divorce do not even register "he starved me". It is an incredibly minor occurrence. But things like boredom, arguments over money, growing apart, economic hardship, abound. But when we provide an easy, great sounding justification such as not providing, suddenly those arguments over spending become 'he's not providing'.

And this backs up what I've anecdotally seen. In all the many divorces I've witnessed in person or testimony of, not one was actual case of a starving wife. But many came down to arguments over spending, boredom, and the like.

I've known many families struggling during hard economic times; the last thing they need is people whispering in their ear that she should leave him. And this plays directly into the biases of the church that being poor is a great sin and any man not providing an upper middle class life is somehow not properly taking care of his wife.

Sometimes he is the perp. Such as the situation I pointed out

Yes sometimes he is. But I'm saying a) that doesn't matter and b) I don't trust most to be able to accurately discern that.

 

[rockfox]

I was ruminating about the issue earlier and Joseph, Mary’s husband, came to mind. Yes, they were married. A betrothal is a contract of marriage, even though it doesn’t seem to qualify as such in our society. Notice that he was going to put her away when he found out that she was with child. That’s simply a form of divorce. He wasn’t going to complete the contract, because he believed that she had violated their contract.
The angel never even chided him for considering the possibility, he just simply informed Joseph that she hadn’t broken the contract, that the child was of the Holy Ghost. That he should stay in the contract.

So we know that divorce was considered without being condemned.
Again, please, this is not an argument. I accept that those of you that do not believe in divorce don’t accept this. We do agree that divorce should be much rarer than it is.
I just want it known that not all of us believe that people absolutely must die in their traces.

I have no problem with Joseph, even under Christ's restricted case, Joseph would have been right to divorce her.

I have the desire to communicate to women who have been divorced that not all of us hold the legalistic position of no-not-never-is-divorce-accepted by the Almighty.

I do not share your desire. We have an epidemic of divorces that is destroying marriage, destroying childrens lives, destroying mens lives, destroying women's lives, destroying our civilization and the vast majority of them are not scripturally acceptable, the vast majority of them are not extreme cases of abuse and neglect. Society and the church are not only giving cover to these divorces, they are encouraging them. I care more about avoiding more destroyed lives than about some sinful woman's feelbads. She needs to repent, not feel justified in her actions. I don't care how offensive people find that, I'm tired of watching peoples lives needlessly destroyed.

 

[Cap]

At the risk of being considered a light-weight non-Biblical feelings follower, I have the desire to communicate to women who have been divorced that not all of us hold the legalistic position of no-not-never-is-divorce-accepted by the Almighty.
I am not here to argue, their understanding of Scripture is what they need to live by, but not all of us see it that way.

I was ruminating about the issue earlier and Joseph, Mary’s husband, came to mind. Yes, they were married. A betrothal is a contract of marriage, even though it doesn’t seem to qualify as such in our society. Notice that he was going to put her away when he found out that she was with child. That’s simply a form of divorce. He wasn’t going to complete the contract, because he believed that she had violated their contract.
The angel never even chided him for considering the possibility, he just simply informed Joseph that she hadn’t broken the contract, that the child was of the Holy Ghost. That he should stay in the contract.

So we know that divorce was considered without being condemned.
Again, please, this is not an argument. I accept that those of you that do not believe in divorce don’t accept this. We do agree that divorce should be much rarer than it is.
I just want it known that not all of us believe that people absolutely must die in their traces.

Addendum, I guess that I wasn’t following the kerfluffle close enough for my statement to include my entire position:
My belief is that YHWH designed women to be in relationship with males. This is, I believe, born out in Is 4:1. Only in relationship to a man will their shame be removed.
So I don’t know what to do with the “remain single”. There are definitely cases for a separation without moving on, a separation where the focus is rebuilding the relationship.
But I just don’t buy that YHWH requires all divorcees to stay single. I really don’t know what the intention was for those verses.
I strongly doubt that the seven women of the Isaiah passage have no divorcees amongst them.

I do not consider this light weight or non biblical at all. This is heavy stuff and one that should absolutely be considered when the subject comes up about how do we get out of this mess of a society we live in today. Granted, we should never be in this place and the structure God created for marriage and it's integrity is the goal. But, there are hurting woman who have been abused, physically and spiritually by the ungodly. Who else is going to be able to offer them hope to find the proper relationship with their Creator, except those of us who understand God's design for marriage. At least as much as possible.

 

[Cap]

I have no problem with Joseph, even under Christ's restricted case, Joseph would have been right to divorce her.



I do not share your desire. We have an epidemic of divorces that is destroying marriage, destroying childrens lives, destroying mens lives, destroying women's lives, destroying our civilization and the vast majority of them are not scripturally acceptable, the vast majority of them are not extreme cases of abuse and neglect. Society and the church are not only giving cover to these divorces, they are encouraging them. I care more about avoiding more destroyed lives than about some sinful woman's feelbads. She needs to repent, not feel justified in her actions. I don't care how offensive people find that, I'm tired of watching peoples lives needlessly destroyed.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

That is the term used today that can be used by both parties (and yes statistical more by women) to end a marriage. It is the reason we are in this mess. Marriages that could have otherwise been saved had God somehow been a part of at least on one of the parties to the extent of understanding a true biblical marriage, are lost.

But that is not were we are. The institute of marriage has failed from a worldly perspective. If the idea of PM is starting to be revealed to the world as an alternative to help 'fix' the current problem, then women who have been harmed by the failed system most be accounted for, as well. It would be inhuman to leave them in that state of hell for the rest of thier lives, because they failed at an incorrect marriage. That's not the God I serve. What are you going to say when you face your daughter in this place one day? (I know, it will never happen to your family) But it does happen to families. Good families.

Once a dish is broken there comes a time when scolding about being careful with the dishes doesn't do any good anymore. It's time to clean up the mess and see if it's possible to put it back together again.

 

[Phillip]

I definitely agree that Jesus wasn’t speaking English when he said those words haha

I enjoyed your post. I’m half asleep and will respond this afternoon. But I’ll say this, I’ve listened to preacher after preacher explain why some biblical things are not for today. It was for then. (Each of those preachers had their own personal version of then) I’ve heard it said that healing was for then, that PM was for then (because God allowed that sin and so forth), but my understanding behind Jesus saying He did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill the lawmeans just that. PM marriage for instance. I believe PM is still part of God’s plan today. I believe healing is still part of Gods plan today. Why we don’t see a 100% rate on healing? I don’t know. But that doesn’t stop me from praying for it. Even Jesus had problems around home folk.

You and I will probably not see eye to eye on apostles and prophets, but I really do enjoy your thoughts. Plus, I grew up with that type of teaching.

Like I said, I’ll get back later.

 

[steve]

“Many teach that Peter’s power petered out when Peter petered out.”
(Or something to that effect)

Harold Hill

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

“Many teach that Peter’s power petered out when Peter petered out.”
(Or something to that effect)

Harold Hill

Peter’s power?

 

[steve]

Peter’s power?

The power that flowed through Peter.
Of course it didn’t belong to him. It was from the Father, the same as it is from the Father today.

 

[Cap]

The biblical requirements for an Apostle (office of Apostle, as apposed to missionaries, “sent ones”) are that they had seen Christ in his glorified body with their own eyes “eye witnesses”and they had received the Gospel from Jesus directly. I don’t know of anyone today who can seriously claim such credentials. The Apostle Paul said, “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” 1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV. If Paul was the last to see him, and as he says he was “as of one born out of due time” anyone claiming to be an Apostle today has some splaining to do . Paul said that he didn’t learn the Gospel from any man but that he learned it directly from God. There is not a list of requirements for the office of Apostle as there is for elders and such, because the office of The Apostles is filled and is not taking applications.

There is no second witness to Paul's claim to be an apostle with a big 'A'. At best he is an apostle with a little 'a'. And if that is so, then since most of the New Testament is written by an apostle with a little 'a', then there is room to believe that God still sends apostles and prophets to us today. The stranger who told you to go another way and you find out later that there was a terrible accident. The child pulled out of a street by a dog, or wasn't. How you came to meet your wife. How you came to understand salvation. PM. There are no coincidences. God is not just in a book. He is alive and well and working in our lives ever second of ever day. You can hear Him speak if you listen. But only if you believe that is possible.

(This is my observation, nothing more.)

 

[cnystrom]

Obviously she is allowed to leave for any reason as long as she doesn't remarry.

Actually I believe the Bible says a wife is not to leave her husband. 1 Cor 7:10.

For an example about how Christendom used to think about this and how to handle abuse in marital relationships I recommend reading Anne Bronte's excellent "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" or seeing the 1996 movie (available on Amazon Prime).

 

[cnystrom]

There is no second witness to Paul's claim to be an apostle with a big 'A'. At best he is an apostle with a little 'a'.

This is very wrong. Paul was quite adamant that he was in no way a lesser apostle, not even compared to Peter. This is a major theme of the book of Galatians. See Galatians 1 and 2.

2 Cor 11 also relevent here.

Therefore, he was either a full apostle in every sense of the word or he was a false apostle.

Note: One requirement of an apostle is that it is someone who has recieved his revelation directly from Christ.