Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 2 Feb, 2012 11:28 PM
Thanks to a question about divorce and remarriage posted on another thread, I felt the need to address those on this site who may be suffering from the weight of guilt and condemnation heaped on them because of their reasons for divorce.
I wrote the following article, "The Stone Thrower", based on actual instances that happened on this site. If you are one of those who have been ostracized by others for having an "Unbiblical Divorce," please take the time to read. May it minister to your heart.
The Stone Thrower
I want to touch on a subject today that has long been regarded in Christendom as taboo . . . and that is . . . DIVORCE. Mention that word around some Christians and their hackles suddenly go up on the back of their neck. They pull out their proverbial stones ready to put to death anyone who they think has been un-biblically divorced. And to my shame, I was one of them�a stone thrower.
We all know the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3-11. The scribes and Pharisees (the religious self-righteous) had arrested this woman and dragged her before Jesus. One has to wonder how these Pharisees caught such a woman "in the very act" of adultery. How convenient for them. It's amazing the depths of depravity the self-righteous will sink to in order to defend their religious arguments. Did they have the paparazzi spy on her to get some juicy pictures for the whole world to see?
At any rate, they dragged this poor woman in front of Jesus and proudly proclaimed, "Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" (John 8:5)
Zowie!! These men can quote the Word of God . . . at least the parts that suit their fancy.
I like our Lord's reaction. "But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear" (John 8:6b).
Don't you just love it when someone ignores you . . . especially when you're trying to win an argument? But the self-righteous rarely lie down without a fight, and those religious Pharisees were determined to prove that they had the "truth." So they continued pestering Jesus, knowing that the Law of Moses was on their side. It's not a good idea to pester Jesus, especially when it comes to "pointing a finger" at someone.
"So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.' And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst" (John 8:7-9).
This introductory story of the woman caught in adultery has a purpose: I wanted you to have a glimpse of the mentality of a "stone thrower." They are usually self-righteous, ready to condemn, and can quote the Word of God. Ouch . . . I just described me.
I had a clear cut answer for the reasons one might give to justify divorce which I thought was quite Biblical. And in my mind, there was only one reason . . . "But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). There you have it�plain and simple. Who could argue with such a statement? It is the Word of God! I thought I had the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . . yet the truth is . . . I was ignorant of the ways of God. "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13).
And it was in my ignorance to God's ways that I threw stones at the divorced ladies on a Christian dating site some time ago. As a widower, I was on this site looking for a prospective wife. I was so appalled at the amount of women who were divorced on this site whose reasons for separating from their husbands did not match my view of scripture. In order to protect myself from these "contaminated souls," I purposely wrote something in my profile for those that I would consider as wife material: "You may be single, widowed, or divorced (must be for Biblical reasons only)."
When I would communicate with these divorced ladies, I would immediately ask them to provide details on the reason for their divorce. If they could not give me an answer of infidelity as the reason for their divorce, then I considered them unmarriageable. Yet God has a way of grabbing His child's attention when that child is in error.
One of the ladies on this dating site told me her story of divorce after I demanded it. Her husband was deep in bondage to pornography and had no interest whatsoever in repentance. The man had not physically hopped into bed with another woman, and so in my self-righteousness, I condemned the poor wife for wanting to opt out on the marriage. And the "stones" that I threw created fresh wounds in her heart while she recounted those painful memories of her husband's infidelity as he lusted after porn. According to Jesus' own words, her husband WAS GUILTY of adultery: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). I ignored that scripture and concentrated only on Matthew 5:32. She lashed out at me, saying that she was glad Jesus did not condemn her even if I did. I have to admit, I was shaken by her story which moved me to tears.
Then there was another lady whom I demanded to give an account for her divorce. I threw "stones" at her as well when she could not give me a reason of infidelity for her separation. In bitter anger, she struck back at me, stating how her husband had broken her nose and physically abused her. I ignored the scripture which reads, "But God has called us to peace" (1 Corinthians 7:15b) and concentrated again on Matthew 5:32. However, her story bothered me very much just like the other woman's.
I began to seek God earnestly. These were only two of the many ladies who shared with me their heartbreaking stories of divorce. There were so many reasons given for divorce and none of them fell under sexual immorality (fornication) as I saw it. I sincerely asked the Lord to open my eyes. Was there any scriptural evidence to support these women's choices to opt out of a marriage other than infidelity? Yes, there was.
God led me to Matthew 19:3-12. The Pharisees were looking for a reason to trap Jesus in His words. Their previous scheme had not worked with the woman caught in adultery. However, if they could just get Jesus to say something contradictory to the Law of Moses, then they could brand Him as a heretic. So they asked Jesus this question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" (Matthew 19:3b)
Jesus' answer was, and still is, God's original intention for marriage: "Have you not read . . . the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:5b-6).
The Pharisees did not like His answer. For Jesus had taken them right back to Genesis before there ever was a Moses or a Law of Moses so that they could hear what GOD SAYS about marriage. Yet the stiff-necked Pharisees persisted with another question: "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" (Matthew 19:7)
Jesus responds, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8).
The self-righteous Pharisees were using the Law of Moses as an excuse to bail out on marriages for any flippant reason. And because of this, the Lord had some very strong words for them. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).
I can just hear the stone throwers shouting, "See, I told you . . . it's right there in the word . . . 'sexual immorality!'"
Wait a minute. Like Paul Harvey, let's hear "the rest of the story" before jumping to any conclusions. After verse 9 comes verse 10. Even Jesus' disciples, which would include us, were amazed at the words of Jesus. "His disciples said to Him, 'If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry'" (Matthew 19:10). Yeah, I can see their point. If sexual immorality (fornication) is the only reason for divorce, then perhaps we are better off not getting married.
But look at Jesus' response to his own disciples in verse 11. It stands to reason that if the disciples' statement was true, then Jesus would have said something to affirm it as such. He does not!
"But He said to them, 'All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given'" (Matthew 19:11).
What saying? The saying in verse 9 of course. NOT ALL can accept the saying that fornication is the ONLY reason for divorce.
Now notice that Jesus goes on to explain what He meant with the following verse:
"For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it" (Matthew 19:12).
What did Jesus mean by this? He tells us that three different men all became eunuchs for different reasons. One was born a eunuch, another was made a eunuch by men, and still another made himself that way for the kingdom of heaven. They all became eunuchs for different reasons, but who is to say which eunuch is "God approved"? God accepted them all. That's the point!
Likewise, there are many reasons someone might seek a divorce: physical and verbal abuse from a spouse . . . being married to an unbeliever who makes life a literal hell . . . marital unfaithfulness . . . the stress of being married to an alcoholic for 23 years . . . or living with a pornographer who refuses to repent. Which one of these reasons for divorce is "God approved"? That's the point Jesus was making. Just as the eunuchs were acceptable to God regardless of how they became a eunuch, so also is a woman acceptable to God who seeks to be free from an abusive husband, even if infidelity is not involved. You and I cannot see in the heart of that abused person . . . but God can. For God has called them to peace.
And the church has done more harm counselling emotionally and physically battered women to stay in a relationship citing Matthew 5:32 "except for sexual immorality" as the only just cause for divorce. Women have actually committed suicide and murder under the stress of remaining in an abusive situation because their legalistic church counseled them to do so.
You may have heard of the case in the U.S. where a lady killed her husband (a pastor) who had been abusing her for years. God had called her to peace . . . but she never knew it, and one day she snapped. The evidence of abuse was so overwhelming that the courts found this woman not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.
I certainly do not want to imply that people should take their marriage so lightly as to divorce for every whim and fancy. I would not condone that, and neither does the Word of God. Every marriage will have its share of problems which can be worked out with God's help by two committed individuals. Yet there are some women, especially those suffering physical and mental abuse, who have reached the tipping point of no return; and the only thing they can do to preserve their sanity is to get out of that marriage. And ultimately, it is to the Lord they answer to, not you or me. He has called them to peace.
After God opened my eyes to the truth of scripture, I contacted those ladies on the dating site who I had thrown "stones" at and apologized profusely. I was truly grieved that I had been so self-righteous and blind, wounding those precious sisters for whom Christ died.
Now back to the story that I began with. The "stone throwers" had already dropped their rocks and left the scene with a guilty conscience, leaving Jesus alone with the adulterous woman.
"He said to her, 'Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?'"
"She said, 'No one, Lord.'"
"And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more'" (John 8:10b-11).
HALLELUJAH�MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER JUDGMENT!!!
Blessings in Christ Jesus,
Paul Janz
(All Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New King James Version.)
"The Stone Thrower" Copyright � 2010 by Paul Janz.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 12:57 PM
Bob,
Based on your recent accusation that 'Paul is hiding behind my skirts',I'm gathering you may not like the fact that I as a woman have Biblical knowledge and am not afraid to present that knowledge.
I suppose I will be called down for not following the teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Guilty...although in reality no one who has been posting on this thread that has authority over me.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 12:59 PM
Teach_ib
I have already addressed this point so I will refer to my previous post and no further dialogue over this will be fruitful.
Problem 1: The logical implication of your concept of the "stone thrower" would lead to anarchy and lawlessness. Imagine if every defense attorney simply ended their closing arguments to the jurors with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Since there are no "sinless jurors" every criminal would therefore have to be acquitted, the law thrown out, and the courts closed. That might seem extreme to you ... but after all.. as you have stated anyway - "mercy triumphs over judgement". I am guessing you would be a strong advocate for such a system based on your conclusions.
Now to deal with this part of your argument as it related to the Biblical text.
Jesus, far from excusing the woman's behavior, in fact, confirms the Law given to Moses when he says in effect, "Go ahead and stone her" but he adds this caveat - "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". For simplicity in explanation, Jewish law requires that anyone who executes punishment for a crime not be guilty of that same offense - thus mitigating against injustice and hypocrisy.
So, in effect, Jesus was saying to these men - "Any of you who has not committed adultery, execute the punishment". Since they were all guilty they could not continue under Jewish law.
Nor could Jesus follow through with her condemnation because the law requires two or three witnesses which were no longer present.
Far from excusing her for her actions, he then tells her "go and sin no more"
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 01:13 PM
Teach_ib,
Once again, you "gathered" wrong. You bring preconceived ideas to bear and then answer to the boogie man that isn't even there. One could easily term this as "baggage".
If you want to make your point. You would be better served to first ask what my position is on a matter. I have no problem with a woman reading and studying the Bible. In fact, I encourage women to do this all of the time. The Bible is clear on women teaching men in the church gathering. Draw your own conclusions and do with the teaching whatever you wish.
Is there any further reason for a back and forth dialogue between you and I?
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 01:22 PM
Bob you wrote "My original intent (and it still stands) was to show the error in Paul's article. I have done so on at least 6 major points in this thread. Paul has failed to address those refutations. "
In your mind you refuted him, in other people's minds you did not refute him. �He posted an article to spur conversation and provide an explanation to his views. �Both were accomplished...probably more conversation than he thought...and in directions he may not have imagined.
Bob wrote "At the end of the day, I believe that you still fail to see the plain truth of Scripture as it relates to divorce. No further dialogue on the subject will be fruitful. "
I know the Biblical truth about divorce...and remarriage. �You are right that your continual posts that do not add Scripture to the dialogue will not be fruitful.
Bob wrote: "In addition, I believe that you have no clear understanding the distinction of justification (which is by Jesus Christ) and sanctification (which is by the law). "
So then are you saying that Hebrews 10:10 is in error? � "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Bob you further wrote: "Further, the notion that you have only 2 commands to obey is just plain silly. You would not even be able to obey those commands biblically without a knowledge of the FULL law of God. For example, loving one's neighbor requires that we not kill them, not steal from them, not commit adultery with their wife, etc. The question he was answering in the text was "which was the first/greatest commandment" "
So are you calling Jesus silly?�
Matthew 22:37-43�Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
By the way, what commandments did Noah follow?�
Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 01:30 PM
�Bob,
It appears that I did not gather wrong...as you turned my quote of Scripture into ridicule which appears to be a trend with your posts.
You are free to state your position as I freely state mine. I was clearly pointing out another instance of Scripture that gets presented to women...I have drawn my own conclusion.
You keep asking questions and then, if an answer I snot provided, think I am. OT answering your questions...and then you badger me if I don't respond. You can freely chose whether to respond or not.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 01:34 PM
"You keep asking questions and then, if an answer I snot provided, think I am. OT answering your questions...and then you badger me if I don't respond. You can freely chose whether to respond or not."
Correction:
You keep asking questions and then, if an answer is not provided, you think I am not answering your questions...and then you badger me if I don't respond. You can freely chose whether to respond or not.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 01:47 PM
I ask questions in order to get information about a persons perspective. If they choose not to answer the questions, then one can not know for sure what they believe on any matter. Do you at least agree on that?
"You keep asking questions and then, if an answer is not provided, you think I am not answering your questions" This might be the most logical conclusion that you have drawn. If you do not answer a question than I do think that you are not answering my question.
Unlike you, I do not first assume their position and then go on to blindly argue against a faulty assumption.
Again, Is there any further reason for a back and forth dialogue between you and I? I am happy to have it if you can provide a plausible reason to continue.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 02:57 PM
Bob,
Some people choose not to answer what appear to be rhetorical questions or questions that are off topic...which is the decision of the person to whom the question was asked. One cannot know precisely what anyone believes on any matter and attacking them with names such as silly, schizophrenic, etc when they do answer does not encourage anyone to respond.
When I referred to you as a legalist, I provided the definition of legalist as you asked. The definition fit my perception of your postings.
You wrote: "Unlike you, I do not first assume their position and then go on to blindly argue against a faulty assumption. "
Your assumptions that I was not Biblically divorced and that I did not follow God's commandments led to me being called many names throughout your posts. I have yet to post the reasons for my divorce so based on your comments to me, you should assumptions on why I am divorced. Additionally, when I stated I am under grace and not under the law, you quickly accused me of not following the commandments.
You wrote: "Again, Is there any further reason for a back and forth dialogue between you and I? I am happy to have it if you can provide a plausible reason to continue."
Again, you can decide whether to post or not. I will not make that decision for you. I will decide if I will choose to continue to respond...and if I decide to respond it could be today, tomorrow, or next week. So, if you decide to ask additional questions, I would appreciate not being badgered if I choose not to respond.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 03:33 PM
Since you have chosen to take a low road and deliberately misrepresent me, I will no longer dialogue with you.
Here is my response to your most recent post. It's painful to have to be so tedious, but alas I guess you made it necessary.
Point by Point:
"Some people choose not to answer what appear to be rhetorical questions or questions that are off topic" I've explained the reason for my questioning - please refer back. Also, please show where my questions have been "off topic".
"One cannot know precisely what anyone believes on any matter". Yes, I said that - please refer back Are you simply quoting me on this?
"Your assumptions that I was not Biblically divorced and that I did not follow God's commandments led to me being called many names throughout your posts"
Correction, you ASSUMED that I assumed that. Please show where I called you a name in any of my posts. Have I referenced your divorce or your personal life in any of my posts to you? Show where I have done that.
"Additionally, when I stated I am under grace and not under the law, you quickly accused me of not following the commandments." Please quote me verbatim. Go back and paste that quote if you can find it. You are required to keep the commands of God. The law is of grace. You can not maintain that you are NOT "under the law" and also maintain that you are "under the law" (required to obey it) at the same time. I referred to this as schizophrenic, you called it double minded. Either one shows a confusion in thinking. I tried to seek clarification with you over this through my questioning. Rather than offering clarification, you entered into a straw man diatribe over the definition of schizophrenia. You never did clarify your position.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 7 Jun, 2012 04:04 PM
Bob,
I try very hard to be polite...which is the Christian thing to do...in my responses and posts.
I wrote: "Some people choose not to answer what appear to be rhetorical questions or questions that are off topic"
You responded: "I've explained the reason for my questioning - please refer back. Also, please show where my questions have been "off topic". "
My response: you just provided an example...I don't have to go back to prove my point.
I wrote: "One cannot know precisely what anyone believes on any matter".
You responded: "Yes, I said that - please refer back Are you simply quoting me on this?"
My response: If you did write that (and I'm not going back to look), why would you care if I quoted you on it? Again, a rhetorical question...but I answered it anyway.
I wrote: "Your assumptions that I was not Biblically divorced and that I did not follow God's commandments led to me being called many names throughout your posts"
you wrote: "Correction, you ASSUMED that I assumed that. Please show where I called you a name in any of my posts."
My response: you called me schizophrenic and silly on multiple posts, including this one...last i checked those are not my names.
You wrote: "Have I referenced your divorce or your personal life in any of my posts to you? Show where I have done that. "
My response: yes you have, you can go back and read what you posted. I won't waste my time to read through them again.
I wrote: "Additionally, when I stated I am under grace and not under the law, you quickly accused me of not following the commandments."
You wrote: "Please quote me verbatim. Go back and paste that quote if you can find it. You are required to keep the commands of God. The law is of grace. You can not maintain that you are NOT "under the law" and also maintain that you are "under the law" (required to obey it) at the same time."
My response: you provided an answer to your own directive for me to go back and show you the quote.
You wrote: "I referred to this as schizophrenic, "
My response: you called me schizophrenic, you did not say my statement was schizophrenic.
You wrote: "you called it double minded. Either one shows a confusion in thinking. I tried to seek clarification with you over this through my questioning. Rather than offering clarification, you entered into a straw man diatribe over the definition of schizophrenia. You never did clarify your position."
My response: I tried to clarify what mental state you were trying to label me with. I provided the correct definition of schizophrenia as it is a serious mental disorder. I even gave you Bible verses that may have been the point you were trying to make when you called me schizophrenic. There is a huge difference in schizophrenia and double-mindedness.
Additionally, I provided many verses that prove the concept of being under grace and not under the law. I can provide them again if you believe I didn't substantiate my Biblical belief.
