His divorce from Israel did NOT change that,  it did NOT seperate His bond from them.

 
He ENDED the covenant He made with their forefathers out of Egypt.
There is so much scripture to prove this I dont even know where to begin

And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
(Zec 11:10-12)

Play whatever semantics game you wish to prove yourself friend...a covenant WAS set aside for adulterous actions of the Israelites.....

That He has a remnant of Jews does NOT negate the fact that the covenant with the Nation as a whole has been PUT AWAY/ENDED

[there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins]

'...God must 'keep' an apostate'~   let's look at this a minute.   Pictures of God forcing someone against their will, to walk with Him,  come to mind...like a parent holding the hand of a wandering disobedient child, dragging them along where they want them to go.   

I know of no one who believes God is this way.    God forces none to walk with Him... but when they choose to (even after sin)... He will MORE than accomodate them. 

I have to thank you, foc... for giving me one more opportunity to worship the Lord Jesus for His faithful salvation 

Thank you for giving me to opportunity to present that God IS faithful not only as Savior but also as Judge.



For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith [he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
(Heb 10:26-29)



For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(Heb 6:4-6)

~foc~

I've stated my views based on scripture (Galatians),  and hold those truthes to be valid.   I find your last couple responses inflamitory and disrespectful, at best. 

I'm new to ChristiansUnite,  and rather like the forum.   I won't risk warnings or banning, responding to your hurtful remarks. 

May you prosper as your soul prospers.   

Why was this post editted ?

Fl, I wasnt meaning to flame you at all.
If you feel I have, I do ask that you present to me what it was that is supposedly flaming and disrespectful towards you.

If its just that we disagree, then just agree to disagree and lets be done with this.

If you believe I behaving improperly, then at least point out where Ive broken the rules here

One of the most rewawrding studies I've done has been in the book of Galatians... I'm still 'feasting' there.      

Chapter 3 is  most enlightening in teaching what the 'old economy' was.    Verse 19 states the law was 'added' temporarily, to act as a teacher showing the impossibility of human 'sin natures' to keep the law~  that we desperately needed a redeemer.    However,  people where 'kept' under the law (that included a 'measure' of mercy)...  until faith was revealed through Christ Jesus (vs22-23). 

The promise  made to Abraham  (that in his 'seed' (Jesus) would be his inheritance)  was given to him 430 years BEFORE the law was given.   Rather than over riding Abraham's promise,  the temporary giving of the law helped facilitate it. 

I understand Galatians to show us that law was intented to be temporary, showed us our need for redemption,  and ushered in the 'economy of faith in Christ Jesus'.   This was God's plan of salvation all along,  the plan of promise (given to Abraham).

Ive already been thru Galatian and the NT going on 300 times at this point, so I understand that from the very beginning that God knew this first covenant was not permanent.

That fact does not nullify what occurred.
Gods foreknowledge does not do away with what transpired concerning that covenant being put awar for His 'beloved's playing the harlot.

Foreknowledge or not, that covenant with that adulteryous nation was put away, fully and finally broken by God Himself (zech 11, if memory serves)

Does God having foreknowledge that Lucifer would fall negate that he did ?
No, it does not. God is all-knowing, He knew Lucifer would do just what he did....Gods knowing this beforehand did not alter what occurred.
Gods plan that He had in place all along does not nullify what DID happen ...that Israel played the perpetual harlot and so that covenant was put away with her.
This is what the context of the whole of scripture provides...

In fact, I think this confirms that harlotry is just cause to end a marriage thus enabling one a remarry another.
God KNEW beforehand that He was making a covenant with a nation that would play the harlot and had already decided that this covenant would be put away well  before the Mosaic economy ever even began.

Those who dont think harlotry is such a big issue to God need to go back to Deut 22 and see the punishment for a betrothed wife who committed this sin.
Not only was she stoned horribly to her dieath, but at the doorstep of her own father where they could hear her cries while she was beaten to death with rocks.

Jesus exceptoin offers mercy to the harlot while providing protection to the innocent and it fits the whole of scripture perfectly.

[renew them again unto repentance]

foc


Simply because they are in the church does not mean that they are Christian.

The text is clear enough...


====================================================
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(Heb 6:6)

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
(Heb 10:26)


Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
(Heb 10:29)

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
(Heb 6:4)
===================================================================


These are not men who were never part of His church.

These had repented as proven by the text.
They were 'sanctified' by the blood of the covenant as proven by the text
Their sins were covered by the sacrifice as proven by the text.
They were "made partakers of the Holy Spirit"

This hardly sounds like a man who hasnt made a proclaimation as a christian.
Given the rest of Heb 10 I believe its safe to assume that the writer is speaking to those who ARE born again and in fellowship...warning them against this type of apostacy.

Lets allow the text to present what it does and not let personal doctrine cloud the issue.

Brothers and Sisters,

Let's be very careful here that we don't get carried away with this subject. It will not get to the point of accusations, name calling or making determinations of anyones salvation or it will be locked and respective warnings given.

You wont get these accusations from me, Im remarried while my former spouse lives.

[(edited out, for disrespect to other forum members. Moderator)]

My point IS and HAS BEEN,  that God is FAITHFUL.   (YOU are the one implying He is not.

Sorry, I am implying nor stating no  such thing.
If you believe I am, then you arent comprehending what is being stated.

God CAN remain faithful even if man is not.
This does not require God to keep an apostate. Do you understand that concept or not?
REad Hebrews 6 and 10 and take off the doctrinal lenses when you do.
Those warnings are not a joke, nor are they meaningless

.. that HE allows remarriage after divorce.) 

PROVE to me that He doesnt.
Not with simply presenting that adultery is committed upon remarriage in certain cases....but SHOW me the money.....GIVE me precise scripture that PROVES that remarriage is forbidden.

i eagerly await your response.

His divorce from Israel did NOT change that,  it did NOT seperate His bond from them.   To twist scripture to say it has,  and that divorce and remarriage are permitted today because of it~  is ERROR.

(edited out, for disrespect to other forum members. Moderator)

I can provide from scripture a covenant put away with an adulterous nation and a new 'bride' taken.
What do you have as evidence/ proof for your belief except a few passages that are cleared up with 'except for whoredom' ?

Again,  the old covenant of the law was a temporary 'tool' to show us our need of a savior.   It facilitated the new covenant of 'faith in Christ'.   It's not an 'allegory' of marriage.   And it most definately does not provide 'loopholes'.

I know precisely what the old covenant was..thank you very much.
What it was does not negate what it did and what it represents..

Sure it is an allegory of marriage.

Do you even understand what 'marriage' is? what it is representative of?
Marriage IS representative of our relationship with our God and His covenants to us.

I submit your failure to understand this is probably where your error possibly begins.

Assigning the same definition to both 'apostate' and 'divorce'  does not provide the 'loophole' of remarriage you imply it does.   

Im sorry, I need no 'loophole'..i have the direct words of Jesus Christ (aka GOD) Himself......EXCEPT for harlotry....

Even if one becomes apostate,  it does NOT change the faithfulness of God... and if it were POSSIBLE for the apostate to return to Him,  God would most definately receive them.

You seem to be presenting what you WISH to believe as opposed to what Gods clear word states plainly.
I suggest you read again Hebrews 6 and 10 and see what GOD says on this matter.

God being faithful does not mean that God must 'keep' an apostate.
You seem to not be grasping this fact at all.

God is also 'faithful' to be Judge as well as Savior.

The focus of our salvation is in this part of your quote: 'While nothing can take us from His hand....WE have the choice to jump from it...to fall away, for whatever reason.'

Even IF one DOES walk away from the Lord... HE remains faithful.  He does not 'divorce' Himself from us,  nor find another 'wife'.   Rather,   He let's us make our painful (especially to Him) choices,   and works with us to help us see the error of our way. And when we do... welcomes us back into His loving grace.

The problem with this theology is that God was 'faithful' even before this covenant.
Do you believe taht God WASNT faithful to Israel in the previous covenant?
Of course He was....and this faithfulness does not alter the fact that that covenant was indeed finally ended.

Also, you still have to deal with CLEAR, DECISIVE warnings about falling away.
One doesnt fall from a height that one never attained....and I dont buy into this deception that the warnings are for 'show' as some seem to teach.

The fact is that Gods word in Hebrews 6 and 10 presents some that come to into this covenant and are indeed sanctified by His blood who do, clearly of their own accord and own free will, fall away from that state and there 'remains no sacrifice left' for their sins.

I personaly choose not to make these things allegory and parables as they are not presented in any such manner. They are clear warnings given to those who ARE IN the church...aka 'christian'....

I beg to differ friend...blaspheme His Holy Spirit and rest assured you WILL find yourself 'divorced' (apostate).

[adulteress]

Just so we're on the same page... I understand this apostasy to mean, in essence, the person is NOW renouncing the Blood of Jesus that they once had genuine faith in as the only means of their salvation... they truly have a regenerated heart.

Exactly....renouncing is just what apostacy seems to be.
When we look at Hebrews, and a study of the times, we see that some Jewish converts were pretty much doing this to keep from being persecuted.
Paul says in Acts, that he caused men to blaspheme even, before his conversion, which indicates that bringing about their 'apostacy' towards this covenant and our Lords sacrifice (which I personally believe was a torment to Paul, knowing what he caused his own brethren to do before he learned the truth)

I can't imagine the heart condition of a person that is in that situation... of having TRULY known the riches of God's glory,  to then renounce the Blood that saves them.   Once this person REFUSES to trust,  there is no other way of salvation.   I think the person who finds themselves truly  'apostate'  is extremely hardened,  and would find it the closest thing to impossible,  to overcome the bondage to ever trust again.   But... IF they could... I believe Jesus would receive them back into His grace. 

We are saved by His faithfulness. (In the Revelation, He is given the title~ 'Faithful and True'.)

Now, let me ask, are you going with Gods word in this matter, or your 'gut feeling' ?

Hewbrews warnings werent written in a vacuum...they were written to Jewish converts who, because of persecution to them and their families, were turning away from the faith...read chapters 6 and 10 and then do a quick study of the time...there should be a lot on the internet you can read on this.

Im not OSAS, so we may not see eye to eye on this ifyou are....but the point is that some claim that nothing we can do can remove us from the sacrifce of His blood....perpetually and unconditionally "saved".
While I believe the scripture that NOTHING can 'remove' us from His grasp...no NT scripture ever states that WE cannot apostate ourselves of our own free will...and the scripture DOES show that we CAN do this in its warnings against falling away.

One does not 'fall' from something it has not attained.
I personally believe the scripture as a whole in this matter.
While nothing can take us from His hand....WE have the choice to jump from it...to fall away, for whatever reason.

Because of Peter I dont believe this happens in a moment of fear and doubt, in simply saying we dont know Him...but in purposeful, intentional rejecting and renouncing of what we had begun with Him...with His covenant.

Folks dont have to agree with me, but scripture presents it as true.

This falls in perfect alignment with His words in Matt 5:32 and 19:9....that harlotry (adultery/apostacy) against ones marital is cause for divorce.


adulteress
G3428
μοιχαλίς
moichalis
Thayer Definition:
1) an adulteress
2) as the intimate alliance of God with the people of Israel was likened to a marriage, those who relapse into idolatry are said to commit adultery or play the harlot
2a) fig. equiv. to faithless to God, unclean, apostate

[Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.]

  I'm not sure the 'covenant of God's divorce'  with Israel completely severes them from Him.   One day they WILL accept Him as their Messiah. 

This is very true.
And thats just it, these MUST accept their Messiah..they cannot come thru that covenant that was ended.

Romans speaks of a 'remnant' of Israel whom God has seemingly kept throughout the ages.
The masses were pretty much always out of step with God, in sin....but there has always been this remnant.

When Jesus came, this 'remnant' were those who accepted Him....and after the cross the remnant are those who still accept their messiah....maybe not at first, but at some point they will.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
(Rom 11:1-5)

He hasnt cast them away, there is always a remnant He has kept for Himself.
After the old covenant was ended tho, no one comes thru that economy put away.

Marriage being an allegorical example of our relationship to God, we see that He did put away a covenant for 'adulteries' of His beloved.

Its not an exact comparision....but neither do we marry millions of wives...so it would be hard to make the comparision any closer than to just accept that the 'husband' (God) did indeed end this covenant with His 'wife' (His beloved...Israel).

So God hasnt cast away Israel...they CAN stil come to Him...but only thru this new covenant Christ has made with His blood with His bride.

Additionally, we see that in Hebrews 6 and 10 that there is still an allowance for those who fall away (reject) this covenant after making themselves part of it...if they apostate themselves from Him.
In the same manner a wife can 'apostate' (with adultery) herself from her marriage covenant.

If we do WILLFULLY apostate ourselves from this covenant, Hewbrews shows that there is no sacrifice remaining for our sin from that point.
If the spouse willfully apostates themselves from the marriage covenant.....it is in perfect agreement that Christ has permitted an exception that ends this covenant entirely.

Now we can say that these were never truly 'saved' as some do, but the point remains, they DID come into this covenant and were sancified by the blood of said covenant...only to then reject it.
We can still apply this same type of scenario to a spouse who never really meant their vows....or thought they did and soon set them aside anyway and apostated themselves.

Id post links to what Ive written to help explain my views more, but theyd probably be deleted.

This is such a sensitive topic... but I believe scripture teaches the 'sin' of divorce is in remarriage (other than reconcilation).   Jesus and Paul both taught that only death seperates what God has joined together,  and adultery occurs if one marries someone else while the spouse is still living.  (1 Cor. 7:10-11, 7:39).

Clearly "except' for harlotry", by Jesus' own words

The sensitivity is caused by some folks refusing to accept Jesus own words whereby He shows clearly that this 'law of the husband" (Romans 7) is not absolute....it is conditional, as most covenants are.

When you refuse folks an allowance made by God Himself, yes, we can understand some being sensitive about that ....

[And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. (Zec 11:10-12)]

In verse 8 of the same reference,  God had declared His divorce from Israel... yet remained 'bound' to 'her'.   

Additionally, on this point, this is only presenting part of the truth.

You seem to present that God was still 'bound' at that point.
But the fact is that He did indeed end up doing away with that covenant with Israel....

And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
(Zec 11:10-12)


At the point you are quoting from, yes God may have still bound Himself to that covenant...but it did not stay that way.

That covenant with the nation of Israel was ended over idolatry/harlotry....Any Jewish folks who come since the cross will come thru this new covenant....there is no other way at this point.

The point is that it is irrelevant to state that God was still 'bound' at that point in time....eventually that covenant was indeed ended over the adulterous actions of Israel.

Additionally....if Im not understanding your post (it is worded a bit confusing) then its fine that you disagree with my understanding.

Ive spent enough time on this topic that Im very comfortable with my views at the present time.
We can discuss it further if  youd like or we can leave it at agreeing to disagree.....its your call

Hi FOC~

I followed the link you provided... and while I appreciate the study,  I respectfully disagree with your thought that 1 Cor. 7:10-11 is making a distinction to those with an unbelieving spouse.   

1 Cor. 7:10-11:  But to the married (italics mine) I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife shoud not leave her husband.  11) but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Immediately following,  Paul speaks to those with unbelieving spouses (vs 12-16) as a seperate issue.   I don't see these verses as defining the 'married' people of verses 10-11.   

["But to the REST"]

Hi FOC~

I followed the link you provided... and while I appreciate the study,  I respectfully disagree with your thought that 1 Cor. 7:10-11 is making a distinction to those with an unbelieving spouse.   

1 Cor. 7:10-11:  But to the married (italics mine) I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife shoud not leave her husband.  11) but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Immediately following,  Paul speaks to those with unbelieving spouses (vs 12-16) as a seperate issue.   I don't see these verses as defining the 'married' people of verses 10-11.   

Im not sure if we agree or disagree.
possibly you misunderstood what I have written.

Paul makes it very clear that his audience has changed to those who are UNequally yoked in verse 12....and states plainly that he has nothing from the Lord in this matter, but is speaking himself.

"But to the REST" is absolutely showing the the previous commandment is pertaining to that previous group, and that he is now laying out the rules for this new group.

It is safe to assume that the previous group MUST be a couple who are both believers (whom will BOTH obey God and Pauls instruction, hopefully) as this new group is those who are clearly NOT both believers (of whom at least one party will most likely not care at all what God or Paul has to say)

The way you worded your post, you seem to almost be agreeing with this idea...are you?

You said...

"Paul speaks to those with unbelieving spouses (vs 12-16) as a seperate issue.   I don't see these verses as defining the 'married' people of verses 10-11"

Unless Im somehow mistaking you, I agree 100% that there are two separate issues being dealt with here...marriage where are BOTH christians (these are BOTH commanded to remain unmarried or reconcile)...and to those whom are UNequally yoked (v12-16) to whom no commandment is given
...and they are told clearly that they are not in bondage to this union with this unbeliever who deserts


One thing that is pretty much absolute...in verse 12 Paul IS making a distinction between this new group and the group in v 10-11...."but  to the rest speak *I*, not the Lord" is more than proof of this.

And the final fact of the matter is that Paul is definitely showing that the believer is NOT in bondage to this deserting UNbeliever.
There IS some distinction being made there very clearly otherwise this would also apply to a couple who were BOTH believers where one has deserted as well.

IN verses 10-11 both are commanded NOT to leave (only two believers would even be willing to accept this instructions. Non believers for the most part arent going to care what a God they dont believe has to say) while in verses 12-16 we are dealing with a situation where the UNbeliever can leave and the believer isnt not in bondage ( a slave) to this union.
A slave not in bondage has no master.




There is more covered here
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/

 

The Apostle Paul's teachings align with this as well in his statement to the Corinthians that IF seperation occurs,  the couple is to reconcilie or remain single,  with reconciliation in mind  (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

Theres a bit more to the story in 1 Cor 7 than what is presented here.

http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/1corstudy.html

Should not we be faithful in our marriage, even if our spouse is not?

God always stays faithful to His covenant with us. When we were unfaithful to Him, He brought us healing by sacrificing His own life.   The Lord told Hosea (Hosea 3:1), to return to his wife although she was an adulteress.  God further told him to love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they were unfaithful to Him.

God told Hosea to take this wife for a reason.
This prophet has NOTHING to do with todays marriages but his life was a living allegory of Gods patience with a adulterous nation

The fact is no matter what gets presented about Hosea, GOD ENDED this covenant eventually (Zech 11:10-11)), showing that He himself is a divorcee, so to speak...which aligns perfectly with Jesus Christs (aka GOD) own exception for the same "apostacy' (adultery) against the marital covenant.

The ONLY way this Hosea arguement would even have a leg to stand on is if God had NOT ended the Mosiac covenant with Israel...and *IF* Jesus (aka GOD) had not given a clear exception for sexual immorality (porneia)

We shouldnt cheat on our spouse just because they do, but once put away for sexual sin, we are no longer married to them at all.