Divorce - Adultery Thread

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

I think you're on to something here. Women have really been pushing the envelope ever since the eruption of the feminist movement in the '60s. Women at large have been dragged slightly in the direction of the radicalized fringe, because the fringe sets the dialoge and tugs on the mainstream. Men have largely been set adrift during this time, some have learned how to (cynically) benefit from the new, liberated version of females, but most have been victims of the new paradigms in family law. In short, women have further to travel to come home to a biblical worldview for a woman's calling. Most women today have an exceedingly difficult time extracting themselves from the feminism because it has so diffused into our culture.

Yes, let's talk about family law that would burden a woman with all the children of the marriage union being dissolved with little to no child support that may or may not get paid forcing her into poverty, and having to work a minimum wage job, and go on food stamps while the High Priest of the home is out dating and having the time of his life: no wife, no kids, and no responsibility.

I do agree that men and women do not know their place due to war, and women have to go into the workplace to support their families, and wear pants to be more appropriately and modestly dressed to work in factories and such. And the men lost their control on the family when the woman had to support, discipline, and teach the children.

Furthermore, men have enjoyed letting their wives work so they can have off to go to campmeetings, preach in foreign countries, and let the local church take care of their families.

Originally Posted by O_Carl

I was not implying or inferring either. What I got out of it was that you had a brief period during which you were evangelistic about large families. 99.9% of the women I have ever spoken to, no matter their religious affiliation, are rabidly defensive about their birth control. Even if they consider themselves "surrendered to God's will" in every other area of their lives. If you tell them they should have more babies, they are ready to take up arms and stage a one-woman shouting mob "civil rights" protest in the style of the best of the radical women's lib and planned parenthood activists.

Let's see how many men, in the same position as women, would enjoy spending their young years; pregnant, overweight, bloated, nausiated, exhausted, with gestational diabetes, and have their men tell them how beautiful other women are, as they clean house, wash, clothe, and feed a small army while the husbands wages aren't enough to feed two much less 7-10. Of course, in her spare time she can sew and make all her children's clothing, and go out and kill deer or alligators to make them shoes. "Submission my eye"!

Originally Posted by cneasttx

As a woman that birthed 9 babies I will tell any man that wants a LARGE family, DO IT YOUR SELF!!!!!!!!

AMEN

Originally Posted by nahkoe

Hah!

And as a woman who's birthed 4 babies, I'd love to have a few more. Any single guys out there want a really big family(hey, I'd be happy to stay at 4 if I must...)? lol

I know for a fact I'm not going to attempt to raise 5 kids by myself, 4 is really more than I can do.

Since more than 50% of first mariages end in divorce and an even higher percentage of 2nd marriages...chances are, Apostolic or not...the woman will be raising them by herself.

Just thought I'd add my $.02 since I have so many avid fans on this particular thread!

Blessings, Rhoni

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

There were only two Apostolic young people in our local High School. I was a freshman and the young man was a senior. At church he was always wanted to date me, but at school he was too embarassed to even say hello in the hallway since I was the only girl with a dress to my knees and my hair piled up in a bun on my head. There are very few outward evidences of men's separation as compared to women. Bro. OP here is talking about extremes not the norm.

The way I see it, you are too. Unless I misunderstand what you are saying.

Yes, let's talk about family law that would burden a woman with all the children of the marriage union being dissolved with little to no child support that may or may not get paid forcing her into poverty, and having to work a minimum wage job, and go on food stamps while the High Priest of the home is out dating and having the time of his life: no wife, no kids, and no responsibility.

And do you even have an inkling what brought all of this upon our dear American society?

No-fault divorce law. There is no way you're going to drag me into this particular corner of your fantasy world. When a man with children gets divorced, he is completely at the mercy of his ex-wife. All it takes is a few little white lies and the police are there enforcing restraining orders, limiting custody and eliminating visitation. A woman can set the full spectrum of government machinery into motion against an ex-husband if she so desires, and their policies are to act first and worry about proof and probable cause later. A man is guilty of whatever the woman says he is guilty of until he is proven innocent. I have been very close to 3 cases like this. In one, the woman got tired of having to drive to the halfway point for visitation, so she lied about the man's treatment of the kids so the court would restrict his visitation rights and place the burden on him to make the full trip.

Let's see how many men, in the same position as women, would enjoy spending their young years; pregnant, overweight, bloated, nausiated, exhausted, with gestational diabetes, and have their men tell them how beautiful other women are, as they clean house, wash, clothe, and feed a small army while the husbands wages aren't enough to feed two much less 7-10. Of course, in her spare time she can sew and make all her children's clothing, and go out and kill deer or alligators to make them shoes. "Submission my eye"!

Sour grapes?
This is largely an American phenomenon, the belief that people can get through their lives with a minimum of inconvenience, much less suffering. It's a shame how late in life some people end up accepting that it isn't God's plan for people, even the righteous, to go through their entire lives without hardship. Without hardship, faith is unproved. Proverbs 31 shows what a woman can do to gain esteem in her husband's eyes.

There is also much to be said for training girls in the art of the husband selection process.

You talking to me?

Are you waving your blessigns?

Since more than 50% of first mariages end in divorce and an even higher percentage of 2nd marriages...chances are, Apostolic or not...the woman will be raising them by herself.

What is your source for this, Rhoni? I thought the accepted notion was 50% of ALL marriages, and that something along the line of 30% - 40% of FIRST marriages end in divorce. I think that the official party line is considerably bleaker than the true numbers revealed by some recent studies. First marriages in the church have a much better chance than those not in church, or second or third marriages.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Since more than 50% of first mariages end in divorce and an even higher percentage of 2nd marriages...chances are, Apostolic or not...the woman will be raising them by herself.

Just thought I'd add my $.02 since I have so many avid fans on this particular thread!

Blessings, Rhoni

I would like to chime in on this thread, particularly this part of this post.

I think it is quite sad that divorce has become an option among apostolics. When I was married to my one and only wife some 20 years ago, I said "til death do us part", and I meant it. Now it has not been easy. We have lived through many troubled times. Jobs and no jobs. Hurt backs. Nervous breakdowns. Loosing everything and going bankrupt. My wife not working so she could homeschool our 3 kids (my oldest son just finished his first term in college with a 3.6 average). We have wept together. We have laughed together. But we have stayed together because there was not an option for anything else. Through all these trials and great tribulations, we love each other more than ever, simply because we choose to.


I understand that it was a 2 way street for my wife and I. We both were willing to walk this path together, and will continue to do so. I feel sad for those that had a spouse that chose to leave. But I refuse to raise my kids any other way than that marriage is for life.

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

The way I see it, you are too. Unless I misunderstand what you are saying.

In the 1970's, 1980's, and early 1990's this was the norm. I have lost track with this in the last decade.

And do you even have an inkling what brought all of this upon our dear American society?

No-fault divorce law. There is no way you're going to drag me into this particular corner of your fantasy world.

This is uncalled for OP. I have always treated you and your posts with respect. My world has not, nor ever has been a life of fantasy...I have lived most of the things we discuss on this forum. I have also studied in 8 years of college and done the research on these matters because it affected me and I fell into the statistics.

When a man with children gets divorced, he is completely at the mercy of his ex-wife. All it takes is a few little white lies and the police are there enforcing restraining orders, limiting custody and eliminating visitation. A woman can set the full spectrum of government machinery into motion against an ex-husband if she so desires, and their policies are to act first and worry about proof and probable cause later. A man is guilty of whatever the woman says he is guilty of until he is proven innocent. I have been very close to 3 cases like this. In one, the woman got tired of having to drive to the halfway point for visitation, so she lied about the man's treatment of the kids so the court would restrict his visitation rights and place the burden on him to make the full trip.


I am sure you think these three cases are the norm but not in the cases I have seen and the families I have counseled. Judges aren't stupid. They hear this stuff all the time and they make decisions in the best interest of the chidlren regardless of the stupid things brought before them.**A man making the full trip to see his children...what an inconvenience and hardship for the man who should be supporting them financially 100%.***

Sour grapes?

No, been over mine a long time

This is largely an American phenomenon, the belief that people can get through their lives with a minimum of inconvenience, much less suffering. It's a shame how late in life some people end up accepting that it isn't God's plan for people, even the righteous, to go through their entire lives without hardship. Without hardship, faith is unproved. Proverbs 31 shows what a woman can do to gain esteem in her husband's eyes.

Why is it that women should have to do anything to gain esteem in their hsuband's eye? It is always the women doing and giving...what about what men should be doing to gain the respect of his wife and children?

There is also much to be said for training girls in the art of the husband selection process.
Are you waving your blessigns?

I thought it was the man that was supposed to find his wife...My Bible says, HE who finds a wife findeth a good thing. The training should go for young men and young women also.

What is your source for this, Rhoni? I thought the accepted notion was 50% of ALL marriages, and that something along the line of 30% - 40% of FIRST marriages end in divorce. I think that the official party line is considerably bleaker than the true numbers revealed by some recent studies. First marriages in the church have a much better chance than those not in church, or second or third marriages.

Accepted notions are not always facts...go to Barna research stats and you'll find all of which I speak.

You can passionately believe something only to find out you were passionately WRONG.

Blessings, Rhoni

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I would like to chime in on this thread, particularly this part of this post.

I think it is quite sad that divorce has become an option among apostolics. When I was married to my one and only wife some 20 years ago, I said "til death do us part", and I meant it. Now it has not been easy. We have lived through many troubled times. Jobs and no jobs. Hurt backs. Nervous breakdowns. Loosing everything and going bankrupt. My wife not working so she could homeschool our 3 kids (my oldest son just finished his first term in college with a 3.6 average). We have wept together. We have laughed together. But we have stayed together because there was not an option for anything else. Through all these trials and great tribulations, we love each other more than ever, simply because we choose to.


I understand that it was a 2 way street for my wife and I. We both were willing to walk this path together, and will continue to do so. I feel sad for those that had a spouse that chose to leave. But I refuse to raise my kids any other way than that marriage is for life.

I have the utmost respect for those who keep their commitments to God and each other. Thank-you for being a good example of how it should be done God's way.

Respectfully, Rhoni

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I would like to chime in on this thread, particularly this part of this post.

I think it is quite sad that divorce has become an option among apostolics. When I was married to my one and only wife some 20 years ago, I said "til death do us part", and I meant it. Now it has not been easy. We have lived through many troubled times. Jobs and no jobs. Hurt backs. Nervous breakdowns. Loosing everything and going bankrupt. My wife not working so she could homeschool our 3 kids (my oldest son just finished his first term in college with a 3.6 average). We have wept together. We have laughed together. But we have stayed together because there was not an option for anything else. Through all these trials and great tribulations, we love each other more than ever, simply because we choose to.


I understand that it was a 2 way street for my wife and I. We both were willing to walk this path together, and will continue to do so. I feel sad for those that had a spouse that chose to leave. But I refuse to raise my kids any other way than that marriage is for life.

Great Post St Matt!

[Sam]

Two thoughts on divorce from a person who has been married to the same person for a little over 50 years.

1. Some times divorce is good and the only real sensible action to be taken. Years ago there were women who remained in marriages because of social pressure, etc. even though they were abused. This some times still happens. I have talked to women who had been married to men who were abusive and who did not fulfill their obligation as a father, husband, provider, etc. Pastors and family members would tell them that the only recourse they had was to remain in the marriage, submit to the man, and pray for him.

2. The other extreme is marriages which seem to be entered into lightly, almost like "going steady" among teenagers. Seems like some think, "Well, we'll try this and see if it works out." I remember something that someone told my wife a few years ago. This woman's daughter was going through a second divorce. When the mother questioned it, the daughter responded, "Well, I'm looking for a marriage like you and Dad had." The mother responded, "Well, you might have had a marriage like that if you'd given it more time."

[Sam]

This is how Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads in the Dead Sea scrolls:

1 If a man takes a wife and marries her, but she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found something objectionable about her, then he shall write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand and send her from his house. 2 She may then go and be another man’s wife, 3 And if the latter husband who took her to be his wife dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her from his house, or if the latter husband who took her to be his wife dies, 4 her former husband who had sent her away, cannot take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled. For that is an abomination before the Lord; you shall not bring sin upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

The Septuagint, some times called the LXX, is the ancient Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures translated by a number of different Jewish scholars over the course of the third, second, and first centuries BC. The LXX was the Scriptures that the Apostles used in their writings which became our New Testament. Here is how Deut 24:1-4 reads in the LXX (Apostolic Bible Polyglot First Edition copyright 1996)
1 And if any take a woman and should live with her, and it shall be if she should not find favor before him, for he finds in her an indecent thing, then he shall write to her a certificate of divorce scroll, and he shall put it into her hands and he shall send her from out of his house. 2 And going forth, should she become another man’s wife, 3 and the last husband should detest her, and should write to her a certificate of divorce scroll, and he should put it into her hands, and send her from out of his house or her last husband should die who took her to himself as wife; 4 the former husband sending her out shall not be able to return to take her to himself for a wife after her being defiled; for it is an abomination before the Lord your God, and you shall not defile the land which the Lord your God gives to you by lot.
The Complete Apostle’s Bible, copyright 2003 uses the term “unbecoming thing” instead of “indecent thing” like the version above.

As Hebrew became more unfamiliar with people, it became the custom for a person to give a paraphrase in Aramaic for the Scripture that had been read aloud in Hebrew. This paraphrase was called a Targum. Something like this took place in Nehemiah 8:1-8. At first a targum could not be written down but memorized. Later they were written out. Here is how a targum of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads. Note that the verses are not numbered:
When a man hath taken a wife and gone unto her, if she hath not favour in his eyes because he findeth the thing that is wrong in her, then he may write her a bill of divorce before the court of justice, and put it into her power, and send her away from his house. And departing from his house she may go and marry another man. But should they proclaim from the heavens about her that the latter husband shall dislike her, and write her a bill of divorce, and put it into her power to go from his house; or should they proclaim about him that lie the latter husband shall die: it shall not be in the power of the first husband who dismissed her at the beginning to return and take her to be with him as his wife, after that she hath been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord: for the children whom she might bear should not be made abominable, or the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit become obnoxious to the plague.

The above three readings can give us an idea of how the Jewish people understood what is called Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in our Bibles around the time of the establishment of the New Testament Church. In each case divorce was permitted if the husband found something “objectionable about her” (Dead Seas Scroll), or “an indecent thing” (LXX), or “an unbecoming thing” (LXX) or “a thing that is wrong” (Targum). This would not be divorce because of adultery because the penalty for that was death. This “unbecoming thing” had become pretty loose interpreted around the first century BC and AD and divorce was allowed if the man found someone he liked better or if the wife’s voice could be heard by the neighbors or basically if the husband felt like something was the matter with her.

The following is from a current Jewish version of the Old Testament

Deuteronomy 24
Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (1917)
1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, 2 and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife, 3 and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

I just included these verses to show that the Jewish people and therefore the early Christians had a more liberal view of divorce and remarriage than many of us have today.

[ForeverBlessed]

Originally Posted by Sam

This is how Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads in the Dead Sea scrolls:

1 If a man takes a wife and marries her, but she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found something objectionable about her, then he shall write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand and send her from his house. 2 She may then go and be another man’s wife, 3 And if the latter husband who took her to be his wife dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her from his house, or if the latter husband who took her to be his wife dies, 4 her former husband who had sent her away, cannot take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled. For that is an abomination before the Lord; you shall not bring sin upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

I just included these verses to show that the Jewish people and therefore the early Christians had a more liberal view of divorce and remarriage than many of us have today.

They did have a more liberal view...but this is what Jesus had to say on the subject.

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

[Mrs. LPW]

We often think living under the law was the harder thing to do... we forget that when Jesus came he said, not only is it wrong to commit adultery, if you even look on a woman to lust you have already committed it in your heart....

In that same sermon Jesus also raised the bar on divorce and remarriage.

Matthew 5

31
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery

Fact is.. under this new convenent of Grace, Jesus raised the bar.. and so Grace and Truth work together.

In this new testement, the question is no longer, what can I do to the letter and what can I get away with. The question is... what can I do above and beyond what is required to please the one who left all and died for my sins...
I don't deserve happiness in life, I don't deserve peace in life... I don't deserve God's love in my life.. I deserve death and hell.

The humanistic cry of today is "Do what you need to do to be happy"

But.. that's another sermon for another thread.

(Disclaimer: Mrs. LPW has already made it plain in previous threads that she is not anti-divorce in some circumstances, but is very much pro-marriage)