why is divorce so rampant and also a last resort to a failed marriage.
Posted : 11 Oct, 2013 06:29 PM
"Once again your post in response to mine is meant to provoke me whiich is in direct opposition to the verses posted about how to interact with others. "
Not true. Plain and simple.
As I pointed out, all the twisting of Scripture and lengthy explanations and other disputing offered here does not change the basic principles which are very clear and easy to understand: Wives submit to your husbands and husbands love your wives.
In the U.S., more than 3 women are murdered by their intimate partners each DAY.
85% of all domestic violence in the U.S. is against women.
Does that sound like "love" to you?
Let's remember what Romans 13:10 says, "Love does not harm its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the Law."
Just because you know some couples who treated each other well does not mean it happens that way everywhere. Reallity is quite harsh. And, in many cultures around the world, women are second-class citizens, not even afforded the right to vote or work and, in some cases, not even the right to leave their homes without a male escort. Most marriages in such places are arranged by the parents, and have nothing to do with love. The women literally ARE slaves, owned by their husbands who can do anything they want to them, with impunity.
Yes, it's a very sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. Please don't make assumptions about the world based on the little evidence you have.
By the way, I wasn't even responding to you in the first place. You were the one wanting to argue.
why is divorce so rampant and also a last resort to a failed marriage.
Posted : 12 Oct, 2013 12:11 AM
Cat --
Why is it that when someone politely points out to someone else here that they are deviating from what is ACTUALLY taught in Scripture they are characterized as "arguing"?
why is divorce so rampant and also a last resort to a failed marriage.
Posted : 12 Oct, 2013 02:51 AM
The Bible teaches what it teaches. The concept of "mutual submission" between a husband and wife is totally errant and not Biblical at all. Why is it important to understand what the Bible teaches about marriage? If you look at the profiles here of the people over 30, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of them are divorced. Something is wrong with that picture.
For those here who have never been married, DO NOT take marital advice from those who are divorced. Seek out those who have successful Biblical marriages if you want practical counsel. But always use the Bible as your first and last authority on the matter.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Eph 6:21 says, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." There is the claim that this means the verses that follow assert a doctrine of mutual submission. Then, the claim is that verse 22 therefore cannot be telling the wives to obey their husbands, because mutual submission among Christians does not necessarily imply mutual obedience, but only a respectful attitude.
This interpretation misses the point of the passage, and in fact, it results in blasphemy against Jesus Christ. Even if we agree that verse 21 defines the interpretation of 5:22-6:9, the content of the passage makes it clear that mutual submission does not mean the same thing in every relationship. The meaning and the basis of mutual submission between husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and slaves are different.
Paul says that the wives should obey their husbands because "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" (v. 23). This is not true in any other human relationship � whether between Christians, parents and children, or masters and slaves. If the wives should submit to their husbands in the same sense that the church submits to Christ, then it is impossible that it is referring to the surrender of one's rights or a respectful attitude. The church is to render absolute obedience to Christ in both thought and action; therefore, the meaning of submission in marriage must mean that the wives must be both respectful in attitude and obedient in behavior.
Since the two relationships are analogous, if the interpretation is that the submission of the wives does not mean obedience, then it also means that the church has no obligation to obey Christ. This is blasphemy. Those who teach this weak view of submission think that they champion the cause of women, but instead, they have made a declaration of rebellion against Jesus Christ on behalf of the whole church. If they refuse to recant, then they declare themselves to be non-Christians.
The husband's part in marriage is defined, not as one of obedience, but sacrificial love: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (v. 25). The foolish assumption that "mutual submission" means the same thing for everyone in every relationship ignores all these details in the text. Paul is not saying that wives should respect their husbands, but that there is no need to obey them, while only the children and slaves should obey. Rather, he is saying that wives must obey their husbands, children their parents, and slaves their masters.
Even more outrageous is the interpreter's claim, "The word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives, though it does with respect to children (6:1) and slaves (6:5)." First, although the word translated "submit" (hypotasso) in verse 22 is different from the word translated "obey" (hypakouo) in 6:1 and 6:5, it still carries the meaning of obedience.For example, the same word hypotasso used in Luke 2:51, and it refers to obedience:"Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them." But hypakouo is used in Ephesians 6:1, where it says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right Does the commentator mean to suggest that Jesus merely submitted to his parents in his attitude, but that he disobeyed them? If so, did Jesus obey the commandment, "Honor your father and mother," cited as the basis for obedience to parents in Ephesians 6:2? If the commentator means that Jesus disobeyed the commandment, and that Jesus was a sinner, then he could not have made atonement. Therefore, in his zeal to assert his unbiblical position on women, the scholar has in principle blasphemed Jesus Christ, rejected the atonement, and forfeited his own salvation.
Again, he says, "The word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives." In other words, the claim is that the Bible uses only hypotasso (submit) when it refers to wives, and never hypakouo (obey). However, the Bible indeed uses hypakouo when it refers to Sarah: "For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed [hypakouo] Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear" (1 Peter 3:5-6).
Sarah was the wife of Abraham, and she obeyed (hypakouo) her husband, Then, Christian wives are told to emulate her, and specifically her obedience to Abraham. It follows that hypakouo is applied to all Christian wives. Therefore, whether the Bible uses hypakouo or hypotasso, it insists that wives must respect and obey their husbands. Any interpreter who suggests something less is incompetent or dishonest, or both.
If wives complain that this is too difficult, they should remember that the husbands' duty is much more challenging: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). The command is not for a husband to merely show affection, but to love his wife more than his own life, and to cherish her more than his own welfare.
Just as many men are difficult to obey because they are incompetent and overbearing, many women are difficult to love because they are rebellious and obnoxious. The situation is difficult for both men and women, not because of God's command, but because of sin. If God had not produced divine love in our hearts, it would indeed be impossible to love as Christ loves. It is best for both the husband and the wife to follow God's word, since it is certainly easier to obey a loving husband, and to love an obedient wife. Nevertheless, each one is accountable to God regardless of what the other does (1 Peter 3:1-7). A husband's lack of affection does not excuse the wife's lack of obedience. On the other hand, it is possible for a husband's affection to extinguish the wife's rebellion, and for a wife's submission to stimulate the husband's affection.
Galatians 3:28 is often used to argue against "inequality" or gender distinctions: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The argument is that since there is "neither male nor female" in Christ, then there should be no distinction in role or difference in authority in the marriage relationship. However, the argument backfires.
First, if Paul intends to abolish such distinctions in this verse, then it would be foolish for him to say other things that reinforce these distinctions: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord," and "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 5:22, 6:5). Thus the argument must deny the inspiration, inerrancy, and consistency of the Bible.
Second, if Paul intends to abolish gender distinctions in this verse, then it would be impossible for him to oppose homosexual relationships and marriages, at least among Christians, or those who are in Christ. In fact, there could be no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, because there would be no such thing as sexuality. However, Paul denounces homosexuality, and even condemns homosexuals to hell (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Thus the argument must again deny the inspiration, inerrancy, and consistency of the Bible; moreover, it excuses all kinds of sexual perversions.
Therefore, the argument is not a defense for equality in Christ, but it is an attack on the foundation of the Christian faith, and an excuse for rebellion and transgression. Once the implication is clear, anyone who refuses to withdraw the argument must be a false teacher, or even a non-Christian.
Galatians 3:28 does not abolish all gender distinctions, and certainly not those that the Bible explicitly asserts. Rather, the context shows that it refers to each person's equal access to justification in Christ through faith: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:26-29) Excerpt from Dr. Vincent Cheung
why is divorce so rampant and also a last resort to a failed marriage.
Posted : 12 Oct, 2013 05:44 AM
It is easier said than done for both the wife and the husband to fulfill their Biblical roles. There are no 2 marriages that face the same challenges as there are no 2 people that have the same characteristics, personalities, backgrounds, etc.
There is much to be learned from people on all sides...men and women who are/have been married. They have good and bad experiences to share that may help one who is preparing for marriage.
I would advise against taking advice on marriage from someone who has NEVER been married other than the basics. The exception is Jesus. Until one has lived through the trials and tribulations of a good or bad marriage, they are only sharing 'hearsay'.
I know too many couples who portray a 'great' marriage while in public but are in a living nightmare when out of the public eye (men and women).
There is much to learn from those women who have lived in total submission to men who have been abusive, totalitarian, neglectful, and eventually unfaithful as men who have experienced abuse, disrespect, neglect, unfaithfulness.
Just because someone is divorced does not mean they did not live according to the Biblical guidelines. Just because someone is married for a long time means that their marriage is one to model.
The whole subject of divorce would not have to be addressed in the Bible if it wasn't a reality of life.
why is divorce so rampant and also a last resort to a failed marriage.
Posted : 12 Oct, 2013 04:53 PM
Why not? He could probably give some advice on what not to do. Or maybe he had worked his way to the top financially but gave it all up because he was like Zaccheus and got his money illegally.
Or maybe she was wealthy until her ex husband stole or extorted the money from her.
So many experiences to learn from others...good and bad. Never discount the advice that you might receive from someone who has experienced misfortune in marriage, wealth, work, etc.
why is divorce so rampant and also a last resort to a failed marriage.
Posted : 13 Oct, 2013 02:29 AM
The father might sort him out, but I'd say he's pretty close to dad. I think when he isn't walking alone he's walking with Christ. I'd have tattled on him to the Lord a long time ago if I didn't expect a rebuke from the father, saying "This is my son, and his love of the truth gives me great joy."
:ROFL: It's a shame too, for I dearly love to tattle.
