Divorce and remarriage

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Esaias, I don’t disagree with you, but have not caught up to you on all of your interpretation.

How do you understand this:

Romans 11:15
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Would not your understanding mean that the “receiving of them” as already taken place. If the gentiles and Israel are the same. It seems to me, Paul is making a distinction between Israel and the gentiles.

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
(Rom 11:5-11)

Paul is continuing the discussion from chapter 10 which is contrasting the old covenant Judeans with the new covenant believers (Christians). In chapter 11 he points out that many in Israel had failed to obtain what they were looking for (righteousness and maturity in relationship with God) but there were some who had, namely, the election, those called and chosen and who confirmed their election by believing in Christ. He then quotes the Psalm which talks about this fall or stumbling of many in Israel (which was a stumbling over the identity of the Christ due to their unbelief).

In these passages the term Israel is being used to refer those Israelites still in the old covenant with God (ie Judeans or "Jews"). Notice he talks about Israel not obtaining that which he seeketh. This can only refer to the Judeans because the northern House of Israel never did seek after God, it was one apostasy after another from their beginning as a separate nation under Jereboam until their divorce by God and carrying away by Assyria.

So he points out at Israel's rejection of Christ (ie Judean unbelief) has resulted in the Good News going out to the nations (specifically the divorced House of Israel, and by extension to all other nations and families on earth). Thus the fall of the (unbelieving Judeans) has resulted in the salvation of the nations. Then he says this:

Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
(Rom 11:12)

In other words, if the Judean fall from grace has resulted in such benefit and blessing to the world and the nations, how much more would a Judean return to God under the new covenant be? How much more a blessing to the world would that be? A rhetorical question, obviously. It was meant to counteract a feeling among the gentile Christians that God had completely abandoned the Judeans altogether, that they had fallen without any possibility of reconciliation. For example:

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
(Rom 11:17-24)

Paul concludes with this:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
(Rom 11:25-32)

All Israel was to be saved. Not that every single Israelite was to be saved, obviously, because only a remnant according to election ever did or will be saved. But rather, that the national (actually multi-national) group descended from Abraham is predestined to be in the new covenant with God through Jesus Christ. This means "the fullness of the Gentiles/nations" are to come in. Israel was to become a fullness (pleroma) or "multitude" of nations, and they were (as per Hosea ch 1) to be reconciled to God. Them, along with the elect remnant of the Judeans, constitute "all Israel". All Israel being saved is fulfilled by the fullness of the nations coming in (the reconciliation of the divorced House of Israel) to the One Body united with believing Judeans (again, as Hosea prophesied and as Paul affirmed was happening already in his day in Romans 9).

Now Paul talking about "the receiving of them" is in the context of Gentile Christians not boasting against Judeans (thinking the Judeans were utterly and irreparably cut off from God with no hope of reconciliation). I don't think he was talking about some specific (future) time in which there would be some kind of "receiving of the Judeans", but rather was talking about how awesome it is when any Judean becomes a believer in Jesus, that such was entirely possible, and that such ought to be considered a worthy goal to work towards and to pray for.

I think the confusion is that scripture mention Israel as a physical nation of people and also a spiritual kingdom of people, but they are not always one and the same.

Well, here are the meanings and uses of the term "Israel":

1. A title given to Jacob adopted as a personal name
2. The name of Jacob's descendants
3. The name of the ten-tribe northern Kingdom that separated from Judah during the civil war under Rehoboam
4. The legal name of all who were under the Sinaitic Covenant
5. The legal name of those in the New Covenant

The reason for the last two is because "Israel" is the basic legal name for God's covenanted people. Those in Israel who rejected Jesus lost their citizenship as far as God was concerned, just as those in Israel who rejected God and the Sinaitic Covenant lost their citizenship (see Hosea, etc).

Non Israelites who adhere to the Covenant are granted citizenship status. This was true under the Sinaitic Covenant, and remains true under the New Covenant.

The idea that there is a "spiritual Israel" that "has nothing to do with the decendants of Jacob" is completely unbiblical, and was developed by the Catholic Church in order to promote their "universalism" (catholicity, catholic means "universal") as they were creating an empire based on religion to carry on what the Roman Empire had started - an Empire based on civic status rather than national origin or membership.

The Israel of God is the same Israel of old, just under the new covenant instead of the old covenant. Members of all nations who came under the old covenant were granted a citizenship status in Israel, and the same is true today.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I'm not sure he is saying that, but he can clarify. What I understand is that his point is that the Gospel is coming as a reconciliation to the House of Israel, which are spread out among, and mingled with the Gentiles, and the Gentiles themselves are also saved by joining the remanent turning back to God.

It stands in contrast with the idea that the descendants of Abraham by flesh took a second seat and the Gentiles (defined as not descendants of Abraham by the flesh) now took the first seat as the people of God. Instead, Esaias' point comes down to the idea that it is not the case, but that with Christ, the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh are still in the first seat. And the emphasis on the Gentiles in the NT, takes a different meaning when you understand it, in the context of salvation, as a reference to the House of Israel primarily, and then then the rest of Gentiles, that joined them in their turning back to God. It is a reinterpretation of "Gentiles" in the NT to keep the descendants according to the flesh in the first seat.

Heb 8:8 KJV - (8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

It has to do with the "graffed" or "grafted" theology, which plays nicely with the Sabbath keeping.

I somewhat agree with his point.

The original Divine Calling upon Abraham was to be a blessing to all nations, tribes, families, tongues on earth, ie to all the various distinct ethnic groupings. He was to be a Father of many nations, not just by physical descent, but by moral example. Israel's purpose was to carry out that mission:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
(Deu 4:5-8)

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.
(Isa 2:2-5)

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
(Isa 49:3-7)

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Mat 28:18-20)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The apostles expected a restoration of natural Israel it appears here.

Acts 1:6
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

I completely forgot to address this point, although I touched upon it indirectly in my earlier replies.

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
(Act 1:6-8)

Some take this to be evidence that the apostles were under a delusion and didn't understand that Jesus had no intention of restoring any kingdom to Israel. I disagree, as they had just spent 40 days with Him as He taught them about the Kingdom:

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
(Act 1:3)

I think it is ridiculous to think the apostles just completely missed everything He taught them for 40 days. The fact they had an expectation of the Kingdom being restored to Israel strongly implies Jesus taught them exactly that. The question is not "would the Kingdom be restored to Israel", but rather "what does that mean?"

The disciples asked "Is now the time?" The answer is that they were not allowed to know the times and seasons that God chooses not to reveal to them. The answer was simply "I'm not telling you the time frame". So they did not at that time know the time frame.

Now, the real question is "what does that mean?" What does it mean to "restore the Kingdom to Israel"? It cannot mean to simply restore Judea to sovereign independent monarchy, free from Roman political rule. Jesus had been teaching them for 3.5 years about the nature of the Kingdom. He had just spent 40 days with them teaching on the same subject. The idea that Messiah was going to establish Himself as an earthly monarch and wage a physical military war of independence against Rome was discountenanced by Him at every opportunity.

So what does it mean?

What is the Kingdom? It is the rule of God through the instrumentality of His Anointed One (His Christ, or "Messiah"). How is that rule effected, under the new covenant?

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(Heb 8:8-10)

So restoring the Kingdom to Israel (notice they didn't say Judea) involves the conversion of Israel to Christ. So I can see they were perhaps wondering if it was all going to happen right then. He resurrected, and so now can triumphantly walk into the Temple and declare Himself the Anointed Messiah and demonstrate His Messiah-ship with acts of divine power. Or perhaps he could just somehow by divine power cause mass conversion of Israelites. "What is the time frame for the new covenant to be effectual throughout Israel?" is essentially what they were asking. And the answer is "Never you mind about the time frame."

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Actually, it's only complicated because the Bible sometimes gets in the way of our eschatology and theology.

Hosea prophesied the reconciliation of the House of Israel (not to be confused with the House of Judah, they are two separate but related entities):

And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.
(Hos 1:4-11)

According to the prophecy,:

1. The House of Israel was to lose their independent sovereign kingdom.
2. The House of Israel was to lose their lawful status as God's people.
3. This means they would essentially be classed as "gentiles" or placed in the same legal category as the heathen nations.
4. The House of Judah would retain their lawful status as God's people.
5. Nevertheless, the House of Israel would increase in number to be a vast innumerable multitude of people.
6. At some point, the House of Israel would be reconciled to God and be called "children of the living God".
7. In conjunction with this reconciliation, the House of Israel and the House of Judah would be rejoined together as one people.
8. This rejoining of the two Houses would include both of them acknowledging/recognizing One Leader (Messiah).
9. The reunited Messianic Israel would no longer be based in Palestine but would spread abroad.

Now, it is one thing to speculate about the historical fulfillment of prophecy. It is another thing entirely when the Bible itself specifies the historical fulfillment of prophecy. And the Bible identifies THIS prophecy SPECIFICALLY as beginning its fulfillment in the first century as an historical fact:

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
(Rom 9:21-26)

According to the apostle Paul:

1. God formed out of ONE LUMP two separate vessels (one to honour, and one to dishonour).
2. The vessels of honour (mercy) are the called (the elect), who have been preordained to glory, in other words believers in Jesus as Messiah.
3. Ergo, the vessels of wrath are the unbelievers.
4. The vessels of mercy/honour consist of both Judeans and Ethnoi (Jews and Gentiles).
5. This calling and uniting of Judeans and Ethnoi ("nations", "gentiles") is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Hosea previously quoted and analyzed.

Putting these two together, we can arrive at some necessary inferences:

• The Judeans ("Jews") in Paul's day were the House of Judah.
• The Ethnoi ("nations", or "gentiles") in Paul's day were the House of Israel. Remember, the House of Israel had been cut off by God and reclassified as "Not-My-People", ie "Not Israel" (legally), ie "heathens, the nations, gentiles".
• The Jews and Gentiles being united in Christ through the preaching of the apostle(s) was the reuniting of the House of Judah and the House of Israel as one people under One Leader, and being identified as "the children of the living God".

Therefore, the prophecy in Hosea, and the reconciling of the House of Israel back to God, and their reunion with the House of Judah, as one people, the children of the living God, under Messiah, was undergoing its fulfillment in the first century. The believing Jews in Paul's day were the believing House of Judah, and the believing gentiles/Greeks/nations in Paul's day were none other than the formerly cast off House of Israel who were becoming believers in Jesus Christ.

Both groups (Jews and Gentiles) referenced by Paul must be both groups referenced by Hosea (Judah and Israel). Paul even says the believers and unbelievers were made of the same ORIGINAL lump, and used the allegory of the potter and the clay. The potter and the clay is an old testament allegory used by Isaiah and Jeremiah to refer to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the national group Covenantally established by God.

Historically, it is a well established and provable fact that Christianity did not remain in Palestine. Especially after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church (reunited Judah and Israel under Messiah) spread abroad and was no longer tied to the physical land over there in the Levant.

The spread of the Gospel was to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel":

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
(Mat 15:21-24)

Israel (the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) were the people previously ordained by God to glory:

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
(Rom 9:1-5)

The elect are those who were "foreknown" and predestinated to glory:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
(Rom 8:28-30)

Whom did He "foreknow"? Israel (both Houses):

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)

The Israelites are the people whom God foreknew, and thus they are the ones who were called, and chosen (elect), and predestined for adoption as children of the living God, and predestined for glorification with Christ. These Israelites existed in two groups, one known in the first century as "Jews", and the other known in the first century as "gentiles" or "Greeks". The first century gentiles were the House of Israel that had been divorced and legally cut off from God, called to be reconciled to God through Christ and the Gospel (Good News). The progress of the Gospel has been primarily to those same people throughout most of history, which makes sense since from the time of their beginning they were prophesied to spread abroad in all directions, increase into a vast innumerable multitude, and become a multitude of nations, and eventually acknowledge Jesus as LORD and Christ, and take the Gospel and the knowledge of God to ALL nations, families, tribes, tongues, etc upon the face of the earth, to be a blessing to ALL nations, families, tribes, etc.

Good stuff. Is it possible you could email this to me.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Good stuff. Is it possible you could email this to me.

Well, pm me your email and I can copy the post and send it. OR you could just copy the post and have it without having to wait on me?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, pm me your email and I can copy the post and send it. OR you could just copy the post and have it without having to wait on me?

I tried copy and pasting using my phone but could it to copy all of it. I'll send pm

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I tried copy and pasting using my phone but could it to copy all of it. I'll send pm

Ok, a little later tonight when I get back to my laptop I'lI send it to you in an email.

[james34]

Just to keep this alive, If one marries , they are bound to that spouse as long as they are alive. If the spouse dies they are then and only then “free to remarry”.

In the “fornication clause”, The word fornication did not mean adultery. A writing of divorcement, allowed by Moses, did not contradict the law. According to Jesus the divorcement contradicted the will of God which was “from the beginning”. The law of adultery was that they were stoned. Jesus could have said that Moses allowing divorcement contradicted the punishment that was already in place by law( to be stoned) but he did not. He said that it was against the will of God from the beginning, this therefore is dealing with something different than the abolishing of an established marriage.

It falls more in line with an espousal situation, such as Joseph and Mary.

[james34]

Bump

[good samaritan]

Jesus addresses the issue of stretching Moses bill of divorcement in its application to every cause.

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?

Divorce is legitimate in the case of fornication, which is inclusive of adultery and all sexual sin.

Culture has dramatically changed from biblical times. The bill of divorcement was in regards to a “man” putting away his wife and not the other way around. Women in days gone past where dependent on their husbands for being a provider, teacher, leader in the homes. For a women to leave her husband, it meant a life of shame and poverty.
It was not typical nor acceptable for a wife to leave her husband, but it was mostly wicked men that where incontent to have only one wife.

Husbands must exhibit the same love and loyalty that Christ does for His Church. The wife must have the same characteristics of loyalty and submission that the church has for Christ.

If we commit infidelity in marriage, we break the contract of marriage and divorce is inevitable. If a spouse truly repents of their infidelity, it is at the discretion of the innocent party if they will be reconciled. God has demonstrated forgiveness over spiritual infidelity, if the children of Israel would repent and turn from their idolatry.