Cleaving and Putting Asunder: Marriage and Divorce

In a Christian marriage ceremony the groom and bride exchange covenantal promises with one another and make vows to God that the marriage will continue “until death do us part.” God says of the marriage relationship, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt 19:6). Sadly and unfortunately, the covenantal promises to one another and vows to God notwithstanding, some Christians choose to terminate their marriage before death by divorce.

Cleaving and putting asunder:

The word cleave = to glue, to stick, to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly. The word implies permanence.

The word asunder = all to pieces, one part from the other, to shred. To put asunder is to tear. The same Greek word for asunder is used in Acts 1:18,: “Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

It is God that joins together in marriage. The two are one flesh. It is impossible to separate one flesh. But it is possible for one flesh to be torn, cut and, broken asunder by divorce.

It is God that commands that marriage not be put asunder – torn, cut, or broken apart.

Divorce hurts, but it does more than hurt. It causes anguish, anger, animosity, and bitterness – spiritually and emotionally of the husband/wife, children, extended families, and friends. Divorce is one tragedy that is worse than death. It never ends.

Marriage breakdown and violence:

There are ever-increasing reports of meaningless, senseless violence wracking havoc in every segment of our society. Polls report that most perpetrators of this violence are products of broken families. Children and teenagers are either living in a single-parent home (single as the result of divorce or a parent who never married) or living in a foster home. But the violence that makes the news merely serves as a cover for the mass of unreported violence.

Divorce, remarriage, broken families, a step-parent home, a cohabitation home, a foster home are the root cause of most of today’s anguish, anger, animosity, bitterness, and violence.

Here’ one person’s thoughts:

The divorce statistics have fluctuated some but basically, they haven’t moved much in years. The rate of divorce for first marriages is close to 50%; for second marriages, it is close to 66%.

So it probably doesn’t come as a surprise that you or someone you know has had experience with divorce.

In my family, the divorce tally is: my parents, two aunts, an uncle, a sister (twice), and a stepbrother. My parents both remarried to spouses who were also divorced. All told, total divorces: 9. Total number of children impacted: 16.

The National Opinion Research Council conducted a survey of adult children of divorce that spanned more than 20 years. Here’s what they found: In 1973, adult children of divorce were 172% more likely to get divorced than adult children from intact homes. In 1999, adult children of divorce were only 50% more likely to get divorced than adult children from intact homes … which sounds like good news.

However, the bad news is that the survey also found a 26% lower rate of marrying in the first place among adult children of divorced parents.

The reality is that your parents’ divorce will have an impact on your marriage. We first learn about love and marriage from our parents. We learn what it means to be a man, woman, husband, wife, mother and father from them. We learn about trust. We learn how to handle conflict and difficult times … or, not. Leslie Doares

Responding to the crisis:

All of the teachings of God’s Word on marriage, divorce, and remarriage notwithstanding, it is a fact that an ever-increasing number of people, including Christians, are divorcing and remarrying. Sadly, some are now divorcing and remarrying multiple times. Among the many factors contributing to this divorce epidemic are: One, neglect by the Church in scripturally preaching and teaching on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, and two, “no-fault” divorce laws in all 50 states.

Only the Lord’s Church can provide the truth and solution to the rapidly increasing divorce epidemic. But this will happen only when the Church and Christians choose to agree with God about marriage and divorce. Divorce violates God’s Word and orderly way. God hates divorce. We must hate what God hates. The sin of divorce must be acknowledged, confessed, repented of, and forsaken. Of course, God will forgive the sin of divorce if and when the terms of His Word are met.

The past cannot be relived and, generally speaking, the past cannot be changed for those who have experienced divorce and remarriage. And let’s face it. The combined efforts of the Church and the legislature will never completely eliminate divorce under the best of circumstances. But since divorce is first and foremost a spiritual issue and not principally a legal problem, the Church must provide the leadership to stop the hemorrhaging and minimize the damages of divorce in the future.

Christians who have divorced and/or divorced and remarried are not offended by nor do they object to and resent Scriptural preaching on these subjects if they have truly dealt with the subject in obedience to God’s Word. Rather, they will joyfully accept such preaching as a springboard of praise and rejoicing that God has extended His grace and forgiveness to them.

Reaping the whirlwind:

Having sown to the wind by rejecting God’s ordained and orderly way of marriage America is now reaping the whirlwind.

Biblical marriage of “one man for one woman and one woman for one man until death do us part” is now the exception and not the rule; biblical families are now the exception and not the rule; divorce and divorce and remarriage are now practiced and accepted as the norm; cohabitation is now practiced and accepted as the norm; interracial marriage is now practiced and accepted as the norm; ‘same-sex marriage’ is now practiced and accepted as the norm. God’s ordained foundation and original building design for marriage and families has once again been perverted and is in shambles.

First things first:

America’s so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ debacle is will never be solved until God’s ordained orderly way of marriage is obeyed. A Herald subscriber said it well, “The final litmus test for all parts of our pagan American culture including Christendom will be the homosexual issue. Embrace and live at “peace,” reject and live under growing scorn and eventual persecution. When a people reach a point of utter generational rebellion and reprobation the Lord turns them over to the destruction of their vile choices (Rom 1). As they grow in reprobation those choices become holy and sacred to those that embraces them. Thus, the divide between the righteous and wicked will grow in increasing animosity for An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, And he who is upright in the way is an abomination to the wicked. Proverbs 29:27. Never the twain shall meet … even so come Lord Jesus!”

By Robert McCurry – The Wake-Up Herald –

The Missing 13th Amendment

From the ACS Editor: Judge Dale also explains how the momentous Supreme Court decision, Bond v. US (2000), was intentionally buried to prevent the people from finding out about the faux USA corporate government that has been unlawfully ‘slid’ into place.

On or about March 20, 2013, the New Hampshire Legislature passed HB 638, recognizing Article XIII, known by few as: “The Missing 13TH Amendment,” missing from the organic Constitution of the United States of America and the legislative analysis that was offered, described a trite but secret history of this mystical amendment, which I have encapsulated as follows:

RE: During the American Civil War, the country was under Martial Law by President Lincoln and after the War, Lincoln’s policies were to be abated and everything was supposed to return to normal but it didn’t happen quite that way. Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which created a government corporation within the District of Columbia, called: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This new government corporation replaced the Municipal Charter for the District of Columbia, a move that egregiously led to the fraudulent rewrite and adoption of what appeared to be the organic American Constitution. This erroneous rewrite is described as a corporate “mission statement” with the original 13TH Amendment “omitted” and it was this Constitutional rewrite that was inadvertently published for all to see.

Members of royalty, PhD’s, lawyers, squires and bankers, “Titles of Nobility,” have left an historic wake of deceit, destruction and corruption behind them on this planet and I would like to believe that it was the majority intent of the Founding Fathers and the first federal convention, to shield America from those proven elements of destruction and corruption. In so doing they proposed and ratified several amendments, one being Article XIII or the 13th Amendment, specifically designed to bar candidates who held such “Titles of Nobility,” from ever holding a seat in government! Each year since 1871, Lincoln’s Martial Law has been renewed by Congress and currently, all state and federal governments are dominated by legislators with, “Titles of Nobility.” What was once regarded as a service to country is now a political career.

Quote: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens at all, you can bet it was planned that way.” Franklin D. Roosevelt

The described “omission” of Article XIII [the missing 13th Amendment] and the “mission statement” the fraudulent copy of the organic constitution initiates the following [ten] questions, which I will attempt to answer as succinctly as I can.

QUESTION 1: How do you “omit” a Constitutional Article when they are all sequentially numbered?

ANSWER 1: Obviously this is a lawyer’s response by the New Hampshire Legislature because you cannot simply “omit” a Constitutional Amendment, they are sequentially numbered! The original Article XIII was intentionally and methodically removed from existence, which took a number of years to complete and was NOT simply “omitted.” It required a conspiracy; a federal rewrite; the removal of all former texts and references to the original Article XIII and the domination of all the various state government legislatures by candidates holding, “Titles of Nobility,” who would be willing to save their careers at any cost, thus proving that this was all intentional on their part to complete and sustain its demise.

QUESTION 2: Why didn’t Lincoln’s Martial Law policies abate and the government return back to normal following the Civil War?

ANSWER 2: The federal government for the American Republic had IMPLODED when the southern states decided to secede from the Union and walk out while Congress was still in session. Absent the presence of those southern state delegates, Congress could not adjourn and could not move forward for lack of a quorum! President Lincoln became the federal law under Martial Law until a new federal government could be assembled.

QUESTION 3: President Lincoln was a lawyer, a Title of Nobility, and several delegates and predecessors’ were lawyers! Now how can that be, given that the original 13th Amendment prohibited persons possessing a, “Title of Nobility,” from ever holding a seat in government and given that the 13th Amendment had not been “omitted” until 1871, during the Lincoln Administration?

ANSWER 3: The Truth is that the American Republic never enjoyed a Constitutional government beginning with the election of George Washington. George took office one year before the Constitution permitted; he subsequently overthrew the organic Constitution; reinstated the British owned Virginia Colony Corporation; altered the Oath of Office requirements; installed a corporate Military government in place of a Civilian government and replaced the Common Law with a commercial law known as “Admiralty” or “the law of the sea.” George then declared that: “All of America is now under water!” George was a 32nd Degree Freemason and a descendent of William, the Prince of Orange, the Sovereign King of America, according to the signed copy of the, “Paris Treaty of 1783.” This gave him the notion that….

By Judge Dale (retired) – AntiCorruption Society –

The Liberty to Leave

As the Scots debate independence, the British government has responded with every argument imaginable—except the threat to invade. Prime Minister David Cameron is no Abraham Lincoln.

So also it appears with Catalonia’s push for a referendum to secede from Spain, though the latter responded far less gently to Basque separatism in past years. No one threatened military action during Quebec’s lengthy flirtation with independence from Canada. The Czechoslovakian government peacefully, even cheerfully, bade farewell to Slovakia two decades ago.

Still, not everyone is willing to accept smaller territories going their own way. Yugoslavia broke up with an orgy of violence. Oddly, the United States supported every resulting independence bid, except those mounted by Serbs. The latter were expected to live under Muslim-Bosnian, Croatian, and Kosovar-Albanian majorities, irrespective of the rulers’ brutality. Washington even mounted a military campaign to break Kosovo off of Serbia, while reacting hysterically to similar Russian behavior toward Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which seceded from the country of Georgia. Washington responded equally badly to Crimea’s departure from Ukraine, though no one really knows the wishes of that majority-Russian land, since the official referendum was anything but fair.

In international politics the only rule regarding secession is that you get to do it if you can either convince or force the other party to agree. And there is no consistency even within a country. Today it is hard to imagine Washington launching drone strikes or sending in the 82nd Airborne if Texas voters approved an ordinance of secession.

Yet the U.S. government waged war on its own people during the American Civil War. In fact, it really wasn’t a “civil war,” which typically involves two or more parties seeking to control the territorial whole. In this case, it was a conflict over coerced union. Should states be prevented from severing a political connection they no longer support?

By DOUG BANDOW – The Freeman –