-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Proof or preference
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
maybe more like be the husband of only 1 wife, no polygamy?
Polygamy was not widely practiced among the Jews of the period but polygamy did exist.
Although there is no mention of the need for polygamous marriages to break up in the Bible, it was clearly not the norm and something that Paul believed should not be promoted as the ideal.
The idea of being faithful to one wife is considered nearly impossible by the apostles at first.
Matthew 19:8-10 NLT
[8] Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. [9] And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery-unless his wife has been unfaithful." [10] Jesus' disciples then said to him, "If this is the case, it is better not to marry!"
Jesus was simply asking for the men to stay faithful to one wife.
Obviously not considered easy at that time which is why man of one wife is considered and still is a rather difficult burden for many men to make.
Although there is no mention of the need for polygamous marriages to break up in the Bible, it was clearly not the norm and something that Paul believed should not be promoted as the ideal.
The idea of being faithful to one wife is considered nearly impossible by the apostles at first.
Matthew 19:8-10 NLT
[8] Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. [9] And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery-unless his wife has been unfaithful." [10] Jesus' disciples then said to him, "If this is the case, it is better not to marry!"
Jesus was simply asking for the men to stay faithful to one wife.
Obviously not considered easy at that time which is why man of one wife is considered and still is a rather difficult burden for many men to make.
This is one set of verses that I suggest the NIV has chased after popular opinion rather than the perfect truth.
Twice in Matthew this topic is addressed. (Matthew 5 and 19)
Neither place is suggesting divorce is permitted following the consumption of the marriage.
You lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Husband of one wife.
On the second, I have heard some preachers express it as “one at a time.” That excludes polygamy, but also opens the door wide for serial monogamy.
While I do think Paul’s expression excludes polygamy, I do not think that is primarily in view. Why? Because of the similar expression in reference to widows— wife of one man (1 Timothy 5:9). Women married to multiple men (polyandry) was not common; a faithful long-term marriage would be the idea.
there are grounds for biblical divorce....
perhaps you respond as did those of whom Moses had to present and not as Christ?
Very ignorant response.
you obvious have limited understanding of the verses in Matthew.
Jesus himself stated adultery broke the relationship, correct?
I agree. Men never seem to see the truth if it goes against there wants and desires.
MB
To consider ANY passage in Matthew in proper application, it must be placed in context of the thinking of the Jews. This principle is also true with James and Hebrews. Leaving out that contextual consideration can and has been shown, even on the BB, to lead to erroneous conclusions.
For example the presentation that some human can prevent entry into heaven using a reference to Matthew.
To place adulterers as an exception citing Matthew would then negate the authority of God concerning consummation - “no man put asunder”
Too often, believers grab some word(s) in a verse and cling to it irrespective of the context both textually and culturally. Perhaps that is done by some who have posted on the thread.
When I started this thread I figured some would gravitate to the statements mentioned above found in Matthew. Didn’t take long.
For those who read but do not post, perhaps it is prudent to understanding the words “except adultery” as found in Matthew.
First, Hebrew marriage among the Jews of that day were extremely different then centuries later. The marriage involved these basic differences:
Examples:
Therefore, using Matthew as an excuse in the modern use is blatant disregard for the teaching of Scripture concerning acceptance of divorce.
The problem this thread was to address should not concern itself with Matthew in clarification of principles concerning acceptable divorce.
Rather, This thread is about the matter of interpretation of Timothy.
Is it appropriate to insert “one woman at a time” (removing polygamy which was NOT practiced regularly at that time) or “one wife” (until death do us part) as the standard communicated by Paul?
Seems to me that Paul is stressing commitment in the picture of Christ and His Church should be portrayed unblemished to the worldly.
That one divorced or having a polyamory/polygamy live is excluded As being unqualified.
Does not Scripture teach one who “marries” the divorced person lives in an adulterous relationship?
When I started this thread I figured some would gravitate to the statements mentioned above found in Matthew. Didn’t take long.
For those who read but do not post, perhaps it is prudent to understanding the words “except adultery” as found in Matthew.
First, Hebrew marriage among the Jews of that day were extremely different then centuries later. The marriage involved these basic differences:
- A contractual public ceremony (typically arranged) was performed. Such removed both from the marketplace of being available for any other relationship.
- The wife would return after the ceremony to the father’s (or family head) house and there to remain in wait for the groom.
- The groom was to go to his family home and add to it thereby preparing a place for his bride.
- When the father (or head of the family) of the groom approved and declared the dwelling place for the bride complete, the groom returned to the bride’s place and took her from there to his own place.
- At that time the marriage was consummated and the “two became one flesh,” God uniting them - “let no man put asunder.”
Examples:
Joseph was willing to put Mary aside privately rather than making a public spectacle of her.
Parables of the ten virgins
Example of Christ and the church.
Parables of the ten virgins
Example of Christ and the church.
Therefore, using Matthew as an excuse in the modern use is blatant disregard for the teaching of Scripture concerning acceptance of divorce.
The problem this thread was to address should not concern itself with Matthew in clarification of principles concerning acceptable divorce.
Rather, This thread is about the matter of interpretation of Timothy.
Is it appropriate to insert “one woman at a time” (removing polygamy which was NOT practiced regularly at that time) or “one wife” (until death do us part) as the standard communicated by Paul?
Seems to me that Paul is stressing commitment in the picture of Christ and His Church should be portrayed unblemished to the worldly.
That one divorced or having a polyamory/polygamy live is excluded As being unqualified.
Does not Scripture teach one who “marries” the divorced person lives in an adulterous relationship?
That statement of jesus would be applied towards all marriages, not just Jewish ones of that time, as Adultery to God severs the covenant relationship, as did physical death of one of the parties!
There are indeed scriptural grounds for a divorce, and if the remarried are really saved, the blood of Jesus cannot make that new marriage undefiled in sight of God then?
In the gentile marriage when consummation happens more often prior to formal public declaration of agreement, there is NO grounds for divorce.
The unbeliever may certainly choose a different course, that conforms to Paul’s instructions for believers.
Not true. Two things
The convent relationship in salvation is not man to God but God to man. Believers teach the message of reconciliation (as Paul stated).
The vows taken in the English gentile ceremony are vows made to God concerning not the partner to partner contract but the vow of conduct irregardless of the partner’s mental, emotional, physical, ... condition. That vow to God is NOT reliant upon the partner fulfilling some contract, but upon the promised made to God concerning their own conduct.
I have just seen persons "beaten to death" by some who hold to a non scripture viewpoint on divorce and remarriage!
Is that the result of your view?
Mine has never brought such results.
One, who is committed to God, His love and life daily lived through them and fulfilling the vows made to Him concerning this matter, does not result in such behavior as you describe.
Rather, such is quite evidenced in the shallow presentation you seem to have agreed to hold. A presentation that allows for any “except” after God has joined the two as “one flesh” does not follow Scriptures.