Titus 1:6-qualifications for clergy

Hi Larry. First, welcome back (yet again). You said; "Here is the dilemma for you: You say that porneia only occurs before marriage..." No dilemma for me at all. You have STILL not provided the chapter and verse in Matthew to prove your view that a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause. You cannot hide from this question by trying to obfuscate when asking new ones. You must first answer the OLD questions before proceeding to new ones. Please answer.

You have "quit" our dialogue twice now on this thread only to return. Fair Enough! That's okay with me. But you're "quitting" always comes at the moment you try to hide from answering a question. That is why you have not provided chapter and verse to my one simple question despite my repeated and best efforts to get you to do so. It is also why you have ducked the other question(s) too. So here it is AGAIN! "Where does it say in the book of Matthew that a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the "exception" clause. For the FIFTH time, Chapter and verse in Matthew please.

You have also STILL not commented on my Mark 10: 11 comments. For the fifth time please do so now. Here it is immediately below with Mark 10: 11 itself:

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10: 11)

Christ said EVERY MAN (whosoever) that remarries after divorce commits adultery (Mark 10: 11). If GOD "recognized" mans divorce (as you insist he does) then the LORD would not have referred to the remarriage in Mark 10:11 as "adultery." If GOD recognized mans divorce (as you insist GOD does) then Jesus would have referred to the Mark 10:11 remarriage as a marriage. But Jesus didn't! He did the opposite. He referred to the marriage in Mark 10: 11 as adultery. This means, without question, that EVERY MAN (whosoever) that is divorced, is STILL married in GOD's eyes even though a divorce had been obtained. Accordingly, GOD does not recognize divorce. Please comment.

You said; "Yet Chrsit said that it occurs in a husband wife relationship." You misunderstand what Christ said. Sexual relations outside of marriage by a married person is called adultery - NOT fornication. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a cheating married spouse to commit fornication. By definition, such an act is called adultery. It is positively ridiculous for you to insist otherwise. Your statement reveals how little you understand the verse, as well as the subject we have been debating. Copying and pasting what OTHER theologians have written, as you have done (whether some of them are right, wrong or partially right/wrong) illustrates that you look to "men" rather than the Bible to formulate your ideas. Perhaps that is why you cannot locate the chapter and verse in Matthew that I keep asking you to provide. Please provide it now.

You said; " You need to align your view with Christ." That is exactly what I believe you need to do. I'm already in alignment.

You said; " You have never reconciled how this clear exception clause given by Jesus does not contradict your favorite passage in Mark 10." You are jesting! I've been waiting for over five posts now for you to tell us what YOU think the "exception" clause means to you! You have steadfastly refused to answer. You want me to answer my own question that I put to you before you have answered it? That is ridiculous. Here is one question I asked of you REPEATEDLY concerning the exception clause during the past many posts which you repeatedly did not answer - and I quote; I asked you " For the sake of our discussion, why don't you tell me about the "exception" as you see it? Please cite the chapter and verse in your explanation." Your answer was that you wanted me to believe or understand your position without you're explaining it! You said; "Suffice it to say that Matthew 18 very clear says "except" and that is the exception clause." That is hardly an explanation of the exception clause (or an explanation of ANYTHING for that matter). So, I replied; " So you want me to believe or understand your Biblical point of view without your making any Biblical commentary concerning it? You are surely joking." So you see, I'm still waiting for YOUR answer. What does the exception clause mean to you? Tell us now.

You said; " Quit make these ridiculous accusations that I haven't addressed Scripture and read my posts." Your answers (or I should say lack of them) speak for themselves. You have OBVIOUSLY not answered. Where in this thread have you provided the Matthew chapter and verse that I have repeatedly asked you to quote? NOWWHERE! That is why I keep asking you the same question over and over again. I'll try yet again; "Please cite the chapter and verse in Matthew that says a woman can divorce her husband by operation of the exception clause." Please answer it this time. Thank you Larry.

 

Hi JohnWells. You said; " And I have also provided explanations of the "exception" statement by Jesus at least three times,.. No you haven't. I'm still waiting for you to cite the chapter and verse in Matthew that say's a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause as you insist she can. Please provide it now. This is your last chance. latterrain77

 

Hi Bro. Jeff. I have not missed your terrific question and was hoping to answer it today because Larry had quit the discussion yesterday. However, given that Larry is back, I will respond to your question a little later. In all Christian charity, I want to provide another opportunity to Larry and JohnWells to answer the question(s) I have repeatedly put to them (which they both have refused to even acknowledge let alone answer). I want to go that one EXTRA mile with them (Matt. 5: 41). Thanks again Bro. Jeff! latterrain77.

 

My last chance or what? Grow up! I have answered this on:

Page 1, post 9
Page 2, post 10
Page 4, posts 5,10
Page 5, post 2

Can you read? Hint: It's the verse with "except" in it!

 

LEARN TO READ. I have answered this question several different times.

Let me quote again verbatim from what I earlier said. Get it this time please: In a nutshell, Christ gives a valid divorce exception in which case a person is free to remarry. The shorter clauses should be viewed as condensations of the longer explanations since Christ's teachings do not contradict. This is from August 15 at 12:30pm. I have answered it other times as well. I don't see why you are bent on ignoring the answer to this question. Mark 10:11 does not stand in isolation. Matt 19 is the same discussion. These two passages harmonize as in my position; they do not contradict as you have them doing. I have answered this question.

I quit because you refused to discuss Scripture. I came back because you made an attempt, a poor one, but an attempt nonetheless to discuss a point. I refuted it.

I have never hid from a question. I have answered every single one of them. You can read the posts for evidence.

I answered this already. Here it is again, cut and paste from where I answered your question the first time: Yes, same chapter and verse as well as 1 Cor 7. It is talking about the marital relationship. In the first century, males were typically the ones who initiated divorce. Therefore it is addressed to them. This is from Aug 19 and 3:27pm. See, everytime I have answered your question. You simply do not want to do the homework to read closely enough and think through the issue.

What do you want me to comment on?? I showed you that Mark 10:11 must correlate with Matt 19. You cannot just pretend like Christ didn't say what he said in Mark 10.

Except for the cause of fornication (Matt 19). Those are Christ's words, not mine.

He did the same thing in Matt 19 and included an exception clause, that you completely ignore. In addition, he provided an exception in 1 Cor 7 and makes the explicit statement that if someone remarries they have not sinned (1 Cor 7:27). This is direct and explicit refutation of your views from the words of Scripture itself.

This is failing to reckon with the plain words of the text. What else is there to say? I have shown you from Scripture that God gives two exceptions. You don't have to like it; you do have to follow it since it is the inspired word of God.

Except that those who understand the Greek language say you are wrong. BAGD, the standard lexicon for NT Greek, says that porneia includes adultery. You do not know what you are talking about if you disagree with this.

No it doesn't. It shows that I am aware of thinking that is going on. You have shown that you cannot reckon with even the most basic issues. You have your head in the sand on this. What my answers show is that I am not arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers. I do read others to find out what they are thinking, to consider their points and their explanations, to see if what they say explains Scripture. You need to do that. All wisdom does not lie with you. You cannot keep on making Scripture contradict itself.

[/'qb]So you now agree all of the sudden taht divorce ends a marriage??? What changed you??

You are simply not telling the truth. I can believe that you overlooked it once, but you now repeatedly and consistently "overlook" answers. Why?? Why do you play this charade??? Don't pretend. Step up to the plate and answer the questions. I have done that for every question you have asked. Why don't you do the same??

I did explain it. Several times. You simply are not prepared to handle it.

Look above. I answered it. Get your head out of the sand and pay attention.

You have your mind set on your position in spite of the fact that ample evidence has been given that you are wrong. You will not address Scripture. You have yet to show even one place where I have failed to answer your question. After my last post, it is flat out lie to say that I have not addressed the exception clause. Yet you made that exact statement. I gave all the various understandings, showed the strengths and weaknesses and drew a conclusion. Simply because you don't like the conclusion does not mean I didn't answer it.

 

Hi Larry. You said; " answered this already. Here it is again, cut and paste from where I answered your question the first time:..." NO you have not! You just can't do it can you? You simply cannot bring it upon yourself to cite the chapter and verse in Matthew that says a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause. You have NOT cited the chapter and verse in this thread anywhere. What is the chapter and verse in Matthew please. Cite it! Quote it too. Others may want to see the direct quote so that they can read it without having to look it up.

You said; "....as well as 1 Cor 7. It is talking about the marital relationship... " You mentioned 1 Cor. 7 but there is nothing in that chapter that says anything about an "exception clause." Please show us which verse in 1 Cor. 7 mentions an exception clause as you say it does. Cite it and quote it.

You said; " In the first century, males were typically the ones who initiated divorce. Therefore it is addressed to them..." Won't work. You are trying to make a cultural setting supplant explicit Biblical instruction. You have added to the Bible by doing this (Rev. 22: 18). Furthermore, women were not precluded from divorcing their husbands in the 1st Century either - so you are absolutely wrong even in your history as well as your Bible knowledge.

By your cultural (rather than Biblical) reasoning, it would mean that a woman could become a pastor in the church today because the only reason she wasn't allowed to be pastor "back then" is because the cultural setting in the 1 Century didn't allow it. It would also mean that homosexuals could become pastors in the church today by that same reasoning. It would also mean that children could disrespect their parents today because disrespectful children are more culturally acceptable today than they were in the 1rst Century. As earlier, you have yet again made another mistake just like the religious rulers of the Lord's day (Mark 7: 10-13). If your "cultural setting" concept were true, then there would be a myriad of explicit Biblical instructions undermined by your rewrite of the Bible as well as your rewrite of history.

You have FINALLY commented on one part of my comments concerning in Mark 10: 11 though it took FIVE requests to get you to do so. You said; He did the same thing in Matt 19 and included an exception clause,..." So, is it your position that the word "WHOSOEVER" in Mark 10: 11 does not mean "any that" divorce (i.e. "everyone")? Do you believe that Mark 10 even allows for divorce? If no, please confirm. If yes, please show WHERE in Mark 10: 11 it says that divorce is possible.

You said; "In addition, he provided an exception in 1 Cor 7 and makes the explicit statement that if someone remarries they have not sinned (1 Cor 7:27). This is direct and explicit refutation of your views from the words of Scripture itself." You are yet again explicitly and incredibly wrong. You have just quoted a verse that says the EXACT opposite of what you just said it says! 1 Cor. 7: 27 says;

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." (1 Cor. 7: 27)

There is absolutely NOTHING in this verse about an "exception clause" as anyone can see by simply reading it.

1 Cor. 7: 27 FLATLY states that if a person is married they are NOT to get divorced. No exceptions. It then says that if a person is already divorced they are NOT to seek a wife! No exceptions! 1 Cor. 7: 27 says the EXACT opposite of what you say it says and it says NOTHING about exceptions.

Furthermore, 1 Cor. 7:10-11 from the same chapter also refutes your preposterous read of 1 Cor. 7: 27. It says;

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

This language in 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 is so clear, that any First grade child could see it. But you can't! It says; LET NOT THE HUSBAND PUT AWAY HIS WIFE. It says, LET NOT THE WIFE DEPART FROM HER HUSBAND!

Significantly, Paul say's in these verses that GOD Himself has especially created this 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 command to the MARRIED. It says; "and unto the MARRIED I command, yet not I, BUT THE LORD, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." Can anything be clearer than that? Your "divorce is possible" doctrine is playing with fire. Why do you contradict the direct command of GOD that He has specifically commanded to the MARRIED?

Furthermore, 1 Cor. 7: 28 which when taken together with the rest 1 Cor. 7 shows that ONLY those who are eligible for marriage may marry. 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 (quoted above) already shows who is NOT eligible for divorce and marriage - and that command comes especially from GOD Himself to emphasize the point (see above). You have directly contradicted GOD's command with your above comment.

You said; " Except that those who understand the Greek language say you are wrong. BAGD, the standard lexicon for NT Greek, says that porneia includes adultery. You do not know what you are talking about if you disagree with this." Are you a Greek scholar? Well, you are wrong regardless. The word adultery and fornication are not bound to each other in Matthew 19. They are two separate words with two separate meanings. They are also in two separate parts of the verse itself. If not, and if the words are connected as you say they are, then it would mean that unmarried couples who commit fornication would be guilty of adultery. Your idea is patently absurd. If you don't see that, then you don't know what you are talking about.

The two words (fornication & adultery) are both used in Matthew but ONLY the word "adultery" is used in Mark 10 and Luke 16 on this subject. In Mark and Luke, the word "adultery" is used in connection with adultery within a married couple. Matthew alone contains the TWO words; fornication for what that word means outside of marriage, and Adultery for what that word means inside of marriage. Married people who have sexual flings commit adultery, single people doing the same commit fornication. The lack of the word fornication in Mark and Luke confounds your statement - as does the proper use of the words themselves.

You said; " No it doesn't. It shows that I am aware of thinking that is going on..." You are wrong. It shows that you are more focused on the teachings of men than the teachings of the Bible. You make the same mistake as the religious rulers of the Lord's day (Matt. 15: 9).

You said; " You have your head in the sand on this." No I don't. My head is very much above ground on this. The ones with their head in the sand on this issue are the ones who have been preaching your majority view with the monstrous results of raging divorce and broken homes among Christian families. The proof is in the pudding one might say. My way: Christian divorce low. Your way: Christian divorce BOOMS.

You said; " What my answers show is that I am not arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers." Then just say so if you don't have all the answers. No one will fault you for that. Nobody has all the answers. Isn't it better to just say you don't know than to play the games that you play avoiding, ducking and not answering? This is especially true since YOU are a pastor who is REQUIRED to be apt to teach (1 Tim. 3: 2). I have never said that I have all the answers. I'm searching in my Christian walk just like everybody else. If I didn't value the opinion of others I would have dropped this thread twenty posts ago.

You said; " All wisdom does not lie with you." You are absolutely correct. Nor does it lie with ANY man. Thanks be to GOD (Rom. 3: 4).

You said; "You cannot keep on making Scripture contradict itself." I have not done that at all. That is exactly what you have been doing (see my above comments to your 1 Cor. 7 comments for example).

You said; "So you now agree all of the sudden taht divorce ends a marriage??? What changed you??" Changed? GOD forbid! But you do have a bizarre sense of humor.

You said; " Why?? Why do you play this charade??? Don't pretend. Step up to the plate and answer the questions. I have done that for every question you have asked. Why don't you do the same??" Now I KNOW that you have a bizarre sense of humor. You are starting to sound like Rita Heyworth in that old movie "Lady From Shanghai."

You said; " I did explain it. Several times. You simply are not prepared to handle it." Hardly! That is precisely your dilemma.

You said; "Look above. I answered it. Get your head out of the sand and pay attention." Look above. You have NOT. You have still NOT provided chapter and verse in Matthew that says a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause. Look again - IT AIN'T their! See? Invisible! Your view of the "exception clause" is NOT their either - where did it go? - even though you have been asked repeatedly to provide it. It just isn't their.

You said; " You have your mind set on your position in spite of the fact that ample evidence has been given that you are wrong. You will not address Scripture." The exact opposite is true. There has been NO evidence provided on this thread by you or anyone else that has demonstrated your wrong position to be right or, which has caused me to change my opinion about my position.

You said; " Simply because you don't like the conclusion does not mean I didn't answer it." Hardly. No answer is NOT an answer. I don't like any of your conclusions but when you answer at least I'm satisfied that you have tried. In the meantime, you have STILL not provided the Matthew chapter and verse that says a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause. Please cite the chapter and verse in Matthew that says a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause. Please quote the verse too so that other readers of the thread can follow with more ease. Then, tell us what YOU think the exception clause means. Thank you Larry.

 

Say a married man divorces and subsequently repents and asks God's forgiveness and is indeed forgiven and the sin is remembered no more by God as though it never happened. Later, the man remarries. Still later, he feels the calling to go into the ministry and pastor a church. If God remembers no more, if God considers there never to have been a sin does anyone have a right to claim otherwise and bring the issue up and prevent this man from doing what God has called him to?

 

So a man living in unrepentant adultery can become a pastor?

 

I assume by this response to the hypothetical situation proposed, that you believe that one is married for life and only death ends a marriage. Granted that is the way God desires it, the way He created it, but it ignores God's grace!

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:8-9)

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. (1 Cor 7:15)

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

So we see scriptural grounds where God permits divorce based on marital infidelity, when a non-believer walks out on (abandons) a believer, and according to Deuteronomy, for irreconcilable differences.

While Christian marital counseling should accent that God hates divorce and forgiveness/healing by the parties to prevent divorce, it should not insist that there is no way out. Try telling a woman who has been beaten unconscious multiple times, or who has witnessed her daughter sexually abused by her husband over and over that there is no way out! God provides and permits a way out! And the divorce ends the marriage! Read the Deuteronomy passage above again very carefully. Matt 18:9 says God permitted Moses to give this decree. If a divorced woman can marry another man, then in God's eyes the divorce ended the previous marriage. The only thing "detestable" to God is for remarriage of a couple once either has married someone else.

To deny this is to challenge God's Word!

 

I did. I addressed this issue several times. Rather than ask me again, deal with what I previously said.

I already mentioned this but I will do it again for your sake, since you didn't read it the first time: 1 Corinthians 7:15 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

Wrong on both counts. I have not tried anything with the cultural setting except to practice what everyone else should: Understand teh audience being spoken to. I have added nothing to the Bible. The exception clause that you deny has been there all along.

You are wrong due to the fact that you didn't read what I said. I did not say that women were precluded from divorcing their husbands. If you would read closely you would have known that.

No it wouldn't because Paul's command uses creation reasons, not first century reasons. Knowing Scripture would have prevented this mistake on your part.

No because 1) homosexuality is condemned explicitly as sin; 2) homosexuals are not blameless; 3) Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God meaning that they are not saved. A unsaved person cannot lead a church. Again, knowing Scripture would have prevented you from drawing this utterly wrong conclusion.

No it wouldn't because the command to honor parents goes back to at least the 15th century BC (c. 1445BC) which is significantly prior to the first century context.

This statement is the simple result of speaking without thinking on your part. Everything you said in that paragraph was dead wrong and is shown to be by Scripture properly interpreted.

My position is that "whosoever" means the same in Mark 10:11 as it does in Matt 19:9. The Greek construction is even the same: Hos an apoluse ten gunaika autou. It seems to be your position that Christ was lying in Matt 19:9 when he gives the exception.

The verse I was referring was v. 28, a verse that you refuse to deal with honestly.

I wasn't referring to 7:27. I was referring to 7:28 which explicitly says that if a person described by v. 27 is married, then they have not sinned. I believe that; you do not. You also ignore the fact that v. 15 is in that context and says that divorce is allowed if the unbelieving partner desires to leave. Either brother or sister is free in that case. Notice how the wife is also allowed to divorce.

I agree. That is the ideal. But, to cite someone with far more authority than myself, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace" (v. 15). See the problem is that you do not like all of Scripture. You just like the parts that you agree with.

I don't. I have defended everythign I have said from Scripture.

And that eligibility includes those who have been "loosed from a wife." Therefore, it includes the divorced because that is what "loosed from a wife means" according to v. 27. They should not seek divorce. But if a divorce happens because hte unbelieving partner leaves, then they have not sinned if they remarry. That is the clear Scripture that, as you said, even a first grader should be able to understand. It is unfortunate that you reject it in favor of your own opinions.

I get around alright, apparently better than you do, since I know this and you don't.

So these great Greek scholars are wrong because you can read English?? I don't think so.

 

To continue my response to latterrain's continued insistence that I haven't answered his questions ...

But just "truck" and "automobile" have overlapping meanings, so do porneia and moicheia. That is the simple fact. It is up to you to adjust your theology to what Scripture says.

Think about what you just said. Christ, in that verse, says that a married person can be guilty of porneia. You disagree because you define porneia in a manner that precludes married people. Now who should we believe, you or Christ?? Hmmmm ... let's think about that one.

Both look at the obvious: Both words are used in the context of a married person.

What your position does is make sexual promiscuity before marriage more important then sexual promiscuity in marriage. You think that if a person is immoral before marriage divorce is permissable (in spite of the fact that they are not yet married). But if that immorality comes in marriage, then divorce is not permissable. Christ and Paul both show you to be wrong.

No, it actually shows that you misunderstand the nature of the gospels and their writing. You make Jesus out to be a liar because you narrow reading does not allow for the longer one. My longer reading allows for the shorter one.

I haven't said anything about the teachings of men. This is a ridiculous statement.

My way is that marriage is forever. God intended one man and one woman for one lifetime. Everythign else is the result of sin.

I haven't ducked anything, as evidenced by the fact that I keep coming back.

I have taught my people on this subject. Had you been there, you would have gained some understanding.

Then start listening and read what I actually say. I have answered all your questions.

yes it is. I can't make it anymore clear. You just are deciding not to read.

I have done both of these. I would appreciate it if, before you post here again, you study my posts and the Scripture and interact with them. If you find my answers inadequate, then cite the portion you find inadequate and interact with it. Don't keep posting this nonsense about me not answering your questions.

 

Hi Larry. You said, " I did. I addressed this issue several times..." I asked you repeatedly to CITE the chapter and verse in Matthew that says a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause. But you did NOT cite the chapter and verse or quote it anywhere on this thread. Never mind. I'm not going to ask you again. I asked you six times, I won't ask you a seventh. So be it.

You said; " I already mentioned this but I will do it again for your sake, since you didn't read it the first time: 1 Corinthians 7:15..." I already responded to this. I do again below.

You said; " I have not tried anything with the cultural setting except to practice what everyone else should:..." Yes you did.

You said; "Understand teh audience being spoken to..." You have EXTENDED the explicit players provided by GOD in Matthew 19, Luke 16, Mark 10.

You said; "I have added nothing to the Bible..." Yes you have. You added the word "women" to verses that explicitly say "men." If GOD wanted to include the word you added he would have done it without your help. GOD did include the word "women/wife" (for example) in 1 Cor. 7: 10-11. But he did NOT include it in Matt. 19, Mark 10, Luke 16. You did that all on your own.

You said; "The exception clause that you deny has been there all along..." I deny YOUR interpretation of the exception clause. I deny yours by default because you have STILL not told us what you think it means despite my asking you six times to tell us what it means. Your latest post is STILL missing your explanation of the exception clause.

You said; " No it wouldn't because Paul's command uses creation reasons,.." You are wrong. Your statement speaks for itself and was explicitly cultural.

You said; "No because 1) homosexuality is condemned explicitly as sin;.." And so is divorce and Matt. 19 is directed at MEN not women.

You said; "No it wouldn't because the command to honor parents goes back to at least the 15th century BC (c. 1445BC) which is significantly prior to the first century context..." You may respect your parents based upon some 15th century cultural settings that you cite. However, Christians respect their parents because the BIBLE tells them so including the 5th commandment (and in many cases parents deserve that respect and have earned it too).

You said; "This statement is the simple result of speaking without thinking on your part..." Not at all.

You said; "It seems to be your position that Christ was lying in Matt 19:9 when he gives the exception..." Not at all. It means your position is that Mark 10: 11 and 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 (for example) do not exist. It also means that you do not understand the meaning of the exception clause. And THAT is why you won't give us your explanation of the exception clause despite my repeated prodding for you to do so.

You said; "The verse I was referring was v. 28, a verse that you refuse to deal with honestly.." You are very wrong again. You specifically cited 1 Cor. 7: 27. Furthermore, I dealt with 1 Cor. 7: 28 in my last post too. So you are wrong in both instances.

Concerning my comments to 1 Cor. 7: 10-11, you said; I agree. That is the ideal..." It is not merely the "ideal" as you say. It is the COMMAND as 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 flatly says. More importantly, it is the SPECIALLY noted command from GOD Himself! In addition, it is a special command from GOD that is specifically directed at the MARRIED! Here is the 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 text for all to see with their own eyes;

"And unto the MARRIED I command, YET NOT I, BUT THE LORD, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." emphasis is mine.

So while you tell the married it's an "ideal," GOD tells the married that it's a COMMAND. When you counsel spouses in troubled marriages that staying together is an "ideal," GOD counsels spouses in troubled marriages that staying together is a COMMAND.

You said; "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace" (v. 15)." I already responded to 1 Cor. 7: 15 in a prior post. I said;

This "leaving" does not release from the marriage bond (as the preceding verses, particularly v11, show). We commonly refer to this as a "seperation" which is not divorce. It releases from the marital obligations (1 Cor. 7: 5, 1 Cor. 7: 3, Matt. 19: 5) which are impossible to conduct if an unbelieving spouse abandons and moves out. However, this does not release from the marriage itself which is forever (as v11 clearly shows). In such cases, only reconciliation is possible as v11 shows. In addition, this verse does not apply to "Christian couples" because the Christian couple are NOT unbelievers; a standard required by 1 Cor. 7: 15.

You said; "See the problem is that you do not like all of Scripture. You just like the parts that you agree with..." You are wrong. I already answered this question WAY earlier in the thread (see above where it was copied again). Unlike you, I love ALL of the Bible and that is why I work hard to stay faithful to what it says. That is why you NEVER cited the chapter and verse in Matthew that says a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause despite my asking you repeatedly to do so and, why you never provided your explanation of the "exception clause."

You said; " I don't. I have defended everythign I have said from Scripture." You have directly contradicted GOD's command in 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 in addition to your silence on citing the Matthew text and otherwise.

You said; " And that eligibility includes those who have been "loosed from a wife."" No it doesn't, unless the wife is dead. 1 Cor. 7: 39 says;

"the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." Again the Bible shows that you are not only wrong, but exceedingly wrong! You say one thing, the Bible says the exact opposite.

You said; "I get around alright, apparently better than you do, since I know this and you don't." I don't doubt for a moment that you "get around" as you say. You should spend more time trying to "get around" the Bible. I'm also thankful to GOD that I don't "know" the things that you claim to know.

You said; "So these great Greek scholars are wrong because you can read English?? Your Greek scholars are no better than the Greek in a Strongs concordance. The big difference is that I don't call any man "great" as you do. You reject Christ's teaching in your embarrassing and impressionable praise of men (Matt. 19: 17, James 2: 9). The word fornication is a sexual act that occurs PRIOR to marriage and, the word adultery is a sexual act that occurs between someone other than a spouse while married. That is the plainest English known to man. My Greek "sources" at Strongs agree. Your Greek sources probably spent too much time with Plato.

You said; " But just "truck" and "automobile" have overlapping meanings, so do porneia and moicheia. That is the simple fact...." Not at all. Adultery and fornication are two different words with two different meanings. Your claim that they "overlap" just because both have a sexual connotation is like saying that the word heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same because they "overlap" by virtue of sexual connotation. Each of these words have ENTIRELY different meanings with entirely different standing. Adultery is sexual relations OUTSIDE of marriage while one is married and, fornication is sexual relations PRIOR to marriage. Your saying otherwise is preposterous.

You said; "No, it actually shows that you misunderstand the nature of the gospels and their writing..." No, that is what it shows about you.

You said; " You make Jesus out to be a liar.." No, that is exactly what you do; for example your direct contradiction of 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 which illustrates but one example of how you make GOD out to be a liar (see above).

You said; "I haven't said anything about the teachings of men. This is a ridiculous statement." I asked you repeatedly to quote a chapter and verse in Matthew where you say it says a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause, and you repeatedly refuse to cite the chapter and verse from Matthew in the Bible. Yet, you can manage to cite, copy and paste a litany of commentaries authored by men in one of your posts! That speaks for itself. You lean on the teachings of men rather than the teaching of GOD.

You said; "My way is that marriage is forever..." Good! We agree. However, your "divorce is possible" doctrine proves that your way is other than what you say.

You said; "God intended one man and one woman for one lifetime..." It is more than "intended." GOD commanded one woman and one man for a lifetime (1 Cor. 7: 10-11, etc).

You said; " I haven't ducked anything, as evidenced by the fact that I keep coming back." You never cited chapter and verse in Matthew where you say it says that a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause despite my repeated request for you to do. You never explained your position
on the "exception clause" despite my repeated requests for you to do so. I call that "ducking."

You said; "I have taught my people on this subject... " Your people? Is that your bizarre sense of humor again? Last time I looked, I thought the church was GOD's people! (Matt. 16: 18, Eph. 1: 22, Eph. 5: 24, John 6: 39, etc.). Are you sure you are a Baptist?

You said; "...Had you been there, you would have gained some understanding." Had I been there I probably would have gained about as much understanding from you there as I have here - none! The only understanding that I've gained is how right I have been and how wrong you are.

You said; "Then start listening and read what I actually say. I have answered all your questions." No you haven't. You never cited chapter and verse in Matthew where you say it says that a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause despite my repeated request for you to do. You never explained your position on the "exception clause" despite my repeated requests for you to do so.

You said; " yes it is. I can't make it anymore clear. You just are deciding not to read." You could have cited the chapter and verse in Matthew with LESS words and less typing than contained in your response. Yet, you won't do it. You just can't do it. Six times I asked you to do it, but you would not. Thank you Larry. latterrain77

 

Hi Bro. Jeff and Larry. Bro. Jeff I'm following up on your earlier question. Larry, this is directed to you for your consideration as well.

Please comment on the following concerning Luke 16:18 which says;

"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." `

Think about this for a moment. Luke 16: 18 illustrates a situation where a husband has divorced his wife and married another woman. This husband has abandoned his first wife, entered into a new relationship with another woman and then married that woman. He has committed adultery against his first wife and he has left her. As a result, his first wife is now a divorced woman.

Now, if the common understanding of the "exception" clause were true, then this man's first wife should be free to remarry. HOWEVER, Jesus said the exact opposite of this woman in Luke 16:18. There, the LORD said that this woman, who was divorced by her husband, may NOT remarry, because if another man marries her, he commits adultery! Did you catch that? Read it again slowly to be sure. Then, please comment. Thanks! latterrain77

 

I understand what you are saying but I don't see how that answers what Jesus is trying to communicate in the passage in Matthew. Maybe I'm dense - you'll probably have to spell it out for me.

 

Hi Bro. Jeff. You said; "I understand what you are saying but I don't see how that answers what Jesus is trying to communicate in the passage in Matthew. Maybe I'm dense - you'll probably have to spell it out for me." You are not dense at all Bro. Jeff. You are intelligent. What this verse shows is actually an "anti-exception clause" as the exception clause concept is typically taught. The Luke 16: 18 text was provided for you and Larry to review to illustrate the point.

Let me ask you this Bro. Jeff. Since you can understand that Luke 16:18 is an "anti-exception" clause statement by the LORD, then what do you think the "exception clause" means? You seem to believe that Biblical divorce is a possibility under certain circumstances. Please tell me why you think that. Thanks Bro. Jeff. latterrain77

 

I'll address my stand on divorce in a moment but if you don't care I'd like to get a clearer understanding of your interpretation of the Matthew passage as it is one that I've never dealt with before.

You had mentioned in an earlier post that the original language used two different words, one which means adultery and one which means fornication (I think that wasy what you said - I couldn't find it again to confirm)

Why do you think Jesus made the distinction there? What was he communicating by using two different words?