A pastor’s qualifications:

[OldRegular]

Matthew 1; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9--they are all consistent in their interpretation. One doesn't contradict the other. They all mean the same thing. They are written to the same Jewish people with the same context in mind. The meanings of the words don't change just for you.

The Bible in its entirety is written for all "true believers"! God through the Apostle Paul says so!

 

[DHK]

The Bible in its entirety is written for all "true believers"! God through the Apostle Paul says so!

What are you talking about "no"? You mean he changed a meaning of a verse or word just for OR living in the 21st century? Ridiculous!

 

[OldRegular]

What are you talking about "no"? You mean he changed a meaning of a verse or word just for OR living in the 21st century? Ridiculous!

That is an asinine statement. I said:

The Bible in its entirety is written for all "true believers"! God through the Apostle Paul says so!

To prove I am correct I will help you out a little:

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If you don't believe the above you are denying Scripture. But that is the decision only you can make.

 

[DHK]

That is an asinine statement. I said:

To prove I am correct I will help you out a little:

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If you don't believe the above you are denying Scripture. But that is the decision only you can make.

1. We both believe the Bible and that the Bible is inspired. Thus the above statement is irrelevant.
2. Scripture is interpreted in light of its context.
3. Scripture cannot be interpreted without consideration of its historical context. In this case one must study what were the customs and culture of the Jewish marriages of that time, and why were divorces given, and why were they permitted. If this is not studied out then one is bound to come to a false conclusion.
4. One cannot read a western culture situation into a first century Jewish culture situation and assume they will arrive at the same conclusion.

There is a matter of hermeneutics. You seem to avoid some basic principles here.

 

[OldRegular]

1. We both believe the Bible and that the Bible is inspired. Thus the above statement is irrelevant.

Scripture properly understood is never irrelevant.

2. Scripture is interpreted in light of its context.

Context, context, context, Chapter, Book, Bible. That is context, something pre-trib-dispensationalists often ignore.

3. Scripture cannot be interpreted without consideration of its historical context. In this case one must study what were the customs and culture of the Jewish marriages of that time, and why were divorces given, and why were they permitted. If this is not studied out then one is bound to come to a false conclusion.

Without doubt pre-trib-dispensationalists use this hermeneutic when interpretation Revelation.

4. One cannot read a western culture situation into a first century Jewish culture situation and assume they will arrive at the same conclusion.

I could make the same argument about Paul's qualifications for a bishop, elder, deacon, but I would be wrong, or the passage from Genesis regarding marriage, but I would be wrong, just as you are in understanding what Jesus Christ is teaching.

There is a matter of hermeneutics. You seem to avoid some basic principles here.

Frankly I depend on the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ told us: Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. [John 16:13]

 

[convicted1]

Joseph was going to put her away/divorce her when he found out she was pregnant. I can only imagine how he felt when he found this out. But an angel told him what happened and he didn't go through it. He could have lawfully put her away/divorced her if she had played the harlot.

Now, could Joseph have taken another women for a wife if he had put her away/divorced her?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Joseph was going to put her away/divorce her when he found out she was pregnant. I can only imagine how he felt when he found this out. But an angel told him what happened and he didn't go through it. He could have lawfully put her away/divorced her if she had played the harlot.

Now, could Joseph have taken another women for a wife if he had put her away/divorced her?

Did he operate under the assumption that she had fotnicated with another man?

 

[DHK]

Joseph was going to put her away/divorce her when he found out she was pregnant. I can only imagine how he felt when he found this out. But an angel told him what happened and he didn't go through it. He could have lawfully put her away/divorced her if she had played the harlot.

Now, could Joseph have taken another women for a wife if he had put her away/divorced her?

You tell me. If you are engaged to be married in three weeks. Two weeks before the marriage you find out that your fiancee had an affair with your best man. would you still marry her, or would you call off the wedding and split up (divorce)?
That is what Joseph was going to do before the angel explained to him what was going on--a supernatural event from the Lord.

If your engagement breaks up of course you can "remarry" for you were never married in the first place.
However we don't live in the first century in Jewish culture where the betrothal system is in place; and marriage is taken much more seriously. When those facts are consistently ignored the passages in question will never make proper sense or be interpreted correctly.

 

[DHK]

Did he operate under the assumption that she had fotnicated with another man?

We operate under the assumption that that is what Joseph thought, for indeed he did think that she had committed fornication. Therefore an angel came to explain to him that this was not fornication.

In the ESV:
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Some things had to be explained.

 

[annsni]

But where in the Scriptures does it say that divorce was allowed by Jesus during betrothal but not during marriage?

 

[DHK]

But where in the Scriptures does it say that divorce was allowed by Jesus during betrothal but not during marriage?

Jesus used the word "fornication," and it was used three times in the book of Matthew which was written to a Jewish audience.
Fornication's primary meaning is "sex before marriage."
Therefore, following the example of Mary and Joseph, the "divorce" would have taken before the "marriage" for that is what fornication is. If it was for the cause of adultery Jesus would have used that word, but he didn't.

 

[convicted1]

I found these three greek words used for 'fornication' using Strong's. I know some don't like Strong's, but I am far from a greek scholar, so it's the best I can use...

1608. ekporneuo ek-porn-yoo'-o from 1537 and 4203; to be utterly unchaste:--give self over to fornication.

4202. porneia por-ni'-ah from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.

4203. porneuo porn-yoo'-o from 4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry:--commit (fornication).

And I found this in www.blueletterbible.com.....

Porneia G4202

--illicit sexual intercourse
--adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
--sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
--sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
--metaph. the worship of idols
--of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

So this word usage covers a myriad of sexual immoralities....

 

[convicted1]

moicheuō G3431

--to commit adultery
--to be an adulterer
--to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another's wife
--of the wife: to suffer adultery, be debauched
--A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman's solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols

It appears that committing fornication is intercourse before marriage, whereas adultery would be intercourse before marriage. That's why Joseph was privately desiring to put her away/break off the engagement...

 

[convicted1]

Did he operate under the assumption that she had fotnicated with another man?

Yessir he did...

 

[convicted1]

Joseph was mistaken because Mary was not guilty of fornication. God had to reveal that to Joseph.

That incident really has no bearing on what Jesus Christ said! Read it!

Matthew 19:9-12
9. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Let's quote Matthew 19:9 and leave a certain portion out...

Matthew19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

You leave that portion out, it turns that verse upon it's head....

 

[OldRegular]

But where in the Scriptures does it say that divorce was allowed by Jesus during betrothal but not during marriage?

I believe it is in the same book that talks about the pre-trib-removal of the church!

 

[convicted1]

From www.godvine.com....

Clarke's Commentary on Matthew 19:9

Except it be for fornication - See on Matthew 5:32 (note). The decision of our Lord must be very unpleasant to these men: the reason why they wished to put away their wives was, that they might take others whom they liked better; but our Lord here declares that they could not be remarried while the divorced person was alive, and that those who did marry, during the life of the divorced, were adulterers; and heavy judgments were, denounced, in their law, against such: and as the question was not settled by the schools of Shammai and Hillel, so as to ground national practice on it therefore they were obliged to abide by the positive declaration of the law, as it was popularly understood, till these eminent schools had proved the word had another meaning. The grand subject of dispute between the two schools, mentioned above, was the word in Deuteronomy 24:1, When a man hath taken a wife - and she find no grace in his sight, because of some Uncleanness, ערות eruath: - this the school of Shammai held to mean whoredom or adultery; but the school of Hillel maintained that it signified any corporeal defect, which rendered the person deformed, or any bad temper which made the husband's life uncomfortable. Any of the latter a good man might bear with; but it appears that Moses permitted the offended husband to put away the wife on these accounts, merely to save her from cruel usage.

In this discourse, our Lord shows that marriage, (except in one case), is indissoluble, and should be so: -

1st, By Divine institution, Matthew 19:4.

2dly, By express commandment, Matthew 19:5.

3dly, Because the married couple become one and the same person, Matthew 19:6.

4thly, By the example of the first pair, Matthew 19:8; and

5thly, Because of the evil consequent on separation, Matthew 19:9. The importance of this subject will, I hope, vindicate or excuse, the length of these notes.

 

[convicted1]

From the same site....

Barnes' Notes on Matthew 19:9

And I say unto you - Emphasis should be laid here on the word "I." This was the opinion of Jesus - this he proclaimed to be the law of his kingdom this the command of God ever afterward. Indulgence had been given by the laws of Moses; but that indulgence was to cease, and the marriage relation to be brought back to its original intention. Only one offence was to make divorce lawful. This is the law of God; and by the same law, all marriages which take place after divorce, where adultery is not the cause of divorce, are adulterous. Legislatures have no right to say that people may put away their wives for any other cause; and where they do, and where there is marriage afterward, by the law of God such marriages are adulterous!

 

[convicted1]

Poole's commentary....

Matthew Poole's Commentary

We met with the like determination of our Lord’s upon this question Matthew 5:32, only there it was (instead of committeth adultery) causeth her to commit adultery, that is, in case she married again. Here our Lord saith the like of the husband: we have the same, Mark 10:11 Luke 16:18. The reason is this: Because nothing but adultery dissolves the knot and band of marriage, though they be thus illegally separated, yet according to the law of God, they are still man and wife. Some have upon these words made a question whether it be lawful for the husband or the wife separated for adultery to marry again while each other liveth. As to the party offending, it may be a question; but as to the innocent person offended, it is no question, for the adultery of the person offending hath dissolved the knot of marriage by the Divine law. It is true that the knot cannot be dissolved without the freedom of both persons each from another, but yet it seemeth against reason that both persons should have the like liberty to a second marriage. For,

1. The adulteress is by God’s law a dead woman, and so in no capacity to a second marriage.

2. It is unreasonable that she should make an advantage of her own sin and error.

3. This might be the occasion of adultery, to give a wicked person a legal liberty to satisfy an extravagant lust.

But for the innocent person, it is as unreasonable that he or she should be punished for the sin of another. But what our Saviour saith here, and in the other parallel texts, is undoubtedly to be understood of husbands and wives put away not for adultery, but for other light and trivial causes, for which by the law of God no divorce is allowed.

 

[OldRegular]

Jesus used the word "fornication," and it was used three times in the book of Matthew which was written to a Jewish audience.
Fornication's primary meaning is "sex before marriage."
Therefore, following the example of Mary and Joseph, the "divorce" would have taken before the "marriage" for that is what fornication is. If it was for the cause of adultery Jesus would have used that word, but he didn't.

I see what your problem is DHK. You have bought into that nonsense that Matthew was written specifically for the Jews. Tells us all, what about the following Verse, is it for the Jews only?

Matthew 19:6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.