A pastor’s qualifications:

[convicted1]

O' Convicted1

In general I believe that the only Biblical cause for divorce is adultery. However, if a daughter of mine were being abused by her husband and I could not stop it I would advise divorce. Whether she remarried again would depend upon her.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

You do make a substantial argument that physical, mental, verbal abuse is equivalent to infidelity. Certainly no husband who is a Christian and loves his wife as Jesus Christ loved the Church would mistreat his wife in this manner or in adultery.

If ye love Me, you will keep my commandments....John 14:15 & 15:10...

Are they doing this whilst they're beating their wives? Are they loving their wives as Christ does the church whilst beating the living snot out of their wives and/or cheating on them? What about the wedding vows they recite? Are they honoring their words as they beat and/or cheat on their spouses? Same can be said for the wives who cheat on their husbands, too.

I have already stated my views regarding actions prior to Salvation. If Salvation does not remove the guilt of all past sins how can it be Salvation?

Some on here are putting stipulations on God's forgiveness. Too much 'phariseeism' on here and in churches. The words in God's bible wasn't written to sinners....

 

[DHK]

I agree that marriage is sacred, never stated otherwise. But sinners live sinful lives. You cant expect sinners to live up to the commands in the bible...Romans 8:7 and 1 Cor. 2:14...

But in divorce, you have to go in individual cases. Some divorces are biblically legit, others aren't....

That's where we disagree. I don't believe that any divorce is "legit."
My parents agreed with me also. They weren't saved. A lot of the unsaved older generation agreed with me. (But then a lot of them didn't)
I have a ministry among the elderly and many of them think it is a shame when people get a divorce and that it shouldn't be. They don't believe in it. These are folk that either aren't saved or are from a completely different background than you or I. IOW, they certainly wouldn't be allowed to post in this forum.

 

[DHK]

I read them. In context Jesus Christ is giving cause for divorce!

How so?
CONTEXT:
[FONT=&quot]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?[/FONT]
--Application: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Are you one of those unsaved Pharisees tempting Christ to sin? That is the context.

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?[/FONT]
--That has been the principle of marriage from the beginning. No divorce.

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.[/FONT]
--Admonition #2: No divorce--God has put them together. What right does man have in tearing them apart by divorce? Answer: No right at all. God hates divorce! He always has. That is his message here.

Pharisaical hypocritical question, to test Christ:
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?[/FONT]

Answer to the Pharisees, pertaining to Israel, not to fruit bearing Christians, not even to the unsaved public in general. This is to Israel.
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.[/FONT]
--He allowed them because of the hardness of their heart, their constant complaining.
From the beginning it was not so.
--That is the third time he emphasizes that there is no divorce.

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:9 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.[/FONT]
--Already explained. He is speaking to the Jews and to their custom of betrothal or engagement. Fornication is sex before marriage. Just as Joseph was going to "put away" Mary before they were married for the cause of fornication--during their betrothal period, so it was then.
Divorce was not permitted after marriage itself.
What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

Jesus never condoned divorce. Not even once in this entire passage!

 

[DHK]

Umm - they were married. "take unto thee" meant to have relations with her. If they had to get a divorce, in that culture they were bound. It doesn't matter if they had sex or not - they were married.

That is a denial of the virgin birth of Christ. Thus your definition is wrong.

 

[Don]

That is a denial of the virgin birth of Christ. Thus your definition is wrong.

Actually, it's NOT a denial of the virgin birth. It's a statement of having relations AFTER the pregnancy.

 

[DHK]

Actually, it's NOT a denial of the virgin birth. It's a statement of having relations AFTER the pregnancy.

It is still a contradiction of the Biblical account.
Ann said, concerning verse 24 of Matthew 1:

Umm - they were married. "take unto thee" meant to have relations with her. If they had to get a divorce, in that culture they were bound. It doesn't matter if they had sex or not - they were married.

This is not true.
The account says:

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.[/FONT]
--The phrase in verse 25, "knew her not" means he did not have any sexual relations whatsoever until after Christ was born.
Thus "take unto thee" does not mean to have relations. It would contradict the clear statement of verse 25.

 

[annsni]

That is a denial of the virgin birth of Christ. Thus your definition is wrong.

How is it a denial of the virgin birth of Christ? It didn't say that she was a single woman but that she was betrothed. They had not consummated the relationship - that is a fact and it does not at all deny the virgin birth of Christ. However, it recognizes that betrothal was as solid a relationship as our marriage is. It was not an engagement but instead actually needed a divorce to break it off. I do not see any distinction in the Scriptures or in history between a divorce in betrothal or divorce in marriage. Do you ?

 

[annsni]

It is still a contradiction of the Biblical account.
Ann said, concerning verse 24 of Matthew 1:

This is not true.
The account says:

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.[/FONT]
--The phrase in verse 25, "knew her not" means he did not have any sexual relations whatsoever until after Christ was born.
Thus "take unto thee" does not mean to have relations. It would contradict the clear statement of verse 25.

You are correct and I misspoke. "Take unto thee" means to marry her. But they did not consummate the relationship until after Jesus was born. As I said, there is no distinction in divorce between betrothed and married - you just can't say that Jesus was speaking of divorce from betrothal and not marriage. There is NO support for that stance in historical writings or the Scriptures.

 

[convicted1]

In the OT days, how were people married? I ask this in all sincerity. I can read of nowhere where they stood before an ordained authority and had a wedding ceremony like we do today. So, what type of ceremony was performed to marry them?

 

[DHK]

In the OT days, how were people married? I ask this in all sincerity. I can read of nowhere where they stood before an ordained authority and had a wedding ceremony like we do today. So, what type of ceremony was performed to marry them?

We have examples in Jacob with both Rachel and Leah,
and also in Boaz with Ruth.

In all of the above it involved a public ceremony, and in Boaz situation it was like a public contract that not only would he promise to marry Ruth but redeem her mother's property. There it is a picture of the Redeemer/kinsman. However the entire marriage still gives some indication of all that is involved.
How did a woman express her desire to marry a man? That answer is given, though strange it may be, it was the custom of the land and not as literal as it seems at first.
The wedding was very public and was "consummated" before they had relations with each other.

Likewise, both Leah and Rachel "were given" before any actual "relations" took place. These were very public ceremonies which involved the blessings of the people, in fact the entire community in some cases.

 

[convicted1]

We have examples in Jacob with both Rachel and Leah,
and also in Boaz with Ruth.

In all of the above it involved a public ceremony, and in Boaz situation it was like a public contract that not only would he promise to marry Ruth but redeem her mother's property. There it is a picture of the Redeemer/kinsman. However the entire marriage still gives some indication of all that is involved.
How did a woman express her desire to marry a man? That answer is given, though strange it may be, it was the custom of the land and not as literal as it seems at first.
The wedding was very public and was "consummated" before they had relations with each other.

Likewise, both Leah and Rachel "were given" before any actual "relations" took place. These were very public ceremonies which involved the blessings of the people, in fact the entire community in some cases.

That which I bolded...huh...whaaaa...

 

[OldRegular]

How so?
CONTEXT:
[FONT=&quot]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?[/FONT]
--Application: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Are you one of those unsaved Pharisees tempting Christ to sin? That is the context.

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?[/FONT]
--That has been the principle of marriage from the beginning. No divorce.

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.[/FONT]
--Admonition #2: No divorce--God has put them together. What right does man have in tearing them apart by divorce? Answer: No right at all. God hates divorce! He always has. That is his message here.

Pharisaical hypocritical question, to test Christ:
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?[/FONT]

Answer to the Pharisees, pertaining to Israel, not to fruit bearing Christians, not even to the unsaved public in general. This is to Israel.
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.[/FONT]
--He allowed them because of the hardness of their heart, their constant complaining.
From the beginning it was not so.
--That is the third time he emphasizes that there is no divorce.

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 19:9 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.[/FONT]
--Already explained. He is speaking to the Jews and to their custom of betrothal or engagement. Fornication is sex before marriage. Just as Joseph was going to "put away" Mary before they were married for the cause of fornication--during their betrothal period, so it was then.
Divorce was not permitted after marriage itself.
What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

Jesus never condoned divorce. Not even once in this entire passage!

You simply will not admit what the passage teaches. Jesus Christ condemns the OT practice of divorce. He then gives the one Biblical cause by which a man may "put away" or divorce his wife. Now you can reject what jesus Christ is teaching if you choose. That is up to you!

As for your passage: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [Mark 19:9] I suggest you read 1Corinthians 7:1-16, paying particular attention to verse 15.

 

[DHK]

That which I bolded...huh...whaaaa...

I really did a number on that one didn't I?
In the story of Ruth (how did a woman express her desire to marry a MAN?)
It's an interesting story.

Too many Rachels.
"Likewise both Leah and Rachel..."

 

[DHK]

You simply will not admit what the passage teaches. Jesus Christ condemns the OT practice of divorce. He then gives the one Biblical cause by which a man may "put away" or divorce his wife. Now you can reject what jesus Christ is teaching if you choose. That is up to you!

As for your passage: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [Mark 19:9] I suggest you read 1Corinthians 7:1-16, paying particular attention to verse 15.

Joseph was about to "divorce" Mary before they were even married on the ground of "fornication." Figure it out. You can't impose 20th century American customs into first century Jewish culture. It doesn't work that way.

 

[convicted1]

I really did a number on that one didn't I?
In the story of Ruth (how did a woman express her desire to marry a MAN?)
It's an interesting story.

Too many Rachels.
"Likewise both Leah and Rachel..."

I thought that was the case. Thanks for the clarification. :thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

Joseph was about to "divorce" Mary before they were even married on the ground of "fornication." Figure it out. You can't impose 20th century American customs into first century Jewish culture. It doesn't work that way.

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

Yes, he was mistaken because Mary was still a virgin. Had Mary not been a virgin, and had committed "fornication" (sex before marriage), Joseph would have done the same thing--divorced her before they were married. That was the custom. That was the culture. You can't take things out of their historical context. And that is what it means in Mat.5:32. The "fornication" is before the actual marriage--during the period of engagement. Use Mary and Joseph as an example.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, he was mistaken because Mary was still a virgin. Had Mary not been a virgin, and had committed "fornication" (sex before marriage), Joseph would have done the same thing--divorced her before they were married. That was the custom. That was the culture. You can't take things out of their historical context. And that is what it means in Mat.5:32. The "fornication" is before the actual marriage--during the period of engagement. Use Mary and Joseph as an example.

And you conveniently ignore what Scripture teaches in the following:

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.[/b]

 

[DHK]

And you conveniently ignore what Scripture teaches in the following:

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.[/b]

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.

 

[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.

I learned long ago that all are entitled to be wrong. Some just abuse that privilege more than others.