It would be difficult to align that with Paul when he says not to suffer a man to remain unmarried if he desires a woman sexually. My marriage ended out of no sin of my own. I don't have a wife, as God's covenant with her and me no longer exists. Hence, me marrying now would not be ungodly or sinful. And, if I were a pastor, I'd still be the husband of one wife.
-
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!
It would be difficult to align that with Paul when he says not to suffer a man to remain unmarried if he desires a woman sexually. My marriage ended out of no sin of my own. I don't have a wife, as God's covenant with her and me no longer exists. Hence, me marrying now would not be ungodly or sinful. And, if I were a pastor, I'd still be the husband of one wife.
Lacy Evans
New Member
[/QB][/QUOTE]As for the context, the betrothal custom is entirely within the Jewish context--which is why the so-called Matthean exception clauses are not included in the parallel passages in the other gospels. This is further corroborated by the ability of women to get a divorce in the parallel accounts, which was denied Jewish women under OT law and not included in the Matthean account.
As for "proving" this theory, neither it nor any of the competing theories interpreting the Matthean exceptions can be "proved," except perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt by a preponderance of the evidence. Obviously, I'm persuaded by the evidence that the reading that is not as easy on the flesh is correct: the one consistent with the Markan and Lucan parallels. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Brother,
Very well presented. Thank you so much for not entering into the hateful type of dialogue that often shows up on these boards. You have consistently stayed away from subjective, emotional phrases and I appreciate the spirit in which you debate.
When I ask for proof, I merely mean scriptural support. It seems to me that you have a theory explaining a plain scripture, rather than a plain scripture explaining a theory. You build a very good case for "Betrothal" (if the thing is scriptural in the first place.) The following verses show clearly the the motives for God's divorcing of Israel are abandonment and ADULTRY. Nothing about a betrothal period in the word adultry.
KJV Jeremiah 3:6-8
6 The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of Divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Surely God does not hold his people to a higher standard than he does Himself!
Adultry is a specific type of fornication. But fornication would include other forms such as beastiality, sodomy, pornography, etc. These sins would certainly be grounds for divorce even though they are not technically "adultry". As I said before there is nothing in the context to even hint of a betrothal period "fornication". I realize that Matthew contains truth that other gospels don't but we can't jump at the hyper-dispensationalist notion that Matthew is only applicable to the Jews. Instead we should take the Bible in its totality. There are four gospels for a reason. Only by reading all four, for example, can we find the complete inscription on the cross, "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
In Christ Lacy
As for "proving" this theory, neither it nor any of the competing theories interpreting the Matthean exceptions can be "proved," except perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt by a preponderance of the evidence. Obviously, I'm persuaded by the evidence that the reading that is not as easy on the flesh is correct: the one consistent with the Markan and Lucan parallels. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Brother,
Very well presented. Thank you so much for not entering into the hateful type of dialogue that often shows up on these boards. You have consistently stayed away from subjective, emotional phrases and I appreciate the spirit in which you debate.
When I ask for proof, I merely mean scriptural support. It seems to me that you have a theory explaining a plain scripture, rather than a plain scripture explaining a theory. You build a very good case for "Betrothal" (if the thing is scriptural in the first place.) The following verses show clearly the the motives for God's divorcing of Israel are abandonment and ADULTRY. Nothing about a betrothal period in the word adultry.
KJV Jeremiah 3:6-8
6 The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of Divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Surely God does not hold his people to a higher standard than he does Himself!
Adultry is a specific type of fornication. But fornication would include other forms such as beastiality, sodomy, pornography, etc. These sins would certainly be grounds for divorce even though they are not technically "adultry". As I said before there is nothing in the context to even hint of a betrothal period "fornication". I realize that Matthew contains truth that other gospels don't but we can't jump at the hyper-dispensationalist notion that Matthew is only applicable to the Jews. Instead we should take the Bible in its totality. There are four gospels for a reason. Only by reading all four, for example, can we find the complete inscription on the cross, "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
In Christ Lacy
Lacy Evans
New Member
Many Godly men have been faced with the ultimatum from their wives, "Leave the ministry or lose me!" We ought to obey God rather than men. If we forsake a sister, a father, children, our own life, etc. we are praised. But if we forsake a wife for my [Christ's] name's sake, we are in sin. Could someone please explain the following verses in which God guarantees PREMIUM rewards for one who forsakes his wife for the kingdom's sake. (And please don't tell me that "forsake" and "left" means that she died.) (Also remember that the Bible has no notion of what America calls "legal separation.") If "Left" and "Forsaken" do not mean "Divorced", then what do they mean?
KJV Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
KJV Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
KJV Mark 10:29-30
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
KJV Luke 18:29-30
29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
KJV Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
KJV Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
KJV Mark 10:29-30
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
KJV Luke 18:29-30
29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
Sorry, Johnv. My Bible says divorce is a sin.
I Cor. 7:10-11 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.
1 Cor. 7:39 - The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth....
Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it....
Matthew 19:6 - Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Malachi 2:15b-16a - Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away [divorce].
There are no unsinful reasons for divorce.
These verses are not encouraging the break up of families and the abandonment of responsibilities by husbands to their wives and children so they can serve Jesus and God's Kingdom.
After all, God was the one who instituted the family back in the Garden of Eden, and commanded the Israelites to teach His ways and His words to their children when the stand up, when they lie down, when they sit down to eat..(Deut.6:6-9).
Those verses are saying instead that Jesus must have the pre-eminence in the lives of those who profess to know him, to follow him, to obey him, and to believe him, otherwise, all those professings are just "hot air" and chest thumpings. No substance at all.
Yes. I mean, if he was divorced before God called him into the ministry.
BUT if he gets divorced while already pastoring ? Out the door I go.
ADULTERY - In Matthew 5:31, Jesus says that God does not allow divorce except in cases of "porneia" which is a greek word most often translated as "marital unfaithfulness."
ABANDONMENT - In 1 Corinthians 7:15, we read that if one spouse abandons the other, that the one who remains is no longer bound by the marital covenant, and divorce is permitted. Abandonment would be a departure from the family, with clear intentions not to return.
ABUSE - The third issue, abuse, is more difficult to demonstrate with a Bible verse. With God's clear heart for the oppressed and the abused throughout the Bible, I find it hard to maintain any understanding of words like "justice" and "love" if God directed a woman who was being physically abused to remain in that situation. I think there are few things more heinous than a man who physically abuses a woman. However, when abuse become the norm in a marriage, it becomes clear that, while the abuser is there physically, he has nonetheless abandoned his spouse, and, as set forth above, abandonment is a clear reason for marriage to end.
I would also suggest that a pattern of child abuse would constitute grounds for divorce. Such action, in my view, shatters the marriage covenant at its foundation.
With these things said, healing can happen in any marriage and in any heart, as God hates divorce because it destroys lives. But that must begin with the repentance of the one who did the abusing, adultery, or abandoning. Without that repentance, the perpetrator cannot overcome the sins that shatterred the marriage. Unless they have been overcome, there is no healing. Unless they have been healed, there is no marriage.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
Wow, very biblical answer, showard93.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
It would be difficult to align that with Paul when he says not to suffer a man to remain unmarried if he desires a woman sexually. My marriage ended out of no sin of my own. I don't have a wife, as God's covenant with her and me no longer exists. Hence, me marrying now would not be ungodly or sinful. And, if I were a pastor, I'd still be the husband of one wife. </font>[/QUOTE]Since a marriage covenant ends only when one spouse dies, if God's covenant with you two no longer exists, then of course you are free to remarry, being a widower.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
It doesn't only end when a spouse dies. The covenant is broken by adultery and abandonment. A divorce is a public recognition that the marital covenant has ended. </font>[/QUOTE]Since Jesus said anyone who divorces a spouse and marries another is continuously committing adultery, that would not be correct. The only exception Jesus gave was for unfaithfulness during the Jewish betrothal. That exception no longer exists because the custom it pertained to no longer exists. If adultery did "break the covenant" then after any extramarital affair the couple would have to wait until after another wedding intervened before they could be together, since otherwise they'd be committing fornication. And if we go with the heart--thought-life--then that's probably a few weddings a month if not at least a year. That's a lot of weddings.
The only exception Jesus gave was for unfaithfulness during the Jewish betrothal.
Jesus DID NOT say that. You're implying it via interpretation, which I can respect, but that's not conclusive enough to be doctrine, only interpretation.
Assuming that you're correct, you're forgetting that a betrothed couple in Jewish tradition were still husband and wife. They could have sex, etc etc, they simply did not have a home together. (betrothal is simply the time between the wedding and moving in together). But when Jesus talks about a bill of divorcements, he doesn't specify that it must be before the couple comes together (during the betrothal period). Jesus never mentions the betrothal perios in regards to divorce.
Jesus DID NOT say that. You're implying it via interpretation, which I can respect, but that's not conclusive enough to be doctrine, only interpretation.
Assuming that you're correct, you're forgetting that a betrothed couple in Jewish tradition were still husband and wife. They could have sex, etc etc, they simply did not have a home together. (betrothal is simply the time between the wedding and moving in together). But when Jesus talks about a bill of divorcements, he doesn't specify that it must be before the couple comes together (during the betrothal period). Jesus never mentions the betrothal perios in regards to divorce.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
You're right--explicitly speaking he never mentioned the betrothal or stated that adultery was grounds for divorce.
Lacy Evans
New Member
huh?
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
No. Not Biblically.
Let's discuss this remark. Can a divorced man be a pastor in YOUR church or a pastor to YOU?
Diane </font>[/QUOTE]Forgive me, but I didnot read all 7 pages.
Here is my finding in Scripture:
NO! A divoriced man cannot be a Preacher nor a Pastor of a church. No it's not the unpardonable sin, but in reality it is the consquenses of the sin that is this far reaching. He is forgiven of the sin, not the consquenses.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
Justified. I wanted to clarify that the original quote is from someone else and we started a thread to discuss this. If anyone questions how I feel... please see pages one and two of this thread. Those are NOT my words! Just wanted to verify!
Diane
Diane
Taufgesinnter
New Member
huh? </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus didn't say moicheia (adultery) was grounds for divorce. If He had meant that, He could have said it. Doing so would have been unmistakably clear.
Lacy Evans
New Member
huh? </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus didn't say moicheia (adultery) was grounds for divorce. If He had meant that, He could have said it. Doing so would have been unmistakably clear. </font>[/QUOTE]No, he used the word "fornication" which is a superset of sexual sins including adultery. (Adultry is to fornication as poodle is to dog.) Had he said "adultry", then other forms of fornication would have been excluded. It is a real stretch to say that because he used the general term "Fornication" (Dog) that he meant to exclude the more specific term, "adultry" (poodle). I would say the the exact opposite is true. Christ included all sorts of sexual sins in the exemption. (beastiality is not technically "adultry", nor is child pornography or lesbianism)but they certainly are scriptural reasons for divorce.
I have little use for the "original greek" for exactly this reason. When the "Original English" speaks to us so plainly, why run to "the greek". If you dig around in that junk long enough you can "prove" any position.
Lacy