Ummm how about not just reading the 9th verse and read they other 8 verses leading into the 9th. I believe you will find that divorce was allowed because of the "hardness of the heart" of men and that in the case of sexual immorality that the spouse would not be held accountable for the others action. At no time does it say GOD checks off on divorce. In Fact, when and if you read verse 6, that pretty much explains GOD's view on marriage.
-
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!
How to be a spiritual leader of the home
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Divorce in general was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts and it was used liberally it seems for whatever reason. But Jesus speaks VERY clearly about divorce and the ONLY reason that it was allowable was adultery. It is interesting because adultery according to the law was punishable by death but it seems that it was not always carried out since divorce was allowable with adultery? We do see that the woman caught in adultery was going to be stoned so I guess it was selectively used but not all of the time.
Married is married. I was just as married 5 minutes after our vows as I was the next day, after the consummation. And still just as married 41 years later.
You can add what you want, but NOWHERE does Jesus say divorce is allowable. In fact, read and try to understand verse 6.
I guess we can keep going around and around on this but let's look again at the word "except". The dictionary says "with the exclusion of". Jesus tells us that if we divorce and marry another, we commit adultery EXCEPT when there is adultery that causes the divorce. I think that's pretty clear.
Going back to your own post, as you and I know, there was that space of time between vows and consummation in the Hebrew culture. It was THAT time space that Christ indicated divorce was allowed, not after the two become "one flesh."
What God joins together as "one flesh" no human has the right to even attempt to dissolve.
Paul also taught that if the unbeliever left, the other freed to remarry in the Lord, correct?
"acceptable divorce"
Well, Paul disagrees wit you, and he was an Apostle!
acceptable -- welcome, pleasing; barely satisfactory or adequate
Is divorce welcome? Pleasing? Or would you describe a divorce as "barely satisfactory" or "adequate"?
So, not "acceptable." Permitted, perhaps; but then again, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial or advantageous (1 Cor 10).
OH, so now we are talking about adultery, I thought the subject was marriage. If we were talking about marriage Mathew 19: 4-7 would definitely without argument tell us what God thinks of marriage.
Yes, Paul taught that and he made it clear that it was his thinking and not the Lord's.
1 Corinthians 7:40 ....and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
It was his Spirit of God that made him tell the reader that it was his thought and not the Lord's. That is why I admire him but not worship him.
Christ was not saying the only grounds for divorce was sexual impurity. If you think He that commanded the husbands to love their wives would have a wife bound to an abuser or one that won't get off his butt to work to provide, and if you think that He that commanded wives to submit to their husbands would have a husband bound to one who abuses or neglects her children and refuses to make a home, then you're thinking wrong.
In Christ's commentary on the law in the Sermon on the mount, he is purging it of the pollution of rabbinical tradition that allowed for their ill will, murders and adulteries. No, not just allowed, but hallowed them. Just as the edict "resist not evil" is not a moratorium on self defense or the defense of one's neighbor, and "judge not" is not a moratorium on all judgment and discernment, so "except for the cause of fornication" is limited to the scope of that with which He was speaking at the time, and that was the idea that in the absence of all other crimes and misdemeanors, if one was no longer sexually attracted to his wife, he could give her a writing of divorcement.
"Eye for an eye" is not a mandate for retaliation, "hate thine enemy" appears no where in the law, and the writing of divorcement was meant for those offenses that profaned a marriage.
In Christ's commentary on the law in the Sermon on the mount, he is purging it of the pollution of rabbinical tradition that allowed for their ill will, murders and adulteries. No, not just allowed, but hallowed them. Just as the edict "resist not evil" is not a moratorium on self defense or the defense of one's neighbor, and "judge not" is not a moratorium on all judgment and discernment, so "except for the cause of fornication" is limited to the scope of that with which He was speaking at the time, and that was the idea that in the absence of all other crimes and misdemeanors, if one was no longer sexually attracted to his wife, he could give her a writing of divorcement.
"Eye for an eye" is not a mandate for retaliation, "hate thine enemy" appears no where in the law, and the writing of divorcement was meant for those offenses that profaned a marriage.
Whenever an Apostle stated his opinion, was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and same as if Jesus stated it!
I guess if Paul said it that would supersede what Jesus said. Read
I hope you are not saying that Paul superseded What Jesus stated in Mt 19: 4-6.
Whatever was written don by Paul as doctrines nd practices were exactly as if Jeus stated them! Jesus and Paul would never disagree on issues of theology!
Uhm, I don't think Jesus was concerned whether or not what He said was in disagreement with Paul. Paul was concerned but had the intelligence to qualify his statements as his and not the Lords, particularly on this subject.