Matt. 19:9 - Remarriage allowed?

Since I am completing a PhD dissertation that deals in detail with this subject matter, I will abstain from extensive comments on the matter.

But I would simply suggest that such statements as the one above reveal an extreme lack of knowledge by the speaker.

 

So, what I understand is that the bible actually does not say divorce is the sin, re-marriage is the sin. If I were to divorce my husband for abuse, but never re-marry, would this be a sin?

 

Hi Pastork. Here's another passage to add to your study mix: Deuteronomy 24.
PJ

 

In 1 Cor 7 we are told to remain with the unbeliever if he wills. But, FOR ABUSE PLEASE SEPERATE PHYSICALLY FROM THIS PERSON. Are you being abused?

But, if he divorces you you are not to remarry, that is my understanding of the Scriptures on this subject.

Because marriage is a covenant and is only broken by death.

 

Since I am completing a PhD dissertation that deals in detail with this subject matter, I will abstain from extensive comments on the matter.

But I would simply suggest that such statements as the one above reveal an extreme lack of knowledge by the speaker. </font>[/QUOTE]SBC, I can assure you that if I were to start a Ph.D. program today (I do plan to in about 2-3 years), I would be well on my way if I chose this topic for my dissertation. I have read very well on this issue by men on both sides.

There is a difference in being about to use the Bible and believe something and being able to exegete the Bible and believe something, as you know. I realize we are on opposite sides again, but this has nothing to do with methodology. Perhaps this is the interpretation challenge you would like to be involved in. Let me know.

 

Christine, divorce IS a sin and no where does the Bible say you can divorce for abuse. You can protect yourself and the children by contacting authorities and getting your husband help, moving out until he gets help, etc... but there is NO scripture supporting divorce for abuse, emotional or physical.

We need to remember, however, that divorce or remarriage is not some unforgiveable sin.

Diane

 

Well spoken. God is always in control. I John 1:9
PJ

 

And yet your previous words contradict your above assertion.

Since I have not stated my position, you have no idea where I stand on this issue. What I can say is that there are far greater scholars and exegetes than anyone on this board who argue against your stated position to let us know that it is not just a matter of emotions.

Since this topic consumes my present academic life and it would be extremely difficult for me to engage in a meaningful discussion on a matter which I have spent 200+ dissertation level pages articulating and defending in an academic setting, I have no desire to discuss this matter with you. I think my defense before some of the best Greek and NT scholars in the Baptist world will suffice.

I am interested in how you can state this is an emotional viewpoint when you are in the minority of evangelical scholarship. Even one of the most adament and articulate defenders of your position (William Heth) has recently changed his perspective.

What scholarship are you following in your interpretation? Or can we just attribute this blanket statement to more Kal-El rubbish?

 

Pastork,

No. The LORD never allowed Moses to grant any divorce. Moses acted on his own in the matter. He caved in to the will of man. This was just one of his downfalls as a man of God. He was never God, only his spokesman. I'm afriad it's just as Daniel David said, men are controlled by their emotions concerning this topic.Not to indict Moses, but he certainly messed up a time two concerning what the LORD wanted, for instance smiting the rock the second time, when he was told to speak. This thing in particular , kept him from entering into Canaan. He did get to look over the mountain into Canaan, but we all know he died right there.

If we can agree that Holy Matrimony is just that, Holy! we can begin to get ahold of the perspective that God sees this in. That is our purpose in determining the will of God in any matter, to see how the Lord sees things. A simple study of the "covenant" of marriage will show, that the only way any covenant is broken is by death of the testator. This is shown over and over again throughout Scripture. Everytime a covenant was established, there was the death to the previous life , we can certainly see this exemplified through the death of Christ, instituting the New Covenant.

When Jesus said,"what God hath joined together, let NO MAN put asunder" That would include any man, including Moses. Thus the death of the spouse had to become necessary to release the other from the covenant of marriage.

I hope I've been clear on this amtter, without going to much detail to make all the scripture references. If I were dealing with some one I felt was less aquainted with scripture I would have given more reference.

Brother, I feel it's more of an emotional factor to consider allowing divorce for any reason. It's our emotions that affect us, sometimes contrary to the facts.

Someone made the statement that the LORD gave Israel a bill, as in a transaction , though there are simple laws that regulate any transaction, giving a "bill" of divorcement is only an introduction of the intention to ratify or pass a law in regard to that particular area and has NOTHING to do with a business transaction!

I hope through this discussion the Lord will grant the light necessary for all who view this thread to fully understand the Will of God concerning the marriage, and just how important is finding the right mate, the one the Lord has prepared just for them.

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

SBC made the following statements:

1. No they don't. What they reveal is that I have spent much time in study and have arrived at a theological position/conclusion. You might disagree with my interpretation, but just because I have a position that does not waver, don't say I lack study.

2. Hmmm... this is a toughie.

3. You don't know? Just how well versed are you in this area?

4. It was serious until you said this. I have no desire to discuss this further with you.

Btw, there are "great" exegetes and greek scholars on both sides. What does that settle? Nothing.

Consider the practical elements of each position (this is not what determined the issue for me):

My view: worse case scenario is that a couple goes down the road and gets married elsewhere.

Other view: people are engaging in adultery (among other sins).

So, where the rubber meets the road, I still prefer my view.

 

Brother, you came to the right conclusion even inspite of the wrong path. I agree about remarriage, but very strongly disagree with what you have said here. The Law that Moses wrote was indeed God's Law. It is absolutely perfect in its origin. Moses didn't make it up. Unknowingly, you just slammed inspiration/inerrancy.

When Christ said "Moses allowed...", he was referring to the writings of Moses, the Law. Under the Mosaic Law, divorce could happen under strict circumstances and remarriage in a special case in the divorce.

Christ argued that during the Law, divorce could happen. Even then, it was because of a hard heart (unless it violated the sexual laws in Lev. 18 and 19 - thus the reference to "sexual immorality). Again, let me draw everyone's attention to the fact that when the remarriage did occur, the wife is spoken of as defiled (see Deut. 24:1-4).

I am always amazed (though I shouldn't be) at the circles people run around to fit what they want.

Btw, this is not a position that is popular, as SBC has stated. I believe what I do because I am convinced it is what Scripture teaches.

 

Brother Daniel,

I have considerd what you have said about Jesus referring to "Moses" as the writings of Moses, as the Law of God, a long time ago, and I don't agree. If God were to allow remarriage under the circumstance it being an unclean woman, then that would be God condoning that which He commanded not. Therefore , God would then be allowing remarriage for the sake of sin. That is why I've said what I did to Pastork. If we all looked at the life of Moses and his interjections to the Law, we will find his sympathetic additions and subtractions. Indeed the Pentetuech is PERFECT, but Moses' Law is ascribed to that fallacy of man,i.e. the hardness of his heart.

I didn't "slam" the Word of God as you said. The Lord doesn't allow anything due to the hardness of a man's heart except either remedy, which comes through repentence, or destruction that results through failure to hearken to reproof. The Lord never uses sin as the reason to allow remarriage, that is a direct contradiction to the very nature and character of God. I always considered this very simple logic concerning the attributes of God . I don't see God allowing sin to override the vow to instate another vow, without penalty for breaking the first.

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky Ephesians 2:14

 

I will only interject some comments for clarification.

1. Jesus referred to the writings of Moses as the Law on more than one occassion. It is a fact that Moses is the author (not just editor). It would not be the "writings" of Moses if he just put the right pieces together. That is all for a thread I recently started though. Jesus constantly referred to the Law as absolutely authoritative in regards to Him and what is just. If there were any hint of error, it would not be authoritative at all.

2. It a couple is legally married, and he discovers that she has been with a man, he can divorce her (as a righteous act - see Joseph and Mary) and marry another. Now, if he divorces her for that reason, he may NEVER remarry her. She is no longer a virgin but may still marry. That is the reference to her being defiled.

3. Consider what I just said.

4. I did not say you "slammed" the Word of God. I think you embrace inerrancy. I was pointing out though that your argument actually anti-inerrancy.

5. Remember though that the Law was for an entire nation. That nation included many lost people. So, to maintain order, those with the hardheart divorced.

 

Trust me, I know. I simply want to see what you know and who you follow (in light of the fact you hold such a minority view). I am not sure what the standards are at Luther Rice, but I could not get the degree without "knowing."

Did you know Heth changed his position prior to my posting of it? Better yet, did you even know who William Heth was?

We haven't discussed it. And based upon your history and what you have written to others in this thread, I am not sure you are capable of discussing it at a level that would challenge me.

Sheer entertainment.

It settles two things: 1) neither position can be defended with absolute dogmatism b/c there are equally good, evangelical scholars on both sides & 2) the possibility of remarriage position is far more than an "emotional" one as you asserted earlier.

Once again, you contradict yourself with your own words. That's at least 3 times in 2 days. Think before you write.

 

1. I "follow" no man. I can appreciate the exegetical work of different men on the issue, but I don't "follow" anyone.

2. I received my undergrad at Luther Rice (one school that NEVER fell to liberalism). If you want to mock their undergrad program, that is fine.

I will say this much about the time I spent while I was a student there: I read many journals, theological books on all kinds of issues, and listened to many sermons from many different men. None of this was required for my courses. Oh sure, I had to do meet the requirements for each course, including reading and papers from the books that went with the course, but I am talking about my spare time study. I am not the defender of Luther Rice. I don't understand your need to compare it to a doctoral program. Do you feel like more of a man when you compare such things?

3. Yes I knew that. William Heth is a fella that taught a no remarriage view. He is a co-author of a book with Gordon Wenham entitled "Jesus and Divorce".

You can find his article on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's webpage in the journal page.

Is that enough for you, or did you want me to reveal his SSN, bank account, and blood type?

4. Not yet. I have asked for a debate with you before. I am still waiting for the passage you would like to debate. If you can't handle it without the mindless ad hominems...

5. This is what is commonly referred to as "Conversational Terrorism". You are implying that you are of such a high intelligence level, that you cannot worry about the minor leaguers. If you want an intelligent discussion, you will have to agree to actually discuss something.

6. a. In and of itself, the greek and exegetical issues will not dogmatically solve anything. In that area, you are correct. However, other factors are used (I am not alone here). For example, the theology of suffering, forgiveness, covenants, discipline, and leadership all play a major role in determining which interpretation can even be feasable.

b. In spite of your attempt to make it seem like a contradiction, I still hold by my statement. The fact that "Evangelical (non-catholic)" people disagree on an issue does not render the issue as something that cannot be with certainty known. Do you agree with this? Surely you are aware of the "exegetical and interpretational efforts" of baby-sprinklers. Are we to think that baptism might not be a settled issue? I think you not only understand my point, but have known for awhile I stand by this attitude when I seek out what the Scriptures teach.

Btw, the positions are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right.

7. Only in your mind.

 

Cop out. Name a leading scholar who embraces your view that has influenced you the most. Otherwise you stand with no credibility (seems as if I have typed those words before).

If you have read Heth's works, you should not his view is not based upon emotionalism. That is my point in bringing up scholars. You referred to those who embrace their view as doing so based upon emotionalism. I am simply challenging your silly assertion by showing that there are solid exegetes who oppose your position (actually more who oppose it than affirm it -- what should that tell us?).

Actually I am implying that defending my position before actual recognized scholars is more important to me than engaging in conversation with someone who will not and cannot challenge me.

The sad reality is that I don't think you even realize how these two points contradict each other in your thinking. If you are planning to enter a PhD program, you had better learn how to argue with consistency or you will become toast.

 

Daniel David,

I re-read my previous post to which you replied and realized it could've been taken wrong. I meant that the Lord Jesus didn't always refer to "Moses" as the Law of Moses, but the Law of Moses is just that, the law of Moses. Moses was also a man.

Jesus had all the authority of God being He is God. Everytime you see Jesus making reference to the things of God He always mentions the Father. Since "from the beginning it was not so' (Matt19:8), then Jesus goes on to say "Moses" allowed the writing of divorcement. Many times though Moses is referred to as the Law, but since the ordination of the marriage covenant in the beginning was that of God, divorce was never an option until Moses the man interjected it due to the hardness of a man's heart, but that was totally contrary to a man clinging to his wife, and vice versa.

I've always considered it a "test" of the man to examine himself if and when he found his bride not to be the virgin,he himself having that knowledge by experience and not a virgin himself.

Is it all-right for the man to not be a virgin and the wife has to be under the Mosaic Law? Don't think so!

I never intended it to read like you've attempted to quote, that I was saying Moses didn't give us the Law as from God, but definitely he interjected some of his own ideals. A big clue to this is that the first time he came down from Sinai, he broke the Ten, not entirely satisfied with them. If he were angry at the children of Israel, he would have thrown them at them. Later in the Book of Leviticus you'll find his additions to the Law as he received them from the LORD; his additions being recognizable as he delivered them to the Israelites.

 

1. No, you are just baiting me to enter an argument based on a non-biblical issue. Let me say it again, I believe my position deals with all the exegetical issues, is consistent with other theological areas, and is the view of Christ and Paul. The bottom line is that you don't like the fact that I take a side (just like everything else). It would be so much better for you if I joined you in relativism.

2. This has what to do with interpreting Scripture?

3. So a person's authority is associated with what "scholarship" they follow. Uh... thanks for that bit. Tell me, when you preach your sermons, do you get up there and talk about all the scholars that agree with you? I have a command as a preacher to "teach no other doctrine" "preach the Word" etc. It is my duty to study an issue until I am convinced it is correct and preach it as such. Classic.

4. I still do. Please move on. I have said this three times now. I have YET to see you challenge me on an interpretational issue. Instead, you merely taunt from the sidelines.

5. That should tell us that people disagree. That is new. Thanks for that.

6. Still you engage in these kind of discussions with me all the time.

7. Your inability to understand means a lot to me.

8. Advice accepted.

 

With such great command of the subject, surely you could condescend to enlighten the rest of us on the Baptist Board.