The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce

[Brother Bob]

"Will someone who does says it, stand up and say whether the beatitudes were to the Jews or to all of us???"

Sure, Christ was speaking to a Jewish audience about a coming Jewish Kingdom and their proper lifestyle in that kingdom.

Anything else you want to know. :laugh:

Now if you want to talk application to "all of us" that is another thread :thumbs:

What do you mean that is another thread. That was the question now wasn't it................

The Gospel of Matthew​

Audience:​

The fact that Matthew does not explain many of the Jewish customs (like Mark or Luke do)

suggests that his audience was at least partly Jewish and that the entire audience was familiar
with many of the basic Jewish beliefs and practices (for example, compare Mark 14:12 and
Matthew 26:17).
Many scholars suggest that this Gospel was written within and for the Christian community in​

Antioch, Syria. This was known to be a large, mixed Christian community in an urban area

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother Bob:

I think that while the books were written to a particular audience it is merely for readers to understand the cultural or regional context of the letter.
Where a principle is applicable to all, Jew or Gentile, then that principle should be applied.
For example, we all know that the letters to Timothy and Titus were by and large pastoral letters discussing principles in pastoring. However, there are principles in the same letters that are applicable to non-elders or non-pastors.
We know that most of the other letters of Paul, including Corinthians, were addressed to both Jew and Christians because that was the racial make-up of these churches, but the tenor was by and large for Gentiles.
Again, this is helpful for us in order to understand the cultural backdrop against which those letters were written.

So Pinoy; were the beatitudes to all of us?????? In your opinion.

BBob,

 

[exscentric]

"That was the question now wasn't it................"

No, the question was who were the beatitudes addressed to.

Your request was "It scares me when some start using the audiences to determinine which part of the Bible is to who! I know that is not right, no matter who on this board says it.

"Will someone who does says it, stand up and say whether the beatitudes were to the Jews or to all of us???"

That is what I responded to - that is different than who a passage would apply to now.
----

"The Gospel of Matthew
Audience:
The fact that Matthew does not explain many of the Jewish customs (like Mark or Luke do) suggests that his audience was at least partly Jewish and that the entire audience was familiar with many of the basic Jewish beliefs and practices (for example, compare Mark 14:12 and Matthew 26:17).
Many scholars suggest that this Gospel was written within and for the Christian community in Antioch, Syria. This was known to be a large, mixed Christian community in an urban area"

Always amuses me when someone suggests "many scholars" believe something. Why not list them if there are so many - why not jot down some so there is reference to add validity and allow others to share in the knowledge.

Since there were no quotes around this in your post is this something you wrote? Would you like to give reference if it isn't?

thanks

 

[Brother Bob]

"That was the question now wasn't it................"

No, the question was who were the beatitudes addressed to.

Your request was "It scares me when some start using the audiences to determinine which part of the Bible is to who! I know that is not right, no matter who on this board says it.

"Will someone who does says it, stand up and say whether the beatitudes were to the Jews or to all of us???"

That is what I responded to - that is different than who a passage would apply to now.
----

"The Gospel of Matthew
Audience:
The fact that Matthew does not explain many of the Jewish customs (like Mark or Luke do) suggests that his audience was at least partly Jewish and that the entire audience was familiar with many of the basic Jewish beliefs and practices (for example, compare Mark 14:12 and Matthew 26:17).
Many scholars suggest that this Gospel was written within and for the Christian community in Antioch, Syria. This was known to be a large, mixed Christian community in an urban area"

Always amuses me when someone suggests "many scholars" believe something. Why not list them if there are so many - why not jot down some so there is reference to add validity and allow others to share in the knowledge.

Since there were no quotes around this in your post is this something you wrote? Would you like to give reference if it isn't?

thanks

Sure, Christ was speaking to a Jewish audience about a coming Jewish Kingdom and their proper lifestyle in that kingdom. What about "my kingdom is within you." What part of the following covers this Jewish Kingdom to come, or the lifestyle they must live. Does that mean it is by their "works", whether they are in the coming Jewish Kingdom.

Mat 22:10So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.


Anything else you want to know. :laugh:

Why not start with you, practice what you preach.

"Will someone who does says it, stand up and say whether the beatitudes were to the Jews or to all of us???"

What part of "all of us??", do you not understand.

Do you for instance, first study to see if the audience is all Jewish, partly Jewish, All Gentiles, partly gentiles. I always took the Bible as a whole. It is really a very simple question "are the beatitudes meant for all of us" or just the Jewish customs? Seems to me a child could understand that, instead of coming back with a bunch of sarcasim. If you don't or can't answer the question, best just to not post at all, so as not to look foolish.

BBob,

Bbob,

 

[exscentric]

Uh sorry is it my breath? :laugh:

Still waiting on the below. :thumbs:

"The Gospel of Matthew
Audience:
The fact that Matthew does not explain many of the Jewish customs (like Mark or Luke do) suggests that his audience was at least partly Jewish and that the entire audience was familiar with many of the basic Jewish beliefs and practices (for example, compare Mark 14:12 and Matthew 26:17).
Many scholars suggest that this Gospel was written within and for the Christian community in Antioch, Syria. This was known to be a large, mixed Christian community in an urban area"

Always amuses me when someone suggests "many scholars" believe something. Why not list them if there are so many - why not jot down some so there is reference to add validity and allow others to share in the knowledge.

Since there were no quotes around this in your post is this something you wrote? Would you like to give reference if it isn't?

thanks

 

[Bible-boy]

The divorced person is not an ex. He is currently in the state or position which God does not approve of, and if he remarried, then he is in a state of adultery. The ex-gambler was a former gambler, no longer in the grip of that sin. The ex-wife beater no longer is in an active role of beating his wife. Those ex's have given up, turned away from their sinful lifestyles. The divorced is currently at the table of divorce and partaking of it.




Except that we are of the belief that his new house is not according to Biblical specifications.



Because they have built their new houses in accordance with Bible specifications.



If you will approve their current lives because you think it is right for your taste, then, go ahead. Like I said, have fun, you all. But there are those who walk among the Baptist churches who do not approve of divorced pastors. We happen to be among them.



Because they have repented. The divorced have not. Like I said above, the divorced is in the current act of being in an unscriptural state.

Where in the Bible does it say that divorce is an unforgiveable sin and the blood of Christ has no power to cover it as you are implying in the first paragragh quoted above? How do you know if a divorced person has repented or not?

 

[Brother Bob]

Uh sorry is it my breath? :laugh:

Still waiting on the below. :thumbs:

"The Gospel of Matthew
Audience:
The fact that Matthew does not explain many of the Jewish customs (like Mark or Luke do) suggests that his audience was at least partly Jewish and that the entire audience was familiar with many of the basic Jewish beliefs and practices (for example, compare Mark 14:12 and Matthew 26:17).
Many scholars suggest that this Gospel was written within and for the Christian community in Antioch, Syria. This was known to be a large, mixed Christian community in an urban area"

Always amuses me when someone suggests "many scholars" believe something. Why not list them if there are so many - why not jot down some so there is reference to add validity and allow others to share in the knowledge.

Since there were no quotes around this in your post is this something you wrote? Would you like to give reference if it isn't?

thanks

Sure, Christ was speaking to a Jewish audience about a coming Jewish Kingdom and their proper lifestyle in that kingdom

As I said, you first. You are among those who says Matt is to a Jewish audience, I challenge you to show where it is not to others.

If quotes around the statement is the judge of it. I see none around your statement, so put up! I am amused also, especially when someone requires something from someone else, while not providing it himself, kinda hypocrital, don't you think??

Will someone who does says it, stand up and say whether the beatitudes were to the Jews or to all of us???"

Sure, Christ was speaking to a Jewish audience about a coming Jewish Kingdom and their proper lifestyle in that kingdom.

Anything else you want to know. :laugh:

Now if you want to talk application to "all of us" that is another thread :thumbs:

What started this is that you and others say that the audience in Matt is Jewish. I am asking you to "prove it".

BBob,

Maybe it was this part that was to a Jewish audience??

 

[exscentric]

Never mind, found it.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/hayes/earlychurch/9a_Scripture1.htm

Edit:

Here is the entire quote relating to Matthew:

Matthew:​

The fact that Matthew does not explain many of the Jewish customs (as Mark or Luke do) suggests that his audience was at least partly Jewish and that the entire audience was familiar with many of the basic Jewish beliefs and practices. Many scholars suggest that this Gospel was written within and for the Christian community in Antioch, Syria. This was known to be a large, mixed Christian community in an urban area (which would explain the frequent use of “city” in Matthew instead of “village”). Furthermore, the earliest attestation of this Gospel in the Church was by a 2nd century church father in Syria (c. 110), Ignatius. Finally, due to a number of textual hints (e.g., reference to the king burning the city [22:7 reference to destruction of Jerusalem?], the triadic formula [28:19; “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”], the condemnation of the free use of the title “Rabbi” [23:7], and the use of the phrase “to this day” [27:8; 28:15]) suggest a date of composition after the Fall of Jerusalem and towards the end of the NT period, when the early Rabbinic movement had already taken center stage in Judaism. Thus, many date the book to c. A.D. 80-90. The literary purpose of the gospel appears to be to strengthen the faith of the author’s Jewish-Christian (with some Gentiles) community. In particular, on such evidence as the eleven appeals to a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies, Matthew seems to want to demonstrate how Jesus was the authoritative Torah teacher, the second (greater) Moses, as it were, with the implication that early Christianity represented the proper interpretation of the Jewish Law (Torah) over against the emerging Rabbinic Judaism (which has many roots in the Pharisaic movement). Characteristics: ​

• 
  [*]
  Jesus is the authoritative Torah Teacher; ​
  [*]
  Jesus is the second Moses; ​
  [*]
  Jesus is the culmination of Israel's history; ​
  [*]
  Jesus is the Jewish messiah; ​
  [*]
  Jesus is the son of God (i.e., a particularly close intimate). ​

 

[Brother Bob]

Never mind, found it.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/hayes/earlychurch/9a_Scripture1.htm

Edit:

Here is the entire quote relating to Matthew:

Matthew:​

The fact that Matthew does not explain many of the Jewish customs (as Mark or Luke do) suggests that his audience was at least partly Jewish and that the entire audience was familiar with many of the basic Jewish beliefs and practices. Many scholars suggest that this Gospel was written within and for the Christian community in Antioch, Syria. This was known to be a large, mixed Christian community in an urban area (which would explain the frequent use of “city” in Matthew instead of “village”). Furthermore, the earliest attestation of this Gospel in the Church was by a 2nd century church father in Syria (c. 110), Ignatius. Finally, due to a number of textual hints (e.g., reference to the king burning the city [22:7 reference to destruction of Jerusalem?], the triadic formula [28:19; “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”], the condemnation of the free use of the title “Rabbi” [23:7], and the use of the phrase “to this day” [27:8; 28:15]) suggest a date of composition after the Fall of Jerusalem and towards the end of the NT period, when the early Rabbinic movement had already taken center stage in Judaism. Thus, many date the book to c. A.D. 80-90. The literary purpose of the gospel appears to be to strengthen the faith of the author’s Jewish-Christian (with some Gentiles) community. In particular, on such evidence as the eleven appeals to a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies, Matthew seems to want to demonstrate how Jesus was the authoritative Torah teacher, the second (greater) Moses, as it were, with the implication that early Christianity represented the proper interpretation of the Jewish Law (Torah) over against the emerging Rabbinic Judaism (which has many roots in the Pharisaic movement). Characteristics: ​

• 
  [*]
  Jesus is the authoritative Torah Teacher; ​
  [*]
  Jesus is the second Moses; ​
  [*]
  Jesus is the culmination of Israel's history; ​
  [*]
  Jesus is the Jewish messiah; ​
  [*]
  Jesus is the son of God (i.e., a particularly close intimate). ​

You have a problem with it.

 

[Bible-boy]

The divorced person is in a state of life which is not approved by the Lord, notice as I have already pointed out, the wording used by Christ when explaining why Moses allowed the issuance of bills of divorcement. The Lord said "FROM the beginning it was not so....."
I understand that to mean that "from the day the Lord instituted marriage, in the case of Adam and Eve, to the time when Moses acting on his own initiative allowed divorces, and until the time when Jesus was addressing the issue, divorce was never a part of the equation in God's plan for matrimony.

It seems that you are advocating that Moses dreamed up and instituted the idea of divorce, and furthermore that he wrote Deut 24 of his own accord (not inspired by the Holy Spirit). Therefore, it (Deut. 24:1-4) is not the inerrant word of God. Likewise, that Jesus did not say "except for sexual immorality" as in Matt. 19:9, NASB, or that the Holy Spirit did not inspire Paul to write that the believing spouse deserted by an unbelieving soupse "is no longer under bondage in such cases" as recorded in 1 Cor. 7:15, NASB.

Now, the Lord Jesus said (not pinoybaptist) that he who marries her who has been put away (whether separated or divorced depends on your interpretation of put away) commits adultery.
Therefore, the divorced person is guilty of the sin of adultery only when the person remarries.
The divorced person is not an adulterer until he/she remarries, according to the Lord Jesus Christ and not according to pinoybaptist.

I would agree with this understanding of the Bible except for in the case where the spouse is guilty of adultery (Deut. 24:1-4, Matt. 5:31-32 and Matt. 19:1-9), and in the case where a believing spouse has been deserted by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:12-16).

 

[Bible-boy]

I am not the one contradicting the Scriptures. It is clear.
Paul makes no exceptions. How do you account for that?

Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

He did not have to make an exception because, like you said, he already knew that Jesus had issued the exception as recorded in Matthew. Paul simply did not address the issue. He was silent about what he knew Jesus had already clearly expressed. To argue that because Paul did not say so is to agrue from silence (a formal fallacy).

I have always read those Scriptures with that same meaning in my mind and have never had any problem with it. Why should you? Fornication is fornication; a common English word that means sex before marriage. If it meant anything else but that I am sure our well-educated KJV translators would have translated it otherwise. They used common English words. Any English dictionary will tell you what it means. The primary meaning of the Greek lexicons is illiciit sex before marriage, as Amy posted. The primary meaning, (that which is listed first) takes presendent over lesser meanings.

We are not talking about the definition of modern English words when we discuss translation and interpretation of the NT. We are talking about the definition of NT Greek and the Greek used in the passage under consideration carries far more meaning than simply "sex before marriage."

Paul writes very clearly, and is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, this is what he says:

Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

I only said it that way to draw your attention to Matthew which you take out of context. The meaning of my statement is this: Matthew 5:32 is not applicable to us unless you carry on a tradition such as the Jews (one of betrothal or engagement). Otherwise the teaching of divorce that is applicable to us today is found in Romans 7 where there is no exception clause. The Bible does not contradict itself. However you are making it contradict itself by pitting one verse against another. There is no excpetion clause in Romnas. How do you account for that?

In Rom. 7 Paul is reitterating the Law (from Ex. & Deut.). He uses the part that speaks of marriage, a living spouse, death, and adultery (Rom. 7:1-3) as a metaphor to teach the Romans that they likewise must die to the law so that they may be joined to Christ (Rom. 7:4). The focus of the teaching in Rom. 7 is to draw a distinction between trying to keep the law for salvation (no one can do so) and gaining salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Paul's focus was not to write a treatise on marriage and divorce here.

 

[Bible-boy]

I am afraid I don't know what you mean "we as Baptsits" ordain and call.
You walk in different circles than I.

Are you seriously saying that you do not know a single ordained Baptist pastor that admits to having had a problem with one or more of the 1 Tim. 3:1-7 qualifications prior to entering the ministry?

There are a few who have shared their testamony regarding their lives and their call to ministry right here on the BB.

All I know is that the application paperwork for SBC seminaries specifically asks the applicants if they have been divorced. If so, the applicant has to complete additional paperwork that is printed on colored paper so that it stands out in the student's file. Part of that additional paperwork requires the applicant to sign a form which states that if a prospective church requests the applicant's transcriptes or a seminary reference the additional divorce paperwork will be supplied. That would be fine if it were not for the fact that the application paperwork does not have specific questions asking if an applicant has had problems with any of the other qualifications listed in Scripture and if so require additional paperwork and prospective church notification.

 

[DHK]

Are you seriously saying that you do not know a single ordained Baptist pastor that admits to having had a problem with one or more of the 1 Tim. 3:1-7 qualifications prior to entering the ministry?

No, I never said that.

There are a few who have shared their testamony regarding their lives and their call to ministry right here on the BB.

Yes, I have read some of them.

All I know is that the application paperwork for SBC seminaries specifically asks the applicants if they have been divorced. If so, the applicant has to complete additional paperwork that is printed on colored paper so that it stands out in the student's file. Part of that additional paperwork requires the applicant to sign a form which states that if a prospective church requests the applicant's transcriptes or a seminary reference the additional divorce paperwork will be supplied. That would be fine if it were not for the fact that the application paperwork does not have specific questions asking if an applicant has had problems with any of the other qualifications listed in Scripture and if so require additional paperwork and prospective church notification.

And all of that is news to me. I do not belong to the SBC, and never have. I don't have a clue how this denomination works, and never have.

I have been associated with IFB churches with over 30 years, and quite frankly don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I have been ordained, and have been part of other ordaining councils. But I still don't know what you are talking about.

Like I said: I walk in different circles than you.

 

[Bible-boy]

No, I never said that.

Yes, I have read some of them.

And all of that is news to me. I do not belong to the SBC, and never have. I don't have a clue how this denomination works, and never have.

I have been associated with IFB churches with over 30 years, and quite frankly don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I have been ordained, and have been part of other ordaining councils. But I still don't know what you are talking about.

Like I said: I walk in different circles than you.

Okay...

So now we can agree that we both know ordained Baptist pastors (both IFB and SBC) that readily admit that they have or have had problems with one or more of the pastoral qualifications listed in the Scriptures.

So why is it that the guy who had an issue with alcohol, or drugs, or brawling, or hot tempered, or was greedy for money, or even fornicated before marriage, can be considered blameless and stand as an example for the congregation, but the man who's wife left him for another man, refused to reconcile, and divorced him can not even be considered for the ministry?

Likewise, NT Greek has a prefectly good word for divorce (or for a divorced person). Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did not use such a NT Greek word in either of his lists of pastoral qualifications in 1 Tim. or Titus. So when I come to those texts I must ask why this is the case if what was meant to be conveyed is that no divorced man can be an elder? Why did the Holy Spirit inspire the use of a Greek word that litterally translates "a one woman man" (or a one woman kind of man)? I believe that the text raises the standard so much higher than we give it cerdit when we limit it to mean no divorce. I believe that text is saying that the man who desires to be an elder must be the kind of man who is absolutely faithful to one woman. This means no ploygamy, no history of womanizing, no wondering eye, and this includes even in his private thought life he must be completely devoted to his wife and her alone. However, I do not believe or understand the text to be speaking of the divorced man who has been the innocent party in the case of adultery, where his wife has deserted and then divorced him.

 

[DHK]

Okay...

So now we can agree that we both know ordained Baptist pastors (both IFB and SBC) that readily admit that they have or have had problems with one or more of the pastoral qualifications listed in the Scriptures.

So why is it that the guy who had an issue with alcohol, or drugs, or brawling, or hot tempered, or was greedy for money, or even fornicated before marriage, can be considered blameless and stand as an example for the congregation, but the man who's wife left him for another man, refused to reconcile, and divorced him can not even be considered for the ministry?

Likewise, NT Greek has a prefectly good word for divorce (or for a divorced person). Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did not use such a NT Greek word in either of his lists of pastoral qualifications in 1 Tim. or Titus. So when I come to those texts I must ask why this is the case if what was meant to be conveyed is that no divorced man can be an elder? Why did the Holy Spirit inspire the use of a Greek word that litterally translates "a one woman man" (or a one woman kind of man)? I believe that the text raises the standard so much higher than we give it cerdit when we limit it to mean no divorce. I believe that text is saying that the man who desires to be an elder must be the kind of man who is absolutely faithful to one woman. This means no ploygamy, no history of womanizing, no wondering eye, and this includes even in his private thought life he must be completely devoted to his wife and her alone. However, I do not believe or understand the text to be speaking of the divorced man who has been the innocent party in the case of adultery, where his wife has deserted and then divorced him.

The very first God ordained institiution was marriage. He sanctified it, set it apart, declared it to be holy, put his stamp of approval on it, and declared:

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
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?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God's will is that what He has joined together no man should put asunder. This is clearly stated in both OT and NT. It is taught in the prophets, by Christ, and by the Apostles. It is taught before the law, during the law, and after the law. Marriage was and is a God-ordained institution that God never meant for anyone to break up with divorce. In the OT, he allowed Israel, but only for the hardness of their hearts. It was not his will; and it is not his will now.

He allowed polygamy in the OT. It was not his will then, but he allowed it. The same reasoning could be used today for those who argue for divorce. David had many wives. Therefore we also may have many wives. If it was permitted in the OT, then why not in the NT. The same arguments can be put forth for polygamy as are being put forth for divorce. But for some strange reason I don't see anyone arguing for polygamy.

The marriage institution is a picture of our spiritual marriage to Christ. We are the bride and he is the bridegroom. Hence the importance on the sanctity of the marriage union. This is discussed in great detail in chapter five of Ephesians--how Christ loved the church; and how husbands ought to love their wives. Divorce therefore is out of the question, especially from a Christian perspective. It is unheard of.

The Christian home is sanctified. It is important to God, and as such God puts great emphasis on ii, on the home, on the family. There are many qualifications for a pastor that directly relate to a pastor and his marriage, that don't directly relate to a pastor and any other sin.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
A person who has been divorced and/or remarried is not blameless.
He cannot hold his family life up before the congregation and be without blame.
In the community, there will always be the stigma or even scandal of a divorce.
He is not without blame. No one is without blame in any divorce. It takes two to keep a marriage together.

The husband of one wife does indeed mean "a one-wife husband," and is inferring a husband who has not been divorced. Polygamy was not the problem in that day, but divorce was. Why would Paul be addressing a "non-issue." That would be like writing to IFB or your church today. "Your pastors shall not be polygamous." Well, duh!! But if Paul writes: "Your pastors should be married but they may not be divorced," then that raises the bar for those contemplating the ministry, and many have second thoughts. Divorce is and was a problem--both today and in Paul's day. Polygamy wasn't.
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
--A man that is divorced, and especially remarried doe not rule his house well. That is a given. His wife is not in submission to him. (1Cor.11:1-4; Eph.5:22,23)
If his wife has custody then his children are not in subjection to him.
The sanctity of the marriage institution has been destroyed.

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
--This is the application of the previous verse. If the man is divorced, he can't rule well his own family. If he can't rule well his own family, then he certainly can't rule well the local church. That is God's condition. First things first.

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Finally, the wedding vow, before God and man--"till death do us part"--is broken. That is one of the most important matters in God's sight. Many times over does the Bible warn us about taking a vow, and then not keeping it. If you have made a vow be sure to keep it. If a person can't keep a vow in his personal life, what makes you think he would make a good pastor--not being able to keep confidentiality; not being able to keep a vow?

He is disqaulified as a pastor on many, many grounds.

 

[pinoybaptist]

It seems that you are advocating that Moses dreamed up and instituted the idea of divorce, and furthermore that he wrote Deut 24 of his own accord (not inspired by the Holy Spirit). Therefore, it (Deut. 24:1-4) is not the inerrant word of God. Likewise, that Jesus did not say "except for sexual immorality" as in Matt. 19:9, NASB, or that the Holy Spirit did not inspire Paul to write that the believing spouse deserted by an unbelieving soupse "is no longer under bondage in such cases" as recorded in 1 Cor. 7:15, NASB.

Please note that Jesus plainly stated that the reason Moses (not Him) allowed divorce was because of the "hardness of your hearts". It was not Jehovah's will.
No matter how hard you try to justify divorce, for whatever reason you have, you cannot deny that Jesus followed up His statement with "BUT I......"

Now, you and I were both not alive in Jesus' time, or in this time of Israel's history, so we can do nothing but little research on the issues of divorce among the Jews.

What I found is that to the Jews, betrothal is almost marriage, except for the consummation of the marriage act. For all intents and purposes, the betrothed couple are husband and wife, and are not to come together in the matrimonial bed, until the actual marriage happens which begins with the bridegroom coming for his bride and taking him to his house.

While in the period of betrothal, it could happen that the "wife" falls in for another man and has sexual relations or is unfaithful to her betrothal. Since the betrothal was public knowledge, the relationship may only be broken through a bill of divorcement.

If the relationship is broken for any other reason than fornication, then the man who instigated the divorce is guilty of pushing the woman into an adulterous relationship because the man who marries her is guilty of adultery.

That is also the situation between Joseph and Mary, and as you will note in your Bible, it will say "before they had come together". They have not yed had sex, and he found her pregnant. So he was thinking of putting her away in a private, discreet way in order to not sully her repution any further, and he only changed his mind because of the angel's visit.

Now, of course, since you and maybe the church you are part of or serve, are in favor of or tolerate divorce, you can look up a scholar or a study of your choice that echoes your favor for an act which many Baptists find God is clearly against. And I do not say this with malice or disrespect.

Sort of like the defense and the prosecution having their own set of "experts" and "expert testimonies". :laugh: The Judge of course, is God, and we can be sure His judgment is final, true, fair, and executory.

I would agree with this understanding of the Bible except for in the case where the spouse is guilty of adultery (Deut. 24:1-4, Matt. 5:31-32 and Matt. 19:1-9), and in the case where a believing spouse has been deserted by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:12-16).

Well, my understanding of this matter, as you will probably already note above, is that once the marriage is public, final, and consummated, the only thing that can separate the spouses would be death in this plane called time.

I think Paul's letter to the Romans (Gentiles with their own traditions of betrothal and marriage) would help.

Romans 7:1-3
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

A discussion was made as to whether Paul was superceding Jesus. I do not think so. Jesus was speaking to a Jewish crowd and in accordance with Jewish customs. Paul was addressing a Gentile church in a Gentile country with its own set of rules and traditions regarding courtship, betrothal, and marriage.

 

[Brother Bob]

Please note that Jesus plainly stated that the reason Moses (not Him) allowed divorce was because of the "hardness of your hearts". It was not Jehovah's will.
No matter how hard you try to justify divorce, for whatever reason you have, you cannot deny that Jesus followed up His statement with "BUT I......"

Now, you and I were both not alive in Jesus' time, or in this time of Israel's history, so we can do nothing but little research on the issues of divorce among the Jews.

What I found is that to the Jews, betrothal is almost marriage, except for the consummation of the marriage act. For all intents and purposes, the betrothed couple are husband and wife, and are not to come together in the matrimonial bed, until the actual marriage happens which begins with the bridegroom coming for his bride and taking him to his house.

While in the period of betrothal, it could happen that the "wife" falls in for another man and has sexual relations or is unfaithful to her betrothal. Since the betrothal was public knowledge, the relationship may only be broken through a bill of divorcement.

If the relationship is broken for any other reason than fornication, then the man who instigated the divorce is guilty of pushing the woman into an adulterous relationship because the man who marries her is guilty of adultery.

That is also the situation between Joseph and Mary, and as you will note in your Bible, it will say "before they had come together". They have not yed had sex, and he found her pregnant. So he was thinking of putting her away in a private, discreet way in order to not sully her repution any further, and he only changed his mind because of the angel's visit.

Now, of course, since you and maybe the church you are part of or serve, are in favor of or tolerate divorce, you can look up a scholar or a study of your choice that echoes your favor for an act which many Baptists find God is clearly against. And I do not say this with malice or disrespect.

Sort of like the defense and the prosecution having their own set of "experts" and "expert testimonies". :laugh: The Judge of course, is God, and we can be sure His judgment is final, true, fair, and executory.



Well, my understanding of this matter, as you will probably already note above, is that once the marriage is public, final, and consummated, the only thing that can separate the spouses would be death in this plane called time.

I think Paul's letter to the Romans (Gentiles with their own traditions of betrothal and marriage) would help.



A discussion was made as to whether Paul was superceding Jesus. I do not think so. Jesus was speaking to a Jewish crowd and in accordance with Jewish customs. Paul was addressing a Gentile church in a Gentile country with its own set of rules and traditions regarding courtship, betrothal, and marriage.

You all have no point whether the fact that Jesus was speaking to a mostly Jewish crowd. He came to His own, who would He be speaking to, but He was teaching them that it was different now, "to love thy enemy", saving the cause of fornication. If because He was speaking to a Jewish Crowd means it was not to us, then we will have to throw out a great portion of the Bible. The book of James was to the twelve tribes. The book of Corth 1 and 2 was to the Corthians and so forth. I think that is one of the poorest arguments I have ever heard. I can't believe that ordained ministers would pick out "one" verse and throw it back under the law, of which they already had their law on divorcement. It just does not make sense and is actually shredding the scripture to fits one's belief. If you can throw that one out, why not throw out the one in Romans, that as long as a man liveth, a woman is bound to him. Just throw it away also and say it was just to them of that time, it has no effect on us and marry all you want. It is dangereous the way you are using scripture on divorcement.

DHK, I agree with you are the qualifications of an Elder. I would not sit under someone like Jimmy Swaggert for nothing, or Jim Baker and the more recent ones who were pedophilers. God forbid.

BBob,

 

[exscentric]

I can't believe that ordained ministers would pick out "one" verse and throw it back under the law, of which they already had their law on divorcement. It just does not make sense and is actually shredding the scripture to fits one's belief. If you can throw that one out, why not throw out the one in Romans, that as long as a man liveth, a woman is bound to him. Just throw it away also and say it was just to them of that time, it has no effect on us and marry all you want. It is dangereous the way you are using scripture on divorcement.
BBob,

[emphasis mine]

Straw man is a term that comes to mind. "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted" and I would emphasize the term "imaginary."

And no I don't have a problem with you quoting from the site, just wanted to clarify for the readers it was a quote and thought some might like to see his full argument or might I say assumption for there was no substance to back up his assumption in that section.

I suspect him to be amillennial which would require him to understand Matthew as written to both Jew and Gentile. In my mind of course. :thumbs: And no it is not closed as many might think :laugh:

 

[LadyEagle]

It is a biased site and I don't trust it.
It sounds like it comes from a cult.
[/font][/color][/i]

I believe it is a Messianic Jewish site. If that seems like a cult to you, well, I'm sorry.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

man..how long are threads allowed to be? lol